USING COMMON SENSE IN SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINES

Part II

Back on July 25^th we did the first part of the presentation on using common sense in scriptural doctrine. Today we are going to do the last part of this presentation.

Since it has been a while since we first presented the first presentation it would be good for us to quickly review what we had discussed.  

Let us start of by identifying what we mean by common sense:

Common sense is the ability to see things for what they are and the ability to reason things out through a logical not an emotional process. Although most people would say that they have common sense, the truth is that they don’t. We find that most people lack common sense when it comes to understanding the basic doctrines given to us in the Scriptures. Most people in fact are not geared by common sense when it comes to understanding the Scriptures; they are led by emotions, by teachings and doctrines of man and by their own perceptions.

So with that in mind let us quickly review what we talked about last time and then we can continue with the rest of our presentation: Keep in mind that this is a short review, for the full message you may order the first presentation on DVD or Cd.

The Sabbath and Resurrection:

The Argument: The messiah did away with the Sabbath when he was killed on Good Friday at about 3 pm and arose on Easter Sunday Morning at about 8am.

Fact: The celebration of Good Friday is ancient, and it is connected to many pagan practices, this day was honored by the Roman pagans with special rituals. The name Friday in fact comes from one of the Norse gods named “Frigg”, Frigg was a god of fertility. This day which was honored by the pagans was eventually adopted by the Catholic Church and eventually the other Christian churches as the day in which the Messiah was placed on the stake.

"Easter", many scholars agree, has its root in ancient pagan religion.  "Easter" derived from Eastre, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring.  The name is actually much older - going back to Babel and it's infamous tower. The grandson of Noach (Noah), Nimrod, formed the first post-flood kingdom.   Jewish tradition indicates that Nimrod was a tyrant "who made all of the people rebellious against Elohim."  This pagan date along with its pagan traditions of easter eggs and several other things was also adopted by the Catholic Church and later most of the Christian churches.

So if we take an account of what Yahshua said in Matthew 12:40, that he would be in the tomb for three day and three nights, we find that we don’t get three days and three nights from Friday evening to Sunday morning. So using common sense, we find that there is an error in the way that churchianity reckons the three days and three nights from Friday to Sunday. Not to mention the fact that Good Friday and Easter were both recognized as ancient pagan days. So the excuse that churchianity uses to wave off the Seventh day of the week which is actually Saturday to Sunday does not have a scriptural or factual foundation. Not to mention the fact that the Catholic church readily admits that they have no scriptural foundation for changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

            Alright now for the second part of this message we are going to speak about two things, one of them being the clean food laws which those of churchianity believe are done away with and also we are going to speak about the Hebrew Names, which some people don’t think that they are important to call upon. Remember that we are taking a common sense approach to study these topics. So let’s start off with the Clean Food Laws.

Churchianity uses the following Scriptures to prove that they can now eat animals which were not designed for food: (Matt 15:10-20), Acts 10:9-20

Now we don’t have to read any of the other words because using common sense we can find that these scriptures are not a good foundation for proving that you can now eat animals that are unclean. Let us begin understanding that when Yahshua gave his parable in Matthew 15, Peter was right there with him and he was also confused about what the parable was. So when the disciples asked Yahshua for the meaning of the parable Peter would have heard the explanation.

The explanation given by Yahshua of course was not that the disciples could go and eat pork or shell fish but that it was about the condition of the heart. This is proven by the fact that ten or more years after the Messiah had ascended to Heaven, Peter than has a dream. In this dream Peter is told three times to eat unclean things (Acts 10). Now had the Savior said anything about eating pork in our earlier account Peter would have exclaimed that since Yahshua gave them permission to eat pork that he would go ahead and eat it. But Peter actually refused! Not only that but we read later in the chapter that he recognized what the dream was really all about, it was not about food at all but it was accepting people or gentiles into the covenant of the Messiah:

Acts 10:27-29; Acts 10:34-38

But of course churchianity teaches that all things are done away because they are mentioned and given to Moses. All except of course tithing, they have really hung to that one!

But let us review something important with the commandment given to Moses regarding the clean food laws. We read about the clean food laws in Lev 11, there we are told what we can and can’t eat. Most of churchianity believes that this is the only place where the unclean food laws is given and so they ignore everything else. However doing a little bit of research we find that the clean food laws were actually given to Noah and they were actually given to all of the patriarchs. We find in the book of Genesis many years before Moses came on the scene a commandment that Noah was to take two of each kind of animals, everyone pretty much gets that one right?

 However when you ask most people about how many clean animals Noah was supposed to have taken in the Ark, most in churchianity do not know. The answer is given to us in Genesis chapter 7 verses 1 to 4:

So the common sense question is, how did Noah know which animals were clean or unclean if the list was not given until Moses many years after him? The common sense answer is that Noah must have been told. So by using common sense we find that churchianitie’s stance that we don’t have to obey the clean food laws is not found on scripture but on the doctrines of man. This has cost them greatly as every year thousands of them die of diseases that could be avoided if they simply obeyed the One that created their food.

            Now I am not going to say too much about the Hebrew Names or argue as to whether or not it is important to use them. We obviously believe that it is both very critical and very important that we call on the Names as we have been commanded throughout Scripture. But using a common sense approach we can prove that whether you believe that you should use the names or not, the issue is that you understand the fact that neither Hebrew nor the Aramaic language contain the letter J in their vocabulary nor in their alphabet. In other words it would have been impossible for our Savior to have had a name with a sound that would not have been a part of the Hebrew language. If I was to ask any American who only speaks English to give me a English name or word that contains the letter ‘ñ’ they would not be able to do it because neither our language nor alphabet contain this letter. However if I was to ask somebody who speaks Spanish to do this they would have no problem.

So using common sense and knowing that our Savior was Jewish or an Israelite from the tribe of Judah and who only spoke Hebrew or Aramaic and whose parents were themselves Israelites all of whom were raised in a Hebrew culture; we find that churchianitie’s notion that our savior could have a name with a letter whose sound was not and is not part of their alphabet or language is not based on truth but on doctrines of man.

Interestingly enough if you check an encyclopedia on the letter J you will find that the letter J did not come to be used as a consonant in our English Language until the seventeenth century. So it is fairly new!  

Knowing this we have to ask the question, should we follow man’s doctrines and practices or do we follow the truth knowing that the truth sets us free?