4-18-03

7:26a

Getting a late start this morning. I got up half an hour ago, but I haven�t been able to get my mind together enough to actually start this. I�m hoping that by forcing myself to write, I�ll just get a little more awake.

Yesterday morning, as I was posting my Bible study, I got to talk briefly with Bioux. We spoke briefly about the Holy days and he was rather adamant about the fact that they were done away with by Jesus� sacrifice. I may have misunderstood what he said � I�ve had that problem with him before � but I think he meant that the Feasts described in the Old Testament are a thing of the past and no longer need to be observed.

Bioux is going to be sending me some information, via Email, about his point. When I get that, I�ll post bits and pieces of it. For the time being, however, I thought I would post a few of the scriptural reasons I still observe the Holy Days.

According to my specific beliefs: it is not necessary to salvation for a person to observe the Holy Days. Likewise, it is not necessary to salvation to observe the Sabbath. It is not necessary to salvation to observe the Big Ten � the ten Commandments. I do, however, believe that if one chooses to observe these laws and Sabbaths (plural), they will be blessed � my life is definitely better when I do.

Lev 6:18, 23:41, 24:3
Lev. 10:9, 23:14,23:31,
Num. 10:8, 15:15
James 1:25
Jer. 3:21
1tim 5:23 the wine thing
john 18:27
acts 26:16
heb. 9:11, 25
(Having the power of God 2Tim 3:5)

We spoke about the hierarchy of communication� that God instructed the Levites who in turn were to instruct the Israelites � though bioux said only the jews � and the Israelites would in turn then teach the rest of the world. First off, many people think �Israel� and �Jews� are synonymous. To my understanding, they are not. There are twelve tribes. Gen 49:28 matt 19:28

(So I realize as I�m going through all of this� The reason there were twelve apostles/disciples was to maintain the twelve tribes of Israel�) � half formed thought� will expand later.

There�s something about Bioux� maybe his presentation� maybe my reception� that simply wants to deny the validity of anything he says. Seriously� I have a real problem with most of his points/arguments. I have this intense desire to stand with my hands on my hips, shaking my head and shout �Nuh uh!�

*chuckles*

Because of my desire to avoid confrontation whenever possible, however, I don�t do that. Personally, I think my aversion to confrontation is quite helpful, especially because I really don�t like it when I make a fool of myself.

I�ve been going through some of the things he said � rehashing them in my mind � and so I�m doing study this morning on what he was talking about. I don�t know about the whole hierarchy thing� I know that Bioux has a specific way of looking at things and I so don�t have his point of view, but I�m really trying to see through his eyes if for at least a moment or two. I think he needs glasses, cause everything is fuzzy.

I think I understand what he was getting at though. I think that he was trying to tell me that the Old Testament was done away with. This seems to be a common belief among Christians in this age. I think that Bioux is trying to say that the requirements of the Old Testament were not only fulfilled by Jesus� death, but that it is no longer necessary to observe them.

If � big, honkin, major �if� here � I am correct � in my understanding of what Bioux is saying � then I agree. But only on one point: it is not necessary for salvation to observe the Old Testament requirements.

Whether or not Bioux is a part of the group of Christians who seem to believe that the Old Testament was done away with by Jesus� death, I don�t agree with that sentiment.

I believe that if the Old Testament were truly done away with by Jesus� death, then it wouldn�t be included in the Bible� it would be a history text and not something we need to concern ourselves with. (wait a second� don�t react yet)

As was mentioned (I think I mentioned it, but Bioux might have too/first) in our conversation, the history stuff is there to teach us about what works and what doesn�t� it is a map, so to speak, giving us the opportunity to learn from our mistakes. (�our� referring to humanity as a whole)

I think that if the Old Testament had been done away with by Jesus� death, then it would be simply a companion to the Bible and not a part of it. I get the feeling that a lot of Christians already think the Old Testament is exactly that� a companion to the true Bible � the New Testament.

I get really nervous and scared when I think of that. Are there really people out there who believe the Old Testament is equal to an ancient history tome? Are there people who truly believe that the OT is only there to give us insight into what to do to avoid a world-wide flood, being swallowed by a �great fish�, having some mysterious hand write scary things on a wall, tell moving stories about courageous women (Esther and Ruth) or give us a few fortune cookie-like sayings (the Proverbs)?

It makes me very nervous to think of minimizing the importance of the OT to just a story book � just a history text. Revelation 22: 18 and 19 is what I want to focus on right at this second� I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
19 And if anyone takes words way from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Perhaps this refers only to the book of Revelation, but I had always thought it also referred to the entire Bible; Old Testament and New Testament.

(as per the hierarchy thing� Acts 6:7b �and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith� So, not all of the Jews were against Jesus or His instructions)

In John 10:35, when Jesus is being questioned yet again about His claim of being the son of God, He points to the Old Testament (refered to there as �scripture�) mentioning that God called those He created gods. The point, however, is in the parenthetical part of that verse where either Jesus said, or John added, �and the scripture can not be broken�. Doesn�t that indicate that the OT is very much a real part of the Bible and not just a companion?

Luke 4:4 says that �But Jesus answered him, saying, �It is written, �Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God��� My focus is on the word �every�. Doesn�t that mean all of it? This doesn�t apply to only Bioux�s comments, but to the whole thing� I wonder at the whole sacrifice thing� I have wondered at this before� if it says �every word of God� doesn�t that mean we�re supposed to be making the sacrifices by fire and all? Doesn�t that mean that we�re to separate from our homes and families when we�re sick? Doesn�t that mean that we women are to leave our homes for the duration of our periods? *frowns* See� I�m not just talking about Bioux, but also about questions I�ve had for a long while.

I�m tired now and my mind is spinning a little. I�ll come back to this later� maybe tomorrow, and explore the verses listed near the top of this entry� I�ll explain why I looked those up (I have a handy phrase concordance) and what their significance is according to my life.

Right now, I have to do something else� my brain can�t handle anymore.