Los Angeles, California
| Re: Patrick|
Good to hear from you again brother, and I agree with what you have to say,
Yes Neil, you are absolutely correct. R. Johnson defines himself by what he is against and with all the things we see that has happened to the church in the past 50 to 100 years I think that is a trap we must all be careful to not fall into ourselves. I have personally been guilty of that in the past and have to check myself from time to time on an ongoing basis. I remember about six month ago Jesus speaking to me very clearly and in no uncertain terms that I had better start talking and writing and defining my self by what I am for - Him. This was not a still small voice or suggestion but a direct command as loud and clear as a bell.
I am pretty sure that R. Johnson thinks he is the only correct teacher out there and everyone else is false. As far as I can tell he supports nobody else's teachings except his own. (RED FLAG) This is a terrible and sad condition to find ones self in, but does not mean that he is 100% incorrect on 100% of what he says. I think I ran across his site when I was looking for some information on Joyce Myers to give to a friend who was attending her performance last time when she was in town.
I am not looking to start some fight of words or some endless back and forth trying to prove the other interpretation wrong. I am interested in studying and learning about different ideas and the Scriptures used to back them up concerning Replacement Theology and Premillenial Dispensationalism I would love hear your thoughts on the subject. I am searching for the truth with an open mind. I can assure you that I am not trying to open a can of worms but rather trying gather views from each side in order to better my understand and grow in my knowledge of the subject. I am not trying to strengthen the Body so to speak - just looking for some theological insight from some people who I respect and who may know more than I do about certain things. :-)
P.S. I did see how Johnson racked Doc Brown over the coal. Disgusting in my opinion. He is absolutely wrong. Dr. Brown is certainly not 100% right in everything he says and his theology (no man is - me and you included) but I respect his heart for God and Truth and have learned a lot for his teachings and writings
| 2005/9/15 14:54||Profile|
| Re: RobertW|
I have to ask you this, How do these "compilations" and "histories" that you just presented in this thread strengthen the Body of believers on this forum?
Sorry, I forgot to answer this one question. The reason for the short compilations to bring awareness is that most Christians have no idea what is going on when it comes to the Jews. I know I did not and thought I had a good grip on the issues. I still need to continue my studies. The topic just keeps unfolding.
Many are simply not aware of where a person who practices Judaism at any real level is coming from. They have no idea about the years of persecution coming from Christians over the centuries or any of the non-Jewish related issues. On the flip side of that coin even fewer would understand the history of how things got here. My little blurb is just that. It is a sorely truncated history of how New Testament Judaism became Rabbinic Judaism.
Moreover, I did not start this thread. The first post in this thread set out to dismiss the existence of the Jews from the beginning. I take great issue with that. If I error in my defense- may I always have errored on the side of the defense of such a people. If I offend in my defense then I can work only with the best means I have available. If I err in my heart may it be in my zeal for God and His people.
Robert Wurtz II
| 2005/9/15 15:06||Profile|
| Re: my question again is....|
how does this strengthen the Body of believers?
(later edit) I posted this churlish post right as you DID answer my question. I'm gonna "fast from the forum for a while.
please forgive any ugliness from me.
God bless you dear brother.
| 2005/9/15 15:11|
Thanks for your input on all this. I am going to go very slowly otherwise I am going to be taking balls from all directions at the same time.
One of the problems that I have previously mentioned on this topic is of terms. Jews/Israel/Judaism - are these synonyms? For some reading this my next comment will be a giant stride and not a single step but 'is there any biblical justification for Judaism in any of its present forms?' It seems to me that modern day Judaism is a pragmatic replacement for the practice of the 'first covenant' and I would like to open this out a little at this point.
The 'first covenant' was a package deal and its elements cannot be separated from each other. It was established with a law and a priesthood. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (Heb. 7:12, KJVS) I think we should notice the deliberate way in which this is expressed 'of necessity'. If there had been no 'law' there would have been no necessity for a 'priesthood'. But God gave a law and obedience to that law was an essential part of the making of the first covenant.Now therefore, [u]if[/u] ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, [u]then[/u] ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. (Ex. 19:5-6, KJVS)Speaking in programming terms this is a classic 'if/then' statement. In such a computer programme a section of the programme is unaccessible unless the necessary conditions have been met. If the conditions are not met the programme will either stop in its tracks or move on to some other section. These opening words of the covenant making between God and people who had been delivered from bondage in Egypt are vitally important to our understanding of the nature of the 'first covenant'.
We must ask ourselves what the outcome will be if the people do not accept or fulfill the conditions? We must conclude that in such a case the people WOULD NOT BE a peculiar treasure above all people, and that the people WOULD NOT BE a kingdom of priests, and that the people WOULD NOT BE an holy nation. This is the plain consequence of such a conditional statement in grammar or programming. God, of course, knew that the people would renege on their side of the covenant and that consequently the 'covenant' would be rendered null and void. The reason it did not cancel it was because God instituted a priestly system with sacrifices which enabled God to 'continue to dwell' among this people. The priestly system provided both gifts and sacrifices for sin, and we know that they all prefigured Christ. What would happen then to such a covenant if the priestly system were inoperable? It would be ruined instantly and irretrievably.
The simple point I am making is that the 'first covenant' cannot operate without a priesthood. The 'law' and its accompanying 'priesthood' are inseparable. If they become separated there is no forgiveness, no reconciliation and no 'people of the covenant'. The Levitical priesthood no longer functions and modern day Judaism cannot fill the gap. Robert frequently tells us the number of laws in modern Judaism; I have forgotten the number, please remind us. If these are 'God's laws' and are broken there is no remission of sins possible for these transgressions. Heb. 9:22 (KJVS) And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Modern Judaism, even if it were valid, could only add to the terrible list of transgressions; it has no means of remitting them.
That leaves us with some important questions. Is modern Judaism a mistake or a rebellion? Either way, it has no validity and can safely be removed as a element from this particular thread.
| 2005/9/15 15:11||Profile|
you're a good pal, and the way I'm getting is a prime reason, why I gotta "fast" from the forum.
The Lord gave me a new comp yesterday, and I trying to cut it, but instead here I be, fussing with my brothers.
listen, hold me accountable to the fast..please.
I love you bro, sorry for my ungodly churlishness, please forgive me, its time to get across the Jordan. (lol)
| 2005/9/15 15:15|
Hey Nasher! That was my line! You need to come up with your own material!
your line? I first heard that from Denis Clark in the UK in 1968 and it has been going the rounds since. 8-)
| 2005/9/15 15:16||Profile|
| Re: Strength|
Strength: May I Encourage You?
We must not limit the power of God or his Strength inside of us. His word says that his Strength is made PERFECT in our WEAKNESS.
In saying this, immediately the Holy Spirit reminds me of JESUS.
Who strengthened Jesus when he had to stand before Caiaphas, before Pontius Pilate, when he was taken into the Praetorium and stripped and had a crown twisted of thorns placed on his Head?
When he was spit on and mocked, when he was given sour wine with gall to drink, who strengthen him? Who strengthened him when he was being crucified, when he had nails being pierced into his flesh and a sword piercing his side, who strengthened him?
Im sorry to say, that I cant! I can not nor will I ever be able to strengthen you with the strength that was given to him, to bear all of this because he loves us. I can however
Remind you that he LIVES, that his word is true, that his strength is true; I can remind you that his word says that in our weakness we are made strong, because his strength is made perfect in us.
| 2005/9/15 15:21||Profile|
1968, eh philologo? I was 1 yrs old. I dont think I was coining any phrases back then. LOL You have me on that one!
| 2005/9/15 15:29|
First my apologies to all (especially Neil) for not being more tactful in my posts.
It seems to me that modern day Judaism is a pragmatic replacement for the practice of the 'first covenant' and I would like to open this out a little at this point.
It is. The various Temple rituals are replaced by what are called "Tzedekiah" (sp?) or "acts of righteousness" (good deeds). Because the Law is "outdated" (as it were) an entire system of halakah was developed. This was what our Lord was referring to when He talked about "tradition" (making void the law, etc.). Today when we say 'halakah' we mean the collective corpus of Jewish rabbinic law, custom and tradition. It guides all aspect of life because Rabbinic Jews view life sacred and secular as one and the same. The Rabbi's (as I understand this) assumed the authority to keep the law as relevant as possible to the people with the Temple not in service. Things were merely adapted to keep the system propped up. in other words, the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, which should have brought things to a halt, was essentially replaced by the whole of Rabbic Judaism.
Jews/Israel/Judaism - are these synonyms?
I will try to be more pedantic in this. The answer is no, technically speaking. We may need to define these terms and keep that definition clear as we dialogue.
Robert frequently tells us the number of laws in modern Judaism; I have forgotten the number, please remind us. If these are 'God's laws' and are broken there is no remission of sins possible for these transgressions.
That would be 613 not including the Talmudic regulations. :-?
However, the Rabbinic Jews by and large do not view [u]law(s)[/u] like we do- i.e. as laws that are not to be broken- but they view them as a code of life for those who wish to maintain that unique identity as God's Chosen people in the earth. This is a major hitch when trying to demonstrate the need for a Savior. What do you mean I need to be saved? Saved me from what? I am already God's chosen, etc.
Orthodox (Hasidic) Jews are said to be the most likely to perceive their need as they believe in the Torah. Other groups (Reform, etc) are more liberal in their view of scripture. Some in the State of Israel are pushing for the reconstruction of the Temple and would likely desire to return to the Temple sacrificial system. The oversimplifications of the previous statements are terrible. Hopefully we can press along though.
They are essentially trying to serve God without God being manifestly present. Many want the Book (the Torah) and the identity but not the Glory. It is no different than ever. If religion is worship in the absence of God, then this is religion at its finest (worst). The Bath Kol article tells it all in my book. But more than that, it speaks to my own heart! Is that what we have done often in the west? Taken the book and made all kinds of religious stuff from it and cast thrust God out as unwelcome? The parallel is horrifying.
Robert Wurtz II
| 2005/9/15 16:06||Profile|
The Rabbi's (as I understand this) assumed the authority to keep the law as relevant as possible to the people with the Temple not in service.
Moses has authorityHeb. 8:5 (KJVS) Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. but Rabbinic Judaism has none. I don't mean to be offensive in this. I am not questioning their integrity or motive, I am simply saying that we can eliminate Rabbinic Judaism from this enquiry. The modern synagogue then has no validity, biblically.
I have studied Jewish history too, for many years. On occasion I am accused of being 'anti-semitic' because I cannot give my approval to pre-millenniel dispensationalist views of 'Israel' but I know in my spirit that I am not. I have wept my way through Auschwitz, more than once, and made my pilgrimage to Maedenik. I have a deep sorrow for the remnants of natural Israel. To me they represent to ultimate 'might have been' tragedy.
If we are agreed that the 'first covenant' has been replaced it will be helpful to identify just what we mean by Israel. The word 'Israel' is, as far as I can recall, only ever used in a 'modern' sense of the 'nation-state' in reference to the Northern Kingdom of Israel and to distinguish that 'nation-state' from the 'nation-state' of Judah. This is where things can get very complicated. The term 'Jews' derives from the remnants of the Judah nation-state who returned from captivity in Babylon. However, as soon as these 'Jews/Judah' people arrive back in the land they are referred to as 'Israel' and from that time we have to read the Ot scripures with great care to ascertain what 'Israel' means in any given context. The classic example of this is in the account of the first return in the book of Ezra.Ezra 2:70 (KJVS) So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities. Using the older nomenclature this ought to have said 'all Judah in their cities' as this is a return of Judah to the territory of Judah, but it doesn't because 'Judah' has now become 'Israel'; the carrier of the ongoing promises.
What kind of people constituted the original 'Israel'? This is where we will need to look at blood lines, but it may not be as simple as we have thought. Again, I'll pause before trying to answer this question.
| 2005/9/15 18:14||Profile|