ARCHIVE: Will You Be Celebrating Christmas?

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston

I use the KJV for reading and cross-referencing. I use the Textus Receptus, UBS3, and various Byzantine family texts for New Testament study. And I depend heavily on Hebrew reference aids for Old Testament study.

:up:

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Knight
The rules are... there are no rules!

So the word "dispensation" is meaningless? All of Christ's commands through Paul are empty? Christ's ordinances through Paul are pointless?

Originally posted by Knight
Those in the Body are sealed until the day of redemption.

Of course. Does that mean we don't have to care about Christ's commands, ordinances or laws? Please explain how being sealed equates to lawlessness?

Originally posted by Knight
And that's it!

No rules... not a single one!

Here's one:

Php 3:16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. 17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

How can you tell who walks according to this rule? How do you mark those who follow Paul's example if you don't see their obedience to the rules?

Paul continues: 18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

How do you know who the enemies of the stavros are unless you see them disobeying the rules? Your thesis is self-refuting, Knight. Your claims are contrary to the very language Paul uses throughout his epistles. I've given you example after example. I've taken time to look these up, to focus on specific questions, to provide some analyses to help demonstrate the point. But all I get from you is generalized statement that is patently contradicted by your own posts and the piles of scripture that have been provided.

Originally posted by Knight
In the dispensation of uncircumcision all you need to do is turn your life over to Christ. With a pure heart accept that His work on the cross is payment for your sin... your past sin... your present sin and your future sin. And if you do this Christ will not forsake you....ever!

Whoever said otherwise? Do you think I want to live righteously in order to have my sins forgiven? Do you think my desire to live according to the rules is to have my sins paid for? Do you forget that I'm a proponent of particular redemption? I don't abstain from Christmas because any of those reasons. I abstain because Paul commands us to eschew religious holidays, ritual, ceremony and symbolism. That by doing so, I will abound more and more as I walk according to Paul's rule of how to please God.

1Th 4:1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.

The grace of God teaches us to live righteously and godly, not for salvation, not to work off our own sin, not to earn the payment of our sin, but to obey Him and to please Him.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

 

[Frank Ernest]

Tit 2:9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;
Tit 2:10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.
Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
Tit 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Live a godly and righteous life. Ok by me. I don't see what this has to do with religious holidays.

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by Hilston

I'm simply talking about usage, Stone. It doesn't matter whether or not the LXX gave an accurate translation or not. What matters is how the translators understood the word. I take a sola scriptura approach to Bible interpretation, which means that the Holy Spirit, via regeneration, drives the believer to seek out the original intent of the author/Author by getting inside the head of the original audience. Sometimes studying extrabiblical word usage helps me get closer to that end.

If you're hung up on the "A" word, then let's call it a miscarriage.

Yes. 1Co 15:8. Paul is utterly unique in that regard. He was given direct revelation from the risen Christ regarding the Mystery, that which was held in silence from the foundation of the world. He was given this gospel amid the apostolic period of post-Messianic Israel. Paul is expressing the tension that exists between his gospel and Israel's because of the overlap, because he was, in a sense, born too early for there to be a clean delineation.

It's seems you're so desperate to deny this that you just refuse to accept a unique word about a unique person used in a unique context. Fine. Let's go with your phrase "better if I were aborted." If you don't like the "A" word, let's use "better if I were miscarried." The Paul's point is no less clear or emphatic.

Let's use your interpretation and consider it. Paul uses the phrase "eschaton de panton", i.e. last of all. Please consider the following paragraph and whether or not you agree with the way I've summarized the context:

The context states that Paul declares the same gospel via epistle that he preached to them in person (v. 1). Paul describes the content of the resurrection message he delivered to them (vv. 3-4). Then he begins to describe those to whom Christ appeared: "seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ... seen of 500+ brethen simultaneously ... seen of James ... then of all the sent-ones (vv. 5-7) ... and last of all Jesus appeared as one "cut off or persecuted."

Please tell me if you agree with this summary. If you do not, please modify it so I have an accurate grasp of your claim concerning this passage.

Christ says we are to be of the same mind. That doesn't mean to be clones of one another. It means to agree in doctrine. My view is supported by scripture, contextually, logically, exegetically. Yours is not. It's not "OK" to disagree concerning matters of biblical doctrine.

Your statement was naive. To remind you, you said:

"I would say all "isms" including dispensational'ism' bring fumbling. The scripture is not to be interpreted by systems and 'isms' but only in the Spirit, and by the Spirit."

There is no way to make coherent sense of anything without a system of understanding. When you're challenged to defend your interpretation, do you just say, "the Holy Spirit told me this was the interpretation"? You MUST have a system and you must be forthright concerning it, else your doctrine will be suspect at best and dismissed at worst. Besides, your anti-"ism" is just another "ism," Stone. The scriptures instruct us to be systematic about our approach to its proper understanding. For you to decry "isms" is tantamount to dismissing language as a "fumbling" point.

GASP! Is THAT what I'm doing? Holy cow! I thought my beliefs were based on scripture! Now you tell me they're invented! What will I do? Where will I go? Who can help me?

The New Covenant belongs to Israel, not to the Body of Christ. See Jer 31:31-34. Christ-via-Paul states this unequivocally in Ro 9:4,5:

"Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

Christ-via-Paul reiterates this distinction, describing their pre-conversion alienation in Eph 2:12

"That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:"

But does Christ-via-Paul say the members of the Body of Christ are now part of that "new covenant," having received Christ? No. Christ-via-Paul says that the sacrifice of Christ blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was contrary to the Body of Christ (Col 2:14). That is not true of elect Israel. Christ says through Paul that the Body of Christ was brought near by Christ having abolished the law of commandments in ordinances (Eph 2:13,14). This is not true of elect Israel. The law of commandments in ordinances stand for elect Israel, past and future. Jeremiah stated this when he described the new covenant:

Jer 31:33 "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

The purpose of law is always the same, whether we're talking about the Laws of Noah or the Laws of Moses or the Laws of Paul. They are a schoolmaster that lead us to Christ. But the content of those laws differ. That's the point of the word "oikonomia".

Jesus' earthly teaching was the Law of Moses. "Everything whatsoever I have commanded you" includes every jot and tittle of the Mosaic law, including circumcision, blood sacrifices, spice tithes, water baptism, festal observances, religious ceremony, symbolism and holidays. The heavenly teaching of the risen/glorified Jesus through Paul to the Body of Christ is not the Law of Moses. That is why Paul says to follow Christ as he follows Christ, not as Peter and the Eleven followed Christ. Not as Cornelius and the proselytes of the Gate followed Christ.

Read the study I linked to and expose its flaws. I've only mentioned this passage once, so only someone desperate to dismiss my view would so fatuously think that my belief "hinges" on a single verse of scripture.

For all dispensations, the goal is to spread their respective gospels as far and as wide as possible. For you to distinguish between Peter and Paul on the basis of "scope of mission" doesn't even come close to explaining the multifarious contradictions in their messages.

Peter isn't even part of the Body of Christ. He is an apostle and judge of elect Israel. I don't know where you're getting your information, Stone, but it isn't the scriptures. Peter will sit on one of twelves thrones in the Holy City governing the kingdom of Israel. The Body of Christ will be seated in the heavenlies with Christ governing the angelic realm as they minister to the nation of Israel. You can't be in two places at once, Stone.

That's false. Where do you get this from? If I say something is false, you prove otherwise. If I question where you got something, produce the source, whether it be scripture or otherwise, or else go away. There is no use for obfuscation or obscurantism in this discussion.

There are a point-for-point comparisons available here: The "Invention" From Which Stone Will Rescue Hilston.

Here is a handy chart that might be helpful as well:
Summary of Hopes

In the meantime, consider this: If you fail to legitimately and rationally conflate Christ's message through Peter with Christ's message through Paul, then you must face the indictment that your observances of religious ceremony, sacrament, ritual, symbolism and holidays are in grave violation of the gospel that Christ died to secure for His Body.

Hilston,

Being of the same mind: Re: not OK to disagree.
Considering the content of your post your inclination seems to be to sarcasm and cynicism. This has no place in the Body of Christ. Can we be of the same mind on that? Now you are being unreasonable considering your position is weak in context, and I have not enough evidence (currently) to adequately support my suggestion. Your adamant position that abortion or miscarriage makes sense here contextually is unconvincing as you have presented it. Believers are to be of the same mind, and that “same mind” should currently be that the passage is obscure. I would be glad to discuss it again and hope for us to eventually clarify it with more evidence. I am currently concerned with what I consider a more pressing matter, your disregarding of Jesus’ teachings.
I have no interest in arguing or with you, but discussion is welcome. This is a discussion, I have no intentions of refuting papers or critiquing websites. We are to know the truth; make your points, but be open to the Holy Spirit, as will I.

I will get back to you on your other points as soon as time permits.

 

[Hilston]

Frank Ernest writes:
Live a godly and righteous life. Ok by me. I don't see what this has to do with religious holidays.

Here's the algorithm:

Obedience to the teachings of grace = godly & righteous
Disobedience to the teachings of grace = ungodly & unrighteous

Paul teaches that Christ died to remove angelic authority and to seat the Body of Christ above the angelic realm. He explains that the observance of religious holidays is subjugation to angels, and declares it forbidden for the Body of Christ.

If you observe religious holidays, you are manifesting a repudiation of the Headship of Christ (Col 2:18,19).

 

[Hilston]

Stone writes:
Being of the same mind: Re: not OK to disagree.
Considering the content of your post your inclination seems to be to sarcasm and cynicism.

You're wrong. It's neither. What you call "sarcasm and cynicism" is annoyance at sloppy scholarship. I shouldn't have to argue with you about whether or not the word ektroma occurs in Job and Ecclesiastes. It's a waste of my time. The word is there, Stone, plain as day. And when I show you, there's no acknowledgement. Not even a "thank you." You speak as if we're in this together, having a "discussion." Well, in a discussion, people will acknowledge their faux pas and recant a false statement or explain themselves or something. You just ignore. I bend over backwards to accommodate your sensibilities about the term, I even use your preferred wording and include your preferred nuances, yet you continue to resist the force of the passage without any linguistic or biblical warrant whatsoever. You're argumentative and you're hostile, Stone. So don't preach at me about having a "discussion" and what is becoming of the Body of Christ when your behavior is marked by a dismissive resistance to the claims that are presented to you.

Stone writes:
This has no place in the Body of Christ. Can we be of the same mind on that?

If it were true. It's not. There is a place and a time for sarcasm and cynicism in the Body of Christ. Paul's uses both. "All men are liars" Those are Paul's words, and that is cynicism. Shall I continue, or is the point clear?

Stone writes:
Now you are being unreasonable considering your position is weak in context, ...

Whaaaaaat???? Did you EVEN READ THIS?:

Let's use your interpretation and consider it. Paul uses the phrase "eschaton de panton", i.e. last of all. Please consider the following paragraph and whether or not you agree with the way I've summarized the context:

The context states that Paul declares the same gospel via epistle that he preached to them in person (v. 1). Paul describes the content of the resurrection message he delivered to them (vv. 3-4). Then he begins to describe those to whom Christ appeared: "seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ... seen of 500+ brethen simultaneously ... seen of James ... then of all the sent-ones (vv. 5-7) ... and last of all Jesus appeared as one "cut off or persecuted."

Please tell me if you agree with this summary. If you do not, please modify it so I have an accurate grasp of your claim concerning this passage.

Compare this to my view:
The context states that Paul declares the same gospel via epistle that he preached to them in person (v. 1). Paul describes the content of the resurrection message he delivered to them (vv. 3-4). Then he begins to describe those to whom Christ appeared: "seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ... seen of 500+ brethen simultaneously ... seen of James ... then of all the sent-ones (vv. 5-7) ... and last of all Jesus appeared to Paul, as one born too early (miscarried, aborted).

That is called CONTEXT, Stone. I have bent over backwards to accommodate and to consider your protests and they just. Don't. Work.

Stone writes:
... and I have not enough evidence (currently) to adequately support my suggestion.

But you have faith that the evidence is forthcoming? Why do you persist in the absence of evidence? Why do you persist in the face of glaring contextual problems presented by your view? Why do you persist about a word that doesn't matter either way according to your view?

Stone writes:
Your adamant position that abortion or miscarriage makes sense here contextually is unconvincing as you have presented it.

Oooooo kay. Thanks for sharing.

Stone writes:
Believers are to be of the same mind, and that “same mind” should currently be that the passage is obscure.

Then you obviously have a low view of God's word. His word is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever obscure.
Ever.
Nev. Er.
Ev. Er.
N'er, e'er.
N.E.V.E.R. E.V.E.R.: Never ever.

Stone writes:
I would be glad to discuss it again and hope for us to eventually clarify it with more evidence. I am currently concerned with what I consider a more pressing matter, your disregarding of Jesus’ teachings.

How many times must I say this, and how many times will you ignore it? Paul's teachings ARE Jesus' teachings. The POINT is, Moses'/Peter's distinctively Jewish teachings were given to them by the earthly Messiah of the Kingdom of Israel. Paul's distinctively non-Jewish teachings were given to him by the risen/glorified Head of the Body. Their teachings differ in content, purpose, design, AND transmission, but are no less the Lord's teachings in each case.

Stone writes:
This is a discussion, I have no intentions of refuting papers or critiquing websites.

If you're interested in understanding my position, you will either have to ask more specific questions, or read the links. You asked for point-for-point comparisons and scripture. They are available at the links I've provided. I will not re-invent the wheel for you when all the detail you need is readily available. I am more than willing to have a discussion with earnest, intelligent and honorable people. Please respect the debate. Do your best. Don't be lazy. Don't be sloppy. Please don't waste my time, Stone.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston

So the word "dispensation" is meaningless?

Meaningless?? Of course not! Our house rules are that there are no "works" to accompany our faith. I am not sure how you could get meaningless out of that.

You continue...

All of Christ's commands through Paul are empty? Christ's ordinances through Paul are pointless?

Pointless?, Empty? Again let's not overstate and dramaticize (is that a word?) our case OK?

Of course. Does that mean we don't have to care about Christ's commands, ordinances or laws? Please explain how being sealed equates to lawlessness?

If one accept's Christ and His work on the cross then God recognizes that individual as one of the Body and seal's that person with the Holy Spirit. This "sealing" makes one dead to sin and therefore there is no law they can break which would cause God to "unseal" them.

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

You reference.....

Php 3:16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. 17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

Paul often speaks of the rewards that we will attain in heaven if we allow the Holy Spirit to work through us producing good fruit.

Read the verse in context and you will see what I mean...

Philippians 3:7 But what things (these "things" were works) were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. (Paul has now established works are NOT a part of his salvation) 12 Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. 13 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, 14 I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. (Thsi goal isn't salvation but yet a crown or reward for producing good fruit) 15 Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. 16 Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind. (Paul is simply stating that we should all allow Christ to produce good fruit in us) 17 Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern. 18 For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame — who set their mind on earthly things. 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself. (Can it get more clear than that? It is Jesus working in us - if we let Him - to produce good fruit NOT us working to add to what He has done.)

You continue...

How can you tell who walks according to this rule? How do you mark those who follow Paul's example if you don't see their obedience to the rules?

It isn't up to me to "mark" anyone, that's God's job. All we can do is make educated judgments based on men's actions. Furthermore... whether we are right or wrong about a man's standing with God is somewhat irrelevant (in that they either are or are not saved) which is why I give most folks the benefit of the doubt and just assume they are not saved.

You continue...

The grace of God teaches us to live righteously and godly, not for salvation, not to work off our own sin, not to earn the payment of our sin, but to obey Him and to please Him.

OK... so what happens when you don't please Him?

 

[STONE]

Hilston,
You were being sarcastic and cynical; your post couldn't have been tyaken in any other way... be honest. Maybe you didn't re-read your post.
Sarcasm and cynicism have no place in the Body of Christ. Pray for faith, hope, and charity to defend against cynicism; and of sarcasm remember "let you yes be yes and your no be no" and "Entirely out of place is obscene, silly, and vulgar talk; but instead, let there be thanksgiving."

Re:Ektroma : Yes this is what I am suggesting as an alternative to "an abortion"
"seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ... seen of 500+ brethen simultaneously ... seen of James ... then of all the sent-ones (vv. 5-7) ... and last of all Jesus appeared to Paul, as one "cut off or persecuted."

Here are some possibilities. I am still verifying them when I have time, so I am not presenting these as complete or valid.
Here are some definitions/ possible alternatives:

33. "Ektromati," a word which has the meaning of an "untimely birth" or a "miscarriage," but was also sometimes used with the force of a "monster" or "horrible thing." See Bauer, Lexicon, "ektroma", 246.

Bauer, W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, tr. and ed. from Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der ubrigen Literatur, 4th ed, 1949-52. Tr. W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1957.

1626 ektromati { ek’-tro-mah}

from a comparative of 1537 and titrosko (to wound); TDNT - 2:465,220; n n

AV - born out of due time 1; 1

GK - 1765 { e[ktrwma }

1) an abortion, abortive birth
2) an untimely birth


1537 ek { ek} or ex { ex}

a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative;; prep

AV - of 367, from 181, out of 162, by 55, on 34, with 25, misc 97; 921

GK - 1666 { ejk }

GK - together with 4053 1735 { ejkperissw`" }

GK - together with 5455 1771 { ejkfwnevw }

1) out of, from, by, away from

Tromati: (affright) [efrAit] ïõó. ôñüìáãìá # öüâïò

Titrosko: (inflict) [infLIkt] ñ. ôéôñþóêù, ðëÞôôù, êáôáöÝñù (ðëÞãìá): he who inflicts the wound shall provide the cure! ï ôñþóáò êáé éÜóåôáé! # åðéâÜëëù: inflict a penalty onpon../e /gåðéâÜëëù ðïéíÞ óå../g /##/# /xðñïêáëþ/x, /xãßíïìáé ðñüîåíïò/x, /xðñïîåíþ/x: /einflict pain/e /gðñïîåíþ ðüíï/g /##/# /kÖÑ/k. /einflict defeat onpon.. êáôáôñïðþíù ôïí.. § inflict oneself on.. Ýñ÷ïìáé/ìðáßíù ìðÜóôáêáò óå.. , åðéâÜëëù ôçí áíåðéèýìçôç ðáñïõóßá ìïõ óå.. § inflict punishment onpon../e /gôéìùñþ ôïí../g /#§/# /einflict sufferings onpon.. åðéóóùñåýù äåéíÜ åðß/óå..

EKTROMA:---

aberrance [ebErens] ïõó. ðáñÝêêëéóç, áðüêëéóç, åêôñïðÞ: perversion or aberrance of a natural function äéáóôñïöÞ Þ ðáñÝêêëéóç öõóéêÞò ëåéôïõñãßáò

aberration [eberEishn] ïõó. ðáñÝêêëéóç, áðüêëéóç, åêôñïðÞ: chromatic aberration ÷ñùìáôéêÞ áðüêëéóç Þ åêôñïðÞ # äéáôáñá÷Þ: mental aberration äéáíïçôéêÞ äéáôáñá÷Þ # áíùìáëßá, äéáóôñïöÞ: sexual aberration óåîïõáëéêÞ äéáóôñïöÞ # áóôñïí. áðïðëÜíçóç # âéïë. äéáìáñôõñßá ðåñß ôçí äéÜðëáóéí

deflection [difLEkshn] ïõó. (âáèìüò óôïí ïðïßï ðáñáôçñåßôáé) åêôñïðÞ, ðáñÝêêëéóç Þ áðüêëéóç: angle of deflection ãùíßá åêôñïðÞò § constant deflection óôáèåñÞ áðüêëéóç

departure [dipAartsher] ïõó. áíá÷þñçóç, åêêßíçóç, îåêßíçìá: immediate departure Üìåóç áíá÷þñçóç § arrivals and departures áößîåéò êáé áíá÷ùñÞóåéò § point of departure óçìåßï åêêßíçóçò, áöåôçñßá § new departure íÝï îåêßíçìá # ðáñÝêêëéóç, åêôñïðÞ, êí. îåóôñÜôéóìá: departure from the general rule ðáñÝêêëéóç áðü ôï ãåíéêü êáíüíá # ÖÑ. take one's departure áíá÷ùñþ

deviation [diiviEishn] ïõó. (ùò öáéíüìåíï Þ êáôÜóôáóç) ðáñÝêêëéóç, áðüêëéóç, åêôñïðÞ: deviations of aircraft from their routes are dangerous ïé ðáñåêêëßóåéò áåñïóêáöþí áðü ôçí ðïñåßá ôïõò åßíáé åðéêßíäõíåò # (ðáèïëïãéêÞ) äéáóôñïöÞ: sexual deviation óåîïõáëéêÞ äéáóôñïöÞ # (éäåïëïãéêÞ) ðáñÝêêëéóç, ðáñÝêêëéóç áðü ôéò (éäåïëïãéêÝò) áñ÷Ýò: he resigned from the party when he was accused of deviation ðáñáéôÞèçêå áðü ôï êüììá üôáí êáôçãïñÞèçêå ãéá ðáñÝêêëéóç
deviation áðüêëéóç.

divergence [daivErdzhens] ïõó. áðüêëéóç: angle of divergence ãùíßá áðüêëéóçò # ðáñÝêêëéóç, åêôñïðÞ: divergence from type åêôñïðÞ åê ôïõ ôýðïõ # äéÜóôáóç, áíôßèåóç, äéáöùíßá: divergence of views äéÜóôáóç áðüøåùí
divergence áðüêëéóç.

diversion [daivErshn] ïõó. (ðáñÝìâáóç ìå ôçí ïðïßá åðéôõã÷Üíåôáé) åêôñïðÞ: diversion of a river åêôñïðÞ ðïôáìïý # (äéï÷Ýôåõóç ôçò êõêëïöïñßáò ï÷çìÜôùí óå ðñïóùñéíÞ) ðáñÜêáìøç: diversion sign ðéíáêßäá ðáñÜêáìøçò # (ìÝóá ðïõ åðéôñÝðïõí) äéáóêÝäáóç Þ øõ÷áãùãßá: popular diversion ðñïóöéëÞò äéáóêÝäáóç § indoor diversion øõ÷áãùãßá êëåéóôïý ÷þñïõ # óôñáô. áíôéðåñéóðáóìüò: create a diversion äçìéïõñãþ áíôéðåñéóðáóìü # ìôö. ðáñáðëáíçôéêüò åëéãìüò

driftage [drIftidzh] ïõó. ðáñÝêêëéóç, Ýêðôùóç, åêôñïðÞ, ðáñïëßóèçóç # åêâñÜóìáôá êõìÜôùí, îåâñÜóìáôá (áêôÞò)

lapse [LAps] ïõó. ìéêñïóöÜëìá, ðáñÜðôùìá, "ïëßóèçìá": lapse of the tongue öñáóôéêü ïëßóèçìá § she forgives his lapses ôïõ óõã÷ùñåß ôá ðáñáðôþìáôÜ ôïõ # äéÜëåéøç: lapse of memory äéÜëåéøç ìíÞìçò # ðáñÝêêëéóç, åêôñïðÞ: lapse from duty ðáñÝêêëéóç áðü ôï êáèÞêïí # áðñÝðåéá, áôüðçìá # ýöåóç, ðôþóç (èåñìïêñáóßáò êôë.): lapse rate âáèìßäá õøïìåôñéêÞò ðôþóçò èåñìïêñáóßáò # ðáñÝëåõóç, ðÜñïäïò, ðÝñáóìá (÷ñüíïõ): after a lapse of.. ìåôÜ áðü ðáñÝëåõóç.. # íïì. ðáñáãñáöÞ äéêáéþìáôïò ëüãù ìç áíáíåþóåùò Þ áóêÞóåþò ôïõ

lapse [LAps] ñ. åêôñÝðïìáé, åêðßðôù, êí. îåðÝöôù, êõëþ ÷áìçëÜ: he lapsed back to his old habits îáíáêýëçóå óôéò ðáëéÝò ôïõ óõíÞèåéåò # (ãéá ÷ñüíï) ðáñÝñ÷ïìáé, äéáâáßíù, ðåñíþ: the time lapsed without.. ï ÷ñüíïò ðåñíïýóå ÷ùñßò.. # âõèßæïìáé, ðåñéðßðôù Þ êáôïëéóèáßíù âáèìéáßá: he lapsed into a coma Ýðåóå óå êþìá # íïì. (ãéá äéêáßùìá Þ ðñïíüìéï) ðáñáãñÜöïìáé ëüãù ìç Üóêçóçò Þ áíáíÝùóçò: as my insurance policy had lapsed, I received no compensation åðåéäÞ ôï áóöáëéóôÞñéï óõìâüëáéü ìïõ äåí åß÷å áíáíåùèåß, äåí ðÞñá áðïæçìßùóç

miscarriage [miskAridzh] ïõó. áðïâïëÞ (Ýìâñõïõ) (åî)Üìâëùóç: his wife suffered a miscarriage ç ãõíáßêá ôïõ áðÝâáëå # áíåðéôõ÷Þò Þ åóöáëìÝíç äéá÷åßñéóç Þ äéáêßíçóç, "åêôñïðÞ": there were many complaints for miscarriage of letters õðÞñîáí ðïëëÜ ðáñÜðïíá ãéá åóöáëìÝíç äéáêßíçóç åðéóôïëþí # áðïôõ÷ßá, êÜæï, öéÜóêï, "íáõÜãéï": miscarriage of a plan áðïôõ÷ßá ó÷åäßïõ # ÖÑ. miscarriage of justice íïì. êáêïäéêßá

Will post more later.

 

[Hilston]

Stone writes:
Will post more later.

I can't wait.

(That's called irony, by the way. Irony is used in the Body of Christ by Paul. So is sarcasm -- which is defined as irony combined with insult. So is cynicism. I gave you an example. Instead of attempting to refute my point, you simply ignore it so you can proceed with your baseless accusations. Question: Can you admit that you were mistaken about the occurrences of ektroma in Job and Ecclesiastes?)

 

[STONE]

Hilston,
I am unsure of what I was mistaken. Was I mistaken in saying the words in Job and Ecclesiastes mean miscarriage or abortion, though in hebrew? Or that the term miscarriage/abortion is in the bible aside from the proposed ektroma in 1Cor?
Was I unclear? Maybe I don't understand your point.
Let me know and sure, I will admit a mistake if shown to me that I cannot or should not defend.

 

[Clete]

Jim,

When I sat down to respond to some of the things you've said in response to my recent posts that I haven't already responded to, I have to admit that I got very discouraged. I feel like we are speaking two different languages. Some of the things I expect you will agree with, you don't, and some of the things that seem to me to contradict your position, you respond to with, "Of course, who ever said otherwise?".
So what I would like to do with this post is to step back and reset; to start again by presenting my position on this issue as clearly as I know how and see whether or not you take issue with any of it, and if not, how you reconcile what I have to say with a law against the celebration of Christmas (or any other law for that matter).
Now, up to this point, my attempts to communicate these ideas have fallen short of my expectations and so rather than attempting again to put these ideas into my own words, I will quote directly, and at some length, from what is probably the most important piece of literature that you could put into your hands aside from the Bible itself....

From The Complete Green Letters by Miles J. Stanford

Chapter 33
"Out-Law"

If a Christian is under law as a "rule of life", he is laboring in a doleful, gray, alien land of self-righteousness - he struggles to produce. The believer who learns to walk in the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has the joy of the Lord for His strength - he rests to receive.

Instead of our Father demanding from us according to the law, by grace He ministers to us from the One who is our life in glory. "And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work" (2 Cor. 9:8).

The Law and the New Nature
Our new nature is that of the risen life of the Lord Jesus Christ. The purpose of the law being to reveal sin and condemn the sinner, it has nothing to say to the new man in Christ Jesus. "For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace" (Rom. 6:14).

(1) As each of us was separated from the Adam-life by means of the Cross and the tomb, we were delivered from the realm of law. We rose from the tomb into newness of life - out of the grip of law into the freedom of His resurrection. Now we are discharged from the law and have terminated all intercourse with it, having died to what once restrained and held us captive. So now we serve not under [obedience to] the old code of written regulations, but [under the obedience of the promptings] of the Spirit in newness [of life]" (Rom. 7:6, Amplified).

(2) Law has to do with works - the works of the flesh. The new creation has to do with life - the life of the Son. Abiding in Him, our nature will grow and manifest the fruit of the Spirit. "You have undergone death as to the Law through the [crucified] body of Christ, so that now you may belong to Another, to Him Who was raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God" (Rom. 7:4, Amplified)

The Christian and the New Nature
Our Lord Jesus Christ, seated at the Father's right hand in glory, is not under law of any kind. His life is subject neither to commands nor to the principle of law. It is holy by nature. We, having been born into Him, now share His life. "For to me to live is Christ..."(Phil. 1:21).

(1) The wages of sin being death, the law by the execution of the death penalty exhausted its rights over the man in Adam. Having died to the law in Christ, the law no longer has any claim on the believer. He is now free from its reign. "When the commandment came, sin lived again, and I died - was sentenced by the law to death." "For through the law I died to the law, that I might live to God" (Rom. 7:9, Amplified; Gal. 2:19, NASB).

(2) Being in Christ Jesus, the believer no longer has need for the law as a governing principle - he can now live by nature, effortlessly and naturally. "We are debtors, but not to the flesh - we are not obligated to our carnal nature - to live [a life ruled by the standards set up by the dictates] of the flesh" (Rom. 8:12, Amplified).

(3) When the believer sees his deliverance from the old, he can begin to walk in the freedom of the new. " Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty as an occasion to the flesh..." (2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 5:13)

Walking in Liberty
Some of the positive results are the following:

(1) Even when there is failure, the abiding believer learns from it and gains thereby. He knows that his Father is working all things together for his good, to conform him to the image of His Son (Rom. 8:28,29). His reliance is neither on the law nor the flesh, but on the Holy Spirit, "that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Rom. 8:4)

(2) Instead of struggle to keep from sinning, and self-effort to progress spiritually, he rests in Christ - the ground of growth. The Word of God is his daily sustenance; he feeds on it in reliance on its Author, the Spirit of Truth.

(3) Prayer is his cherished fellowship with the Father; he depends on the Spirit for this most vital aspect of his life. "The Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groaning which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the heart knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God" (Rom. 8:26, 27).

(4) Having learned to hate the old life, he willingly judges himself. He confesses his sins fully and without fear because he loves and trusts his Advocate and Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ.

(5) In his growth he is more and more free from the influence of indwelling sin and the old life, the law, and the surrounding world. He is at rest concerning himself, but burdened for others. His service is from the heart and in the Spirit - a sharing of life. He does not have to resort to human methods and fleshly means to win others and help them grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus. He allows the Holy Spirit to control and work through him by means of life - the life of the Lord Jesus.

(6) Underlying whatever service the Spirit may lead him into, his most important and effective ministry is simply to be[/i] - for him to live is Christ. He becomes an "example (pattern) for the believer [and the lost], in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity" (1 Tim. 4:12, Amplified). His attitude is that of Paul, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage [law]" (Gal. 5:1).

* * * * *​

My liberty from the old is infinite in the Lord Jesus - limited only to the glory of my Father, and to the good of others.

Well there you have it. Keep in mind that this is chapter 33 of Stanford's book and so there is sure to be foundational issues that are not made clear in this excerpt. I very strongly recommend reading the entire book, the first 18 chapters of which are available online at the following link...
Principles of Spiritual Growth

I look forward to your response but please don't feel obligated to respond to it in detail. I'm probably more interested in your reaction to it in general rather than a detailed analysis, although either would be fine or perhaps a little of both.

God bless!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Stone writes:
I am unsure of what I was mistaken. Was I mistaken in saying the words in Job and Ecclesiastes mean miscarriage or abortion, though in hebrew? Or that the term miscarriage/abortion is in the bible aside from the proposed ektroma in 1Cor? Was I unclear? Maybe I don't understand your point. Let me know and sure, I will admit a mistake if shown to me that I cannot or should not defend.

I wrote:

Consider it usage in the LXX:
Job 3:16 Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.

Eccl 6:3 If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he.

Then you said:
I think we agree (for the most part) that context can help show meaning. You, of course, also know the OT passages are not using the Greek word ektroma. [Emphasis added]

Contrary to your claim, the OT passages are indeed using the Greek word ektroma.

 

[Hilston]

Stone writes:
"seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ... seen of 500+ brethen simultaneously ... seen of James ... then of all the sent-ones (vv. 5-7) ... and last of all Jesus appeared to Paul, as one "cut off or persecuted."

If you want to claim that Paul saw Jesus as "one cut off or persecuted," you continue to violate the teachings of scripture. Jesus did not appear to Paul as "one cut off or persecuted," but rather as one risen and glorified, a light shining from heaven (Act 9:3).

"I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me." (Act 26:13)

Nowhere does Jesus appear to Paul as "one cutoff" or "persecuted." The risen Lord is unspeakably glorious, sitting in the paradise of the third heaven.

2Co 12:2 "... such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) 4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter."

Finally, let's take each of your translations of ektroma and see which one works best:

"seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ... seen of 500+ brethen simultaneously ... seen of James ... then of all the sent-ones (vv. 5-7) ... and last of all Jesus appeared to Paul, as "an aberrance."

"seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ... seen of 500+ brethen simultaneously ... seen of James ... then of all the sent-ones (vv. 5-7) ... and last of all Jesus appeared to Paul, as "an aberration."

"seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ... seen of 500+ brethen simultaneously ... seen of James ... then of all the sent-ones (vv. 5-7) ... and last of all Jesus appeared to Paul, as "a deflection."

"seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ... seen of 500+ brethen simultaneously ... seen of James ... then of all the sent-ones (vv. 5-7) ... and last of all Jesus appeared to Paul, as "a departure."

"seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ... seen of 500+ brethen simultaneously ... seen of James ... then of all the sent-ones (vv. 5-7) ... and last of all Jesus appeared to Paul, as "a deviation."

"seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ... seen of 500+ brethen simultaneously ... seen of James ... then of all the sent-ones (vv. 5-7) ... and last of all Jesus appeared to Paul, as "a divergence."

"seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ... seen of 500+ brethen simultaneously ... seen of James ... then of all the sent-ones (vv. 5-7) ... and last of all Jesus appeared to Paul, as "a diversion."

"seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ... seen of 500+ brethen simultaneously ... seen of James ... then of all the sent-ones (vv. 5-7) ... and last of all Jesus appeared to Paul, as "a driftage."

"seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ... seen of 500+ brethen simultaneously ... seen of James ... then of all the sent-ones (vv. 5-7) ... and last of all Jesus appeared to Paul, as "a lapse."

"seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ... seen of 500+ brethen simultaneously ... seen of James ... then of all the sent-ones (vv. 5-7) ... and last of all Jesus appeared to Paul, as "a miscarriage."

:think: Which one fits the best?

 

[Hilston]

Hilston asked: So the word "dispensation" is meaningless?

Knight writes:
Meaningless?? Of course not! Our house rules are that there are no "works" to accompany our faith.

That is false, Knight. Faith produces works. Abraham's works justified him and he could rightly boast about his faith works, but not before God.

Ro 4:2 For [since] Abraham [was] justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

All through the scriptures, the Body of Christ is taught to live according to the house rules of the Mystery faith, the faith laws.

1Th 1:3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;
2Th 1:11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

The house rules distinguish the works of faith from the works that are contrary to the faith.

1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

1Co 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

And that work and that labor that Paul desires the churches to abound in must be according to the law of faith, according to the teachings of our house rules.

Knight writes:
I am not sure how you could get meaningless out of that.

You say the house rules are there are no rules. That is a contradiction and is thus meaningless. No rules means no boundaries, no prescriptions or proscriptions, no authority, no accountability. I know that's not what you mean, but you still say the phrase "no rules." If you don't mean "no boundaries, no authority, etc." then the phrase becomes meaningless.

Hilston wrote:
All of Christ's commands through Paul are empty? Christ's ordinances through Paul are pointless?

Knight writes:
Pointless?, Empty? Again let's not overstate and dramaticize (is that a word?) our case OK?

It's not an overstatement or dramaticization (now that is definitely not a word!). If you say the rules are there are no rules, then the rules are pointless, inane, meaningless, without authority, without accountability.

Hilston wrote:
Please explain how being sealed equates to lawlessness?

Knight writes:
If one accept's Christ and His work on the cross then God recognizes that individual as one of the Body and seal's that person with the Holy Spirit. This "sealing" makes one dead to sin and therefore there is no law they can break which would cause God to "unseal" them.

No one is saying otherwise, Knight. I don't know who you're debating elsewhere, but I'm here and I've never said or suggested that we can become "unsealed" because of the condemnation of law.

Knight writes:
Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Do you realize that this only applies to Jewish law, and not Mystery law? That's the point of the very next verse:

Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Jewish law involved the ministry of the angelic realm. By showing forth openly the removal of that angelic authority and the raising of the Body of Christ over them, Christ has taken all religious ceremony, symbolism and holidays and nailed them to the stavros, wiping them out so they no longer have any authority over us. That does not mean there are no longer any rules. Just that there are no longer any ritualistic, ceremonial or holiday rules.

Hilston wrote:
Php 3:16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. 17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.[

Knight writes:
Paul often speaks of the rewards that we will attain in heaven if we allow the Holy Spirit to work through us producing good fruit.

Of course. That's the work of faith. That work is according to the Holy Spirit's rules, Knight.

Knight writes:
Read the verse in context and you will see what I mean...

... (Paul has now established works are NOT a part of his salvation) ... (Thsi goal isn't salvation but yet a crown or reward for producing good fruit) ...

Whoever said otherwise, Knight (That should sound familiar, by the way -- because I keep saying it to you). No one is claiming otherwise. KNIGHT? HELLO? KNIGHT!? ARE YOU LISTENING? Remember when I said this in my previous post to you?

"Whoever said otherwise? Do you think I want to live righteously in order to have my sins forgiven? Do you think my desire to live according to the rules is to have my sins paid for? Do you forget that I'm a proponent of particular redemption? I don't abstain from Christmas because any of those reasons. I abstain because Paul commands us to eschew religious holidays, ritual, ceremony and symbolism. That by doing so, I will abound more and more as I walk according to Paul's rule of how to please God."

How many times have I said it? How many times will you ignore it? The works of the Mystery do not save. Pauline law does not save. I've never said otherwise. You keep debating a straw man. I don't know what your problem is, but you either have an awful memory, or you're just not paying attention. I don't have time for this Knight. I'm doing my best to be courteous. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But I don't have the time to go over this over and over and over again. Works do not save. Law does not save. But that doesn't mean we are without works and lawless.

Knight writes:
16 Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind. (Paul is simply stating that we should all allow Christ to produce good fruit in us) ...

How do you do that, Knight?

Knight writes:
For our citizenship is in heaven,

Do you know what that verse means? It means our seat of government, our politeuma, is in the heavens. We will govern the cosmos from the third heaven, above the angelic realm. That is why religious holidays are prohibited for the Body of Christ. That is why you should not be celebrating Christmas.

Knight writes:
... from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself. (Can it get more clear than that? It is Jesus working in us - if we let Him - to produce good fruit NOT us working to add to what He has done.)

That verse is not talking about our faith works here, in this life, Knight. It is talking about our future transformation.

Hilston wrote:
How can you tell who walks according to this rule? How do you mark those who follow Paul's example if you don't see their obedience to the rules?

Knight writes:
It isn't up to me to "mark" anyone, ...

That's incorrect.

Ro 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Php 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
Ga 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Knight writes:
All we can do is make educated judgments based on men's actions.

And again, you contradict yourself. First you say we are not to mark them, then you say we are. I can't do this anymore, Knight. I don't have the patience for it.

Knight writes:
Furthermore... whether we are right or wrong about a man's standing with God is somewhat irrelevant (in that they either are or are not saved) which is why I give most folks the benefit of the doubt and just assume they are not saved.

Since when are we talking about ascertaining whether or not someone is saved? That has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. We're talking about the standards by which we are to live, the house rules. The point of raising these verses is to show such a standard exists, that these laws have been given, not to evaluate the states of people's souls. What a waste of time, Knight.

Hilston wrote:
The grace of God teaches us to live righteously and godly, not for salvation, not to work off our own sin, not to earn the payment of our sin, but to obey Him and to please Him.

Knight writes:
OK... so what happens when you don't please Him?

I feel sorrow and I repent.

Knight writes:
1Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me (Even celebrating Christmas!!! ), but I will not be brought under the power of any.

If you want to invoke this verse, Knight, then you also have to invoke Romans 14 and 1Corinthians 8 and the end of 1Corinthians 10. I thought we agreed concerning these passages. Apparently not. Regarding your addition "Even celebrating Christmas", the logic would require Paul (and you, if you follow his example) to not celebrate Christmas if it caused a weaker brother to stumble.

Paul wrote:
1Co 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

How do you follow Paul's example if his life is not exemplary with regard to his own ordinances? How do you obey Paul's command to keep the ordinances?

Paul wrote:
1Co 4: 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. 17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

If Paul's life was not characterized by obedience to his own ordinances, what example were they to follow?

Paul wrote:
1Th 4:1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. 2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

Paul taught the Thessalonian saints how to walk and to please God according to commandments of grace and the Mystery. If Paul's life was not characterized by obedience to his own ordinances, what example were they to follow?

Php 3:16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. 17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

How can you tell who walks according to this rule? How do you mark those who follow Paul's example if you don't see their obedience to the rules?

Paul continues: 18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

How do you know who the enemies of the stavros are unless you see them disobeying the rules? Your thesis is self-refuting, Knight. Your claims are contrary to the very language Paul uses throughout his epistles. I've given you example after example. I've taken time to look these up, to focus on specific questions, to provide some analyses to help demonstrate the point. But all I get from you is generalized statement that is patently contradicted by your own posts and the piles of scripture that have been provided.

1Th 4:1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.

The grace of God teaches us to live righteously and godly, not for salvation, not to work off our own sin, not to earn the payment of our sin, but to obey Him and to please Him.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

2Th 3:4 And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you. ... Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition [ordinances] which he received of us. 7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; 8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: 9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. 10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. 13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. 14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

The passage is full of commands to obey Mystery Law, Paul's Law. And that Law is that the Body of Christ does not have a ceremonial priesthood and is not to support those who presume to be ministers for Christ according to the Jewish model. The Body model requires pastors to support their own ministries and to not rely upon the generosity or charity of the church. Do you agree with Paul's commands here? Do you agree that we must heed them in order to walk obediently and to please God?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston
KNIGHT? HELLO? KNIGHT!? ARE YOU LISTENING?

OK... I am done with you.

I did my best to befriend you. Sorry that your head is so thick. Maybe Santa will bring you a new one.

 

[Hilston]

Knight, are you so oblivious that you cannot honestly and sincerely detect frustration from someone who has gone to great lengths to understand you and to clarify his position? Do you not see that I'm frustrated with having to repeat myself over and over again and your return to the same irrelevant claims? Do you see how many times I've asked you the same questions over and over again? Why would you to do this to someone, and then just dismiss them? Is that your idea of "befriending" someone?

 

[Rimi]

Re: Will You Be Celebrating Christmas?

Re: Will You Be Celebrating Christmas?

Originally posted by Lucky

Will you be celebrating Christmas this year?

I will not be celebrating Christmas, as I don't see in Scriptures where it pleases God. I consider Deut 12:29-31 as my authority, with the most pertinent parts following:

"..., be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, 'How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.' You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates."

I think it would hurt for someone I love to do for/with me those things they did with someone else especially when I've asked them not to. If God wanted us to celebrate Jesus birthday, He'd've been able to give us a specific date. He didn't. So, I just pass on the whole thing. Just my opinion.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Re: Re: Will You Be Celebrating Christmas?

Re: Re: Will You Be Celebrating Christmas?

Originally posted by Rimi

I will not be celebrating Christmas, as I don't see in Scriptures where it pleases God. I consider Deut 12:29-31 as my authority, with the most pertinent parts following:

"..., be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, 'How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.' You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates."

I think it would hurt for someone I love to do for/with me those things they did with someone else especially when I've asked them not to. If God wanted us to celebrate Jesus birthday, He'd've been able to give us a specific date. He didn't. So, I just pass on the whole thing. Just my opinion.

What an odd verse to base your decision on.

I would be careful to use that verse as a command for yourself.... for if you are correct that Deut 12:29-31 is aimed at you..... you probably best get destroying the rest of us who celebrate Christmas. Did you read the context of the verse you are using?

Deuteronomy 12:1 “These are the statutes and judgments which you shall be careful to observe in the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you to possess, all the days that you live on the earth. 2 “You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations which you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. 3 “And you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and burn their wooden images with fire; you shall cut down the carved images of their gods and destroy their names from that place.

Are you planning on doing this any time soon?

No???? Why not?

And if not Christmas why not celebrate the way God commands in this chapter....

Deuteronomy 12:6 “There you shall take your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the heave offerings of your hand, your vowed offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. 7 “And there you shall eat before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice in all to which you have put your hand (Sounds almost like Christmas at my house!) , you and your households, in which the LORD your God has blessed you.

And there is more!

Deuteronomy 12:15 “ However, you may slaughter and eat meat within all your gates, whatever your heart desires, according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you; the unclean and the clean may eat of it, of the gazelle and the deer alike. 16 “Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it on the earth like water.

Do you observe that command? If not, why not? What do your neighbors think of you spilling blood all over the place?

Deuteronomy 12:28 “Observe and obey all these words which I command you, that it may go well with you and your children after you forever, when you do what is good and right in the sight of the LORD your God.

Now be honest is the following really a good comparison with celebrating Christmas?

Deuteronomy 12:30 “take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.’ 31 “You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.

Sorry my friend..... but this just isn't a very good argument against celebrating Christmas. Now if you choose not to celebrate Christmas that's fine I suppose thats your business but I certainly wouldn't use Deuteronomy 12:29-31 as a proof text.

 

[Yorzhik]

I'd say that Hilston has a point as long as one thinks that "Don't let others judge you concerning celebrations/holidays" has the same understanding that "Your sister will no longer scream because her hair was pulled" does.

I don't think it does, and with more conversation I think it can be shown rather convincingly.

Also, the notion that Israelites worshipped angels... it would require at the very least a few qualifiers for that to be established. And even if that can be established, it would require a lot more scriptural support to determine that every celebration that involves Jesus, and thus religion, must be angel worship.

Anyone willing to take up the standard?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

I'd say that Hilston has a point as long as one thinks that "Don't let others judge you concerning celebrations/holidays" has the same understanding that "Your sister will no longer scream because her hair was pulled" does.

Can you help me out a bit on that? I am not sure I get your point.