Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[M & B] Re: A first question suggestion!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    Ernest, ... Oops! Ernest, the issue does not involve any problem with me that I have to get over. You have simply shown an unwillingness to quote accurately
    Message 1 of 90 , Feb 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Ernest,

      You write, in part:

      > Ok Mr. Baty, I
      > change my signature
      > to help you to get
      > over this problem of
      > yours...

      Oops! Ernest, the
      issue does not involve
      any problem with me
      that I have to get over.

      You have simply shown
      an unwillingness to
      quote accurately from
      the King James version.

      Even now, you continue
      to give the Exodus 31
      passage as:

      > Wherefore the
      > children of Israel
      > shall keep the
      > sabbath, to observe
      > the sabbath
      > throughout their
      > generations, for a
      > perpetual covenant.
      > It is a Mark between
      > me and the children
      > of God for ever:

      There is every reason
      for us to know that you
      know that that is
      simply not how the
      passage reads.

      You simply lose
      credibility when you
      continue to insist on
      substituting your
      interpretation of the
      text when allegedly
      quoting the text itself.

      Ernest, you continue,
      in part, with:

      > (I)t is to my
      > shame that I
      > have not shown
      > you the truth,
      > for your own
      > good as it were.

      While you have
      something else in mind,
      if you wish to look at
      such things in that
      manner, I would only
      redirect your reasons
      for shame and propose
      that your shame is
      based on so simple a
      matter as refusing to
      quote the text
      accurately before
      attempting to propose
      an interpretation
      thereof.

      Then again, you appear
      to not really have any
      shame in such a matter,
      but rather pride
      yourself in "putting
      words in God's mouth"
      against your own
      proposed principle.

      That you would propose
      the following is really
      an indication that you,
      Ernest, are the one
      with the problem, and
      that in so simple a
      matter as being
      accurate in quoting the
      text of scripture:

      > I will now put
      > my signature back
      > as I had it before

      Do as you will. We
      tried to help you on
      such a simple thing,
      and you appear to want
      none of it.

      And you propose to
      teach us about
      the "weightier" matters!

      You also write, Ernest:

      > (L)et me show you
      > another verse...I
      > will not have to
      > interpet it for you,

      Ernest, how can you
      propose to show me a
      verse you won't have to
      interpret for me when
      you have yet to openly,
      honestly, accept the
      proposition that you
      need to, simply because
      it is right, quote the
      Exodus passage
      accurately and
      according to our
      mutally agreed
      preference for the King
      James version?

      (Of course, after
      saying that, Ernest,
      you did presume to
      interpret another
      pasage for me!)

      Ernest, you conclude
      with:

      > Mr. Baty I thank you
      > for this study of
      > the Word of God...

      You are welcome, and I
      thank you for the
      experience as well. It
      is somewhat
      unfortunate, though
      quite helpful for
      perspective, in seeing
      how you deal with such
      a simple matter as
      quoting the text of
      scripture accurately.

      I hope this doesn't
      mean that you are not
      going to resume your
      discussion with Rick at
      such time as he is able
      to return and pick it
      up. You kinda sound
      like you are intending
      to leave the discussion.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • w_w_c_l
      ... Hi, Robert. Thank you for the compliment. As I indicated, when I was writing that last post I didn t have my usual access to the Web so I was unaware of
      Message 90 of 90 , Feb 24, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
        "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
        >
        > Rick,
        >
        > I noticed in your post, which I would recommend
        > that all take the time to read despite its length
        > (even while not completely agreeing on all points),
        > that you make the following comment:
        >
        > > The Ten Commands are part
        > > of the Mosaic Law
        >
        > I'm not sure that you were explicit in trying to
        > establish this point in your post.
        >
        > ...
        >
        > You may want to expand and defend your proposition
        > that the "Ten Commands are part of the Mosaic Law",
        > if you get the time....

        Hi, Robert.

        Thank you for the compliment.

        As I indicated, when I was writing that last post
        I didn't have my usual access to the Web so I was
        unaware of some of the twists and turns this
        discussion had taken. That twists and turns *had*
        been taken I did not doubt, but it never occurred
        to me that someone might try to say that the Ten
        Commandments were not part of the Law of Moses.
        I guess I just took that for granted.

        The point is, however, that Dave and Ernest have
        both stressed the "throughout your generations"
        phrase in the fourth commandment, yet that phrase
        recurs throughout the Old Testament Law.

        From their position now it appears that, instead
        of quoting (or misquoting, as the case may be)
        verses with "THROUGHOUT YOUR GENERATIONS"
        capitalized, they should have been quoting verses
        with "WRITTEN BY THE FINGER OF GOD"
        in all caps.

        Dave says it was the Ten Commandments, and the
        Ten Commandments only, which were written on
        the tables of stone by God's own finger; Ernest
        seems to be saying the commands pertaining to the
        rest of the "sabbaths" were engraved there as well.

        Both of them seem to be promoting the idea that
        what was written by the finger of the Lord on
        tablets of stone are somehow more binding than what
        was spoken by the mouth of the Lord and written down,
        as He commanded Moses, into the Book of Law.

        Myself, I think the distinction is vapid when
        considered alongside the fact that the Lord Himself
        has personally written His Eternal Law, the
        *everlasting* covenant (Hebrews 13:20) on the fleshy
        tables of our individual hearts. (see 2 Corinthians
        3:3 -- my Amplified New Testament refers from this
        verse back to Jeremiah 31:33, which is, of course,
        right after Jeremiah 31:31-32.)

        And that right there ought to be the end of the
        matter, you would think, because we all know, do we
        not, that what the Lord has written in our hearts
        is far more than the Ten Commandments or even the
        entire -- every jot and tittle -- Mosaic Law.

        In my previous post are Dave's words:

        >> So yes, you are right. I do chose and
        >> pick the ten over the others. The ten,
        >> i believe... correct me if I am wrong,
        >> were the only commands written with the
        >> finger of God Almighty himself.

        And my reply there begins:

        > Rather than be nit-picky here, I think
        > I'll just concede that point: the tablets
        > of stone placed in the Ark were engraved
        > with the Ten Commandments, written by
        > the finger of the Lord.

        I actually took out about three paragraphs of
        writing about what was on the stones and who
        wrote it, and replaced it with that one sentence.
        I felt like the message was long enough as it
        was, and that what Dave had said was beside the
        point anyway.

        What Jesus has given us is not a long list of
        thoushalts and thoushaltnots -- He gave us the
        means of knowing right from wrong in our dealings
        with all the various individuals with whom we
        interact in all the various sets of circumstances
        that may arise.

        Today, psychologists call this "situational ethics"
        or "moral reasoning". (And, needless to say, the
        religious "legalists" have no use for such
        latitudinarianism.)

        In ~The Sound of Music~, was it "sinful" for the
        nuns to steal the spark plug wires off the Nazis'
        vehicles, enabling the Family Von Trapp to make
        good their escape?

        Was it "murder" to unplug Terri Schiavo?

        Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
        (Romans 14:5) Blessed is the man to whom the
        Lord will not impute iniquity. (Psalms 32:2,
        Romans 4:8) If our heart condemn us not, we have
        confidence toward God. (1 John 3:21) Therefore
        to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not,
        to him it is sin. (James 4:17)

        Of course, all of that only applies to those on
        whose hearts the Lord really has written His
        Law. It is not an excuse that Godless individuals
        may use to go out and justify whatever evil they
        want to commit.

        But let's bring all this back together before I
        get carried away and write another book: It doesn't
        matter, to the purpose of this debate, whether the
        Ten Commandments are part of the Law of Moses or
        not:

        1) Jesus redefined for us the Ten Commandments
        just as if they *were* part of the Law; in the
        Sermon on the Mount He put no difference between
        the way He clarified "Thou shalt not kill" and
        "An eye for an eye". To the rich young ruler He
        said "Love thy neighbor as thyself" in the same
        breath as He said "Honor thy father and mother".

        2) The Two Commandments, to love the Lord and to
        love our neighbor, are not part of the ten.
        Therefore, if someone wants to say the Ten
        Commandments are the "Law of God" or the "Law
        of Love", or make some distinction because they
        were written on stone by the finger of God, or
        whatever, that would mean that this supposedly
        separate law does not include those two
        all-encompassing commandments which Christ
        endorsed *as is*.

        3) If the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses
        are two separate entities, that removes any
        pretense of the validity of our polemic adversaries'
        misguided-at-any-rate appeal to the verse that says
        "not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until
        all has been fulfilled." Either Christ fulfilled the
        Law and the prophets or He did not.

        4) If the fourth commandment were still in effect,
        whether it was part of the Mosaic Law or not, the
        order of the commandment is to *rest*. Nothing
        else. The fourth commandment is referred to many
        times in the Old Testament, and it says nothing at
        all about going to any kind of church or synagogue
        or doing anything other than resting. According to
        the commandment, no one is to even stir out of their
        place, or prepare a meal, or light a fire -- nothing.
        That is clearly not what Ernest or Dave are proposing
        for the seventh-day Sabbath. Even when they make such
        a to-do over Paul preaching in the synagogues, those
        seventh-day gatherings of the Jews were by tradition,
        not by commandment.

        Therefore, those who think the 4th commandment is still
        applicable "as it is written" had better be following
        it, as it is written. For with whatever judgment we
        mete out, with the same shall we be judged; and
        whoever seeks justification under the law is a debtor
        to do the whole law.

        Otherwise, they're no better than I am -- just a bunch
        of no-good latitudinarians.


        Rick Hartzog
        Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.