Second Reply to BibleLosophR on Christian Sexuality

“I could be the worst luster, murderer, thief and liar out there, but that doesn’t give me or anyone else the right to lower the requirements of God’s law to the level of what the flesh can naturally fulfill.”

>>>Oh but you’re claiming to have the spirit yes? So with the spirit you still masturbate what does that tell you?

“The truth is that by God’s design and providence the Christian life is impossible to fulfill (apart from the power of the Holy Spirit).”

>>>I never excluded the HS.

“The OC law was meant to show us our inability to merit salvation and to point us to Christ.”

>>>Yes, and to teach us right from wrong. In Calvinism the curse of the Covenant of Works (Cow) is a curse under the Law of Moses. The imputed righteousness bequeathed to the believer is Messiahs’ active obedience to the law of Moses. The entire Reformed soteriology is constructed with the parameters of the law of Moses. You cannot erect another moral standard without completely abandoning the Bible’s salvation doctrine. You will have to join the Eastern Orthodox church and accept theosis and christus victor.

“The NC law which magnifies the OC law”

>>>You keep baselessly asserting that. The NC is correcting the Rabbinic interpretation and perversion of the Law of Moses.

“It is humanly impossible to live under the principles you espouse. >>>Exactly.”

>>>No. By humanly impossible I am including the HS.

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Mat. 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

“For someone who is so opposed to perfectionism, why do you expect Christians to perfectly live up to their Biblical convictions?”

>>>Because the Bible as I have demonstrated tells me his New Covenant is not grievous or burdensome.

“Like my fellow Calvinists I reject the Wesleyan concept of “Christian perfection” or “Entire Sanctification” (and other similar concepts). Ironically, you seem to exhibit a form of doctrinal (gnostic) perfectionism.”

>>>So by saying it is not a sin to masturbate I’m necessarily saying it is possible to avoid all sin? You need to prove this instead of asserting it.

“So, much so that you have difficulty getting along with and fellowshipping with fellow Calvinists.”

>>>As I demonstrated you’re not a Calvinist. If you accept Christianity you have to abandon Calvinism and the entire bible b/c the parameters of the gospel are based on the law of Moses. You affirm a standard above the law of Moses.

“Though, I don’t know if you still consider yourself a Calvinist of sorts. Do we find that the Colossians are being condemned for NOT observing feast days and Sabbaths? Who would be doing that to former pagans? >>>First off, I have no problem with believers observing the sabbath. My problem is with the teaching that it’s required of all New Cov. believers (based on Col. 2:16; Gal. 4:10; Rom. 14:5 etc.).”

>>>Moral relativism. Your religion is why we are in the mess we are in now.

“You’re right that the church at Colossae was probably predominantly Gentile. However, like other churches, it’s not unlikely (even probable) that the earliest members were Jewish (in keeping with Paul’s method of first going to a city’s Synagogue to make converts, then only afterwards going to the gentiles). When one reads the book of Colossians it’s clear that the church was made up of individuals that had all sorts of strange beliefs. Why couldn’t some individuals or groups at Colossae have included a belief in a requirement of sabbath observance? Especially since verse 16 begins with a “THEREFORE” pointing to the previous context (vv. 10-15) which included Paul’s explanation of how their spiritual circumcision (“made without hands”) replaces the need for a physical circumcision.”

>>>First, you didn’t address my argument and merely made baseless speculations. Second, Paul did not replace circumcision. Another speculation.

“The context is how Christ the anti-type fulfilled the types (including the ceremonial laws) so that they aren’t required to be fulfilled exactly in the same way as they formerly were. So that it’s permissible to get circumcised or observe sabbath, so long as it’s understood they are no longer necessary (I’m told Dale Ratzlaff’s book Sabbath in Christ is a good resouce, but I haven’t read it).”

>>>This passage is not a shadow-substance juxtaposition. In Heb.10:1, which is a clear shadow-substance juxtaposition, the word for substance or image is (eikōn). Yet here  in Col. 2:17 we have the word (sōma). This is the word used so many times in the New Testament for the Congregation, the body of Messiah. At the end of Chapter 1 Paul is rejoicing at their recent conversion from Paganism. This is reinforced in Chapter 2 verse 13 where he mentioned the fact that when they were unbelievers they were uncircumcised. Paul then rejoices that Yah through Yeshua redeemed them and overcame the dark powers that had once dominated them. In light of this he then moves to our passage. These newly converted previous Pagan Gentiles should then disregard the criticisms of their fellow Gentiles who now condemn them for their new lifestyle of diet and Sabbath keeping. Paul urges them not to listen to their vain Philosophies but to listen to the body of Messiah, the Congregation. I am amazed at how many ways the Christian Bibles either mistranslate or add in italicized words to hide the clear reading of the Greek text here.

“I agree with you that there’s a final fulfillment of the shadows at the eschaton. But we can enjoy their inaugural fulfillment now in Christ.”

>>>No. That’s full preterism. We should keep the fall fests BECAUSE they are presently shadows of things to come, namely, the final state, the judgment, the resurrection.

 “it makes most sense that the “days, months, seasons and years” aren’t referring primarily to pagan holidays”

>>>Even though verse 8 explicitly injects their previous pagan history?

“but Jewish holy days, feasts and (IMO) the sabbath. The terminology used in the Tanach for the Sabbaths is Sabbaths, new moons and set feasts, not days, months and years. >>>Paul could be referring specifically to Jewish sabbaths, new moons and set feasts, yet without excluding possible pagan holy days as well.”

>>>Baseless. Col. 2:16-17 says the exact opposite of what your beliefs are.

“He’s likely trying to be exhaustive and cover every possible special times of obligated observance.”

>>>Baseless.

“Why assume there were no Jews who professed faith in Messiah at Galatia?”

>>>The issue is Gal. 4:8 explicitly joins the context to gentile pagan peoples.

“Isn’t it natural that the Circumcision Party movement would have been lead by Jews rather than gentiles?”

>>>You are totally ignoring Gal. 4:8!

“They claimed to be the people of the true God yet they worshipped Him in the passé or out-of-date way.”

>>>The only way you can call the feasts out of date, is if you believe full preterism.

“But according to you (as I understand it) desires don’t matter”

>>>No, I said desires which do not complete an intent as a sufficient condition.

“I would argue that it would be sinful to desire sex with animals or a person of the same sex as oneself because it’s contrary to God’s law to do so in reality.”

>>>But it is not against Yah’s law to have sex with a person of opposite sex in reality.

“By they same type of reasoning, it would be wrong to lust after any woman one is not married to precisely because it is contrary to God’s law to commit adultery or fornication in reality.”

>>>You are conflating being with relation. On the former argument you say it is wrong based on the object’s being. In the latter It is wrong not based on being but on relation. So it is not the same type of reasoning.

“You don’t want to admit my desire and intent distinction because it nullifies your disgusting satanic position. >>>If it’s intent that matters and not desire”

>>>I didn’t say desire had nothing to do with it. I simply stated that desire and intent are technically distinct.

“then why do you interpret the 10th commandment as prohibiting the DESIRE of a neighbors’ wife?”

>>>Because that is the nature of the 10th commandment. It is about coveting.

“So long as there’s no INTENT on committing adultery, why can’t you fulfill your DESIRE for your neighbor’s wife by lusting after her?”

>>>Because the scripture prohibits it. The scripture nowhere prohibits a single man having desires for a single woman.

“You don’t seem to be consistent here.”

>>>Lol! You are going to lecture me about consistency? Above you said “Masturbation per se may not be evil”, then you said just a few lines back “By they same type of reasoning, it would be wrong to lust after any woman one is not married to precisely because it is contrary to God’s law to commit adultery or fornication in reality.” You can’t keep your position on the primary issue here consistent. And you lecture me about consistency? ROFL!

“>>>People absolutely NEED food to survive. People don’t absolutely need sex to survive.”

>>>Can you point out to me any human being in well-being that doesn’t have sex or masturbate?

“To say so is to accept an evolutionary view of biology whereby humans are no different than animals in heat.”

>>>And your view is the Monkish Angelic celibacy. Yes, I have sided more with materialism since I left Christianity and I’m proud of it. Yah’s creation is good not a malicious prison.Calvin states,

“And Christ, in commending his spirit to the Father, and Stephen his to Christ, simply mean, that when the soul is freed from the prison-house of the body, [Here is Calvin’s overt Gnosticism! DS] God becomes its perpetual keeper.” Institutes I.15.2:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.xvi.html

THE PRISON HOUSE OF THE BODY? GNOSTICISM!

“But you just admitted it was permissible in the Old Testament! So, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with his lusting after a young woman given YOUR alleged views. >>>Huh? Given my views, Job could have desired the young woman, but may not lust after her.”

>>That is a distinction without a difference fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference

“If he wanted, he could have pursued marrying her.”

>>>Then you cannot find any fault with my position!

“That doesn’t follow. Wrong! Lev. 19: 17 ‘You shall not hate your [c]fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor…

>>>Jesus was asked “Who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29). Jesus goes on to describe The Parable of the Good Samaritan. In the parable the good guy is of the hated race of the Samaritans. They were especially hated by the Jews because they were half-breeds (not fully Jewish, not fully Gentile) with a half-breed religion (mimicking aspect of Judaism at Mount Gerizim, cf. John 4:19-20). Apparently, under the New Cov. Messiah expanded the term “neighbor” to extend beyond one’s own ethnic and religious group.”

>>>You are such a disgusting manipulator you will no longer have privilege to comment here.

I cited Lev. 19 in response to your comment

“In keeping with Isa. 42:21 Messiah magnified the law in Matt.[5]:21-22 when he said “You have heard……BUT I say unto you”. He raised the bar so that undeserved hatred was revealed to be a violation of the spirit of the 6th commandment.”

The issue was Yeshua was shown not to raise the bar regarding hatred. But returning from Rabbinic tradition to the Torah law. You were proven wrong and so you changed your argument. You people are pathological liars. As for Luke 10 and the good Samaritan, this passage is ambiguous but gives no help to your position at all.  Yeshua here defines a neighbor as someone who does good to you, namely the good Samaritan. We don’t know what ethnicity the victim of the thieves was. It doesn’t say. It just says he comes down from Jerusalem. But either way, this passage nowhere says we are to love people who want to genocide our race and religion. All it says and all I’m trying to get from Lev. 19 is that there is a strong emphasis on nationalistic preference as Paul emphasizes:

Rom. 9: 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

—-
“I am guessing you meant Mat. 5:27-28. Merely? The law is holy just and good. >>>The point is that only my interpretation has Messiah raising the bar at 5:27-28 as He did in 5:21-22.”

>>>You asserted he raised the bar. You never proved it.

“Your interpretation leaves the bar where it was.”

>>>No need to improve on that which is holy, just and good. You want perfectionism. Just admit it. You’re a Satanist.

“Yes, the I agree with Rom. 7:12, but the New Cov. raises the law to a new level termed “newness of the Spirit” (cf. Rom. 7:6; 8:2, 4; 2 Cor. 3:6; Gal. ch. 5).”

>>>You lying snake. Rom. 7:6 says nothing of a new law but a new state of being that has the ability to observe the law as does Romans 8:2-4 as does 2 Cor. 3:6, as does Gal. 5.

“Nope. Yah rebuked Jonah for not caring about the children. >>>The children were highlighted, but it wasn’t limited to them.”

>>>Yes it was.

 “Since, elsewhere in the OT God wasn’t averse to judging adults along with their children (as during the conquest of Canaan).”

>>>Rom. 9: 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

“That’s for God to determine in His timing.”

>>>Nope. You Anarchist. Yah is not the only authority. Gal. 3: 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

The solemn league and covenant stands over you and your apostate people as a curse whether you acknowledge it or not.

“Like John Murray, you’re not an inspired prophet of doom.”

>>>But I am a Patriarch in my land having right of blood and merit standing for over 400 years. I have authority as a man who keeps the laws of his creator in a land built by my family.

 “Besides, as a Postmillennialist and a Calvinist of sorts, you don’t know how or when God may bring revival and/or awakening.”

>>>That is the exact argument the Royalists made to Rutherford in Lex Rex. That is irrelevant to my duty. My duty is to the children of my people to punish their apostate wicked parents and to preserve a future for them. The 1st thing that needs to go is your religion. Just because Yah judges a land with famine does not mean the people cannot search for food.

 

Reply to BibleLosophR on Christian Sexuality

BibleLosophR has replied to my video on Biblical Sexuality. here is my reply.

You never answered my question about lusting after women and masturbating. And you deliberately avoided answering didn’t you? You consciously saw the question and made a deliberate act of will to harden yourself in the hypocrisy of your stupid religion.   Then you tried to come out guns blazing against me asking me an array of questions making sure I can cross every T and dot every I knowing very well you cannot stand up under basic scrutiny. If you have sexual thoughts about women and masturbate, your religion is done. It is humanly impossible to live under the principles you espouse. A close friend of mine tried to live up under these principles and stopped masturbating for a long period of time. He was only able to do it by becoming a vegan and it almost killed him. Your religion deserves to die the death that it has died in the modern world.

“It’s interesting that 59 out of the 60 times in the NT the word sabbath is used Sabbatarians agree it refers to the weekly sabbath. Yet the 60th time in Col. 2:16 it doesn’t.”

>>>When did I say that?

“How convenient and ad hoc. Despite the fact that Paul uses the same “yearly, monthly, weekly” phraseology in Col. 2:16 that is used in the OT (though usually in reverse order) which includes the weekly sabbath. For example, 1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4; 8:13; 31:3; Neh. 10:33; Isa. 1:13-14; Ezek. 45:17 Ezk 46:1-11; Hos. 2:11 cf. Gal. 4:10.”

>>>Do we find that the Colossians are being condemned for NOT observing feast days and Sabbaths? Who would be doing that to former pagans? Could it be that they were being condemned FOR OBSERVING the Kosher Laws and the Sabbaths? Next, what about the phrase, “things which ARE a mere shadow of what is TO COME”? The are, (estin in the Greek) is present tense not past tense. It is not saying they were a shadow. It says they are a shadow. The Christian interpretation is that the Sabbaths and Feasts were shadows of something already come, namely Yeshua the Messiah. This is obviously incorrect. The celebrated Protestant Commentators, Gill, Poole and Calvin completely miss this and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown and Henry devilishly change the are to a were.

As for Gal. 4:9-10. This is a difficult verse and Christianity itself does not have a monolithic interpretation of this passage. I will admit that this is the strongest passage the Christian Theology has at its disposal. However, as we shall see, if this is the strongest argument for their case it convinces me even more that they are wrong. The terminology used in the Tanach for the Sabbaths is Sabbaths, new moons and set feasts, not days, months and years. Moreover, how can the Galatians, a pagan people, return to practices they never observed? I would ask the reader to view verses 8 and 9. Here Paul is asking the Galatians why they would want to return to elements that they practiced when they knew nothing Yah. We read in the Torah, that Yah forbid Israel to observe times:

Lev. 19:26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times. KJV

This is the sense of Gal. 4.

“Wouldn’t that imply that there’s nothing wrong with having lustful thoughts that are homosexual or beastial?”

>>>You’re really grasping in desperation aren’t you? Desiring sex with a woman is natural. Desiring sex with a man or an animal is unnatural.

“The woman one is lusting after isn’t one’s own. She doesn’t belong to that person (as yet through marriage). So that would seem to constitute fornication of the heart per Matt. 15:19/Mark 7:21.”

>>>Desire and intent are not the same thing.

“Desiring a woman is not the same thing as lusting after a woman which involves inordinate desire that amounts to idolatry.”

>>>You’re making a distinction without a difference fallacy. You don’t want to admit my desire and intent distinction because it nullifies your disgusting satanic position. So you’re trying to make a distinction between desire and lust. You do realize that the fact that you desire women nullifies your entire religion.

 “One can idolize having a big house even though there’s nothing wrong per se with merely desiring a big house.”

>>>That’s a continuum fallacy. Desiring to be rich and desiring to survive are not the same thing. Thus, to desire a sexual relationship and inordinate idolatry are not the same thing.

“First, Job is married. Job 2:9. _

>>>But polygamy was permissible in the Old Testament. So, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with his lusting after a young woman given your views.”

>>>But you just admitted it was permissible in the Old Testament! So, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with his lusting after a young woman given YOUR alleged views. See, the truth is you reject the bible totally. You’re a Satanist sir. Face the horror of it. You people are the biggest liars in world history. You are an atheist. You don’t believe the Bible. Moreover, I have not suggested that married men lust after another woman other than his wife. However on Job 31:1 Rashi states,

“I made a covenant with my eyes: not to gaze upon a married woman

and why should I gaze upon a virgin?: Why should I gaze upon her? Such was Job’s piety, not to lay an eye even on an unmarried woman. [He would say,] “Perhaps, after a time, she will be married, and I will find myself attracted to her.” So is [this verse] explained in Avoth D’Rabbi Nathan (2:5)”

“BTW, I do think polygamy is permissible (barely) in the New Covenant. However, the ideal is Christ’s model of having one bride, the church.”

>>>Then everything you just said is psychological manipulation. I hate you people so much. Everything out of your mouths is covered in green slime.

“Is there anything sinful in lusting after a prostitute in your view? Also, since one ought only to seek marriage with a believer, should one only lust after a believer?”

>>>Strain that gnat. I’m not playing your games. There is nothing wrong with lusting after an unmarried woman as long as there is no intent to fornicate with her. I know what you’re doing. You are a Christian and thus inevitably a Platonist. You think humans are capable of perfection in this time. It’s inherently Preterist and platonic.

“In other words, is it wrong to lust after a non-believer in your view?”

>>>It is wrong to intend to fornicate with anyone.

“I have never suggested young men desire after fornication. >>>How is that different from having fornicatious thoughts?”

>>>Intent.

“Oh but everything you just argued for says different. >>>The Puritans didn’t think so.”

>>>I respect the Puritans but they were still Platonists though a better version than Romanism.

“In keeping with Isa. 42:21 Messiah magnified the law in Matt. 7:21-22 when he said “You have heard……BUT I say unto you”. He raised the bar so that undeserved hatred was revealed to be a violation of the spirit of the 6th commandment.”

>>>Wrong! Lev. 19: 17 ‘You shall not hate your [c]fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him.18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.

“Your interpretation of Matt. 7:27-28 which uses the same phrase “You have heard……BUT I say unto you” doesn’t magnify the law or raise the bar, but merely reiterates the 10th commandment.”

>>>I am guessing you meant Mat. 5:27-28. Merely? The law is holy just and good.

Rom. 7:12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

“My interpretation maintains the parity and parallel.”

>>>You are trying to see one that isn’t there. You’re using your Platonism to affirm a perfectionist moral standard above the Torah.

“One can simultaneously love those whom one also rightfully hates (per the imprecatory psalms).”

>>>You’re just asserting that. David hates the people he is imprecating.

Psa. 139:21 Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
22 I hate them with the utmost hatred;
They have become my enemies.

“Just as YHWH rebuked Jonah for not caring about the Ninevites (their gentile mortal enemies at the time).”

>>>Nope. Yah rebuked Jonah for not caring about the children.

Jonah 4: Then God said to Jonah, “Do you have good reason to be angry about the plant?” And he said, “I have good reason to be angry, even to death.” 10 Then the Lord said, “You had compassion on the plant for which you did not work and which you did not cause to grow, which[h]came up overnight and perished [i]overnight. 11 Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?”

“I find your lack of concern for the other goyim nations disturbing.”

>>>What are you talking about?

 “It doesn’t include the missionary spirit of evangelism and love found in the New Testament.”

>>>Of course it doesn’t. The present generation is not a people to be evangelized. They already were evangelized and given the greatest privileges of knowledge in world history. They even covenanted with Yah in the solemn league and covenant. You people are apostates and you don’t deserve evangelization. You deserve judgment, blood and pain. And that’s what you’re getting and it’s going to get worse.

“Presumably you believe the other goyim nations are also made in God’s image/likeness.”

>>>Sure but so were those annihilated in Deut. 13 and Exodus 32.