Nehemia faced a great many difficulties in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem:

-A fragmented society whose walls of protection had been burned and torn down

-Political obstacles

-Lack of unity and inertia among the people

-Mockery and intimidation from the adversary

-Physical danger from the enemy requiring his men to
keep a sword by their side as they rebuilt the walls

-Unfair taxation and uneven distribution of responsibility for paying them

-Lack of repentance among the people

-Inability to praise and worship God

-Absence of collective pride in accomplishment among the people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/book_of_Nehemia

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bib...ehemia+1&version=NIV

In other words, Nehemia and the citizens of Jerusalem were just like us in our present situation.With God's help he overcame all of these problems. Who says the bible is not relevant to today?


caritas,

nehemia

Yes, mysticalmichael9, the redeemed people of God (Ne 1:10) also kept His "appointed seasons".

Ne 8
8:9
Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who were instructing the people said to all of them, "This day is holy to the Lord your God. Do not mourn or weep." For all the people were weeping as they heard the words of the law.

8:10
Then he said to them, "Go and eat what is rich, drink what is sweet, and send portions to those who have nothing prepared, since today is holy to our Lord. Do not grieve, because your strength [comes from] rejoicing in the Lord."

The Sabbath, in fact, shall be observed following the return of Christ, when the fullness of the New Covenant shall spread over all the earth (Is. 66:23).

The Lord's annual Sabbaths, in fact, shall be observed following the return of Christ, when the fullness of the New Covenant shall spread over all the earth (Zechariah 14:16-19).

Still trying, eh wopik?

Hi Phil,

quote:

Ne 8

8:10
Then he said to them, "Go and eat what is rich, drink what is sweet, and send portions to those who have nothing prepared, since today is holy to our Lord..."

.

My Bible margin refers me back to Lev. 23:24 - Feast of Trumpets.

Don't you think a holy day stays holy to the Lord forever ?

You're gonna be in real big trouble, wopik, if you start quoting Leviticus and using words like "forever" in reference to its laws.

Ok. how about the New Covenant/New Testament: Won't that be in full swing in the Millennium?

Strange as it may seem, the New Covenant is not yet fully implemented. We know this from the fact that believers - young and old - still need instruction. But when the New Covenant is fully operational then "they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."

What holidays will all mankind be keeping in the millennial New Covenant (Isa. 66:23 & Zechariah 14:16-19).

what don't you like about the word "forever" ?

God doesn't change, so we are to keep all his laws forever, minus the sacrifical ones (Jeremiah 7:22).

The laws remain till heaven and earth pass (Matt 5:18). Seems clear to me.

"The man who commits adultery with his neighbour's wife must die, he and his accomplice."
- Lev. 20: 10

Should we be keeping that law, wopik?

quote:

"The man who commits adultery with his neighbour's wife must die, he and his accomplice."
- Lev. 20: 10

Should we be keeping that law, wopik?

Phil, adulterers were stoned in OT times.

We can't stone adulterers because we don't have administrative authority. Even in Old Testament times, people couldn't go around willy nilly stoning people without due process.

"We can't stone adulterers because we don't have administrative authority."


Spoken like a true Pharisee, wopik.


Of course, if you don't do it "willy nilly," then I suppose it has some justification . . . . maybe you should consider moving to Nigeria and an alliance with their Islamic court, where you'd have more of a positive reception.

wopik: God doesn't change, so we are to keep all his laws forever, minus the sacrifical ones (Jeremiah 7:22).

Phil: "The man who commits adultery with his neighbour's wife must die, he and his accomplice."
- Lev. 20: 10

Assuming due process from the appropriate authorities, should we still be keeping that law, wopik?

Allow me to intrude on this religious discussion. It seems Wopik has a point�as do the rest of you. When does one take the Bible literally and when does one not? One can surely see how those who take everything as 100 % true might think they have a leg up on righteousness and understanding�and how this can lead to all sorts of mischief and even tragedy as we see with radical fundamentalism throughout the world. Surely there's something about the spirit of the law that is being missed if we hang tenaciously to the letter of it and disregard all else. And surely times change and we must change with them to some extent. That is, we don't stone people anymore and we don't need to. But what is an anachronism and what is relevant? What is literally true and what is analogously true, and how do we know the difference? What rules do we use to make such distinctions? Do we simply listen to our hearts and common sense, and if we do then how does any authority purport to stem from the Bible? And if we're not sure about some of these things, then doesn't the benefit of the doubt go to what it says in a Bible verse?

I ask these questions because I'm quite sure there are those present who are more than able to answer them.

Phil will have a more learned response, but I'd anticipate him by saying that this struggle you describe has been with the church since its inception, which is why conversations with those like wopik who have mostly seperated themselves from the church's traditions are often so awkward. Without a long tradition of being open to expurgative notions, Biblical scholars leveling the most severe textual criticisms have, until the last 200 years, been persecuted. But without this painful history of scholarship within and outside of the church, Christianity could still be struggling with how to resolve an identity crisis in the most fundamental of ways, as is the case with Islam and its resistance to the use of reason for questioning itself, or having itself questioned.

Jesus' own life was clearly a departure in many ways with the Jewish tradition, but only in the sense that He became the Temple, and the fulfillment of the Torah as its awaited Messiah. These were the radical claims that got him killed. And, most mystically, he didn't tell a parable, or share an allegory, and then write the secret under a stone and tell people to search beneath their feet, but to work it out within themselves, "for those who have ears to hear." We are still working much of this out, and to appreciate some of this I'd recommend N.T. Wright's book "The Challenge of Jesus," as well as the link I gave on the thread "The Jesus Seminar and Beyond," where he is one of the panelists.

Good questions, Brad, and good reply, w.c.

First, the exchanges with wopik aren't characteristic of the kinds of discussions and disagreements happening within Christianity. Biblical Fundamentalists would be in full agreement with my replies to wopik, for example, even while they would be strongly opposed to many other lines of theological reasoning I've shared on this forum. The problem for wopik, as I've pointed out in other threads, is that his faith tradition has either not accepted or understood the meaning of the Council of Jerusalem, which was held somewhere around 47 A.D. It was then that Christianity truly broke from Judaism by asserting that the terms of the old, Jewish covenant (and all its rules and regulations) were no longer binding on Christians.

Once one accepts this, then the older covenant can be viewed in terms of its anticipation of the new, in Christ, wherein one comes to right-relationship with God through faith in Christ and all this implies about living as though one believes. Some of the older, Jewish moral teachings continue to be helpful unto that end (e.g., the 10 commandments), but others have no relevance whatsoever. The failure to distinguish the one from the other is wopik's problem; again, Fundamentalists' are not confused about this (maybe Stephen can share something, here), but our dear wopik seems to be quite stuck, imo.

Re. the larger question of biblical interpretation, I think that warrants a new thread. Would you be willing to copy/paste your questions from this one to start a new topic, Brad? If not, I'll eventually get around to it, as it's a topic we've never addressed directly on this forum.

Even within the confines of the Bible itself, there is a break from the old, a movement out of the old into the new, a develpoment from the old which finds fulfillment in Christ, as w.c. pointed out. wopik needs to read and understand Galatians, especially chapters 2-5.

2:19 "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God."

2:21 " . . . if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

3:5 "Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh."

3:15 "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law."

5:1 "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage."

Then read 5:2-6.

Seems pretty clear to me. wopik's in real bondage and misses the whole point of liberty in Christ. I agree with Phil regarding his comments on Biblical Fundamentalists. Indeed some of the teaching by old time fundamentalists on Christ being the fulfillment and completion of the law is quite beautiful. On the other hand there are certain branches, who, while not committing themselves to the letter of the law, and while agreeing in theory with the position outlined above, are in bondage to a separatism, exclusivism and legalism which is just as bad, and seems to share this spirit of bondage that wopik is wrapped up in.

Where are you in relation to God's grace, wopik?

Re. the larger question of biblical interpretation, I think that warrants a new thread. Would you be willing to copy/paste your questions from this one to start a new topic, Brad? If not, I'll eventually get around to it, as it's a topic we've never addressed directly on this forum.

Okay, Phil, I knew you would provide a clear, non-prevaricated answer. One might not then fully accept (or have a different interpretation of) the Council of Jerusalem. In essence, one might be of a minority opinion on the subject (and that might not be the area of disagreement here - I don't know) and hanging onto hope that the majority will come 'round to seeing things correctly. Hey, the majority has been known to be wrong plenty of times and those few lone voices in the minority have been proven correct too often to dismiss them entirely.

Obviously Christianity allows for a wide variety of practices and interpretations but there are probably some unavoidable beliefs and dogma that make something truly Christian as opposed to, as wonderful as it is, Judaism. If one want to be a Jew then one can be a Jew. If one wants to be a mainstream Christian then one can be that. And if one wants to be a peaceful Christian rebel and keep the majority sharp and on their toes then one can do that as well! (No, I'm not running for office.)

A thread on biblical interpretation would be interesting but I'll leave the creation of that to someone who knows something about the subject and who is motivated to explore the subject and to answer questions.

Okay, Phil, I knew you would provide a clear, non-prevaricated answer.

Ooops. That's not to suggest that WC or Stephen didn't! But for sure WC by now knows that if I wish to insult him that I will do it directly and without ambiguity.

Brad

quote:

If one want to be a Jew then one can be a Jew.

Romans
2:28
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;

2:29
but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

The fact that Paul expected Gentiles to keep the law is demonstrated in many scriptures throughout the book of Romans (e.g. Rom. 3:31; 7:12, 22; etc.)

Romans 2:25-29 is especially interesting and direct, though often overlooked. Here uncircumcised Gentiles are admonished to be circumcised of the heart (v. 29) and to become Jews inwardly by keeping "the righteousness of the law" (v. 26) and by fulfilling the law (v. 27). (Obviously Paul could not have meant the full Sinaitic Covenant in his use of the term "law" here, since circumcision was a part of the law.)

Only with God's Holy Spirit, through Christ, can a human being fulfill the righteousness of the law (Rom. 8:4) and "delight in the law of God after the inward man" (Rom. 7:22).

We must be reading different Bibles, wopik:

Rm. 8: 29 - "The real Jew is the one who is inwardly a Jew, and the real circumcision is in the heart-- something not of the letter but of the spirit." (Paul is saying that faith in Christ is what makes one a "real Jew").

Rm. 7: 22 - "In my inmost self I dearly love God's Law." Paul is speaking of the human condition. "But I can see that my body follows a different law that battles against the law which my reason dictates. "

etc. etc. You tend to clip Scripture quotes without providing proper context and seem to want to give the impression that the whole purpose of the coming of Christ and the gift of the Spirit was to enable us to fulfill the Law that our human nature was unable to fulfill before the empowerment. I'm not denying the continuing relevance of the moral principles articulated by the Law, but you seem interested in much more than that -- namely, all these holidays and feasts and what not.

wopik, Christ's coming was not about that at all. Listen up, now:
"Before faith came, we were allowed no freedom by the Law; we were being looked after till faith was revealed. The Law was to be our guardian until the Christ came and we could be justified by faith. Now that that time has come we are no longer under that guardian, and you are, all of you, sons (and daughters) of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3: 24-26).

Look it up in your New Testament. This is hardly a rare passage; it's all over the letters of Paul, and this understanding was the basis for the decision concerning the duties of Gentile Christians handed down at the Council of Jerusalem. We've already been around the mullberry bush several times on that one, however . . .

Hi Phil,

quote:

The Law was to be our guardian until the Christ came and we could be justified by faith. Now that that time has come we are no longer under that guardian, and you are, all of you, sons (and daughters) of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3: 24-26).

Yes, this law -- which was our "schoolmaster" -- was ADDED because of transgressions.

There was a previous law already being transgressed. The "schoolmaster" or "guardian" were the sacrifical laws which were ADDED centuries later.

The Lord says through Jeremiah: "For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices" - Jeremiah 7:22 - see: Hebrews 10:5, 8.

Jer7
vs 23 - However, I did give them this command: Obey Me, and then I will be your God, and you will be My people. You must walk in every way I command you so that it may go well with you.


vs 24 - Yet they didn't listen or pay attention but walked according to their own advice and according to their own stubborn, evil heart. They went backward and not forward.


The writer of Hebrews talkes about the Law of sacrifices and burnt offerings:

Heb
10:1
For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.


Heb
10:8
Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law)


What was the purpose of those sacrifices:
Heb 10
10:3
But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.

Paul says those sacrifices (schoolmaster) are done away, since Jesus offered His body and blood to take away sins:


Heb
10:10
.....we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all.