Dear 'BibleGuy' . . .

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Bibleguy's kind of getting a taste of his own medicine. At least JGIG uses paragraphs and not just one line for every thought.

 

[Grace777x70]

How can BibleGuy get a word in edgewise on this thread, when you're dominating it with your own posts? Give the poor guy a chance to read all these, before you post a million more.. lol..

She is just answering his 24 questions that he asked her to respond to in another thread. It takes a lot to answer 24 questions at once.....

 

[popeye]

I saw some of these posts by Bibleguy, and I just dismissed them as being Hebrew Roots and therefore false. I do appreciate you breaking this all down, so we can see exactly where BG went wrong.

Just to add a comment about the fall of the Temple in 70AD. Besides ending the Old Covenant, something else very important happened, showing that God would never allow sacrifices at a new temple.

The Romans razed the temple when the Jews refused to obey them. So every block was taken down and thrown apart. But before that happened, the temple and everything flammable caught fire and burned.

One of the most important things that got burned was the records of the genealogies. So the entire lineage of the Jews, carefully kept on scrolls from the time of Abraham were destroyed. These records were important for 2 reasons.

1. The line of Jesus was traced back to King David, which was part of the prophecies. Jesus had to be a descendent of David. So only 40 years after he died, all the genealogies were destroyed, meaning that no one could ever again claim to be the Messiah. Only Jesus could make this claim, because the records of his lineage were available for all to see.

2. The lineage of the priests and Levites were also burned. So although people could still claim by oral records that they were proper candidates for the priesthood, it could not be proved. God allowed those scrolls to be burned, which was something that totally sealed the door on a Levitical priesthood ever existing again.

Jesus is the only High priest, and in fact, we need no other.

"The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office,24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. 28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever." Hebrews 7:23-28

I know JGIG mentioned these verses, but I think they are important enough to quote again, in context. Jesus has the only permanent priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek. He alone saves and makes intercession, and that is forever, because Jesus lives forever! He is the only perfect high priest, holy, innocent and unstained, separated from sinners.

He has NO NEED, like the former high priests to offer sacrifices daily - because he does not need to offer for himself, and as far as the people - he was the ultimate sacrifice on the cross.

We do NOT need a reestablishment of the Levitcial priesthood with their impure, weak sacrifices, because we have JESUS!!

Praise the the Son! Praise God for his sacrifice on Calvary, which was the final, once for all sacrifice. So if some misguided fools build a temple and offer sacrifices, it will be a stench in the nostrils of God - who sent his only Son as the once for all time sacrifice for sin.

"But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." Hebrews 10:13-15

My suggestion, BibleGuy, is that you sit down with a modern version of the New Testament and read Hebrews through about 5 times. Read the truth, instead of this terrible heresy you have been trying to pass off as Biblical. Because your words say over and over that Jesus sacrifice on the cross was not enough! And there is no heresy worse than saying the Son of God dying on the cross was not enough to atone for all our sins.

Old testament ended by the advent,crucifiction,and resurrection of Jesus. 70 ad was judgement.

The change in priesthood happened at Christ's baptism. John,the legitimate priest baptized in the new priesthood,the "Davidical" or priesthood of "Judah"

 

[popeye]

The new priesthood is the NT.

 

[JGIG]

How can BibleGuy get a word in edgewise on this thread, when you're dominating it with your own posts? Give the poor guy a chance to read all these, before you post a million more.. lol..

Jgig, breath, and let someone in your post. LOL

Bibleguy's kind of getting a taste of his own medicine. At least JGIG uses paragraphs and not just one line for every thought.

Just answering BibleGuy's 'issues' and 'points', one at a time.

Takes time to sort through all those fallacies.

Observe - as time goes on he'll start telling me I'm unteachable, disregard the words of Christ, Moses, the Prophets, misunderstand Paul . . . but he won't address the contextual Scriptures raised to refute his Judaizing position.

That's part of the purpose of this thread - to demonstrate that the spirit behind the message he is preaching will eventually devolve, as it has here (a response to Grace77x770 in another thread):

Originally Posted by BibleGuy

You have CLEARLY implied that I do not teach that we are saved by the grace of Christ for salvation and life.

Thus, you have opposed me PERSONALLY, for this is FALSE.

AND, you have MISREPRESENTED my position.

Is that what you do?

Misrepresent my position, rather than engage it?

I'm sorry to see you acting that way.

I expect better from a brother in the Lord.

But thanks for telling me about the "dear bibleguy" thread....

I didn't even know about! Cool!

Hopefully JGIG will explain in DETAIL how to defend her position against the 34 objections I now bring against her anti-Torah viewpoint.

Her integrity will soon be tested...will she follow the truth? Will she acknowledge the truth of my corrective influence on her many errors?

We shall soon see....exciting times!

Of course, please correct me too, at any point...I'm happy to follow the truth wherever it leads...unlike MANY people around here who CLEARLY are more akin to mere propagandists...

blessings...
BibleGuy​

This is not a thread for those who like posts short and to the point - but I'm trying to break down the many 'issues' and 'points' that BibleGuy has raised into smaller portions.

Part of the Law-keeping method to draw folks in is to throw walls of flawed questions peppered with ripped out of context Scriptures to 'prove' their Torah-centric belief system. It can be effective until one is willing to take each point, one at at time, and patiently show where the errors - some subtle, some blatant - are.

Totally a take-it-or-leave-it thread for many readers, but helpful for those whose paths have been crossed by Torah folk or would like to learn how to refute them.

Grace and peace,
-JGIG

 

[popeye]

She is just answering his 24 questions that he asked her to respond to in another thread. It takes a lot to answer 24 questions at once.....

You are right.

Jg is a she.

I didn't know girls were that smart.

Just joking dude,lighten up

 

[JGIG]

You are right.

Jg is a she.

I didn't know girls were that smart.

Just joking dude,lighten up

lol, no worries, popeye .

-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

BibleGuy's posts are rife with some logical fallacies which are described below. Just a heads-up on how to read his posts. Notice that he strings together out of context Scripture references from all over the place in an attempt to 'prove' his Torah-centric belief system. There is a term for that . . .

Prooftexting (sometimes "proof-texting" or "proof texting") is the practice of using isolated, out-of-context quotations from a document to establish a proposition in eisegesis. Such quotes may not accurately reflect the original intent of the author,[SUP][1][/SUP] and a document quoted in such a manner, when read as a whole, may not support the proposition for which it was cited.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] The term has currency primarily in theological and exegetical circles.


This is to be distinguished from quotations from a source deemed a hostile witness, which inadvertently substantiate a point beneficial to the quoter in the course of its own narrative. Even when lifted out of context, those facts still stand.


Many Christian ministers and Christian teachers have used some version of the following humorous anecdote to demonstrate the dangers of prooftexting: "A man dissatisfied with his life decided to consult the Bible for guidance. Closing his eyes, he flipped the book open and pointed to a spot on the page. Opening his eyes, he read the verse under his finger. It read, 'Then Judas went away and hanged himself' (Matthew 27:5b). Finding these words unhelpful, the man randomly selected another verse. This one read, 'Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."' (Luke 10:37b). In desperation, he tried one more time. The text he found was: 'What you are about to do, do quickly.'" (John 13:27)[SUP][6](source)

[/SUP]
The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as "contextomy" and quote mining), is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[SUP][1][/SUP] Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.


Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:​

1. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.​
2. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.[SUP][2][/SUP]​

In either case, while quoting a person out of context can be done intentionally to advance an agenda or win an argument, it is also possible to remove essential context without the aim to mislead, through not perceiving a change in meaning or implication that may result from quoting what is perceived as the essential crux of a statement.


Contextomy[edit]

Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context". The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context per se (as all quotes are), but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words. Comparing this practice to surgical excision, journalist Milton Mayer coined the term "contextomy" to describe its use by Julius Streicher, editor of the infamous Nazi broadsheet Der Stürmer inWeimar-era Germany. To arouse anti-semitic sentiments among the weekly’s working class Christian readership, Streicher regularly published truncated quotations from Talmudic texts that, in their shortened form, appear to advocate greed, slavery, and ritualistic murder.[SUP][3][/SUP] Although rarely employed to this malicious extreme, contextomy is a common method of misrepresentation in contemporary mass media, and studies have demonstrated that the effects of this misrepresentation can linger even after the audience is exposed to the original, in context, quote.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5](You can read more here: source)
[/SUP]
​

[SUP]

​Of course, the biggest element that BibleGuy leaves out of context for his interpretation of the Scriptures is the Work and High Priesthood of Christ, rendering the Old Covenant obsolete as a functioning covenantal system.

Just some food for thought for those of you reading through this thread [/SUP].[SUP]


[/SUP]
-JGIG

 

[Grace777x70]

You are right.

Jg is a she.

I didn't know girls were that smart.

Just joking dude,lighten up

I know....she has the picture of a lamb but she is inside the dwelling place of the Lion...she can "roar" when it's time too...

 

[Angela53510]

I am delighted at the work JGIG has done here in refuting the obvious heresies of BibleGuy. Plus, she is actually discussing the Bible, in context, while answering the 24 or 36 or whatever points of BG. So a Bible discussion in the Bible Discussion Forum?
Awesome, I say.

I know the internet is supposed to be a place for a one line answer followed by some emoticons. No - that is Twitter! But long posts sometimes are important if we are to discuss the material and truly understand where, in this case, BibleGuy has gone so terrribly wrong.

My hope is that people will actually read her comments in this thread, as they are foundational to our faith.

 

[Angela53510]

PS. Just to qualify something I said earlier - yes the New Covenant started with Jesus death and resurrection. And it was technically the end of the Old Covenant as witnessed by the veil in the temple which covered the Holy of Holies was torn down. But - those stubborn Jews that did not acknowledge Christ kept offering up sacrifices. Like any attempt in this day and age to build a temple and offer sacrifices - again those sacrifices were a stench in the nostrils of God.

But for the Jews - the Old Covenant practices continued until the temple was actually gone. So a dead covenant without power, but still in force in the minds of the Jews who did not understand that Jesus was the final sacrifice.

I did not mean to imply otherwise, but it did sound like that.

 

[JGIG]

I am delighted at the work JGIG has done here in refuting the obvious heresies of BibleGuy. Plus, she is actually discussing the Bible, in context, while answering the 24 or 36 or whatever points of BG. So a Bible discussion in the Bible Discussion Forum?
Awesome, I say.

I know the internet is supposed to be a place for a one line answer followed by some emoticons. No - that is Twitter! But long posts sometimes are important if we are to discuss the material and truly understand where, in this case, BibleGuy has gone so terrribly wrong.

My hope is that people will actually read her comments in this thread, as they are foundational to our faith.

Thanks, Angela. And I think it's 24 AND 36!!! I'm guessing (hoping) there is some overlap, ha!

 

[JGIG]

PS. Just to qualify something I said earlier - yes the New Covenant started with Jesus death and resurrection. And it was technically the end of the Old Covenant as witnessed by the veil in the temple which covered the Holy of Holies was torn down. But - those stubborn Jews that did not acknowledge Christ kept offering up sacrifices. Like any attempt in this day and age to build a temple and offer sacrifices - again those sacrifices were a stench in the nostrils of God.

But for the Jews - the Old Covenant practices continued until the temple was actually gone. So a dead covenant without power, but still in force in the minds of the Jews who did not understand that Jesus was the final sacrifice.

I did not mean to imply otherwise, but it did sound like that.

Yes, amen. And that is what the letter to the Hebrews was all about - preparing those who were in that generation after the Cross, but before the destruction of the Temple, by teaching them about the New Covenant - now in place - built on better promises.

God, in His grace, was not going to leave Israel hanging, but offered a gentle transition into the New Covenant over the course of one generation.

Thankfully, the letter to the Hebrews is still available to us, as much of the Body is as much bound to the Law as Israel was before the Temple fell.

-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

I know....she has the picture of a lamb but she is inside the dwelling place of the Lion...she can "roar" when it's time too...

Ooooh, I like that, thanks!

Christ in me, the hope of glory!

-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

Originally Posted by BibleGuy

7. You wrote: “Obeying every commandment that applies to you 100% of the time? That is the standard that Jesus sets forth, yes?”

My response: You now agree Jesus taught us to obey all applicable and properly observable Torah? Good!

​

Jesus preached the Law to those born under the Law. He preached the spirituality of the Law, burying people in the impossibility of actually keeping the Law 100%, 100% of the time. Jesus ties up His treatise on the true requirements of the Law by saying this:

48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (from Mt. 5)
​

​

Christ isn't saying 'Try your best', or 'Be blameless outwardly according to the commandments, being observant' - NO. He's saying that you must measure up to the standard of PERFECTION, inside and out, even as GOD is PERFECT. His point is that the acceptable standard is not achievable by human flesh. If you believe it is, then you have believed the same Big Lie that Eve believed in the Garden:

5 “For God knows that when you eat [from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil] from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (from Gen. 3)​

Ironically, most Torah folk will ask the question, "How will we know what sin is apart from the Law?" And they seek the knowledge of good and evil, just as Eve did, thinking that through the Law they can be perfect as God is perfect.

Choose Jesus. Choose the Tree of Life.

Originally Posted by BibleGuy

8. You wrote: “Tell us, how were the recent festivities in Jerusalem this past April? I hear it's lovely there this time of year! Did you bring your sacrifice to Jerusalem?”

My response: Why presuppose Levitical/sacrificial/ceremonial Torah is presently observable during this present diaspora?

Have you not read that ALL Torah commands will be observed only AFTER we again return to the land? (Dt. 30:1-8).

Thus we first return to YHVH in obedience to Torah commands (Dt. 30:2), then we return to the land (Dt. 30:5), and THEN we can again fully obey 100% of Torah.

So, obey all Torah that you can right now! Prepare to obey ALL Torah in the future! (Just as Moses prophesied.)
​

What's stopping you and others of like mind? Get that Temple up and running! The Temple Institute is already in process - why are you not there working with them?

If you have to return to the land - why aren't you there? I know enough Law 'keepers' to know a good number of them have already relocated there, or to a nearby country (to be there when the 'action' starts).

I assume you claim to observe Sabbaths and Feast Days? Observe New Moons? Follow dietary, clothing, and hygiene laws? Wear your tzitzit and follow facial hair regulations?

Do you go to Jerusalem for the required Feast days? There may not be a Temple and Levitical priesthood up and running, but that's not your deal - your deal is to obey as much of the Law as you possibly can, right? Israel brought their sacrifices to Jerusalem . . . you can certainly do the same!

There is a family I know of (and they were joined by others) whose male head (husband/father) goes to Jerusalem every year for the appointed times, and every seven years the whole family goes, as commanded. The wife/mom was very pregnant for one of those trips and actually gave birth in a tent on a rooftop in Jerusalem.

Come on . . . where's your commitment? You're here telling others to "obey all Torah that you can right now! Prepare to obey ALL Torah in the future!", yet you're not doing all you can to obey Torah yourself?

Here's the thing: If you were really serious about fully obeying Torah, you would not be anywhere else but in 'the land'.

Yours is a classic case of not practicing what you preach.

Originally Posted by BibleGuy

9. You wrote: “If Torah Law is still in force, there must be an active Levitial Priesthood through whom you can present your sacrifices and offerings to God, yes? It's not like Levites can't be located today…”

My response: No…Moses said we will return to obey Torah (Dt. 30:2), but not ALL Torah (Dt. 30:8) until after we return to the LAND (Dt. 30:5).

Let’s get that order really clear in our minds.

And we both know that there is no functioning tabernacle, presently, in Jerusalem…so we both know that Levitical/sacrificial/ceremonial Torah is not presently observed/observable.

But that’s no excuse to oppose the abundance of Scriptures which confirm the forthcoming restoration of this Levitical Torah.

And, that’s no excuse to NOT obey Torah portions which ARE presently observable!
​

So, GO! Return! Get it together, man!

Help get that Temple up and ready to roll! I have the order clear in my mind - the solution seems obvious to me!

And let's be clear: You're NOT obeying the Torah portions that are presently observable - you're obeying a watered-down law of your own creation.

-JGIG

 

[BibleGuy]

Wow JGIG!

I love you!

Thanks for taking this seriously. I'm glad you're trying to explain your viewpoint to us.

This is surely a HIGH-PRIORITY issue, learning WHO we are (Israel!) and HOW we should live as Christians (Torah!), just as commanded by the Father, Son, Spirit, Pentateuch, Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Apostles, Epistles, even Revelation.

After all, most of us Christians do not even know this...yet!

Of course we are saved by grace through faith (not works), but we Christians (being Israelites) participate in the Torah-laden covenants between YHVH and Israel, AND we should grow in faithful obedience to the Torah of those covenants in which we participate.

So thanks for answering so much in detail! It really helps me understand where you're coming from.

Now, you requested smaller posts...

So maybe that's better....even though I'm still waiting for MANY answers from you...

Looks like just one little point at a time...one step at a time...might be better for us, in this case.

OK...

And if you continue to show diligent effort to persevere in your doctrine, AND if you do not significantly manifest the IRTL syndrome (IRTL: http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/136719-house-cornelius-law-7.html#post2638964), then I will be glad to patiently show, one little step at a time, how my position is justified (despite the criticism you've sought to bring against it, with good intentions I trust).

NOW....this thread could benefit from some organization. How about we invent a PERMANENT NAME for each issue we raise?

That way we can easily scan through the thread and identify the content of our exchanges pertinent to that issue?



I NOW ENTER ISSUE #rhema

Let's take a look at your "rhema" argument.

It seems pretty clear that you think that the Greek term "rhema" does NOT refer to Torah. Right?

However, "rhema" in Dt. 8:3 (LXX) clearly refers to Torah.

Likewise, "rhema" in Dt. 30:14 (LXX) clearly refers to Torah.

So, can we now agree that you are WRONG in claiming that "rhema" does not refer to Torah?

blessings...
BibleGuy

 

[blue_ladybug]

In reference to knowing how we should live as christians, we refer to the BIBLE, not the torah. The torah is NOT the bible, nor is it even the Word of God.. Just saying..

 

[Grace777x70]

Ooooh, I like that, thanks!

Christ in me, the hope of glory!

-JGIG

Yes....this gives a whole new meaning to "The lion shall lie down with the lamb"

 

[JGIG]

.

Originally Posted by BibleGuy

10. You wrote: “Again, you err in assigning 'Torah' where a living expression of God's Word is defined:

​

4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” (from Mt. 4)

The Greek for 'word' in that verse is G4487 - rhēma, which is the living voice, or word, of God, not the Torah, or 'graphe' of God, which is part of the written Scriptures (see above).”
​

My response: You are wrong. The term “rhema” is straight out of Dt. 8:3 (which Jesus was quoting!). Read it in the LXX, and you’ll see! The LXX uses “rhema” (Dt. 8:3) to refer to that which comes from YHVH’s mouth. This is TORAH!
​

Oh, the joy of tracing the language and finding that it indeed does uphold the Gospel!

Let's get this straight: You're going to the LXX (the Septuigint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT) to define a Hebrew word, and claiming that it means Torah?

Okay . . . UM, NO, it does not mean Torah. Let's go back to the Hebrew for Deut. 8:3 to see if Torah (H8451 -towrah) is the language that is used:

3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word [ H4161 - mowtsa'] that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. (from Deut. 8)​

H4161 - mowtsa'​

1. act or place of going out or forth, issue, export, source, spring
   1. a going forth
      1. rising (sun), going forth of a command
      2. goings forth, those going forth
      3. way out, exit
   2. that which goes forth
      1. utterance
      2. export
   3. place of going forth
      1. source or spring (of water)
      2. place of departure
      3. east (of sun)
      4. mine (of silver)

I see that 'towrah' is not the word used in the Hebrew, and since Jesus was quoting Deut. 8:3, He wasn't meaning Torah, either, and that's why the writer (Matthew, who does use the Greek 'nomos' when referring to Torah) used 'rhema' instead of 'nomos'.

Jesus was NOT referring to the Law, and neither was Moses.

Two other interesting observations:

• Moses was, in Deut. 8:3, referring to a time before the Law was given - God Himself was the source of their sustenance, which becomes more profound when you look at the definition for 'mowsta' above, and
• In that definition, 'source' and 'spring' leap out at me and remind me of this Scripture:

​

13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” (from Jn. 4)
​

Originally Posted by BibleGuy

And, there is nothing in Jn. 5:39 that says that “rhema” cannot be used to refer to Torah.

Yikes!

Please correct your error.

Jesus quotes Dt. 8:3 (Mt. 4:4) referring to TORAH…this is how we LIVE, according to Jesus.

Why would you oppose the Torah by which Jesus said we live?
​

Your assertion is disconfirmed by the evidence above.

Please correct your error.

-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

I NOW ENTER ISSUE #rhema

Let's take a look at your "rhema" argument.

It seems pretty clear that you think that the Greek term "rhema" does NOT refer to Torah. Right?

However, "rhema" in Dt. 8:3 (LXX) clearly refers to Torah.

Likewise, "rhema" in Dt. 30:14 (LXX) clearly refers to Torah.

So, can we now agree that you are WRONG in claiming that "rhema" does not refer to Torah?

blessings...
BibleGuy

Dealt with in the post directly above this one .

God's timing is so cool.

-JGIG