[genny]

I hear the wmscog and its members claim that it is the only church which follows ALL the commands and instructions of God, not the Mosaic Law, mind you, but the "Law of Christ".  I have some questions concerning this that have not been answered yet…

According to the WMSCOG,

1.  Did the Law given to Moses get thrown out and replaced with the commands of Jesus?  or  Do all the former laws given in the Old Testament still stand except for the changes made by Jesus?

In other words, to use a computer analogy, did Jesus delete the file of "Law of Moses" and write a new file "Law of Christ"?

Or did He keep the same file "Law of Moses," make some edits, and rename it "Law of Christ"?

2.  In order to obey ALL the commands of God, which the wmscog also claims is absolutely necessary for salvation, you MUST know what they all are.  Otherwise, how can you know you are obeying ALL of them without missing any?  Please give a list of ALL God's commands that must be obeyed for salvation.

[WMS brother]

[WMS brother]

"Or did He keep the same file "Law of Moses," make some edits, and rename it "Law of Christ"?"

This one.

"Edits" include "deletions" anywhere that Jesus and the Apostles do not observe Old Testament laws.

And, to be precise, that -is- the entirety of Christs Law. Every example they ever set, is the "law".

"how can you know you are obeying ALL of them without missing any?"

An itemized list can be found at: Matthew 1:1, and continues through until Revelation 22:21

The main thing I mean to say, is that I have never heard of any other church which has third day worship, wears the veil, does the feetwashing ceremony, keeps passover on the correct day, keeps the seven feats of the three times on the correct days and correctly, measures time in 12 hour days and 12 hour nights, understands the sabbath day saturday, teaches that man made holidays are (mostly) from pagan origins, and i could go on and on.

The truth books contain a full compendium of all of the "laws of christ" and we teach them one by one from the most urgent (baptism and passover) to the least urgent (teach tithing only after a while, and only if they ask, respect peoples personal situations like the apostles did).

[genny]

Thank you WMS brother.  Now we are getting somewhere…

WMS brother wrote:

"Or did He keep the same file "Law of Moses," make some edits, and rename it "Law of Christ"?"

This one.

"Edits" include "deletions" anywhere that Jesus and the Apostles do not observe Old Testament laws.

And, to be precise, that -is- the entirety of Christs Law. Every example they ever set, is the "law".

So if you don't see an Old Testament law recorded specifically as being observed by Jesus or the Apostles, then it is no longer required?  That sounds more like the first option–deleting the file and rewriting a new one.

If you choose the second option–keep the file and make edits (deletions)–then I take that to mean that only when Jesus and the Apostles specifically say that a particular law is no longer required, then it is deleted.

Do you see the difference?  I just want to make sure I understand the wmscog position correctly.

Here's one just for illustration,

Num. 15:38, "Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel."

In Matt. 23:5, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for making their tassels long to show off for people, but there is no other mention of tassels and whether they should still be worn.  We could assume that Jesus and the Apostles wore tassels because they were law abiding Jews, but there is no other specific mention.

Are tassels still required or not?

"how can you know you are obeying ALL of them without missing any?"

An itemized list can be found at: Matthew 1:1, and continues through until Revelation 22:21

The main thing I mean to say, is that I have never heard of any other church which has third day worship, wears the veil, does the feetwashing ceremony, keeps passover on the correct day, keeps the seven feats of the three times on the correct days and correctly, measures time in 12 hour days and 12 hour nights, understands the sabbath day saturday, teaches that man made holidays are (mostly) from pagan origins, and i could go on and on.

The truth books contain a full compendium of all of the "laws of christ" and we teach them one by one from the most urgent (baptism and passover) to the least urgent (teach tithing only after a while, and only if they ask, respect peoples personal situations like the apostles did).

What about these:

Matthew 5:32, "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Why did the wmscog encourage my (non-member) friend's husband (a member) to leave her, no sexual immorality involved?

2 Corinthians 6:14, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"

Why did the wmscog NOT counsel my other (member) friend against marrying her boyfriend (a non-member)?

John 8:44; Colossians 3:9; Revelation 14:5 — All against lying.

Why does the wmscog support 'white lies' or 'righteous lies'?

John 10:22-23, "Then came the Festival of Dedication [Hanukkah] at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade."

Why does the wmscog not keep Hanukkah according to Jesus' example?

And most importantly, at the council in Acts 21, when they were having the discussion of how the Gentile believers should live and what laws they should keep, the only requirements came out to be "they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality." (verse 25)  NOTHING about Sabbath or Passover or Feasts or the veil…

[WMS brother]

Anything not mentioned is fair game. Care that you actually find out whether or not its mentioned. We don't wear tassels.

There are a few reasons why we would reccomend it. And having been a part of some of those discussions I can also say that we try our best -never- to tell someone to leave someone else. We point out what should be a priority, and it is up to the individual whether they're going to focus on God or not.

On that note, a -lot- of the "destroyed family" stories actually involve brothers that I have personally hugged as they cried to me and said that they didn't even want to leave, that they asked to stay together, that they wanted to work it out, and they specifically asked -their- significant other to stay but she left. That the brother was very gentle and submissive about the subject but that their significant other kept starting arguments and persecuting them and treating them really badly.

Choice words were sometimes involved to describe the level of one sided hatred some of the members endured. We aren't tearing apart families, I've literally heard THEM say that brothers had to leave the church, or else, to choose between church or the family. Like, very confrontrational. We never initiate that dialogue at all. We tell people to stick together in harmony and unity and to work just as hard at home as we do in church to set a good example.

I've had pep talks with brothers who were concerned about their family, or mothers. I have always stressed to be kind and loving, always stick with it, and never leave. Always pray for them and keep hope. I say that they should set up a group ahead of time so they feel welcomed by members you trust to care for unbelieving family gently. We are extremely welcoming to non believers. Like the whole church, I learned how I act, from them. So I don't know where people get the idea that were literally saying "you should get a divorce". In fact I'm pretty sure those words have never left a pastor's mouth.

Maybe if an unbeliever is arguing, things may get dramatic, and if we have acted in a shameful way, I apologize. Theese negative stories are the exception though, not the rule. The rule we preach is love.

Thats why I'm dissapointed to see so much slander, and little to no talk about the commandments which we keep correctly and all the many people we do help.

Also, personal lives are personal, so we don't ask and tell you who to marry or not marry. If you bring it up however, I've heard pretty straightfoward biblical advice along that vein. We don't wed anyone in my church unless both are baptised.

"Why does the wmscog support 'white lies' or 'righteous lies'?"

Describe one, I'm not aware we did.

Did the apostles also keep hannukah after the death of Christ?

The same apostles who spoke the law to the gentiles are the same apostles who said to follow their examples. They are also the same apostles who talked about putting on the viel and the same apostles who kept passover, unleavened bread, and ressurection day later on in Acts 20:7. If you don't want to read the whole New Covenant, one could just say that.

loocpoc wrote:

Yes I wear Tzitzit s. Also when did the binding or the wearing of Tefillin stop as a requirement?

And it shall be for a sign for you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand did the LORD bring you out of Egypt.

It didn't. Reference the Seal of God, which is put on our forehead and hands to protect us.

[Simon]

loocpoc wrote:

Also when did the binding or the wearing of Tefillin stop as a requirement?

Never was that was Pharisee twisting: http://karaite-korner.org/tefillin.shtml

[Simon]

loocpoc wrote:

  But you do not keep the Passover or the feasts correctly.

I have been checking with the New Moon the WMC has the calendar correctly.

[Simon]

You can choose to interperet it that way but that has never been the universal interpretation

[genny]

shimon wrote:

loocpoc wrote:

  But you do not keep the Passover or the feasts correctly.

I have been checking with the New Moon the WMC has the calendar correctly.

Remember, we talked about this before.  There have been several years when the wmscog kept the 7th month feasts in the 8th month instead.  That's a pretty big mistake, especially when your salvation is based on getting such things absolutely correct.  Here's the record:

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1MsoweMAuX9TFiNpzg6Oi2d1CERWFyrqwHp183-H_G9U

[genny]

WMS brother wrote:

Anything not mentioned is fair game. Care that you actually find out whether or not its mentioned. We don't wear tassels.

Fair game?  Do you mean you get to choose whether to obey or not?  Then it is not required.

In that case, really you are saying that the file 'Law of Moses' was deleted and the new file 'Law of Christ' replaced it, and that includes only things you see in the New Testament?

There are a few reasons why we would reccomend it. And having been a part of some of those discussions I can also say that we try our best -never- to tell someone to leave someone else. We point out what should be a priority, and it is up to the individual whether they're going to focus on God or not.

On that note, a -lot- of the "destroyed family" stories actually involve brothers that I have personally hugged as they cried to me and said that they didn't even want to leave, that they asked to stay together, that they wanted to work it out, and they specifically asked -their- significant other to stay but she left. That the brother was very gentle and submissive about the subject but that their significant other kept starting arguments and persecuting them and treating them really badly.

In my friend's case, she did not want a divorce.  She wanted to work things out.  But the wmscog basically told the husband that since she was spiritually dead, it was ok for him to leave.

In another friend's family the son (a member) has acted so awful toward his wife (non member) it's as if he's trying to make her leave him.

Choice words were sometimes involved to describe the level of one sided hatred some of the members endured. We aren't tearing apart families, I've literally heard THEM say that brothers had to leave the church, or else, to choose between church or the family. Like, very confrontrational. We never initiate that dialogue at all. We tell people to stick together in harmony and unity and to work just as hard at home as we do in church to set a good example.

I've had pep talks with brothers who were concerned about their family, or mothers. I have always stressed to be kind and loving, always stick with it, and never leave. Always pray for them and keep hope. I say that they should set up a group ahead of time so they feel welcomed by members you trust to care for unbelieving family gently. We are extremely welcoming to non believers. Like the whole church, I learned how I act, from them. So I don't know where people get the idea that were literally saying "you should get a divorce". In fact I'm pretty sure those words have never left a pastor's mouth.

Maybe if an unbeliever is arguing, things may get dramatic, and if we have acted in a shameful way, I apologize. Theese negative stories are the exception though, not the rule. The rule we preach is love.

I can understand how, in such a disunified state, the non member may push the member away, as in the situations you know.  But it also happens the other way as well, and I guess you just are not seeing those cases among your friends.

If your church truly preached love, then they would not preach that your non-member loved ones who disagree with you are agents of satan.

Thats why I'm dissapointed to see so much slander, and little to no talk about the commandments which we keep correctly and all the many people we do help.

Also, personal lives are personal, so we don't ask and tell you who to marry or not marry. If you bring it up however, I've heard pretty straightfoward biblical advice along that vein. We don't wed anyone in my church unless both are baptised.

My friend talked to the pastor (or other leaders) about marrying her non-member boyfriend, and they encouraged her to do so if he proposed.  That's opposite from what you say here.  Are you speaking from personal experience or just assumption?

"Why does the wmscog support 'white lies' or 'righteous lies'?"

Describe one, I'm not aware we did.

Why don't you ask your pastor about this one?

Did the apostles also keep hannukah after the death of Christ?

The same apostles who spoke the law to the gentiles are the same apostles who said to follow their examples. They are also the same apostles who talked about putting on the viel and the same apostles who kept passover, unleavened bread, and ressurection day later on in Acts 20:7. If you don't want to read the whole New Covenant, one could just say that.

I have read the whole New Testament many times.  These are the same apostles who did not see the need for the Gentile believers to keep Sabbath, Passover, etc. or they would have said so in Acts 15.  And Acts 20:7 is not Resurrection Day.  The timing doesn't work out–pay attention to verse 6.  It was a meeting on an ordinary Sunday.

[Simon]

genny wrote:

shimon wrote:

loocpoc wrote:

  But you do not keep the Passover or the feasts correctly.

I have been checking with the New Moon the WMC has the calendar correctly.

Remember, we talked about this before.  There have been several years when the wmscog kept the 7th month feasts in the 8th month instead.  That's a pretty big mistake, especially when your salvation is based on getting such things absolutely correct.  Here's the record:

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1MsoweMAuX9TFiNpzg6Oi2d1CERWFyrqwHp183-H_G9U

I am taking your word the information is accurate I am only able to go off of when we have kept it since I joined.

 

genny wrote:

If your church truly preached love, then they would not preach that your non-member loved ones who disagree with you are agents of satan.

Flawed reasoning lying is certainly not love. Agent of Satan means you are doing Satan's will to lead people away from God not anything about your charater

Did the apostles also keep hannukah after the death of Christ?

We don't have any reference to Jesus or the disciples actually keeping it. It mentions Jesus being there at the time BUT Hannukah isn't an immigration feast so it could just be time indication. Especially seeing as Hannukah (and Purim) are not from God but from man, this is why WMC does not keep them.

I have read the whole New Testament many times.  These are the same apostles who did not see the need for the Gentile believers to keep Sabbath, Passover, etc. or they would have said so in Acts 15.  And Acts 20:7 is not Resurrection Day.  The timing doesn't work out–pay attention to verse 6.  It was a meeting on an ordinary Sunday.

Acts 15 deals with controversies in the chuch if there was no controversy it wouldn't have been brought up.

Let us assume Acts 20:7 is not resurrection day it doesn't make it weekly Sunday service either. Surely your church breaks bread on non-ceremony days

[genny]

shimon wrote:

genny wrote:

Remember, we talked about this before.  There have been several years when the wmscog kept the 7th month feasts in the 8th month instead.  That's a pretty big mistake, especially when your salvation is based on getting such things absolutely correct.  Here's the record:

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1MsoweMAuX9TFiNpzg6Oi2d1CERWFyrqwHp183-H_G9U

I am taking your word the information is accurate I am only able to go off of when we have kept it since I joined.

You were there in 2010, right?  Check your calendar for 2010.  All the dates are recorded in the 'church news' section of the main church website.  You don't have to take my word for it–it's all there for you.  It seems like you are specifically strying to avoid this question, and I wonder why.

Acts 15 deals with controversies in the chuch if there was no controversy it wouldn't have been brought up.

In Acts 15, the Jewish believers are happy that the Gentile believers have come to faith.  However, the Jewish believers (who are accustomed to their way of life and find meaning in the Law) think the Gentile believers (who have never followed the Law) should follow the Law in the same way.

But God has already shown His acceptance of the Gentile believers without their keeping any regulations of the Law (this includes Sabbath and Passover).

James acknowledges this, but doesn't want their differences in living to cause problems.  He tells them the minimum the Gentiles should do so their way of life won't offend the Jewish believers.

This is similar to Romans 14, where we see how to get along with people who express their faith differently.

Acts 15:7-11 is very important:

After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.  God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.  He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.   Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?  No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

You might want to read it a couple times to get the impact.

Let us assume Acts 20:7 is not resurrection day it doesn't make it weekly Sunday service either. Surely your church breaks bread on non-ceremony days

Combined with the other evidence for Sunday service, it makes it more likely to be so.  Either way, the wmscog is still wrong for saying it is Resurrection Day.

[Simon]

genny wrote:

Acts 15 deals with controversies in the chuch if there was no controversy it wouldn't have been brought up.

In Acts 15, the Jewish believers are happy that the Gentile believers have come to faith.  However, the Jewish believers (who are accustomed to their way of life and find meaning in the Law) think the Gentile believers (who have never followed the Law) should follow the Law in the same way.

The verse says the Jews said they must do SPECIFIC things not just they genericaly had to follow the law.

But God has already shown His acceptance of the Gentile believers without their keeping any regulations of the Law (this includes Sabbath and Passover).

James acknowledges this, but doesn't want their differences in living to cause problems.  He tells them the minimum the Gentiles should do so their way of life won't offend the Jewish believers.

This is similar to Romans 14, where we see how to get along with people who express their faith differently.

Acts 15:7-11 is very important:

He accepts everyone at first yes. He calls you without regard to what you have done but that is so you repent and change.

After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.  God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.  He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.   Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?  No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

You might want to read it a couple times to get the impact.

Sabbath and Passover are not Yokes

Let us assume Acts 20:7 is not resurrection day it doesn't make it weekly Sunday service either. Surely your church breaks bread on non-ceremony days

Combined with the other evidence for Sunday service, it makes it more likely to be so.  Either way, the wmscog is still wrong for saying it is Resurrection Day.

There is no evidence for sunday service at all. Further I see no evidence WMC is wrong for calling it ressurection day.