Documenting my Defense Against the Monothelitism Charge Monday, Sep 30 2013 

I did not include this conversation I had with Jnorm in my Systematic Theology and I wanted to get this on my public record and file it for posterity. The original dialogue can be found here:

http://bayouhuguenot.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/a-surprising-inference-from-dyotheletism/comment-page-1/

I was speed typing so I’ll edit it a bit better here. The quoted material is from Jnorm. The material beginning with >>> is my reply.

“I never mentioned Sergius I, …(why should I?).

>>>Because he was THE monothelite! This is like asking an anti-calvinist why he would bring up the words of John Calvin in a debate with a Calvinist.

“They could of believed in LFW personally, but their Monothelite Christology was deterministic.”

>>>You have got to be kidding me! That is exactly the Point Jnorm! You want to take everything back to one’s regular soteriology when you said, “And so, if you are a determinist, then you can’t really use the word “force” against another determinist.” But when I do that with the monothelites themselves, you arbitrarily over-rule it.

“Just like Origen believed in LFW personally but his view in regards to the eschaton was deterministic……and thus ultimately rejected. But we are getting off track here.”

>>>But hold on! You want to govern someone’s Christology by their regular soteriology, but when I do that with the monoothelites you back off and say we are getting off track. I am sticking your nose in your illogical hypocrisy and I’m not letting up.

“I only mentioned those behind the 6th council as believing in LFW, as well as saint Augustine in his early years as well as the church fathers and witnesses in general of the first 4 centuries. I did that for a reason.”

>>>As I did with Sergius.

“LFW is the original view of what “”free will” means. And it shows that the 6th Ecumenical council was built to support LFW! LFW does not equal Determinism and Determinism does not equal LFW.”

>>>No, it is the Anchoretic view of what free will means. And since the monothelite Sergius believed in LFW, on your logic, all LFWs are monothelites.

“This was the point I was trying to get across. For some reason you think that some form of determinism can free Calvinism from the Monothelite charge.”

>>>And for some reason you think that your agreement with Sergius’ LFW frees you from the same method you use to accuse others of Monothelitism.

“Why? If you want to authentically hold to the 6th Ecumenical council then you gotta believe in LFW, or else, you don’t really believe in it.”

>>>I do not authentically hold to the 6th Ecumenical Council! Notice my recent Systematic Theology that I made public: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_Uia_WumWyCbTh2SXYzMjNKMXM/edit?pli=1

My preface section mentions nothing of the 6th council.

“Now do you understand why I keep saying your answer was not sufficient? The 6th council doesn’t fit well within a deterministic system. It just doesn’t. You got a little upset with me for not reading all the various puritan guys (I do read Calvinist material, just not all the ones you do) that you are into, but if they don’t believe in LFW then why should I read them in regards to this issue?”

>>>The guys that I am into are the original guys. You want to make much of the jesuitized illuminized circus we have today, and that is not fair. I don’t do that to you. Maybe you should return the favor. I could make a fuss about how Father Thomas Hopko is not a Neoplantionist in his Theology Proper and how different his school is to Perry’s but I don’t.

“Like I said, you are making it seem as if there is a form of determinism out there that is compatible with LFW.”

>>>No. I am saying that there is a form of determinism that escapes the monothelite accusation.

“You are making it seem as if a certain form of determinism is sufficient enough to free Calvinism from the charge. How so when the council was built for LFW?”

>>>How so when Sergius’ monothelitism was built for LFW?

Jnorm and to all,

I want to fully explain why Sergius’ LFW Monothelitism could never be used against a Calvinist. I have read Jnorm and others stating that Calvinism and Monothelitism begin the same with the passive humanity ontologically opposite the divine nature. This assumed beginning is so fundamentally ignorant of Reformed Theology it baffles the mind.

The beginning place is the garden of eden, with original righteousness and then the lapse of man. On the Reformed view we believe in original sin and the covenant of works. LFW does not believe that. That is the key to refuting the EO conception that Calvinistic passivity equals monothelitism: Christ is not under original sin and the covenant of works, therefore there is no reason to think his humanity is passive in the economia. Monothelitism is an in house dispute between LFWers.

The following comes from Chapter 6 of my Systematic Theology:

Objections:

1. If souls come from the parents then Messiah had a sinful soul since it came from Mary, though highly blessed, a sinner; Therefore, from nothing.

Ans. Messiah did have a fallen human nature [At least not absolutely]. If he was perfect in every way why did he need cleansing? John Owen says (Holy Spirit 2.4) “The human nature of Christ, being thus formed in the womb by a creating act of the Holy Spirit, was in the instant of its conception sanctified and filled with grace according to the measure of its receptivity.” (Dogmatic Theology, by W.G.T. Shedd, Third Edition, ed. Alan W. Gomes,[Phillipsburg, NJ, P&R Publishing, 2003], pg 635)

Augustine Letter 164 chap 7

“or if the soul of Christ be derived from Adam’s soul He in assuming it to Himself, CLEANSED IT so that when He came into this world He was born of the Virgin perfectly free from sin either actual or transmitted. If, however, the souls of men are not derived from that one soul, and it is only by the flesh that original sin is transmitted from Adam, the Son of God created a soul for Himself, as He creates souls for all other men, but He united it not to sinful flesh, but to the likeness of sinful flesh. Romans 8:3 For He took, indeed, from the Virgin the true substance of flesh; not, however, sinful flesh, for it was neither begotten nor conceived through carnal concupiscence, but mortal, and capable of change in the successive stages of life, as being like sinful flesh in all points, sin excepted.”

Epitome of the Formula of Concord, I Original Sin, 5-6

“5] Moreover, the Son of God has assumed this human nature, however, without sin, and therefore not a foreign, but our own flesh, into the unity of His person, and according to it is become our true Brother. Heb. 2:14: Forasmuch, then, as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same. Again, 16; 4:15: He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, yet without sin. 6] In like manner Christ has also redeemed it as His work, sanctifies it as His work, raises it from the dead, and gloriously adorns it as His work. But original sin He has not created, assumed, redeemed, sanctified; nor will He raise it, will neither adorn nor save it in the elect, but in the [blessed] resurrection it will be entirely destroyed.”

The passages in the scripture which mention the fall of mankind and the imputation of Adam’s sin never mention Eve as playing any kind of federal role, they always mention Adam. If Adam had obeyed God and not given into temptation he would have received security in justifying life in the covenant of works and given access to the tree of life (The Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 20 speaks of the tree of life as a pledge).

Therefore, we can infer from this that the curse of the covenant of works/original sin is through the male line, not the female. *******Therefore, Mary could not have passed a sinful soul under the curse of the covenant of works to Messiah.***********”

Now Jnorm is going to cry “that denies consubstantiality! Consubstantiality!” But wait, I have already proven above from the Hodge quote that Moral inclination is not something essential to humanity. It is something accidental and therefore has no bearing on consubstantiality. Secondly, his theology has much bigger problems for consubstantiality than mine ever could. 1. His view of humanity is a universal platonic idea that he raises in the atonement and moreover, Jnorm will admit that the humanity of Messiah is omnipresent due to the hypostatic union which is nothing more than Eutychus’ heresy. We admit that Messiah had a fallen humanity, but it was not absolute with our fallen-ness.

Secular Absolutism, Better Than Christian? Friday, Sep 27 2013 

JP Morgan,

“My Special job is the most interesting I know of anywhere. More fun than being king, pope, or prime minister anywhere-for no one can turn me out of it and I don’t have to make any compromises with principles”.

The Christian Hatred of Everything Jewish Wednesday, Sep 25 2013 

“PROFESSION OF FAITH, FROM THE CHURCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE

From Assemani, Cod. Lit., 1, p. 105.

As a preliminary to his acceptance as a catechumen, a Jew ‘ must confess and denounce verbally the whole Hebrew people, and forthwith declare that with a whole heart and sincere faith he desires to be received among the Christians. Then he must renounce openly in the church all Jewish superstition, the priest saying, and he, or his sponsor if he is a child, replying in these words:

‘I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms, unleavened breads and sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews, and all the other feasts of the Hebrews, sacrifices, prayers, aspersions, purifications, sanctifications and propitiations, and fasts, and new moons, and Sabbaths, and superstitions, and hymns and chants and observances and synagogues, and the food and drink of the Hebrews; in one word, I renounce absolutely everything Jewish, every law, rite and custom, and above all I renounce Antichrist, whom all the Jews await in the figure and form of Christ; and I join myself to the true Christ and God. And I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Holy, Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity, and the dispensation in the flesh and the descent to men of the Word of God, of the one person  of the Holy Trinity, and I confess that he was truly made man, and I believe and proclaim that after the flesh in very truth the Blessed Virgin Mary bore him the son of God. and 1 believe in, receive, venerate and embrace the adorable Cross of Grist, and the holy images; and thus, with my whole heart, and soul, and with a true faith I come to the Christian Faith. But if it be with deceit and with hypocrisy, and not with a sincere and perfect faith and a genuine love of Christ, but with a pretence to a be Christian that I come, and if afterwards I shall wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition, or shall be found eating with Jews, or feasting with them, or secretly conversing and condemning the Christian religion instead of openly confuting them and condemning their vain faith, then let the trembling of Cain and the leprosy of Gehazi cleave to me, as well as the legal punishments to which I acknowledge myself liable. And may 1 be anathema in the world to come, and may my soul be set down with Satan and the devils.'”

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/jewish-oaths.asp

 

Is Our Present Government a Military Coup D’état? Monday, Sep 23 2013 

Growing up in America can be one strange experience. If you are the kind of person who actually cares to know things, the lies we are told in childhood grow darker and darker in our perception as the years pass by.  As we see our Country growing more ignorant and more chaotic and our Government growing more tyrannical, these childhood lies seem more monstrous and malicious than we ever imagined. We are told in childhood that 150 years ago, Northerners loved Black Americans and Southerners hated them and persecuted them, and so our Country fought for the freedom of Black Americans. Not to divert from the topic of this tract, having written a couple books on these issues, I can assure you that this is a total lie. The Northern states were the ones who brought Africans here in the first place. Our original Colony of Virginia did everything they could to legally prevent slave traders from coming to our shores and King George forced it upon us. Jefferson catalogs this in our original Constitution of Virginia. This is a piece of History that our State Schools systematically suppress.  However, this only scratches the surface. The intention of our invasion 150 years ago was not to work for the benefit of Black Americans, but to subject all Americans to Monarchial powers and to create an American Empire totally unrecognizable from the original Government created by the Founding Fathers. This new creation is heralded as the glowing gem of human Civilization and freedom when it is anything but. Americans are starting to wake up to this fact in the recent egregious violations of our 4th Amendment Rights.  Let me be clear, the present Government of the United States of America is not a development of the original Government of 1789. The present Government of the United States of America is an utter rejection of the original Government of 1789. Why do I say this?

1. George H. Pendleton, who was a Democrat and a Representative and a Senator from Ohio, himself a Yankee, said,

“Now the veil is drawn and the revolutionary purpose of the party is revealed. That purpose is to destroy the government, to change its form and spirit, to make a new Union, to ingraft upon it new principles, new theories, new powers. It is rebellion against the Constitution, differing in nothing from its armed enemies except in the weapons of its warfare.”[1]

2. 14th Amendment Citizenship abolished State Sovereignty. James Gillespie Blaine (1830 – 1893), U.S. Representative and Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, said in his Political Discussions (1887) pg. 63-64,

“We intend to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some one of the States: Now, we propose to reverse that, and make him a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by defining in advance his National citizenship — and our Amendment declares that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.’ ”

This overturned the Dred Scott decision as explained in Slaughterhouse Cases – 83 U.S. 36 (1872).[2]

3. 14th Amendment Citizenship does not include Privileges and Immunities of the Bill of Rights.

Maxwell v. Dow – 176 U.S. 581 (1900) says,

“The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government…”

Twining v. State – 211 U.S. 78 (1908) says,

“The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet,  92 U.S. 90), and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the State…”[3]

4. Our present Government is a De Facto Military Government ruling the States as conquered territories treating the Citizens as belligerent enemy combatants. Downes v. Bidwell – 182 U.S. 244 (1901) says,

“What the Chief Justice said was:

“These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government…The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is defined in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States.”

Justice Harlan referred to this as “an era of legislative absolutism”. He continues in his dissent saying,

“The idea prevails with some — indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar — that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments — one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions, the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.”

Ex parte Milligan – 71 U.S. 2 (1866) says, 

“There are under the Constitution three kinds of military jurisdiction: one to be exercised both in peace and war, another to be exercised in time of foreign war without the boundaries of the United States, or in time of rebellion and civil war within states or districts occupied by rebels treated as belligerents…”

Notice how our beloved Government changed the wording of this case in Constitutional Sources of the Laws of War, 65th Congress, 1st Session, Document No. 86, Senate Resolution No. 100 (1917),

“And whenever our Army or Navy may go beyond our territorial limits, neither can go beyond the authority of the President or the legislation of Congress. There are under the Constitution three kinds of military jurisdiction: One to be exercised both in peace and war; another to be exercised in time of foreign war within the boundaries of the United States, or in time of rebellion and civil war within States or districts occupied by rebels treated as belligerents…”[4]

What the Supreme Court ruled to be a prerogative of the Military outside of the United States, Congress made to apply inside the boundaries of the United States.

5. The Gold-Fringed-Flag that stands behind the Judges in American courts prove we are under Military rule, not civilian rule. Army Regulation 840–10; Heraldic Activities Flags, Guidons, Streamers, Tabards, and Automobile and Aircraft Plates, states,

“b. National flags listed below are for indoor display and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes, the flag of the United States will be of rayon banner cloth or heavyweight nylon, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe…c. Authorization for indoor display. The flag of the United States is authorized for indoor display for each… (4) Military courtroom…”[5]

6. Daylight Savings Time is Considered War Time (The War Time Act-56 Stat. 9, ch. 7).  In 1942 Congress passed The War Time Act establishing DST to conserve energy resources during WW2. DST is still with us today.

7. We are in a perpetual state of National Emergency and a State of National Emergency is a State of War. Our state of National Emergency began with FDR’s The Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933.  Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition (1979), page 90 states,

National emergency. A state of national crises…Congress has made little or no distinction between a ‘state of national emergency’ and a ‘state of war’.

Thus, pursuant to the meaning of a National Emergency, FDR, in fact, enacted a state of war. What evidence is there that this state of war extended into the future? In Emergency Powers Statutes, 93d Congress, 1st Session, Report No. 93-549 (1973), we read,

“Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.”

Moreover, Order Code 98-505 GOV, National Emergency Powers, Updated September 18, 2001, by Harold C. Relyea, CRS-13 Table 1 demonstrates that our government has declared a National Emergency almost every year from 1979 to the year of this publication in 2001. The report states,

“The special committee also found that no process existed for automatically terminating the four outstanding national emergency proclamations. [CRS 9-10] …The development, exercise, and regulation of emergency powers, from the days of the Continental Congress to the present, reflect at least one highly discernable trend: those authorities available to the executive in time of national crisis or exigency have, since the time of the Lincoln Administration, come to be increasingly rooted in statutory law. The discretion available to a Civil War President in his exercise of emergency power has been harnessed, to a considerable extent, in the contemporary period.” [CRS-18]

8. The United States Government advertises itself openly as a Fascist Military Government by the traditional Fascist Symbol in the House of Representatives.  The title image of this tract bears this out.

[1] Woodburn, James Albert, The Life of Thaddeus Stevens: A Study in American Political History, 313-314

[2] See also Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935)

[3] See also Justice Harlan’s dissent.

[4] Pg. 12

The American Income Tax; Our Participation in Global Genocide Monday, Sep 23 2013 

The Disney Production was also produced and approved by the US Department of Treasury.

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

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035120/

At the end of the cartoon we see that our Income Taxes will “keep democracy on the march!” Now who is interested in global Democracy? The Roman Catholic Church.  On May 5, 1903, Archbishop Quigley bragged about the power of the Roman Catholic Church. Quigley stated,

“Within twenty years this country is going to rule the world. Kings and Emperors will soon pass away and the democracy of the United States will take their place…When the United States rules the world, the Catholic Church will rule the world…Nothing can stand against the Church. I’d like to see the politician who would try to rule against the Church in Chicago. His reign would be short indeed.”

http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/concerning-roman-catholicism/archbishop-quigley-s-confession

This is exactly what the United States and its CIA has been doing for decades. They have been overthrowing governments all over the world and replacing them with “democracies” administered by puppet rulers. Ron Paul exposed some of this in his speeches concerning Blowback.

 

 

Turretin Review, vol. 1, part 2 Sunday, Sep 22 2013 

Turretin on Middle Knowledge Via Bayou Hugeonot Part 2

The Lecture Hall of Tyrannus

Decrees of God

God’s Foreknowledge of Future Contingencies:

Middle Knowledge: God’s foreknowledge about future contingent events whose truth depend not on God’s free decree (being anterior to this), but upon the liberty of the creature (which God certainly foresees). As Turretin clarifies, Whether besides the natural knowledge of God (which is only of things possible) there is in God a middle knowledge of men and angels where he knows what they may without a special decree preceding (I: 214).

Turretin responds: things not true cannot be foreknown as true. Now, conditional future things are not true apart from the determination of the divine will; for example, the Sidonians would have repented if the powers had been supplied to them, for they would have been indifferently disposed in their nature to repend or not repent, those powers being given. ..No effect can be understood as future without the divine decree, so…

View original post 1,003 more words

Review of Turretin, volume 1, part 1 Sunday, Sep 22 2013 

Turretin on Middle Knowledge Via Bayou Hugeonot

The Lecture Hall of Tyrannus

Recent (that is, pre-1992 A.D.) Reformed theology can be sadly described as a generation arising “which knew not Turretin.” To paraphrase Galadriel in The Fellowship of the Ring: Some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. Turretin’s categorical form of argumentation was one of those “things.” Turretin’s strength is in identifying precisely the issue in question. This allows him to accept and acknowledge points of agreement with his opponents,rather than simply seeing everything as “Arminian.” Recent Reformed (and Arminian-Papist) polemics have all focused on a few issues: predestination, free will, assurance, the Canon, etc.

Turretin understood that there were other issues, too: anthropology, middle knowledge, etc. which also need to be addressed. The English translation of Turretin fills a woeful lacuna.

Principia

While it might be anachronistic to label Turretin’s epistemology as “Common Sense Realism,” one can see similarities. Reason is not ultimate, but it is a reliable…

View original post 350 more words

Karl Marx Was Controlled by Jesuit Father Peter Jan Beckx? Sunday, Sep 22 2013 

Interview with Karl Marx by H., Chicago Tribune, January 5 1879,

“It is said that you are the head and front of socialism, Doctor, and from your villa here pull the wires of all the associations, revolutions, etc., now going on. What do you say about it?”

[Marx] The old gentleman smiled: “I know it.”

“It Is Very Absurd yet it has a comic side. For two months previous to the attempt of Hoedel, Bismarck complained in his North German Gazette that I was in league with Father Beck, the leader of the Jesuit movement, and that we were keeping the socialist movement in such a condition that he could do nothing with it.”

“But your International Society in London directs the movement?”

[Marx] “The International Society has outlived its usefulness and exists no longer. It did exist and direct the movement; but the growth of socialism of late years has been so great that its existence has become unnecessary. Newspapers have been started in the various countries. These are interchanged. That is about the only connection the parties in the different countries have with one another. The International Society, in the first instance, was created to bring the workmen together, and show the advisability of effecting organization among their various nationalities. The interests of each party in the different countries have no similarity. This specter of the Internationalist leaders sitting at London is a mere invention. It is true that we dictated to foreign societies when the Internationalist organization was first accomplished. We were forced to exclude some sections in New York, among them one in which Madam Woodhull was conspicuous. that was in 1871. there are several American politicians – I will not name them – who wish to trade in the movement. They are well known to American socialists.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/79_01_05.htm

Excursus on the End of Sin Offerings Wednesday, Sep 18 2013 

I have thought long and hard on a particularly difficult issue.

Rav Shaul offered a sin offering in Acts 21. Yet, he himself said in Rom. 6:10 that Messiah died once for all as a sin offering. The book of Hebrews also speaks to this issue in great detail, asserting very clearly that,

Heb 10: where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. Heb 10:18

How could Rav Shaul offer a sin offering in light of these things?

Firstly, Yahushua did not come to do away with the Torah with the end of the Sin Offerings but to bring out its full meaning that the Tanakh itself emphasized.

Psalm 40: 6 Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired;
My ears You have opened;
Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.
7 Then I said, “Behold, I come;
In the scroll of the book it is written of me.
8 I delight to do Your will, O my God;
Your Law is within my heart.”

If the Temple was rebuilt next week, the sacrifices could be continued, even the sin offerings, but not for the purpose of doing away with sin, BECAUSE THAT IS THE POINT, THEY NEVER DID AWAY WITH SIN IN THEMSELVES. They did away with sin instrumentally and representationally. Saying, instrumentally, does not mean that the animal sacrifices did nothing.

In Vol. 6 of his Hebrews Commentary, John Owen points out on page 443 the absurdity of saying that the animal sacrifices were not efficacious at all:

“Especially, the great anniversary sacrifice on the day of expiation was appointed so expressly to make atonement for sin, to procure its pardon, TO TAKE AWAY ITS GUILT IN THE SIGHT OF GOD, AND FROM THE CONSCIENCE OF THE SINNER, THAT HE SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED ACCORDING unto the sentence of the law, as that it cannot be denied. This is that which the apostle declares that of themselves they could not effect or perform, BUT ONLY TYPICALLY AND BY WAY OF REPRESENTATION.”

Hebrews 10 IS SPEAKING OF THE SACRIFICES IN THEMSELVES. But typically they were efficacious and propitious as they figured Messiah’s atonement. The blood of Yahushua does not propitiate per se. It propitiates by representation. His blood represents his life (Lev.17:11).  The Scriptures teach that “the wages of sin is death.” Thus what atones for sin per se is a death, not blood. However, by a positive law, Yahuwah has instituted that blood be the representative emblem of that life and death. That God requires blood for remission is a positive law. Owen says,

“By the law, without shedding of blood,’ that is, in sacrifice, ‘there is no remission.’ Yet though that season be particularly intended, the axiom is universally true, and applicable unto the new covenant; – even under it, without shedding of blood is not remission…There seems to be an exception in the case of him who was so poor that he could not provide the meanest offering of blood for a  sin-offering ; for he was allowed by the law to offer ” the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour ” for his sin, and it was forgiven him, Lev. v. 11-13. Wherefore the word…”almost,” may be here again repeated, because of this single case. But the apostle hath respect unto the general rule of the law. And this exception was not an ordinary constitution, but depended on the impossibility of the thing itself, whereunto it made a gracious condescension. And this necessity ofttimes of itself, without any constitution, suspends a positive law, and gives a dispensation unto the infringers of it. So was it in the case of David when he ate of the shew-bread in his hunger; and as to works of necessity and mercy on the Sabbath-day: which instances are given by our Saviour himself. Wherefore the particular exception on this consideration did rather strengthen than invalidate the general rule of the law. Besides, the nearest approach was made unto it that might be. For fine flour is the best of the bread whereby man s life is sustained; and in the offering of it the offerer testified that by his sin he had forfeited his own life and all whereby it was sustained: which was the meaning of the offering of blood.”  (Vol. 6 of Hebrews Commentaries, pg. 367-368)

Some object: “Oh, it has to be animal sacrifice for sin! That is what the Torah absolutely required!” Really? So what about Lev 5:11-13? If the animal sacrifice is the be-all-end-all of the Torah, why was flour able to be substituted?

This is devastating to Jews and those Natsarim who reject the ministry of Rav Shaul and reject the book of Hebrews. Come face to face with the sheer horror of it friend:

THE TORAH ITSELF ALTERED THE ANIMAL SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM!

Thus, altering the sacrificial system in the Messianic way would not be doing away with one jot or tittle from the Law.

Some Jews object that human sacrifice could never be commanded by Yahuwah because according to the Hebrew Scriptures, the only animals permitted for sacrificial purposes are those that have split hooves and chew their cud. Really? So why was flour accepted? It relayed the same meaning and Yahushua’s death not only relayed the same meaning it rose to the quality of heavenly things able to cleanse even the conscience of man and not only his body.  (Heb. 9-10)

After criticizing human sacrifice and substitutionary atonement, one critic of Yahushua uses,

Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Do these people even think through what they are saying for even 2 minutes? If this verse qualifies the sacrificial system then human sacrifice is permitted and animal sacrifices would be precluded.

Excurcus on Birthday Parties Monday, Sep 16 2013 

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000749

Monuments of past idolatry (And not only the idols themselves but the passage speaks of all the vessels and ornaments associated and used in the idolatry) are to be destroyed as good King Josiah did in 2 Kings 23 along with many other examples.

Deu 12:2  Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree:

Deu 12:3  And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

Gen 35:1  And God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there: and make there an altar unto God, that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother.

Gen 35:2  Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments:

Gen 35:3  And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went.

Gen 35:4  And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem.

2Ki 10:26  And they brought forth the images out of the house of Baal, and burned them.

2Ki 10:27  And they brake down the image of Baal, and brake down the house of Baal, and made it a draught house unto this day.

2Ki 10:28  Thus Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel.

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: