Forum Activity for @ken-rich

Ken Rich
@ken-rich
03/19/09 06:40:33PM
5 posts

What's in a Name?


Christian Teachings

Hi Blake,The Wikipedia article you point to indicates some of the controversies over the proper name of God about which I speak. For instance this statement The stem of the name Yahweh (Yah-) remains widely accepted but disagreements continue on the ending (-weh). This pronunciation and spelling, as with many religious and scholarly issues, remains the subject of ongoing debate .For a more scholarly treatment of the subject, try this link The Names of God. Their Pronunciation and Their Translation It goes deeply into the scholarly debates, archaeological evidence, controversies stemming from linguistics, etc.It should become apparent to you, the farther you research, that evidence exists to support a large number of views on this subject. To be dogmatic on an issue so debatable, is not a course that I would personally choose.I must agree with Paul Wong, in the original link I provided Response to the Extreme Exclusive Sacred Name Movement . He raises several damaging objections to the movement, not the least of which are these: Hebrew names not in the New Testament First, Hebrew names or titles for God are not found in the New Testament. It is therefore supposed by adherents of the Extreme Exclusive Sacred Name Movement (EESNM) that there must have been a different original, a non-Greek version. There is none! The New Testament uses the Greek Theos for God 1,345 times and Kyrios for Lord 665 times! There is no New Testament manuscript in which Hebrew names for God are used instead of these Greek words.The foundation of the Extreme Exclusive Sacred Name Movement (EESNM) is the use of the Hebrew names of the Creator and the Savior. Since the New Testament do not have the Hebrew names the movement have nothing to stand on. This movement is a sham, a big lie. (Acts. 2:4-11) These were all Jews hearing the message of God in the various languages of different nations of the world. What does this miracle indicate? It certainly does not show that God wanted all the different nations to exalt Him only in the Hebrew language. God has shown the disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ that His name must be exalted in different languages of the world. Confusion There are dozens of different spellings and pronunciations of the names used by those who claim to have the correct name. All of them promote their particular name as the only one God approves of. There are only two possibilities. The first possibility is that only one of the names is correct. Which one? The other possibility is that none of them are correct. There is so much confusion in this movement that you can say that it is definitely not of God. For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. (1 Cor. 14:33) Personally, I have run into a certain attitude in some Messianic circles, which comes very close to your statement - the North American Church system is the product of a Constantinian Religion, and from raised in a Babylonian mindset. Much of what they represent is a mixture and conglomeration at best. No doubt, there are many problems in Christianity, just as there are in every world view, including Judaism. However, some run back to the old wine because they see Rome and her daughters as having "tainted" the new wine. There is much truth to this, but the solution is not the old wine.All kinds of legalistic teachings, Judaizing, hair splitting, straining out flies to swallow camels, etc., is justified in this way. They claim they are purifying themselves from what they perceive as the corruption and perversion of truth, generally known as Institutional Christianity. Raise an objection to something false they teach, and you are immediately scorned as a poor simple Goyim, deceived by Babylon, and practicing "Christianity 101".After many debates with such people, in a spirit of love, I eventually had to accept that I was "casting my pearls before swine". The more you point out things (even from their own Hebrew scriptures) that disagree with their position, the more offended they become.Proverbs 18:19 A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle. Believe me, I hope not to offend anyone and you are welcome to believe whatever you wish. I may not agree with you and argue for a different view. I hope we can continue such discussions - in a Spirit of love and mutual respect, hopefully leading to growth.Sometimes such discussions result in either myself, or someone else, coming to a new understanding - previously overlooked. Often, both of us learn something new, or at least learn how to articulate our positions better.Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another
Ken Rich
@ken-rich
03/19/09 12:51:02AM
5 posts

What's in a Name?


Christian Teachings

I love some of your thoughts here and am in agreement. This statement you made is wonderful - We must relate through and beyond of our theological, doctrinal and philosophical differences. We must be able to tolerate what we consider to be theological confusion, doctrinal error, and heretical understanding.Also, this statement you made I, personally, have been an ignorant participant in the proliferation of theological, doctrinal and philosophical error at one time or another in my life. In the past 37 years, I have altered my course, changed my mind, shifted my position and adopted things that I believed to be true at the time, only to find later that they too were based on the limited perception of another man or group of people. Through those experiences, I have come to realize that my quest for truth is gradual, ongoing and personal.I too, have switched sides on several issues over the years. One must be open to healthy debate, apologetics, and examine concepts outside of, or opposed to, the theological stance given to us by our denominational filter, or previous study.I have come to the place where I refuse to be boxed into a particular denomination, or system of theology. Truth is where you find it, and the surest way to remain in ignorance, is condemnation before investigation. Only a fool judges a matter before it is heard, yet many people refuse to hear any voice outside of the narrow confines of their particular Church, or religious organization. "Group think" prevails in those environments, and it is hard to move forward. Like you, I have also come to realize that my quest for truth is gradual, ongoing and personal.Your ten points above are excellent. A recipe for growth, which if taken seriously, would break us free from the limiting beliefs and prisons we make for ourselves, by refusing to consider the opinions of others.Above all else, love! We don't have to agree on everything, or much of anything (for that matter), in order to love one another. If we are truly attempting to emulate Christ, and are born of God - we will love even our enemies. It should never be, that we proclaim the name above all names, yet can't love someone we disagree with!
Ken Rich
@ken-rich
03/19/09 12:24:59AM
5 posts

What's in a Name?


Christian Teachings

I see that you use Elohim, Yahweh, and Yahshua, so you are in one of the Sacred name camps, at least to some degree.As I said in my article, there are many fine people in that movement. However, some of the extremists within seem to judge everyone who doesn't agree with them, as unworthy of salvation, and somehow inferior.I see no evidence of that attitude in your comment, you seem to be one of the moderates, and your comment was well formulated and mature.As I said in my post, There are dozens of different spellings and pronunciations of the names used by those who claim to have the correct name. Yahshua, Yasha, Yeshua, Yahushua, Yaohushua, Iahushua, YAHVAHSHUA, Yhwhhoshua, etc.Paul Wong, in the first link I gave, deals with some of the controversies within this movement. The divisiveness, the judgmentalism, etc.As someone with a mature and reasoned approach (who is within this movement), how do you percieve these controversies and what do you feel needs to happen for some of this to dissipate?Do you think that at some point, other language groups should drop transliterations (like God and Jesus) and use Hebrew? Within the Hebrew linguistic controversies over spelling and pronounciation, what evidence convinces you that Yahshua should be used rather than Yeshua - or one of the many other versions championed by others?
Ken Rich
@ken-rich
03/13/09 02:49:16PM
5 posts

What's in a Name?


Christian Teachings


Some people, in their desire to honor and show respect for God, have turned to the Sacred Name movement. While their desire to please God is commendable, this may not be the best approach.

God is called by many names in the Bible. El, Elohim, Adonai, Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, YHWH, Shaddai, Zebaot, Adir, Avinu Malkenu, Boreh, Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, Elohei Avraham, Elohei Yitzchak ve Elohei Ya`aqov, El ha-Gibbor, Emet, and I could continue.

To make matters even more confusing, there are variations in what is considered the main name of God. YHWH, Yah, Yahweh, Yahvah, Yahveh, Jehovah, Yahovah, Yahoweh, Yahovah, Yahuweh, Yahuveh, Yahuvah, Jeova, Jehofah, Geova, Ihowa, Iahueh, Yaohu, etc.

Also, there are variations in the main name for the Savior. How do you know which name is the correct one? There are dozens of different spellings and pronunciations of the names used by those who claim to have the correct name. Yahshua, Yasha, Yeshua, Yahushua, Yaohushua, Iahushua, YAHVAHSHUA, Yhwhhoshua, etc.

For this reason, I think the Sacred Name movement is a red herring, which draws people away from the real truth. It can also be divisive.

God wants us to worship him in Spirit and in truth. To manifest love in our hearts for him and our fellow man. When we do that, we honor him no matter what name we call him by. Personally, God and Jesus work fine for me - he knows I am referring to him when I use these English transliterations.

A Rose by any other name would still smell as sweet - Shakespeare. Does God cease being God, if I call him Elohim, instead of YHWH. Does Jesus cease being Jesus, if I call him "Isa Mesih" as the Turks do, instead of "Iesous Christos" as the Greeks do?

Why waste time arguing over this, while the world perishes for lack of love, the real manifestation of God in our lives. Merely professing his name does not honor him, one must do his will.

Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who keeps saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will get into the kingdom of heaven, but only the person who keeps doing the will of my Father in heaven...

Matthew 15:8 These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me...

Christ says we can even speak ill of him and be forgiven, but we must not reject the Holy Spirit, which is the unpardonable sin. What does this tell you? Is his main concern what name we call him by, or that we are born of the Spirit?

Matthew 12:32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the one to come.

If you really want to have a relationship with God, you do so by accepting his Spirit, not by intellectual acceptance of certain dogmas, or simply professing belief. While you do well to profess belief, as James said even the demons believe and tremble (James 2:19).

One must accept God's indwelling Spirit and be born of love. If you use the correct name, profess belief, have faith, know doctrine, you are still nothing without the Spirit of love. Don't let legalistic thinking, draw you away from the real issue.

1 Corinthians 13 If I speak in the languages of humans and angels but have no love, I have become a reverberating gong or a clashing cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can understand all secrets and every form of knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains but have no love, I am nothing. Even if I give away everything that I have and sacrifice myself, but have no love, I gain nothing

Romans 8:14 For all who are led by God's Spirit are God's children

1 John 4:7 Everyone who loves has been born from God and knows God. The person who does not love does not know God, because God is love

Of course, there are many fine people in the Sacred Name and broader Jewish Roots movements, who are genuine seekers of God and desire to please him. I commend their zeal and good intentions. As long as they don't judge others who do not use the same name as they do, or cause divisions over it, what is wrong with them using (what they consider to be) the authentic name of God?

I simply point out, that actions born of love honor God far more, than what name we call him by. He desires justice and righteousness, to spring forth from a heart born of love. If we don't honor him with our hearts, whatever name we call him by is mere lip service.

It is interesting to note that when Jesus was crucified, his name was written in three different languages above the cross.

John 19: 19-20 ...and it was written, 'Jesus the Nazarene, the king of the Jews; this title...written in Hebrew, in Greek, in Roman.

Whatever our language, or culture, one thing is certain - at some point, everyone (without exception) will confess Jesus Christ is Lord.

Philippians 2:10-11 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Ken Rich
http://kenrich.me


updated by @ken-rich: 05/26/17 03:01:35PM
Ken Rich
@ken-rich
08/30/09 02:54:30AM
5 posts

Paul's Haircut - A lesson in Freedom


Christian Teachings

I too like some aspects of Chuch Swindall's Ministry. He has a time slot on a local Christian radio station here, where I used to work. For a while, it was part of my job to put him on the airwaves every night, with a taped sermon.I can't say I have read that particular book though.
Ken Rich
@ken-rich
08/30/09 02:53:00AM
5 posts

Paul's Haircut - A lesson in Freedom


Christian Teachings

Thank-you David. The article was born out of some heated debates I had with a legalistic sect of Messianic Jews. Some have accepted the Gospel of grace, others have not. Like Christianity in general, Messianic Jews are divided on many issues.When one of them tried to tell me Paul was not a Christian, but lived and died a Torah observant, strict Nazarite Jew - I just had to write this.
Ken Rich
@ken-rich
02/06/09 12:21:37PM
5 posts

Paul's Haircut - A lesson in Freedom


Christian Teachings

Get PDF HERE


There are some great lessons that can be learned from examining a controversy, about the length of the apostle Paul's hair. One of the arguments anti-Pauline theologians use to re-invent Paul as a Torah observant Rabbi , is based on his Nazarite vow. Paul let his hair grow at Corinth, to fulfill a vow, which some try to claim as evidence that Mosaic laws must be followed by Christians. Others claim, that Paul was never a Christian , since he continued to observe Jewish customs.

Some Messianic Jewish theologians have faulted the apostle Paul for the "Pauline Gospels" claiming it to be anti-Semitic. Most anti-Pauline Messianic Jewish theologians have avoided taking an anti-Pauline stand and have re-invented Paul and his writings as that of the "Torah observant Rabbi Paul, all accepting of modern Messianic Jewish thought." Such a re-invention is both doctrinally unsound and historically incorrect
. http://www.messianic-literary.com/teaching1.htm


Under the Old Covenant, this was the law concerning the Nazarite vow:

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD: ... All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. (Numbers 6: 2, 5)

Ge 28:20, Le 27:2, 1Sa 1:11, 2Sa 15:7 are further examples of vows in the Old Testament

The location where Paul took the vow was Corinth, the capital of the province of Achaia, which was a city of religious diversity - including a significant number of Jews. In 49 C.E., the Jews were expelled from Rome and a good number migrated to Corinth, including Aquila and Prisca. Paul worked with them making tents and trained them to be key leaders of the Church. (Acts 18:1-12, 1 Cor. 16:19) At Corinth like most places Paul traveled, he tried to win Gentiles and Jews alike.

Paul revealed his true teaching regarding hair length, to the Church in Corinth:

1Cor 11.14-5 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him , but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?

How can his teaching be reconciled to the Old Covenant law (and his own behavior), in taking a vow at Corinth. If you know the freedom we have in Christ (under the new Covenant) the answer becomes obvious. Let us let Paul answer for himself.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Take note of an important concept here. Paul distinguished himself from the Jews, by saying he was not under the law (of Moses), but said he was not free of God's law, since he was now under the law of Christ . However, at times, he behaved like a Jew under the law (of Moses), in order to win them.

Let's look at how the conflict over the law was handled by the early Church council, to shed some light on this.

Acts 21:19 After greeting them (James and the elders the early Church council), Paul related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. When they heard about it, they praised God

They had no problem with Paul teaching people  not to observe the law (of Moses). However, they then related how that many Jews had also believed, and were zealous for the law. This created a serious dilemma.

Acts 21:21 But they (the Jewish believers in Jerusalem) have been told about yout hat you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake the Law of Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs . What is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.

Note that Paul was not only teaching Gentiles not to observe the law, but also Jewish converts and the council praised his Ministry in verse 19. They had no problem with the teaching itself, but the anger it was instilling in the Jewish believers in Jerusalem, was a cause of great concern.

Some people try to get around this verse, by saying the Asian Jews were simply making a false report about him. However, anyone with eyes can read Paul's teachings for themselves and see that he did indeed teach that the Covenant with Moses was temporary - added to the Covenant with Abraham until the promised seed (Christ) came. Then the law was fulfilled in Christ and nailed to the pole.

Galatians 3:19 What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed (Christ) to whom the promise referred had come. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise.

Hebrews 7:11 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law .

Colossians 2:13 Then he kindly forgave all our errors and wiped away the handwritten Law that held us down and oppressed us. He lifted it out of the way and nailed it on the pole.

They (the council) explain their plan for dealing with the potentially explosive situation, which was to use tact. They knew Paul's life would have been in danger and the survival of the fledgling Church would have been imperiled, if he provoked the Jews into a riot of persecution against them.

Acts 21:23 So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow. Take these men, go through the purification ceremony with them, and pay their expenses to shave their heads. Then everyone will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you are carefully observing and keeping the law.

This was somewhat duplictious, but they had no problem with acting like a Jew in order to win Jews (or pacify them), since they knew the law was abolished (it was irrelevant now that the New Covenant was established by Christ). However, their tactic failed, the horse was already out of the barn , Paul was already infamous (among the Judaizers) for teaching the Gospel. He deeply offended the Jewish believers who did not yet understand that the covenant with Moses was temporary, replaced and abolished by the New Covenant. (Galatians 3:19, Hebrews 7:11, Hebrews 9:15, Romans 7:6, Galatians 4:21-31, etc.)

Despite his efforts to win them over, Paul was still attacked later by the Jews, even though he took great care to observe their customs - as to not offend them.

Acts 28:17 " My brothers, although I have done nothing against our people or against the customs of our ancestors, I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans

There are two ways, in which this was a true statement:

1. Their ancestors had prophesied about the coming Messiah and righteousness apart from law. It was the Judaizers (not Paul), who had disregarded their ancestors. (John 5:46-47, Romans 3:21-22).

2. Paul made great efforts to keep the Jewish customs (when around Jews), as to not offend them, while his real intent was to win them over to the New Covenant.

Now before we judge Paul and the council for being hypocrites (believing one way and acting another), we must ask a question. Is it morally wrong to meet people at their level? Is it acceptable to take the attitude when in Rome do as the Romans do ? Is it acceptable to play Chameleon , if your motive is to win souls by doing so? Remember, Paul himself says that it is so.

1 Corinthians 9:19 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

Salvation of souls, was Paul's motivation in behaving this way. He also made it crystal clear that under the New Covenant - keeping or not keeping such customs was irrelevant.

Galatians 6:15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation .

Therefore, when he observed the Jewish customs, it was not that he was doing something wrong - he was doing something irrelevant (in that that the Mosaic law was obsolete).

However, he was dead set against exercising his New Covenant freedom, when it led the weak astray.

1 Corinthians 8:9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak (speaking of the avoidance of food sacrificed to idols, which is another example of a Mosaic law that meant nothing under the New Covenant).

What did made the Mosaic law a big issue for Paul, is when people tried to teach that it had to be kept in order to be saved . They were Judaizers and of course Paul opposed any such notion. If you kept the Jewish laws as Paul did, knowing that they meant nothing under the New Covenant, in a situation that did not lead the weak astray, but with the intent of not offending the Jews - so as to win as many as possible there is nothing morally wrong with that.

James, by the way, makes it clear that he understood that the Mosaic law did not need to be kept for salvation, in the very passage where he told Paul go through the purification ceremony. He told Paul to continue on as he had been (outside of Jerusalem, in Gentile cities) and praised God for his Ministry (which taught both Jews and Gentiles not to keep the law) but he placed a few restrictions on the Gentiles (to help pacify the Jewish believers and diffuse the situation).

At the meeting, Peter makes the definitive statement that all are saved by faith, not by the yoke of Mosaic law.

Acts 15: 10-11  Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear (Mosaic law)? But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we (converts from Judaism) shall be saved, even as they (Gentile converts).

James (the brother of Christ) was the head of the Church, which operated out of Jerusalem. He had the delicate task of undoing centuries of customs and traditions that were firmly ingrained. The Jewish believers had to be weaned off of the Old Covenant and made to accept the New Covenant. That was a volatile situation that had to be handled slowly, carefully, with kid gloves. There was a real danger of provoking the Jews and being exterminated before the Church had a chance to win them over. He did the right thing, the only thing he could do, to ensure the survival of the Christian movement amongst the Jews he used tact. Don't confuse tact with Judaizing. The Judaizers believed and taught that keeping the law (of Moses) was necessary for salvation, and James did not believe or teach that.

In regard to Paul opposing Peter (Galatians 2:11- 14) - what was the issue? It happened at Antioch, which was a Gentile city (which also had a significant Jewish population), where Paul had the authority to preach the straight goods without fear of provoking a widespread persecution like at Jerusalem. Along came some from James, who had apparently not yet been weaned off the Old Covenant (touchy stuff in Jerusalem). Peter out of fear would not eat with the Gentiles in front of them (taboo to Judaizers) and as a result, leads the Jews that were present, and even Barnabas astray, so that they too follow his bad example. Of course Paul opposed this. The issue here was whether keeping the law was necessary for salvation .

Galatians 2:16, 21 ...for no human being will be justified by doing what the law requires ...I do not misapply Gods grace, for if righteousness comes about by doing what the law requires, then the Messiah died for nothing

Peter was not keeping the law as Paul did in Jerusalem, or Corinth, knowing that it meant nothing, without leading the weak astray, with the intent of not offending the Jews - so as to win as many as possible. Peter was doing this out of fear , he was leading the weak astray, he was undermining Paul's ministry to the Jews and Gentiles, and this - while not in Jerusalem where great pains had to be taken to not upset the Jews. Of course, Paul opposed this and rightly so.

Going back to our specific topic, under the New Covenant, you can grow your hair or shave your head it means nothing it has no value - it is irrelevant in terms of salvation. The law of Moses has been removed and replaced with the law of Christ.

Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a "new" covenant, he has made the first one obsolete...

As a general principle, it was Paul's instruction for men to have short hair and women to have long, which is the natural order of things. He gave this instruction at Corinth, the very place where he took the vow - once again showing his willingness to be all things to all men and keep a custom he knows isi rrelevant,i n order to win Jews.

1Cor 11.14-5 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?

Do you still think Paul clung to his old Jewish customs, because he valued them, or thought them important for salvation? I once had a Messianic Jew try to tell me, the Church council was starting the Gentiles off with Noahide laws and were leading them toward complete submission to Mosaic law.

Proverbs 18:19 A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle.

As to not offend you (those who want to follow Yeshua - by keeping the law of Moshe), I will let Paul speak for himself, about his transformation from Pharisee to Christian apostle to the Gentiles (and Jews).

Philippians 3: 2-9 Beware of the evil workers (strong language against Judaizers)! Beware of the mutilators (circumcision of the flesh law). For it is we (Christians or Messianic Jews who follow grace, not law) who are the circumcision - we who worship in the Spirit of God (hearts are circumcised) and find our joy in the Messiah Jesus. We have not placed any confidence in the flesh, although I could have confidence in the flesh. If anyone thinks he can place confidence in the flesh, I have more reason to think so. Having been circumcised on the eighth day, I am of the nation of Israel, from the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews. As far as the law is concerned, I was a Pharisee. As for my zeal, I was a persecutor of the church. As far as righteousness in the law (vows, Sabbaths, circumcision, Torah, etc.) is concerned, I was blameless. But whatever things were assets to me (ceremonies, rites, law keeping, etc.), these I now consider a loss for the sake of the Messiah. What is more, I continue to consider all these things as a loss for the sake of the what is far more valuable, knowing the Messiah Jesus, my Lord. It is because of him that I have experienced the loss of all those things. Indeed, I consider them rubbish in order to gain the Messiah and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law (Mosaic laws), but one that comes through the faithfulness of the Messiah, the righteousness that comes from God and that depends on faith (not law).

So, here we have Paul himself saying that his Jewish heritage as a Pharisee and a keeper of the law was rubbish and he denounced those who clung to the law in the strongest possible terms. Paul was not trying to be unkind (or anti-Semitic) and neither are Christians who worship in Spirit and leave legalism behind. We know that unless you let go of the hand of Moses and take the hand of Jesus, then he has died for you in vain. You are still under the curse of the law and will miss the promised inheritance (promised through Abraham).

Something was missed by the Judaizers in Paul's day, which is still not understood by the legalists in our day Christ doesn't make one new man out of the Jewish and Gentile believers by placing the Gentiles under Mosaic law. He removes the Mosaic law and puts the Jewish believers on the same footing as the Gentile believers under the law of Christ.

The law of commandments contained in ordinances was written by the hand of Moses, kept in the side of the ark, contained the civil and ceremonial laws, as well as the Decalogue (10 commandments) which was written twice in it. Some try to do away with only the ceremonial and civil laws and keep the Decalogue, but 2 Corinthians 3:7 tells us the law written on stone is also perished, as do many other verses which point to the annulment of the entire covenant and it's laws.

Ephesians 2:14-16 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one , and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances , so as to create in Himself one new man from the two

There are some big lessons in Paul's haircut. Let's take them to heart. We must serve in the new way of the Spirit and follow the law of Christ, not Mosaic laws of the Old Covenant. We must have the righteousness that comes by faith.

Romans 8:1-2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death (Mosaic law).

Ken Rich

kengrich@yahoo.ca
https://indiegospel .net


updated by @ken-rich: 09/04/20 01:40:24PM
Ken Rich
@ken-rich
02/06/09 08:56:36AM
5 posts

WE NEED PRAYER PARTNERS, MISSIONARIES FOR CARMEL GOSPEL MISSIONS


Share your Ministry

I featured the post to help it along. India is such a big country, with such a small Christian presence. I pray for your success.Ken
Ken Rich
@ken-rich
01/22/09 10:36:48PM
5 posts

Jesus - the Rock of Offense


Christian Teachings


There is a foundation (a rock) spoken of in Scripture - which is Christ.

I once had a Messianic Jew try to tell me that Eph. 2:20 teaches that the Church is built on the apostles and prophets, rather than Christ. Although he claimed to follow Yeshua, his Jesus was just another prophet, less than divine, and for him the New Covenant did not supersede the Covenant with Moses.

However, Paul tells the Ephesian believers that they are being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets - in the Greek genitive case (the case which shows possession). Paul is referring to the foundation which is laid by the apostles and prophets - which is Jesus Christ. He is not saying that the apostles and prophets themselves are the foundation.

Ephesians 2:19-20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone

See also 1 Peter 2:4-8, Psalm 118:22, Matt. 21:42, 44-45, Acts 4:11, Luke 6:47-48. All of these passages (and more) make clear that Jesus is the foundation. The chief cornerstone was the foundational stone in ancient architecture - from which all measurements began. Every other stone was laid in relationship to the cornerstone. Clearly this position belongs to Jesus.

Moses and the other prophets, foretold Christ's coming and thus played an important part in redemptive history. In that sense, they are part of the building, they were servants who were used to prepared the way, to foretell the glory which was to come - but they themselves are not the foundation.

Isa 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation : he that believeth shall not make haste.

Both Jesus and Paul make clear that the rejection of Christ as the Messiah (rejecting the corner stone) is the fatal mistake that the Jews made, which caused the Kingdom of God to be taken from them and given to the Gentiles.

Matthew 21:42 Jesus said to them, Have you never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief corner stone (Psalm 118:22). That is why I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you (Jews) and given to a people who will produce fruit for it (Gentiles) . The person who falls over this stone (Christ) will be broken to pieces, but it will crush anyone on whom it falls.

Romans 9:30 What can we say, then? Gentiles, who were not pursuing righteousness, have attained righteousness, a righteousness that comes through faith. But Israel, who pursued righteousness based on the law, did not achieve the law. Why not? Because they did not pursue it (righteousness) on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on achievements (law keeping). They stumbled over the stone that causes people to stumble...

In Matt.16:13-18 When Jesus said, upon this rock I will build my church , what exactly did he mean?

Catholics and Protestants have argued over the meaning of this text for centuries. Catholics believe Peter to be the foundation of the Church. However, Peter himself does not agree.

1 Peter 2:4 And coming to Him as to a living stone , rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones , are being built up as a spiritual house...

So Peter himself tells us, that Christ (not Peter) is the foundation, the living stone . In a secondary sense, we too by faith in Christ, can become living stones, built into the spiritual house which is the Church the body of Christ.

As the first among the disciples to express faith in the Messiah (Matt. 16-18), Christ used Peter as an example. Peter became a living stone in the building, just as we all can, through faith. Thus Christ (foundational rock) renamed him Peter (small stone) as an illustration.

The Catholic position relies on a subtle misuse of language. By ignoring the Greek text it was written in, and using an Aramaic translation (we do not have), the same word (Kipha) is used for both 'Peter' and 'rock'". The ignorant are thereby tricked with linguistic subtleties. The meaning is lost and the foundation of the erroneous teaching of apostolic succession is laid by deceit.

The Greek text makes the distinction between Peter (Petros - a small stone) and faith in Christ (petras - the large unshakable, unmovable, bedrock). If you are in doubt about the nature and importance of this distinction please read - HERE

The Bible does not leave room for any doubt about who the true foundation is. Jesus himself taught about the importance of basing our foundation in Him .

Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock ...

Paul makes it absolutely clear who the foundation of the Church is, and it's not Peter who he publicly rebuked ( Gal. 2:11) , and it was not James the leader of the fledgling Church (Acts 15).

1 Corinthians 3:11 After all, no one can lay any other foundation than the one that is already laid, and that is Jesus the Messiah . Whether a person builds on this foundation with gold, silver, expensive stones, wood, hay, or straw, the workmanship of each person will become evident, for the day of judgment will show what it is, because it will be revealed with fire...

Therefore, consider carefully on what your life and Ministry are based. I have dear friends in Catholicism, who believe Peter is the rock upon which to build their Church, and apostolic succession from him, is their claim to ecclesiastical power.

I also have dear friends within a segment of Messianic Judaism, who claim they are following Yeshua (for those of the Holy name movement), but think him somehow less than divine. Moses is given a higher place than Christ, and his true significance and divinity escapes them.

They argue that Rome fooled the poor ignorant goyim into elevating Christ from prophet to divinity, and favor a form of the the Arian heresy. They say many verses are misinterpreted, since Gentiles lack the Jewish mindset required for a proper understanding. For instance - gives eternal life (Jn 3:16), one with the Father (Jn 10:30), omnipotent (Mt 28:18), omnipresent (Mt 18:20), accepts worship due to God (Mt 14:33).

What they refuse to acknowledge, is that their own beloved Hebrew Scriptures prove the divinity of Christ over and over again. Consider how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies concerning him, ...we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10 to the 157th power. The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around 10 to the 79th power. It should be quite evident that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies by accident. He was who He said He was: the only way (John 14:6). (This information was taken from the book Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell.)

Not only did Jesus fulfill the Messianic prophecies which had to take place before the second Temple was destroyed, more will be fulfilled upon his return. Also, it is clear from scripture, that Abraham, David, and Moses, all had a relationship with the pre-incarnate Jesus.

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day, and he saw it and was glad. Then the Jews asked him, You are not even 50 years old, yet you have seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, Truly, I tell all of you with certainty, before there was an Abraham, I AM !

We see that Jesus claimed divinity, to be the great I AM - the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

2 Sam. 22: 2-3 And he said, The Lord is my rock , and my fortress, and my deliverer; The God of my rock ; in him will I trust:

David claimed a relationship with the rock of his salvation!

John 5:46-47 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me . But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?

There are many places where Moses wrote about Jesus. The first prophecy of the coming lamb of God, was when God clothed Adam and Eve in lambskin, to cover their nakedness.

In fact, Jesus is the God of Moses, notice how Paul drives the point home by explaining how it was Christ, who was leading Moses and the Jewish nation in the desert.

1 Cor. 10: 1-4 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ .

This is inconceivable to the understanding of an Orthodox Jew, since the Hebrew Scriptures teach that God is one. Jesus himself taught this - God is one! Yet God is one with a complex nature, manifesting himself through Christ and also the Spirit, while simultaneously dwelling in unapproachable light as the Father - who no man has seen.

Christians don't worship three Gods, as some Jews accuse us of, we worship the same God as they do, but recognize his complex nature.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God (the Father) at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

It had always been the pre-incarnate Christ, who was the visible expression of God, in the Hebrew Scriptures. He appeared to Moses (Ex. 33:20-23, Deut. 4:12), to Isaiah as the Lord of hosts (Is. 6:5) and to Joshua (Jos 5:14).

He chose to cloth himself in flesh and reveal himself as fully God and fully man - the suffering Messiah. Dying for the sins of the whole world - reconciling his creation to himself.( Jo. 1:3, Col 1:16-20).

When Philip asked Jesus show us the Father , he responded (John 14:9-11) The person who has seen me has seen the Father... Believe me, I am in the Father and the Father is in me.

A time prophecy, the seventy weeks of Daniel, gives a precise time when the Messiah would appear, the time of his crucifixion, the end of probation for the Jewish people, and when the Gospel would go to the Gentiles. Of course, like many other things in the Bible, the Rabbins choose to ignore this . The Rabbins then held a meeting and pronounced a curse upon any Jew who should attempt to ascertain the chronology of this prophetic period. Their anathema was this: May his bones and his memory rot who shall attempt to number the seventy weeks '. The Midnight Cry, August 10, 1843.

Roman Catholic futurism (the "gap theory" now accepted by most of Protestantism), is also defeated by a proper understanding of the seventy weeks. Many Christians and Jews have had the wool pulled over their eyes .

This one prophecy in Daniel 9 could shatter the errors of traditional Judaism and Roman Catholicism - no wonder it has been cursed, hidden, twisted, and manipulated. In the middle of the last week, it is Christ who confirms the Covenant, and who is cut-off, but not for himself (when he was crucified).

Rome has thrown this text into the future (with no scriptural support) and says it is fulfilled by the anti-Christ. This was done in response to the reformers charge that the Papacy is the anti-Christ system. To deflect scrutiny away from the Pope, a Spanish Jesuit named Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), proposed an alternative view.

The founder of this system [Futurist] in modern timesappears to have been the Jesuit Ribera, about A.D. 1580. (Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, vol. 2, part 2, p. 351 [bottom numbering].)

For 300 years, most Protestants rejected this rather inventive interpretation, but it is widely accepted now, especially among Evangelicals. An end time deception, providing a smokescreen which allows the anti-Christ system to continue - virtually unopposed.

I love the Jewish and Catholic people and so does God. However, some of the errors propagated by those systems, are grievous to the cause of Christ.

Soon the Lord will return and sweep away all the castles in the sand . The kingdoms of men, the apostate Churches, the deceitful workers - all have a divine appointment with a rock .

Daniel 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands... and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

Everything not built on the rock , the true foundation, is doomed to fail. Are you ready to come to Jesus as to a living stone ?

John 5:39 You examine the Scriptures carefully because you suppose that in them you have eternal life. Yet they testify about me . But you are not willing to come to me to have life.

If you haven't already, go to Jesus and receive eternal life! Allow him to transform you into a living stone, and place you in his spiritual building. Become part of the body of Christ the true Church!

There is no more Jew or Gentile, male or female, all are one in Christ (Galatians 3:28). The Church is not a denomination, an institution, an organization, or any such thing those are man made distinctions - which divide us.

It's about relationship, not religion, we are adopted into the family of God, through Christ, the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5, Eph 1:5).

The God of the Bible, the stone the builders rejected, transforms us into living stones, and makes us part of a spiritual building (1 Peter 2:4 ).

Ken Rich


updated by @ken-rich: 07/21/18 10:56:36AM
Ken Rich
@ken-rich
12/24/08 04:07:18PM
5 posts

Merry and blessed Christmas!


General Posts - any topic

Merry Christmas to you and yours!Ken
  10