TRUTH ON TRIAL 4 TABERNACLE

[unknown]

In grammar, there is concrete and abstract thought. The concrete is the carnal and is
realized with the carnal sense's. Touch, taste, smell and so forth. These are tangible
things. The abstract is the sense's of the mind. To say "I see" with the mind, does
not mean to, literally see. This is the intangible. There is also a difference between
abstract and spiritual. Here is an example. Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being
changed, there is made of necessity a "change" also of the law. The word "change" is a
concrete word. The spiritual word "transpose" was translated to the word "change"
which would mean a physical change in the law. According to Jesus, nothing can change
in the law. Mat 5:18. Therefore, the law can be lawfully "transposed," into spiritual.
A transposed law is not a changed law. The law remains the same. God is the light. The
law is the shadow. The spiritual is that which is between the light and the shadow.
The law given from one on the mountain, will supersede the law from one not on the
mountain of God. "for out of Zion shall go forth the law".

The tabernacle is laid out in the form of man. Hand, fore arm, upper arm, times two,
equals six. Foot, calf, and thigh, times two, equals another six. This covers the
twelve tribes outside of the court. The court is the trunk of the body. Within the
court, are the vital organs of the body. Those who are to be vital organs, are taken
from those outside of the trunk. Some of these organs serve as filters for the body.
Jesus is the head, and God is the mind, and the Holy Spirit is in the heart of Israel.
It is the vital organ's in the trunk of the body, that feeds the outer limbs. These
are the inward parts of the body. There are ten commandments, and there are ten long
bones in the body of man. These long bones produce the blood of the body. The blood of
the spirit is righteousness. Therefore, spiritual righteous comes from the ten
commandments. Righteous is doing things right, the way God said to do them right.

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new "covenant", he hath made the first old. The word
covenant is not in the Greek translations. This word was added by the translators.
This writer is speaking of the new tabernacle. Exo 34:28 And he wrote upon the tables
the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. The ten commandments do not get old,
nor have they vanished. Thou shalt not kill, or commit adultery, or steal. The only
thing that gets old, is listening to those that say the covenant laws have vanished,
to cover up their evil ways. Adultery or killing, is still just as sinful today, as
the day God condemned it. So if you condemn the laws of the covenant. You will be
responsible for all sinful actions, that you have allowed to happen. Because you are
granting people the liberty to break the covenant commandments and commit evil deeds.
All these sin's will be laid right at your feet. By granting people the right to
commit adultery or murder, you do the work of Satan.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after
those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their "mind", and write them in
their hearts: The word "mind" is supposed to be an abstract word, But actually, it is
used as a concrete, tangible word. Because it is speaking about the carnal mind or the
brain. This is not what Jeremiah was speaking of. Jer 31:33 After those days, saith
the LORD, I will put my law in their "inward parts", and write it in their hearts;
There is an adulteration in the wording. Jeremiah said "inward parts" and Hebrews said
"Mind." It is not my position that the writer of Hebrews made this adulteration. This
change was made by a carnally minded man, which had no knowledge of the ways of God.
This change was made previous, to the protestant translators.

Speaking of the body of man, it would make no sense, for God to put his laws in mans
"inward parts". However, He was speaking of the new tabernacle, the body of Jesus, and
it makes perfect sense, for God to put his laws "within" the inward parts. Those that
are called the "inward parts" are the elect. Therefore, he has made the first
tabernacle, old and ready to vanish. God did not make the covenant old. Because the
commandments of the covenant do not get old.

Covenant breakers can not know the ways of God. 1 John 2:4. They can not know the
difference between "Mind" and "Inward parts". They can not comprehend between abstract
and spiritual. Because they have no concept of the spiritual tabernacle. These people
can not enter into the court of the tabernacle, to become the inward parts. Isa 2:3
And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the
LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will
walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD
from Jerusalem. The "only way" to the mountain, is through the court of the
tabernacle. You must be willing to become an "inward part" to reach Zion.

Different positions are granted to those who enter into the court. For instance, the
kidneys. These filter out any infirmities in the water of the word. There is also the
meat of the word, which must be broken down for use. God will put his laws that apply
to these positions, in these inward parts. The blood of the spirit is pumped through
the heart, where the laws are written. Isa 45:9 Those that are called to the court of
the tabernacle, are those which are willing to do things God's way. Regardless of the
false doctrines of men.

Some say all the law was canceled by Paul. This is false. Col 2:14 Blotting out the
handwriting of "ordinances" that was against us, The Greek word translated for
ordinances, is "dogma". The dogma that Jesus blotted out was "ecclesiastical" dogma.
Mat 16:6. Called doctrines of men. This adulteration could have only been caused by
the protestant translators. Because the word "ordinances" was written in the Greek
translations, as dogma. As was Eph 2:15. Also the doctrines of man are condemned in
Mat 15:9. Col 2:22. And in 1 Tim 4:1-2. and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in
hypocrisy; Then they tell you that you must believe it, because it is the word of God.
NO! it is not, and it is not even the word of Paul. It is their own heathen doctrines.
Produced by Satan their leader.

The new covenant is with the body of Jesus, which is the new tabernacle. Therefore,
God placed the covenant laws "within" in the "inward parts" of the tabernacle. And all
those that are part of the tabernacle, are bound by these commandments. A body can not
stand without bones. The long bones of the tabernacle, are the ten commandments. So to
deny the covenant commandments, is to deny the righteousness of Jesus.

The minute a person is saved, they become a member of the tabernacle of Jesus. Also
called, the body of Jesus. If you are not of, the body of Jesus, the new covenant has
no part with you. The tabernacle in the wilderness, was laid out in the form of a man.
The first tabernacle was built to represent the shadow of the spiritual body of Jesus.
Jesus is the head of the body, and Jesus is of the house of Judah. So the whole body
is of the house of Judah. So when a person is saved, they also are of that body, and
of the house of Judah. Therefore, no longer a gentile. The covenant commandments are
incumbent upon all Israel, including, the house of Judah. The body must follow the
lead of the head. If the head is of Judah, the body must follow suit.

There are other ramifications to consider. The beast spoken of in Revelation, is also
shown in Dan 11:30 and have "indignation against" the holy covenant: and have
intelligence with them that "forsake" the holy covenant. Again a line is drawn, either
you are of the tabernacle and honor the covenant commandments, or a follower of the
beast and forsake the covenant laws. There is no middle ground here, where the plummet
is. Rev 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against..... his tabernacle,

God made a covenant with the people of Israel. The token or sign, was the Sabbath. Exo
31:13 Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a "sign - token" between me and you
throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify
you. This token or sign, was given to all Israelites, including the house of Judah. In
the early days, there were many Gods. Each of these strange Gods, had their day, as
the first day of the week. But the living God has his day as the seventh day. So the
seventh day is a sign, as to which God sanctify's you. You have made the living God,
equal to the strange God's, by changing his Sabbath from the seventh day, to the first
day of the week.

In reading Rev. 1:10. The word "ON" the Lords day, is also translated as, "IN" the
lords day. G1722. The time this writer was speaking of, is called, the day of the
Lord, or the end time event. To change the Sabbath of the Living God, to the day of
other Gods is sacrilegious. The writer of Rev. would not associate the living God,
with the day of other God's. Just like they placed the name of Jesus, among the
birthday's of the other Gods. This is a doctrine of man, which is blasphemy. If a
strange God sanctify's you, then so be it. But don't claim you are sanctified by the
living God, if you do not honor his sign. The sign was given to all Israel, including
the house of Judah.

Acts 20:7 And upon the first "day" of the "week", The word "day" was added by the
translators. In the Greek translation, the word given as Sabbath, was changed to week.
Therefore, the first of the Sabbath. Or Sabbaths, as shown in 1 Cor 16:2. This was the
first Sabbath, of the week of Sabbaths. From Passover to Pentecost. This deceit was
concocted by the protestant translators. This shows that the translators, did not tell
you the truth. They inserted their own bias, into what was said. They twisted the
words so you would believe as they do. Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD
than to put confidence in man. You have been deceived by the translators, to break the
covenant commandments. If you break the covenant commandments it is impossible for you
to know God, according to 1 John 2:4.

Mal 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb
for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. You are not bound by these laws in
their concrete form. Malachi said "do not forget" them. Lev 19:27 Ye shall not round
the corners of your heads, There are those in the carnal Israel today, that let the
hair grow on the front sides of their head, to keep this law. They observe this law in
the concrete form. This law is only the shadow of the true spiritual application.
Round equals "To compass". Corners equals mouths. The spiritual observance of this law
is. Thou shalt not "compass" the "mouths" of your heads. Basically saying, you are not
allowed to restrict your heads ( leaders ) as to what they can say or what they can
not say. Of course, this does not apply to the hireling shepherds. I have not sent
these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. Jer
23:21. If you pay these false shepherds, you own them.

You are allowed to eat that which is cloven footed, and chews the cud. In the
spiritual, cloven footed means, his life's path has changed. Being saved is a changing
of your life's path. Chewing the cud is meditation. This is, bringing up what you have
read, again, and rolling it around to get the full flavor. You are warned not to
listen to those that don't think before they speak. Even if they have been saved. This
law has a relation to bdellium, in the Pison. which compasseth the whole land of
cycles. Think Spiritual.

God will stand behind his word, but he will not honor someone's false interpretation
or false translation of it. Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the
way, which leadeth unto life, and "FEW" there be that find it. By the meaning of the
word FEW. This can not be the broad spectrum of mainstream believers. When you can't
trust your translators to tell you the truth, you must go to the author. Isa.2:1 and
he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: John 14:26. But the
Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit,.....shall teach you all things, and bring all
things to your remembrance, 1 John 2:27. You will no longer have need of these
servants of Satan.

1 John 3:4. for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 5:17 All unrighteousness
is sin: The servants of Satan have deceived you. They have you believing that the law
was destroyed. Where there is no law, there can be no sin. They have made you covenant
breakers and law breakers by their deceit. They have made it impossible for you to
know God. 1 John 2:4. A slick trick of Satan is to make people believe they can't be
deceived. Therefore, those that are arrogant will never turn back to God, until it is
to late. Hence, the wrath of God or the tribulation period. How can God punish the
world, when his own people are greater sinners, than those of the world? Jer 7:10 And
come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are
delivered to do all these abominations? God may not give you what you want, but he
will give you what you deserve.
THE
FIRST WITNESS

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by unknown
In grammar, there is concrete and abstract thought.

Strange that you should think of this distinction in _grammar_ when it
is more fundamental than any grammar. It is a distinction of
epistemology, NOT of grammar.

[snip]

Post by unknown
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new "covenant", he hath made the first
old. The word covenant is not in the Greek translations. This word
was added by the translators.

But stranger still that you should still be going on and on about this
factoid. After all: you have _completely_ misunderstood what they were
doing when they "added" it. You have shown this same complete
misunderstanding in _every_ post on this topic: it is not 'adding' to
supply a noun omitted by ellipsis. It is a _necessary_ clarifying step
for any good translation.

But of course, you have a long history of preferring BAD translations!

Post by unknown
This writer is speaking of the new tabernacle.

So you say. But why on earth would anyone want to believe you?

[snip]

Post by unknown
Speaking of the body of man, it would make no sense, for God to put his laws in mans
"inward parts".

But of _course_ it makes sense. We see this figure of speech elsewhere
for _exactly_ this action. We see it, for example, in Proverbs 7:13
(where the heart is the 'inward part') and in

[snip]

Post by unknown
Covenant breakers can not know the ways of God. 1 John 2:4.

In that case, you cannot know the ways of God. No surprise, then, that
you inflict such arrant nonsense on the readers of this NG.

[snip]

Post by unknown
Some say all the law was canceled by Paul.

Very few people say this. In fact, I can't remember the last time I
saw this claim -- except for in your own straw-man arguments.

Post by unknown
This is false. Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of "ordinances"
that was against us, The Greek word translated for ordinances, is
"dogma".

This is not true. In fact, it is _so_ far from the truth, I am amazed
you even bother us with such a ridiculous claim.

Have you ever looked these words up in a real Greek-English Lexicon?
Did you really think that we in the NG would not do this? How could
you fool yourself into thinking you could fool us so easily?

After all, even the rather dated Thayer's has a much better
description of this word than you do: it has:

XEIROGRAFOS

1) a handwriting, what one has written by his own hand
2) a note of hand or writing in which one acknowledges that money has
either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to be
returned at the appointed time

And for the other relevant word, the word you _mistranslate_ as
'dogma', it has:

DOGMA
1) doctrine, decree, ordinance
1a) of public decrees
1b) of the Roman Senate
1c) of rulers
2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of
severity and of threatened judgment
3) of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living

Now which one of these 3 definitions best fits the context of the
passage? It is def. 2) ONLY. That makes it "rules and requirements of
the Law", NOT 'dogmas'. Why the Modern English sense fo the word
'dogma' does not even _OCCUR_ in the lemma! Only def. 1) gets close.

Post by unknown
The dogma that Jesus blotted out was "ecclesiastical" dogma.

Not even close. See above.

Post by unknown
Mat 16:6. Called doctrines of men.

Again, not even close. Christ was talking about the (commands later
written down as the) Mishna, NOT about ecclesiastical dogma. Or, he
could even have had something more abstract in mind, the evil spirit
of hypocrisy and legalism that had taken over among the Pharisees and
Sadduccees. After all, the word used in Mat 16:16 is ZUMH, 'yeast' or
'leavening'. Not even a hint about 'dogma'.

Post by unknown
This adulteration could have only been caused by
the protestant translators.

Is that why we find the adulteration in every post of yours?

Post by unknown
Because the word "ordinances" was written in the Greek translations,
as dogma.

Nonsense. Where _do_ you get this fictions?

Post by unknown
As was Eph 2:15.

Here too, the context _should_ make it obvious that the Modern English
sense of 'dogma' is IMPOSSIBLE here. He is talking about commands and
ordinances, NOT dogma.

Perhaps this will be clear if we look at the verse:

TON NOMON TWN ENTOLWN
the law of commandments

EN DOGMASI
in ordinances

KATARGHSAS
rendering of no account.

INA TOUS DUO
so that the two {Jew and Gentile]

KTISHi EN EAUTWi EIS ENA KAINON ANQRWPON POIWN EIRHNHN.
He might make in Himself into one new man, making peace.


NOW is it clear what the context is? The topic is Jews and Gentiles
forming one Church in Christ, whether they follow all the commandments
of Moses or not.

[snip]

Post by unknown
Acts 20:7 And upon the first "day" of the "week", The word "day" was
added by the translators.

And rightly so. For this follows the explanation native speaker of
Koine Greek _always_ gave for this verse.

Post by unknown
In the Greek translation,

What "Greek translation"? Don't you know Acts was _written_ in Greek?

Post by unknown
the word given as Sabbath, was changed to week.

Again, you have misunderstood. The word SABBATON can either refer to a
single Sabbath day, or to the entire week. Just as in Modern Russian,
the Slavonic word for 'Sunday' became the word for the whole week.

Yet again, if you actually read and understood the Lexicon's lemma for
this word, you would understand this. Why you insist on inflicting
ourself with such ignorance instead is a mystery to me.

The Thayer's Lexicon for this word has, for example:

1) the seventh day of each week which was a sacred festival on which
the Israelites were required to abstain from all work

1a) the institution of the sabbath, the law for keeping holy every
seventh day of the week

1b) a single sabbath, sabbath day

2) seven days, a week

[fm "Thayers' Greek Definitions", available in many places on the Internet]

[snip]

Again, you are basing your false dogmas on false understandings of the
Greek the Apostle's wrote. Bad idea.

[unknown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
In grammar, there is concrete and abstract thought.

Strange that you should think of this distinction in _grammar_ when it
is more fundamental than any grammar. It is a distinction of
epistemology, NOT of grammar.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that study's the nature of knowledge. Why
don't you call the people that write the grammar books and tell them how wrong they
are.

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by unknown
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new "covenant", he hath made the first
old. The word covenant is not in the Greek translations. This word
was added by the translators.

But stranger still that you should still be going on and on about this
factoid. After all: you have _completely_ misunderstood what they were
doing when they "added" it. You have shown this same complete
misunderstanding in _every_ post on this topic: it is not 'adding' to
supply a noun omitted by ellipsis. It is a _necessary_ clarifying step
for any good translation.
But of course, you have a long history of preferring BAD translations!

I always show mis understanding when some one alters what is called the word of God.
Then claim that people must believe it because it is the word of God. An ellipsis is a
word left out and it is assumed that the reader understands the word left out. Mostly
used in poetry. But in this case this left out word does not fit the criteria for an
ellipsis. Because the word left out is not known by "you." Just because you say it,
doesn't make it so.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
This writer is speaking of the new tabernacle.

So you say. But why on earth would anyone want to believe you?

Because most people are not so absorbed in their own selfrighteousness.

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by unknown
Speaking of the body of man, it would make no sense, for God to put his laws in mans
"inward parts".

But of _course_ it makes sense. We see this figure of speech elsewhere
for _exactly_ this action. We see it, for example, in Proverbs 7:13
(where the heart is the 'inward part') and in

The heart is only "one" of the "inward parts". Whoops! Prov 7:13 So she caught him,
and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him, Funny that you would refer to
the works of Satan found in this verse. Or, are you using some kind of strange bible.
Perhaps you should have read the article "Phony Christians" use of the word "WE"
90 percent of those "WE" christians can expect this. Isa 5:14 Therefore hell hath
enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their
multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it. "WE" sounds
like mob rule. A man that can not stand on his own two feet, uses "WE" for support.

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by unknown
Covenant breakers can not know the ways of God. 1 John 2:4.

In that case, you cannot know the ways of God. No surprise, then, that
you inflict such arrant nonsense on the readers of this NG.

I did not do this. 1John 2:4 did this for me. You must be one of those people that
believe the bible, only when it suits them. Therefore John must be a liar, because
what he said, does not fit your false "dogma". And yes! I do keep the commandments.
You seem to think that it is right to deny the commandments. I'm sure you can acquire
a high position, with the second beast of Rev.

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by unknown
Some say all the law was canceled by Paul.

Very few people say this. In fact, I can't remember the last time I
saw this claim -- except for in your own straw-man arguments.

There are a lot of people that make this claim. I don't understand why saved people
desire to follow Paul. Rom 11:13 inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, Once
a person is saved they are no longer a gentile. They are of the body of Jesus, which
is of the house of Judah. Therefore, Paul has nothing to do with those saved.
According to his own words, he was exclusive to Gentiles.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
This is false. Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of "ordinances"
that was against us, The Greek word translated for ordinances, is
"dogma".

This is not true. In fact, it is _so_ far from the truth, I am amazed
you even bother us with such a ridiculous claim.
Have you ever looked these words up in a real Greek-English Lexicon?
Did you really think that we in the NG would not do this? How could
you fool yourself into thinking you could fool us so easily?

Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament. U. of Chicago press. 1957 page 200.
Article Dogma.
The New Analytical Lexicon. Hendrickson Publishers 1990 Page 105. Article "Dogma."

AHD Dogma 1. Theology. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such
as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church. 2. An
authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one
considered to be absolutely true. 3. A principle or belief or a group of them.

Webster's Dogma = A settled opinion; a principle, maxim or tenet; a doctrinal notion,
particularly in matters of faith and philosophy; as the dogmas of the church; the
dogmas of Plato.

TDNT. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Article Dogma. to decree, The
basic meaning is "what seems to be right" The verb means to affirm an opinion,

These all agree with Strong's dictionary definition. Article Dogma. a law (civil, cer.
or eccl.): Prov 10:8

Post by Matthew Johnson
After all, even the rather dated Thayer's has a much better
XEIROGRAFOS
1) a handwriting, what one has written by his own hand
2) a note of hand or writing in which one acknowledges that money has
either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to be
returned at the appointed time
And for the other relevant word, the word you _mistranslate_ as
DOGMA
1) doctrine, decree, ordinance
1a) of public decrees
1b) of the Roman Senate
1c) of rulers
2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of
severity and of threatened judgment
3) of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living
Now which one of these 3 definitions best fits the context of the
passage? It is def. 2) ONLY. That makes it "rules and requirements of
the Law", NOT 'dogmas'. Why the Modern English sense fo the word
'dogma' does not even _OCCUR_ in the lemma! Only def. 1) gets close.

Post by unknown
The dogma that Jesus blotted out was "ecclesiastical" dogma.

Not even close. See above.

I was absolutely right. There are six examples I gave you above, which say about the
same thing. Is it that you can not see, or that you don't want to see. For Thayer's,
you must be using E-sword for this definition. This definition is incomplete. Thayer's
Greek English Lexicon of the NT. American Book Co. 1889. page 153. Right column,
bottom of page. Article Dogma. The very first definition states ("An opinion, a
judgement.") All of the definition did not get scanned into the online version
..
ISBE, Howard Serverance Co. 1915 Vol 2. page 808 Right column, bottom of page.
Article Dogma. The first words of description is ("THAT WHICH SEEMS" An opinion.)
The book has a rather lengthy article on dogma. It seems the article "Dogma" did not
get scanned in for the online version. I have concluded, when you use inferior works,
false DOGMA ensues. You have put your faith in man works, and not God. God can show
you where the error's are. OH, that's right! God won't show you anything, because you
don't keep the commandments, and you DIS those who do.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
Mat 16:6. Called doctrines of men.

Again, not even close. Christ was talking about the (commands later
written down as the) Mishna, NOT about ecclesiastical dogma.

This is the first of one of your explanations. And you just admitted that there is
such a thing as "ecclesiastical dogma". Which would be separate from God's law.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Or, he
could even have had something more abstract in mind, the evil spirit
of hypocrisy and legalism that had taken over among the Pharisees and
Sadduccees. After all, the word used in Mat 16:16 is ZUMH, 'yeast' or
'leavening'. Not even a hint about 'dogma'.

This is your second explanation. Why do you use, OR could be, between these answers.
Don't you know the answer. Or is it that you will say anything, so you won't have to
agree with me.

Yeast is used as a expander of the bread of life. Which is what you are trying to do.
You are using an incomplete source, trying to substantiate your false dogma. Your
method of raising the truth from the bible is inferior. Put plainly in modern English
slang, "your leaven sucks."

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
This adulteration could have only been caused by
the protestant translators.

Is that why we find the adulteration in every post of yours?

That's only "your" opinion, or should I say Dogma.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
Because the word "ordinances" was written in the Greek translations,
as dogma.

Nonsense. Where _do_ you get this fictions?

All you have to do is look at any of the Greek translations to see this. That is,
unless you are blind. There may be a braille version. If you are not familiar with
Greek, there are several Greek version's available, coded to Strong's numbers. There
is no excuse for your ignorance in this matter. The Greek says DOGMA. All you have to
do is LOOK IT UP. Or, do I have to show you how to do this also.

The rest is "SNIPPED" because you are beginning to bore me with your silliness. You
act like a coyote caught in a trap, and would do anything to get out of it. Even chew
off your own foot. Your hatred for the ways of God, is really beginning to show. John
15:18. Or is it that "if" you admit that you are wrong, you are afraid you will have
to go back and explain to the people that you lied to, that you were wrong.
Prov 8:33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
In grammar, there is concrete and abstract thought.

Strange that you should think of this distinction in _grammar_ when
it is more fundamental than any grammar. It is a distinction of
epistemology, NOT of grammar.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that study's the nature of
knowledge. Why don't you call the people that write the grammar books
and tell them how wrong they are.

Because I never saw it in any grammar book; I only saw it in your
screed. Besides: where did you think the grammarians got it from? The
first grammarians were philosophers as well. That is WHY Aristotle
wrote De Intepretatione. Can you even name a grammarian before him? I
didn't think so.

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by unknown
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new "covenant", he hath made the first
old. The word covenant is not in the Greek translations. This word
was added by the translators.

But stranger still that you should still be going on and on about this
factoid. After all: you have _completely_ misunderstood what they were
doing when they "added" it. You have shown this same complete
misunderstanding in _every_ post on this topic: it is not 'adding' to
supply a noun omitted by ellipsis. It is a _necessary_ clarifying step
for any good translation.
But of course, you have a long history of preferring BAD translations!

I always show mis understanding when some one alters what is called
the word of God.

Speaking of 'mis understanding' [sic!], that was not even quite a
sentence. Did you mean 'misunderstanding', perhaps? Then whose? Your
own? Nobody else is "altering the word of God". And you have certainly
shown a lot of your own misunderstanding.

Then claim that people must believe it because it is the word of
God. An ellipsis is a word left out and it is assumed that the reader
understands the word left out. Mostly used in poetry. But in this
case this left out word does not fit the criteria for an
ellipsis. Because the word left out is not known by "you." Just
because you say it, doesn't make it so.

This is pathetic. So many pieces of total nonsense passed off as truth
in one paragraph! All you have really proven here is that you still
don't know what 'ellipsis' is, nor even how to read! You should try
counting all the instances of ellipsis in this response. I will let
you know if you got it right;)

Where, for example, did you get this nonsense about ellipsis being
"mostly used in poetry"? And how would _you_ know what the "criteria
for an ellipsis" are? You do not, as you proved readily enough by
prating about "because the word left out is not known by 'you'"

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
This writer is speaking of the new tabernacle.

So you say. But why on earth would anyone want to believe you?

Because most people are not so absorbed in their own selfrighteousness.

Not so absorbed in it as yourself? Let's hope not.

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by unknown
Speaking of the body of man, it would make no sense, for God to put
his laws in mans "inward parts".

But of _course_ it makes sense. We see this figure of speech elsewhere
for _exactly_ this action. We see it, for example, in Proverbs 7:13
(where the heart is the 'inward part') and in

The heart is only "one" of the "inward parts". Whoops! Prov 7:13 So
she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto
him, Funny that you would refer to the works of Satan found in this
verse. Or, are you using some kind of strange bible. Perhaps you
should have read the article "Phony Christians" use of the word "WE"
90 percent of those "WE" christians can expect this. Isa 5:14
Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without
measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he
that rejoiceth, shall descend into it. "WE" sounds like mob rule. A
man that can not stand on his own two feet, uses "WE" for support.

That paragraph was a pretty amazing example of "phony Christianity"
all by itself. After all, though it might have been too difficult for
you to figure out I really meant Prov 7:3, not 7:13, refraining from
all that nonsense about 'WE' was much easier to do. Yet you did
neither. But have you ever even stopped to think about how you are
abusing all these passages when _you_ add the word 'WE' to all of
them?

And why couldn't you do this? Because you never -have- followed the
command of Pro 7:3. So according to your own citation of 1 John, you
cannot know the ways of God.

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by unknown
Covenant breakers can not know the ways of God. 1 John 2:4.

In that case, you cannot know the ways of God. No surprise, then, that
you inflict such arrant nonsense on the readers of this NG.

I did not do this.

Yes, you did.

1John 2:4 did this for me.

1 John 2:4 does not inflict arrant nonsense on anyone. Unfortunately,
you do. And no, despite your pretence, the love of captious slander
you have shown in this thread proves that you do not know the ways of
God.

You must be one of those people that believe the bible, only when it
suits them.

No, that must be your excuse, since you are accusing all other
Christians of not following the commandments, while you break the
commandments yourself.

Therefore John must be a liar, because what he said, does not
fit your false "dogma". And yes! I do keep the commandments. You
seem to think that it is right to deny the commandments. I'm sure you
can acquire a high position, with the second beast of Rev.

How did you miss the commandment against circumstantial ad hominem?
How can you fail to see that such ad hominem is forbidden by Pro 11:9?
How did you fail to see your slander against translators is forbidden
by Pro 12:5 (among many others)?

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by unknown
Some say all the law was canceled by Paul.

Very few people say this. In fact, I can't remember the last time I
saw this claim -- except for in your own straw-man arguments.

There are a lot of people that make this claim.

No, you are twisting and distorting their words when you say this. Oh,
BTW: this is one of the more conspicuous ways in which you violate the
commandments yourself.

I don't understand why saved people desire to follow Paul.

Because Christ Himself calls Paul His "chosen vessel" (Acts 9:15). To
reject Paul is to reject Christ.

Rom 11:13 inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, Once a person
is saved they are no longer a gentile.

Again you violate the commandments, this time by blatantly
contradicting Scripture! See below.

They are of the body of Jesus, which is of the
house of Judah.

Let me guess: you reject ALL the Epistles of Paul, don't you? Then
what books of Scripture _do_ you accept? Why should any of us take you
seriously as a Christian while you reject these books of Scripture?

Therefore, Paul has nothing to do with those saved.
According to his own words, he was exclusive to Gentiles.

If you knew how to read, you would not misread his words so
badly. Instead, you should take his words as the Biblical proof that
you are WRONG: Christ's Body, the Church, is both Gentile AND
Jewish. That is WHY he wrote:

For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the
dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of
commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new
man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both
to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility
to an end. (Eph 2:14-16 RSVA)

What 'both' did you think he was referring to? It is to both Jew and
Gentile. What "one new man in place of the two" did you think he was
referring to? It is to the one Church made up of both Jews and
Gentiles.

But for some mysterious reason, you do not _like_ this peace. You
choose instead to reject the Gentile church completely, claiming that
the Gentiles have to join your "Jewish church" instead.

How tragic. And I need a Yiddish word to express it: what chutzpah!

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
This is false. Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of "ordinances"
that was against us, The Greek word translated for ordinances, is
"dogma".

This is not true. In fact, it is _so_ far from the truth, I am amazed
you even bother us with such a ridiculous claim.
Have you ever looked these words up in a real Greek-English Lexicon?
Did you really think that we in the NG would not do this? How could
you fool yourself into thinking you could fool us so easily?

Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament. U. of Chicago press. 1957
page 200. Article Dogma.

Well, where is it? I don't see any citation from this Lexicon.

The New Analytical Lexicon. Hendrickson Publishers 1990 Page
105. Article "Dogma."
AHD Dogma 1. Theology. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating
to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative
manner by a church. 2. An authoritative principle, belief, or
statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be
absolutely true. 3. A principle or belief or a group of them.

Which is this from? It is missing to many alternatives to be from the
New Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament.

Webster's Dogma = A settled opinion; a principle, maxim or tenet; a
doctrinal notion, particularly in matters of faith and philosophy; as
the dogmas of the church; the dogmas of Plato.

This is of the _English_ word. So this citation supports me, not
you. You are confusing two langauges you don't understand: Greek and
English!

TDNT. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Article Dogma.
to decree, The basic meaning is "what seems to be right" The verb
means to affirm an opinion,

Have you never used TDNT before? If you have, how could you still
think you can prove anything by quoting only the "basic meaning"? Most
entries in TDNT start that way. But there are LOTS of meanings other
than the "basic meaning", and these others often differ from the
former in surprising ways.

These all agree with Strong's dictionary definition. Article Dogma. a
law (civil, cer. or eccl.): Prov 10:8

No, they clearly do not agree with that, since that is only ONE sense
of the word. Besides: this sense has _nothing_ to do with beliefs,
just laws. Take a look at the Thayer's entry again.

Post by Matthew Johnson
After all, even the rather dated Thayer's has a much better

[snip]

Post by Matthew Johnson
And for the other relevant word, the word you _mistranslate_ as
DOGMA
1) doctrine, decree, ordinance
1a) of public decrees
1b) of the Roman Senate
1c) of rulers
2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of
severity and of threatened judgment
3) of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living
Now which one of these 3 definitions best fits the context of the
passage? It is def. 2) ONLY. That makes it "rules and requirements of
the Law", NOT 'dogmas'. Why the Modern English sense fo the word
'dogma' does not even _OCCUR_ in the lemma! Only def. 1) gets close.

Post by unknown
The dogma that Jesus blotted out was "ecclesiastical" dogma.

Not even close. See above.

I was absolutely right.

No, you were absolutely wrong. You are still absolutely wrong.

There are six examples I gave you above, which say about the same
thing.

No, they do not. Why, the Thayer's citation contradicts you so
plainly, I can see why you had to avoid citing more than the first few
words of the entry. But who did you think you can fool with such
chicanery?

Is it that you can not see, or that you don't want to see.

No. You are the one who refuses to see.

For Thayer's, you must be using E-sword for this definition. This
definition is incomplete.

No, it is not.

Thayer's Greek English Lexicon of the NT. American Book
Co. 1889. page 153.

Now why do you think that esword used the 1889 edition? Blueletter
Bible uses the 'corrected' edition 1889. And THIS edition contradicts
you _quite_ openly, saying:

(under 2) Eph ii. 15; TO KAQ HMWN XEIROGRAFON TOIS DOGMASI equiv. to TO
TOIS DOGMASI (dat. of instrument) ON KAQ HMWN, the bond against us by
its decrees, Col 2.14.

[fm
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1378&Version=kjv]

BTW: Bauer's NT Greek Lexicon agrees that Col 2:14 is using DOGMA in
exactly this same sense.

Right column, bottom of page. Article Dogma. The very first
definition states ("An opinion, a judgement.") All of the definition
did not get scanned into the online version ..

Actually, the only thing that was omitted was the many examples.

ISBE, Howard Serverance Co. 1915
Vol 2. page 808 Right column, bottom of page. Article Dogma. The
first words of description is ("THAT WHICH SEEMS" An opinion.)

No, the first words of the 1889 'corrected' edition are "(fr. DOKEW,
and equiv. to TO DEDOGMENON), an opinion, a judgment (Plat.,al.),
doctrine, decree, ordinance;
[op. cit.]

Only _after_ this do the numbered definitions start, and they coincide
almost perfectly with the citation I already gave. And the differences
do not detract from my claim before, that only ONE definition fits the
context: 2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a
suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment

The book has a rather lengthy article on dogma.

And since I read that whole article, I can tell that you did _not_
read it. Nor do you understand it.

It seems the article "Dogma" did not get scanned in for the online
version.

It may seem so -- to the incompetent. But the rest of us can notice
the real reason for the difference: it is as I described above.

I have concluded, when you use inferior works, false DOGMA ensues.

So then why are you continuing to use inferior works? Why haven't you
used the rest of the Thayer's lemma? Why haven't you used Bauer?

You have put your faith in man works, and not God.

No, it is you who is putting your faith in your own "man's works",
your purported following of the commandments.

Of course, your error is all the more tragic since you don't really
keep the commandments after all.

God can show you where the error's are. OH, that's right! God won't
show you anything, because you don't keep the commandments, and you
DIS those who do.

No, I 'dis' those who _pretend_ to keep them, when in truth, they do
not. But that is you all over, isn't it?

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
Mat 16:6. Called doctrines of men.

Again, not even close. Christ was talking about the (commands later
written down as the) Mishna, NOT about ecclesiastical dogma.

This is the first of one of your explanations. And you just admitted
that there is such a thing as "ecclesiastical dogma". Which would be
separate from God's law.

Well, of course I admitted it. I always knew that was true. But you
still miss the point: Christ never _used_ the word in this sense. Why,
the only time it occurs in the Gospels is not even in His words (Luk
2:1). It is NOT the sense relevant to any of these passages.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Or, he could even have had something more abstract in mind, the evil
spirit of hypocrisy and legalism that had taken over among the
Pharisees and Sadduccees. After all, the word used in Mat 16:16 is
ZUMH, 'yeast' or 'leavening'. Not even a hint about 'dogma'.

This is your second explanation. Why do you use, OR could be, between
these answers. Don't you know the answer. Or is it that you will say
anything, so you won't have to agree with me.

No, I am listing possibilities. YOUR interpretation is not in the list
because it is not even a possibility.

Yeast is used as a expander of the bread of life. Which is what you
are trying to do. You are using an incomplete source, trying to
substantiate your false dogma. Your method of raising the truth from
the bible is inferior. Put plainly in modern English slang, "your
leaven sucks."

That you turn to such crude langauge is a pretty sure indication you
are failing. For your phrasing is as bad as your logic is riddled with
holes.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
This adulteration could have only been caused by the protestant
translators.

Is that why we find the adulteration in every post of yours?

That's only "your" opinion, or should I say Dogma.

No, you should not.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
Because the word "ordinances" was written in the Greek
translations, as dogma.

Nonsense. Where _do_ you get this fictions?

All you have to do is look at any of the Greek translations to see
this.

But no, the Greek translations _I_ use do no such thing. The RSV, for
example, does no such thing, saying:

having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal
demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (Col 2:14 RSVA)

having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal
demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (Col 2:14 RSVA)

So you see? These translators translated DOGMA as "legal demands". NOT
as the English word, dogma.

That is, unless you are blind.

Seems pretty clear now that it is you who is blind, since you can
understand neither the Greek translations nor the Greek lexicons --
ALL of which clearly contradict you.

There may be a braille version. If you are not familiar with Greek,
there are several Greek version's available, coded to Strong's
numbers. There is no excuse for your ignorance in this matter. The
Greek says DOGMA. All you have to do is LOOK IT UP. Or, do I have to
show you how to do this also.

No, the Greek uses the _Greek_ word DOGMA, which is NOT the same as
the _English_ word 'dogma'.

The rest is "SNIPPED" because you are beginning to bore me with your
silliness.

You have long since already passed far beyond just _beginning_ to bore
the rest of us with your _captious_ silliness. In case you haven't
noticed, nobody is agreeing with you. For this, there is a reason.

You act like a coyote caught in a trap, and would do anything to get
out of it.

No, that is not what I am doing at all.

Even chew off your own foot.

You are the one who needs to do thi.

Your hatred for the ways of God, is really beginning to show.

No, rather, yours already began to show when you slandered so many
translators, claiming they "added" to the word of God, when in truth,
they were only following responsibel translation practices.

John 15:18. Or is it that "if" you admit that you are wrong, you are
afraid you will have to go back and explain to the people that you
lied to, that you were wrong.

But this is what you have to do. For you lied when you accused all
those translators of adding to the word of God.

Prov 8:33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it
not.

But it is YOU who is refusing to hear this instruction. Then again,
what else can we expect out of someone who so speciously raises such a
serious false accusation against the translators of Heb 8:13? And then
brags of following the commandments?

I have a homework problem for you: find the verses of the Torah that
command avoiding slander. Then retract your false accusation against
the translators. While you are at it, find the verses that forbid
pretending to know what you are talking about when you do not.

For that matter, find which commandment you are violating when you
reject the Epistles of Paul.

[unknown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
In grammar, there is concrete and abstract thought.

Because I never saw it in any grammar book; I only saw it in your
screed.

Try looking in a Hebrew grammar book.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by unknown
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new "covenant", he hath made the first
old. The word covenant is not in the Greek translations. This word
was added by the translators.

But stranger still that you should still be going on and on about this
factoid. After all: you have _completely_ misunderstood what they were
doing when they "added" it. You have shown this same complete
misunderstanding in _every_ post on this topic: it is not 'adding' to
supply a noun omitted by ellipsis. It is a _necessary_ clarifying step
for any good translation.
But of course, you have a long history of preferring BAD translations!

I always show mis understanding when some one alters what is called
the word of God.

Did you mean 'misunderstanding', perhaps?

Just because you use a condescending attitude, does not make you right. Your only
purpose in this is to lead away from what I said. This is a tactic of Satan. Which you
have honed to a fine art. You lure people away from the subject, and try to dazzel
them with babble. So I'll just "snip" what is irrelevant.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Where, for example, did you get this nonsense about ellipsis being
"mostly used in poetry"? And how would _you_ know what the "criteria
for an ellipsis" are? You do not, as you proved readily enough by
prating about "because the word left out is not known by 'you'"

AHD Ellipsis. The omission of a word or phrase necessary for a complete syntactical
construction but not necessary for understanding. In this case, the word left out of
this verse, "is" necessary for understanding. Your position is that the Holy
Everlasting Covenant, shoud be thrown out. Because it got old. This is really sick.
An example of an ellipsis is ( the heroic virtues I admire,) for, (the heroic virtues
"which" I admire.) Also, (The man "that" he see's) for (the man he see's) An ellipsis
is also a series of marks indicating the ommision of a word.

Post by Matthew Johnson
After all, though it might have been too difficult for
you to figure out I really meant Prov 7:3, not 7:13,

It is not my place to try to figure out your mistakes. Besides Prov 7:3 only proves
what I said was true. God will write his commandments in the heart of the new
spiritual tabernacle. But those that are not of the inward parts, must write them for
themselves in their own heart. I don't think I have ever run into someone that try's
"so hard" to justify their disobedance to God.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
You must be one of those people that believe the bible, only when it
suits them.

No, that must be your excuse, since you are accusing all other
Christians of not following the commandments, while you break the
commandments yourself.

Since you don't know me. This make you a false witness against me.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
Therefore John must be a liar, because what he said, does not
fit your false "dogma". And yes! I do keep the commandments. You
seem to think that it is right to deny the commandments. I'm sure you
can acquire a high position, with the second beast of Rev.

How did you miss the commandment against circumstantial ad hominem?
How can you fail to see that such ad hominem is forbidden by Pro 11:9?
How did you fail to see your slander against translators is forbidden
by Pro 12:5 (among many others)?

Prov. 12:5 "does not say" the thoughts of the "self righteous" are right.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by unknown
Some say all the law was canceled by Paul.

Very few people say this. In fact, I can't remember the last time I
saw this claim -- except for in your own straw-man arguments.

There are a lot of people that make this claim.

No, you are twisting and distorting their words when you say this. Oh,
BTW: this is one of the more conspicuous ways in which you violate the
commandments yourself.

Everything I say you try to twist it around. You have no idea of the people that I
have spoken to, and you have no idea of what they said. Then you accuse me of twisting
words, that you have never heard. This proves that your judgment is false. The thing
about a habitual liar is, even they don't know when they are telling the truth. Great
for you. I have said the same thing about Satan, which is a master of lie's and twist.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
I don't understand why saved people desire to follow Paul.

Because Christ Himself calls Paul His "chosen vessel" (Acts 9:15). To
reject Paul is to reject Christ.

To reject a servant of Satan is standing up for Jesus. Looking at the body of Jesus,
there is no place for Paul. Looking at the New Jerusalem, there is no place for Paul.
There is no door for the followers of Paul. Nor anyone that has built his foundation
on Paul. There is only twelve foundations and twelve doors. Paul was not born again he
was aborted, by his own words. 1Cor 15:8. Some of the Acts articals about Paul were
denied by Paul. Compare Acts 9:20 with Gal.1:16. Straightway and immediately are the
same word. There are others.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
Rom 11:13 inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, Once a person
is saved they are no longer a gentile.

Again you violate the commandments, this time by blatantly
contradicting Scripture! See below.

Post by unknown
They are of the body of Jesus, which is of the
house of Judah.

Let me guess: you reject ALL the Epistles of Paul, don't you? Then
what books of Scripture _do_ you accept? Why should any of us take you
seriously as a Christian while you reject these books of Scripture?

I'm not catholic. Just because they believe the works of Paul are inspired, does not
mean that I have to believe their dogma. You act like those that believe in freedom
of religion, as long as it agrees with theirs.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
Therefore, Paul has nothing to do with those saved.
According to his own words, he was exclusive to Gentiles.

If you knew how to read, you would not misread his words so
badly. Instead, you should take his words as the Biblical proof that
you are WRONG: Christ's Body, the Church, is both Gentile AND
For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the
dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of
commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new
man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both
to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility
to an end. (Eph 2:14-16 RSVA)

Now that is rather silly don't you think. Trying to prove Paul with Paul. Paul knew
the differance. Romans 2:28-29. Again you bring up the verse about ordinances, which
means DOGMA. A word you deny the meaning of, because it does not agree with your
false doctrine. .

Post by Matthew Johnson
What 'both' did you think he was referring to? It is to both Jew and
Gentile. What "one new man in place of the two" did you think he was
referring to? It is to the one Church made up of both Jews and
Gentiles.

By this you are saying that Paul meant the saved and the unsaved. Paul was unstable
and contradictory in his teaching. Rom. 2:28-29. Paul knew that a saved person was a
Jew inwardly. To be exact, a Judaean. Paul used a lot of trickery and lies in his
work. 2 Cor 12:16. Rom.3:7. These are Pauls own words, Paul believed the end
justified the means. This was the same doctrine the catholics used for the
inquisition.

Post by Matthew Johnson
But for some mysterious reason, you do not _like_ this peace. You
choose instead to reject the Gentile church completely, claiming that
the Gentiles have to join your "Jewish church" instead.

It seems you have no knowledge about the body of Jesus or the inner workings of the
spiritual tabernacle. So you just make up something that seems to be right. You also
try to create commandment's and then claim that I have broken them.

I'm sorry if dictionary's and lexicon's don't write things, the way you think they
should. If you can not twist what I wrote, then you try to twist single words to fit
your false ways. All the while leading away from the origional statement. Your problem
is fear. Your are afraid that if I be found right, on any one thing. You will lose
your arrogant status. So out of fear, you must remain in denial. But you have already
exposed your fear in your answers. Every time I see a condescending attitude such as
yours. I know it caused by fear.

The TDNT gives the carnal Greek rendering of a word also. From the preface: "The focus
is on the biblical and especially the New Testament usage, so that the related
classical, Hellenistic, apocalyptic, rabbinic, and patristic fields receive more
cursory attention." So yes there are other definition's given.

My first words still stands. If you do not keep the commandments you CAN NOT know God.
If you claim to know God, and don't keep the commandments, you are a liar. 1 John 2:4.
You keep trying to slither away from this fact. Prov. 28:9 He that turneth away his
ear from hearing the law. Even his prayer shall be an abomination.

Three times Jesus said keep the commandments. Matt. 19:17 to enter into life.
Rev.12:17. those that have the testamony of Jesus. Rev.14:12. Those who are against
the beast. Also, those that have faith.

The rest is snipped because of twisted meanings and your irrelevant rantings.

I ran another search for dogma in E-sword and it is in ISBE. It is also in Vines under
decree. And Naves links it with, commandments of men. Also Liddell and Scott Lex.
1871. That which one thinks true. An opinion. So the decree is a law passed down
which is a commandment of men. Otherwise, an ecclesiastical decree. A civil decree has
nothing to do with the bible. Jesus did not remove the civil law.

And the catholic church would argue with you saying you are not a christian, if you do
not follow the dogma of their church. In fact they claim, there is catholic dogma and
everything else is heresy. This is the kind of dogma that Paul was talking about. It
was never intended to be used against, the law of God, or the covenant commandments.
Because Ged did not say. It is my opinion that you should not kill. OR, It seems to
be true that you should not commit adultery.

[R P]

Post by unknown
Just because you use a condescending attitude, does not make you right.
Your only
purpose in this is to lead away from what I said. This is a tactic of
Satan. Which you
have honed to a fine art. You lure people away from the subject, and try
to dazzel
them with babble.

This is part of his strategy to hide the inconsistancies of his arguments.
This is how he responds when he doesn't know how to respond.

Take two parts condescension, apply vigorously.
If you are still losing the argument, apply more vigorously.

[unknown]

Post by R P

Post by unknown
Just because you use a condescending attitude, does not make you right.
Your only
purpose in this is to lead away from what I said. This is a tactic of
Satan. Which you
have honed to a fine art. You lure people away from the subject, and try
to dazzel
them with babble.

This is part of his strategy to hide the inconsistancies of his arguments.
This is how he responds when he doesn't know how to respond.
Take two parts condescension, apply vigorously.
If you are still losing the argument, apply more vigorously.

There are a lot of bully's around.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
In grammar, there is concrete and abstract thought.

Because I never saw it in any grammar book; I only saw it in your
screed.

Try looking in a Hebrew grammar book.

You miss the point. Predictably. It is not _in_ the Hebrew Grammar
book I used, probably because they know the distinction between
philosophy and grammar better than you do.

Since you are so sure it is in a Hebrew grammar book, why don't _you_
give the exact bibliographical reference so that the readers can find
it in some such book?

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by unknown
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new "covenant", he hath made the first
old. The word covenant is not in the Greek translations. This word
was added by the translators.

But stranger still that you should still be going on and on about
this factoid. After all: you have _completely_ misunderstood what
they were doing when they "added" it. You have shown this same
complete misunderstanding in _every_ post on this topic: it is not
'adding' to supply a noun omitted by ellipsis. It is a _necessary_
clarifying step for any good translation.
But of course, you have a long history of preferring BAD
translations!

And this long history continues in this post...

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
I always show mis understanding when some one alters what is called
the word of God.

Did you mean 'misunderstanding', perhaps?

Just because you use a condescending attitude, does not make you
right.

I know that. I knew it long before you did. I never said it did "make
me right". You, on the other hand, ignored the careful reasoning I
already showed you, the reasoning that _does_ "make me right". Instead
of responding to that, you respond with this groundless whining about
"condescending attitude", and yet _more_ scurrilous accusations
against one of the greatest saints of the Church, Paul.

Post by unknown
Your only purpose in this is to lead away from what I said. This is a
tactic of Satan.

No, leading people away from what you said is a _good_ thing. Saying
the abominations _you_ say is the "tactic of Satan". Especially when
you raise such scurrilous accusations against one of the greatest
saints of the Church, Paul.

Post by unknown
Which you have honed to a fine art. You lure people away from the
subject, and try to dazzel them with babble. So I'll just "snip" what
is irrelevant.

That would mean snipping most of your own words...

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson
Where, for example, did you get this nonsense about ellipsis being
"mostly used in poetry"? And how would _you_ know what the "criteria
for an ellipsis" are? You do not, as you proved readily enough by
prating about "because the word left out is not known by 'you'"

AHD Ellipsis. The omission of a word or phrase necessary for a
complete syntactical construction but not necessary for
understanding.

The problem with this definition is that the word IS necessary for
understanding -- at some level at least. Whoever wrote that entry in
the AHD has a poor understanding of what 'syntax' is.

Post by unknown
In this case, the word left out of this verse, "is" necessary for
understanding.

Try using a better dictionary than AHD. Try OED, for example. Or even
Webster's, which has a far superior definition:

Omission; a figure of syntax, by which one or more words, which are
obviously understood, are omitted; as, the virtues I admire, for, the
virtues which I admire.
[fm http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=ellipsis]

The example is not so good (see below), but at least the definition is
correct -- unlike yours.

Post by unknown
Your position is that the Holy Everlasting Covenant, shoud be thrown
out. Because it got old. This is really sick.

Not as sick as your misconstrual of it, not as sick as your
inexcusable attack on Paul. Again: it amazes me that you think you
will escape judgment for this. You will not.

Post by unknown
An example of an ellipsis is ( the heroic virtues I admire,) for,
(the heroic virtues "which" I admire.) Also, (The man "that" he
see's) for (the man he see's)

These are all bad examples, since it is controversial that they even
_are_ ellipsis. After all: English grammar does _not_ demand the use
of the conjunctive 'that' or 'which' for this construction. The
grammar teachers who used to teach that it did were trying to shoehorn
English grammar into the concepts of Latin grammar.

Post by unknown
An ellipsis is also a series of marks indicating the ommision of a
word.

But that is a different and irrelevant sense of the word.

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson
After all, though it might have been too difficult for you to figure
out I really meant Prov 7:3, not 7:13,

It is not my place to try to figure out your mistakes.

Not when you have your hands filled figuring out your own;) And _that_
was a legitimate example of ellipsis.

Now show us that you understand what 'ellipsis' is: tell me what word
was left out but needs to be supplied to complete the sentence in full
detail.

Post by unknown
Besides Prov 7:3 only proves what I said was true. God will write his
commandments in the heart of the new spiritual tabernacle.

No, there is nothing in Prov 7:3 about any "new spiritual tabernacle."
That connection is a fiction of your own inventive
imagination. Rather, Prov 7:3 -clearly- intends the reader to
understand 'heart' as referring to the reader's _own_ heart.

Post by unknown
But those that are not of the inward parts, must write them for
themselves in their own heart.

More of your fiction.

Post by unknown
I don't think I have ever run into someone that try's "so hard" to
justify their disobedance to God.

Sure you have: you just fail to admit that you yourself are trying
much harder to justify your own disobedience. After all: it is
violating _many_ commandments, and violating them _extremely_
seriously to do as you do, raising slanderous accusations not only
against the translators, but even against Paul.

But as if that was not bad enough, you then compound your
transgressions by coming up with all these nonsensical excuses for
failing to understand what 'ellipsis' is and how it affects your
interpretation of Hebrews.

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
You must be one of those people that believe the bible, only when it
suits them.

No, that must be your excuse, since you are accusing all other
Christians of not following the commandments, while you break the
commandments yourself.

Since you don't know me. This make you a false witness against me.

No, you have already revealed your disobedience to the commandments in
your posts. I do not need to know you any better than that. You _did_
raise the accusation against all other Christians, not just against
anti-nomians.

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
Therefore John must be a liar, because what he said, does not
fit your false "dogma". And yes! I do keep the commandments. You
seem to think that it is right to deny the commandments. I'm sure you
can acquire a high position, with the second beast of Rev.

How did you miss the commandment against circumstantial ad hominem?
How can you fail to see that such ad hominem is forbidden by Pro
11:9? How did you fail to see your slander against translators is
forbidden by Pro 12:5 (among many others)?

Prov. 12:5 "does not say" the thoughts of the "self righteous" are right.

This is irrelevant. The Proverb does forbid your slander of the
translators. Its prohibition of your slander against Paul is even more
clear. And you still haven't answered the question.

For that matter, your dishonest practice of selective citation is also
forbidden by this proverb. For it is pretty obvious that you relied on
your theological bias to _skip_ the key part of the Thayer's citation,
the part where he _explicitly_ lists the disputed verse as having
DOGMA meaning 'ordinances'.

You may fool yourself with such low chicanery, but you will not fool
anyone else.

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by unknown
Some say all the law was canceled by Paul.

Very few people say this. In fact, I can't remember the last time
I saw this claim -- except for in your own straw-man arguments.

There are a lot of people that make this claim.

No, you are twisting and distorting their words when you say
this. Oh, BTW: this is one of the more conspicuous ways in which you
violate the commandments yourself.

Everything I say you try to twist it around.

No, everything you say was already twisted before I got to it.

Post by unknown
You have no idea of the people that I have spoken to,

Sure, I do. There aren't _that_ many people who believe as you do;
they tend to form tightly knit cults.

Post by unknown
and you have no idea of what they said.

Again, I do to have an idea; there aren't _that_ many people who
believe as you do and they tend to form tightly knit cults. This is as
predicted by Pro 18:1, which condemns _all_ such sectarianism.

[snip]

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson
Let me guess: you reject ALL the Epistles of Paul, don't you? Then
what books of Scripture _do_ you accept? Why should any of us take
you seriously as a Christian while you reject these books of
Scripture?

I'm not catholic.

Obviously. But here too, you are being dishonest and evasive; LOTS of
non-catholics accept Paul's Epistles as Scripture, and regard as
non-Christian those who reject them.

[snip]

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson
For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down
the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law
of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one
new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us
both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the
hostility to an end. (Eph 2:14-16 RSVA)

Now that is rather silly don't you think.

No, what I think is rather silly is your pathetic attempt to
misconstrue my words. But I am not surpised by your silliness, since
you were even bolder misconstruing Paul's words.

Post by unknown
Trying to prove Paul with Paul.

How did you get yourself so badly confused? Was it because you jumped
the gun? It certainly looks like that here. For instead of prating
about "proving Paul with Paul", you should have realized that the
_first_ issue was to decide what it was that Paul said. But this is
the issue you dodge over and over.

Besides: if I am "trying to prove Paul with Paul", what did _you_
think you were doing quoting Hebrews, which was presumably written by
Paul? Or if you follow the modernists in rejecting Pauline authorship,
why don't you _also_ follow them in reading the ellipsis as I do?

Either way, you contradict yourself. And your self-contradiction is
particularly puerile at that.

Post by unknown
Paul knew the differance. Romans 2:28-29.

The 'differance[sic]' in Rom 2:28-29 is NOT the 'difference' you claim
to see.

Post by unknown
Again you bring up the verse about ordinances,

Obviously. For you are still playing games hiding from the truth in
this verse.

Post by unknown
which means DOGMA.

No, it does not. Yet again, you are confusing two languages, neither
of which you understand: Greek and English.

Post by unknown
A word you deny the meaning of, because it does not agree with your
false doctrine. .

No, I do know the meaning of the word. It is you who is denying the
meaning of it, presumably because of your addiction to bad doctrine.

Paul knew the difference; you do not.

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson
What 'both' did you think he was referring to?

Once again, you never answered the question. If you think you are
being sly or clever with all this evasion, think again.

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson
It is to both Jew and Gentile. What "one new man in place of the
two" did you think he was referring to? It is to the one Church made
up of both Jews and Gentiles.

By this you are saying that Paul meant the saved and the unsaved.

I say no such thing, Paul says no such thing. You are misreading both
of us.

Post by unknown
Paul was unstable and contradictory in his
teaching.

No, it is YOU who is "unstable and contradictory in his teaching."
That is why you cannot even quote a lexicon correctly, and had no
answer when I _did_ quote one correctly.

Post by unknown
Rom. 2:28-29. Paul knew that a saved person was a Jew
inwardly.

Now this is yet another example of _your_ instability and
contradiction. This passage does _not_ say that a "saved person was a
Jew inwardly.

Rather it says:

For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true
circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one
inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual
and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God. (Rom
2:28-29 RSVA)

He is talking _to_ the Jews in the congregation, _about_ the Jews. It
is elsewhere (e.g. Rom 3:19, 29) where he talks about Gentile, then in
3:30 making the transition to talking about BOTH.

Can't you read?

Post by unknown
To be exact, a Judaean.

No, that is NOT being 'exact'.

Post by unknown
Paul used a lot of trickery and lies in his work.

Do you really not realize what you do to your own credibility in this
NG with this rash slander against such a great saint? No, it is YOU
who is using "a lot of trickery and lies in his work", not Paul.

Post by unknown
2 Cor 12:16. Rom.3:7. These are Pauls own words,
Paul believed the end justified the means. This was the same doctrine
the catholics used for the inquisition.

You really are going deeper and deeper off the deep end, aren't you?
You have completely misread both Paul _and_ the history of the
Inquisition.

Post by unknown

Post by Matthew Johnson
But for some mysterious reason, you do not _like_ this peace. You
choose instead to reject the Gentile church completely, claiming
that the Gentiles have to join your "Jewish church" instead.

It seems you have no knowledge about the body of Jesus or the inner
workings of the spiritual tabernacle.

No, it is YOU who have no such knowledge; that is why you so boldly
slander Paul.

Post by unknown
So you just make up something that seems to be right. You also try to
create commandment's and then claim that I have broken them.
I'm sorry if dictionary's and lexicon's don't write things, the way
you think they should.

What are you talking about? The dictionaries and lexicons agree with
me, not you.

Post by unknown
If you can not twist what I wrote, then you
try to twist single words to fit your false ways.

No, that is what YOU do with your false definition of 'dogma'.

[snip]

Post by unknown
The TDNT gives the carnal Greek rendering of a word also. From the
preface: "The focus is on the biblical and especially the New
Testament usage, so that the related classical, Hellenistic,
apocalyptic, rabbinic, and patristic fields receive more cursory
attention." So yes there are other definition's given.

Once again, it is you who is twisting words. But now you are twisting
TDNT's words.

Post by unknown
My first words still stands.

Oh, you mean the words by which you condemned yourself?

Post by unknown
If you do not keep the commandments you CAN NOT know God.

Ah, I see you _do_ mean the words by which you condemned yourself;)
Now if only you could figure out that you _have_ condemned yourself.

Post by unknown
If you claim to know God, and don't keep the commandments, you are a
liar. 1 John 2:4.

This is how I know that you are a liar. For you slander Paul and then
pretend to keep the commandments.

Post by unknown
You keep trying to slither away from this fact.

Oh, am I? Isn't it you? After all, you slander Paul with the most
abominable accusations, and then try to claim you follow the
commandments and know God.

I think it is pretty obvious who is doing the slithering. It isn't me.

[snip]

Post by unknown
The rest is snipped because of twisted meanings and your irrelevant
rantings.

That is an obvious cop-out. The "twisted meanings and irrelevant
rantings" are yours.

Post by unknown
I ran another search for dogma in E-sword and it is in ISBE. It is
also in Vines under decree. And Naves links it with, commandments of
men. Also Liddell and Scott Lex. 1871.

But ALL of these sources list _alternate_ meanings for the word. And
some of them even _explicitly_ reference the verse we were discussing,
and say that there is means "ordinances of the Mosaic Law".

You are quoting ALL of them out of context and incompletely.

Post by unknown
That which one thinks true. An opinion. So the decree is a law
passed down which is a commandment of men.

That does not follow. Nor was it in any of the sources you claim to
quote.

Post by unknown
Otherwise, an ecclesiastical decree. A civil decree has nothing to do
with the bible. Jesus did not remove the civil law.

But this time you finally included the part that refutes you. Now if
only you would read what you just typed yourself! It says
"ecclesiastical decree". Now what "ecclesiastical decrees" do you
think they had at that time? The Law of Moses and the Oral Law!

Post by unknown
And the catholic church would argue with you saying you are not a
christian, if you do not follow the dogma of their church. In fact
they claim, there is catholic dogma and everything else is
heresy.

They are trying to protect their flock from ravaging wolves like you.

Post by unknown
This is the kind of dogma that Paul was talking about.

No, it was not. Not ONE of the lexica or dictionaries you quote
support this outrageous misreading of yours.

Post by unknown
It was never intended to be used against, the law of God, or the
covenant commandments. Because Ged did not say.

Ged? Since when did the GED become relevant?

Post by unknown
It is my opinion that you should not kill. OR, It seems to be true
that you should not commit adultery.

More irrelvant babbling.

[unknown]

This is getting old. Some have eye's to see, but they still can not see. When Jesus
was on this earth he said. Mat 19:17 ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments. Jesus also sent his word back in the book of Revelation. Rev.22:14
Blessed are they that "DO" his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of
life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. Those that do not "DO" the
commandments will not enter into the city. This was twenty or thirty years after the
death of Paul. It makes no differenace at all what Paul said. If Jesus countermanded
it. It makes no difference at all of what Paul meant by DOGMA. It makes no difference
at all of what an ellipisis is either. There are ten commandments, and there are
statutes and judgments which are not commandments.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by unknown
This is getting old.

You only just now noticed?

Post by unknown
Some have eye's to see,

That would not be you.

Post by unknown
but they still can not see.

But this fits you to a 'T'. For you _still_ do not see -- or you say
you do not see -- how you yourself violate the commandments in every
post of yours.

I gave you the list and the proof that yes, you really _do_ violate them, but
you have not responded on point to them at all.

[snip]

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
Some have eye's to see,

That would not be you.

Post by unknown
but they still can not see.

But this fits you to a 'T'. For you _still_ do not see --

This is funny Matt, you take a scripture that encourages humility...and then
turn it around in a total lack of humility!

It's always someone else isn't it.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by unknown
Some have eye's to see,

That would not be you.

Post by unknown
but they still can not see.

But this fits you to a 'T'. For you _still_ do not see --

This is funny Matt, you take a scripture that encourages humility...and then
turn it around in a total lack of humility!

The 'funny' part is that you beat me to it, and you still don't see that you did
it.

Post by A Brown
It's always someone else isn't it.

No, there are only a few who do this -- and you are the most conspicuous of them
at this point in time. Maybe it will stop when you grow up.