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

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

Expand Messages
  • Ernest
    DO you really understand were i am coming from Mr. Baty? In Romans 11 Paul is talking to the Gentiles about Israel in the symbolic language of an olive tree, I
    Message 1 of 90 , Feb 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      DO you really understand were i am coming from Mr. Baty?
      In Romans 11 Paul is talking to the Gentiles about Israel in the symbolic language of an olive tree, I will break into the text in verse 17;<<<And if some of the branches be broken off(( some of the people of Israel for unbelief as noted in verse 20 )) and Thou,being a wild olive tree, (( Gentiles )) wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
      Now when one graffes a wild branch of a olive tree into a tame olive tree , that wild branch then becomes the same as tame olives, in this chaper it is the gentiles being grafted into Israel therefore they also become Israel, but let me show you another verse that is lost to the world, and this verse is plainly written and i will not have to interpet it for you,

      ROMANS 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, Which are of Israel.

      Mr. Baty , if a man obeys the word of God there can be no doubt that, that man is of Israel,


      rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...> wrote:
      Rick, you wrote, in
      part:

      > For myself, I only
      > wanted to note the
      > discrepancy and get
      > it cleared up if we
      > could, before we
      > moved forward.

      > I think we have.

      > We really don't have
      > to keep whacking away
      > at Exodus 31 -- I
      > think I can
      > see "where you
      > are coming from".

      I'll take the "credit"
      for laboring over the
      Exodus 31 issue.

      I had written a
      response to Ernest's
      latest "admission" to
      substituting his
      commentary on the
      passage for the passage
      itself. It got lost in
      cyberspace.

      Rick, since you note
      that the discrepancy
      has been duly noted and
      you see where Ernest is
      coming from on the
      topic, I will not try
      to reconstruct the post
      or further pursue the
      issue at this time.

      I'll try to let the two
      of you move forward and
      see how it goes.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty








      EX:31
      Wherefore the children of God 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:




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • 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.