Twinky

Waxit sent me a reply to a question I asked him earlier, but which for some unknown reason he was unable to post here. I have his permission to quote his email to me. I am not endorsing his views and leave it to others to have their say on what Waxit says:

Waxit, you said: Following the examples you yourself think appropriate, I could say: WHERE exactly does it say that Jesus COMMANDED us to keep the Sabbath? He says, Keep MY (my, my, my) commandments. And Jesus's biggest commandments (if you like) are these: FIRSTLY 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] SECONDLY 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] There is no commandment greater than these.” Note: ONLY TWO commandments. And I can't see any mention of any kind of special days, sabbath or otherwise. And Jesus himself says: There is no commandment greater than these. Note that it DOES NOT SAY: 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength and you must keep the sabbath. In fact, it's conspicuous by its absence. Even you have to agree that ... don't you?

I think he shared some of that on the other thread. Bit confusing, having two almost identical threads on the go.

It's "No-one f---g knows" as they reach the finish line!! LOL!

Waxit, I recommended BibleHub to you (it sounds as though it's new to you?) not so that you could find another way to go picking and choosing, but to help improve your deeper study and scholastic ability. Please tell me you're not using this to get nitpicky and evasive when asked questions. (You may quote this paragraph should you choose to reply to this comment.) (= 15 words plus 13 in parentheses.)

And as well as the gospels, don't forget the Didache, one of the earliest documents written to benefit new Christians. Even that has accrued a considerable amount of what my former church leader (an acknowledged expert in this area of study) called "rust" - the overlays and reinterpretations people put on it.

Waxit: I said NO QUOTES. Pay attention. I think you may find the old translators have a MUCH wider grasp of ancient languages than you, even with the best concordance that's available to you. They spent years, decades, studying ancient languages and customs and the history of the region and the idioms and nuances, perhaps nuances across regions, of those ancient languages. Well. These are the type of scholarly individuals who prepared the concordances; of course they know better than the average joe. How thoroughly do you know - say - the language of the country where you now live? And the development of that language over - let's keep it short - 500 years? What about your knowledge of the development of the English language, and its nuances, idioms and variations over different regions of a country (say, just England) (Sottish, Welsh and Irish versions of English are different again) over the last - say - 1000 years? Do you know, for example, that people in the north of England use a significant number of words that are unknown in the southwest, and vice versa? How many different meanings do you know to the not uncommon word "mash"? That has meanings that many people would know, but also has some local variant meanings that are unknown elsewhere. Here's a really simple question: in 20th and 21st century (=now), what does one mean by "the city" in England? Does it mean the same if you say, "city"? or the "city"? Now go back to the development of these languages, that you are familiar with, and think about how much you know of them 3000 years ago. Because right now you're laying your 21st century ideas on top of what you read. And you must clear your head of 21st century ideas and stick your head into 3000 years ago to understand well enough. Can you honestly say that you can do that? If you can't do that with something that you are familiar with, why do you think you can know more than scholars who have spent lifetimes and developed huge expertise and worked with other scholars of huge expertise, refining ideas knowledge and understanding - that they then graciously share with those of us of lesser intellect and expertise. I think you may find that "gates" refers to the gates of the city (try reading, say, Nehemiah, where the walls and gates of the city were repaired). And the control over the gates and the city enclosed by the walls and the gates rested with the public authorities, which in ancient Israel were the religious authorities. Gates as in gates to an individual garden probably weren't common. Likely the houses were straight onto the street, most unlikely into a front or back garden of a house such as in modern day. Gates might well be only for compounds for animals to be kept safe at night, in warmer months when animals were in fields (and not in the winter months when animals were usually in the same dwelling with their owners).

Most versions say "in your towns" or "cities." Waxit, can I recommend BibleHub to you? Very good and easy to check references, versions, etc, and easy to compare different translations; about a dozen or maybe more are offered for every verse. And you can compare these verses, to get a fuller sense; read whole chapters; and read many commentaries from many different commentators on verses, passages, customs, etc.

ALL I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU NOW, WAXIT, IS YOUR APOLOGY FOR YOUR RUDENESS. DON'T BOTHER OTHERWISE. DON'T QUOTE ME. NOTHING.

What the heck has that got to do with this "sabbath" stuff? Do you think I condone adultery? You know what I've said personally to you; we had a long conversation about it. You know I told you about all sorts of that stuff that had been going on both at HQ and elsewhere. You know how appalled I was. You know that I was being groomed for this, too. Stop making out that you are holier than holy, and I'm some sort of ---- I don't know what. I have been patient with you. I am now beginning to get quite riled. Any more of your insults and I will feel tempted to reply to you in terms that GSC's filters would screen out. I'm not going to write any more now - the steam coming out of my ears is obscuring my sight.

Oh Waxit. Please read!!!! And stop being nasty, and making snarky remarks. Please. It's not endearing. I'm quite willing to agree with you that Jesus Christ is the "goal" of the law. Its "purpose," as you now say. I said that earlier. We all need to develop our relationship with Jesus, the Christ, the Redeemer, King, Saviour. You are the one who wants "chapter and verse." You are the one who wants the scripture slug-fest. You are the one who persists in a view not common here, so you are the one who needs to support it in face of many verses which appear to present something different.

No, Waxit, you are not answering. And you are not accepting either my, or other people's, points of view. I asked, in my longer post yesterday, a few things that I genuinely did want to know. But you can't or won't answer that. Anyway - as I said. Fine. End of.

As you'll be aware, Waxit, the "10Cs" are expanded in the following chapters of Exodus. I wonder about your take on two things. One of these is this (and the other is completely unrelated to sabbath-keeping, so not mentioned here): BUT the following is a quote

It's not a scripture slug-fest, Waxit. That's a very TWI-thing ("I know better scriptures than you do"). And don't indulge in adding words in your own PI. I (and many others) have stated a different view, which you cannot accept. Fine. End of. It's not even what scriptures one knows - it's the ones one acts upon, puts into practice, that matter. And you cannot see the entire outworking of my faith - but the Lord does - and those who have eyes to see, do.

The one I have asked you at least four times. And others have asked you also. You can either: admit you don't bother to read threads in sufficient detail, and therefore request me to post the question again; or You can read the entire thread, find the question, and answer it.

From what I gather, Donna certainly helps Rosalie make her bed - and lie in it. LOL!

A little off topic, this, but seems reasonably relevant to where the discussion is currently. A version of this was in my Inbox this evg; I chose this one because the words are also shown:

By the same token, I ask that you don't avoid or ignore the question I asked YOU four times already - and others have also asked the same. You answer first. Go ahead. Succinctly. In your own words. After all, this is what you also recently said: So, answer :)

Waxit said: You said that. I say: we are TO GET TO KNOW JESUS, THE CHRIST. Waxit, do you consider you know Jesus, the Christ? Or do you just know a book about him? And if you consider that you know Jesus, why are you dissing those who also say they know Jesus - but think differently? You're the only one who has real knowledge? Everyone else knows a false Jesus, maybe? Do give that some serious thought. Be not quick to judge others... (now where have I read that? (rhetorical question)).

I haven't fallen out with you, Waxit. But I (and many others here) would prefer that you be brief and to the point, and address questions asked of you in simple manner. I'm still waiting... well, no, I don't expect you to answer now.

Is this what you're looking for, T-Bone? https://www.amazon.com/Holman-CSB-The-Passion-Bible/dp/1586401688/ref=sr_1_21?crid=1SU0DXIIF7CSD&dchild=1&keywords=the+passion+bible&qid=1589841430&sprefix=the+passion+%2Caps%2C231&sr=8-21 Been around for quite a long time, and is both OT and NT. First (c) 1999. Very readable, good footnotes. Various other notes and tables at the end. I note there's something else around called "The Passion Translation" - don't know if it's also published by Holman - different sort of logo on the "Passion" name.

Gabe. There is no need to be sarcastic. I have already told you, personally, that I am really busy at the present time. I have stated my own view and understanding on the current topic, several times, succinctly. You may find it helpful to read what others including myself have written, to gain understanding. Please don't think that by your many words and protestations you are convincing anyone. Quite the contrary. You would do much better if you answered questions put to you (of which, genuine answers are there few) and said, succinctly, in few words, what it is you feel you need to say. The tone of your posts is regrettably rather show-offish and it appears you think you, and you alone, have all the Bible knowledge and understanding, together with comprehensive understanding of some version of Greek, and the rest of us here have no knowledge or understanding, and are not entitled to any view at all. You think we are completely wrong. It may be that you are completely wrong, however. Time and again, people have presented thoughtful study against your own view, and you have dismissed them. That's not honest on your part.

Like your post, T-Bone. My "Passion Bible" (HCSB) gives Rom 10: as this: Reading through to the end of this section of Romans, I'm really happy that "No one who believes on Him (or, on God) will be put to shame" (HSCB, quoting Is 28:16, rather than believing in some laws given to a different group of people in a different time. It seems easier to believe on God, on Jesus, on the direct promises of salvation. And then, our actions and good deeds flow as an outworking of our faith, our believing on Him (James 2, among other places). Our actions and good deeds might include sabbath-keeping, among other things; having a rest from our worldly work, setting aside those things for fellowship with God and God's people - very worthwhile, to set aside "A" day, any day, to do this.

Right. The goal of the law is to get to know Jesus, the Christ. Get to know the Man, the King, the Shepherd, the Redeemer. The goal of the law IS NOT to get to observe any specific day, or time, or season. We are to do as Jesus did, in heart, soul, mind, and strength. That means: loving and obeying God. And then, loving our neighbours (=those around us, those we come into contact with). It doesn't mean: following all the ritual that Jesus followed, and much of which he poo-poo'd.

That is a very powerful poem at the start of Simon's talk, isn't it! Yes. Get out there and DO - don't just talk (or think) about doing. Love this, T-Bone: … the lawyer and every single one of us.