quote:

---

John Cordaro wrote: Can you give me a few examples aside from the laws of uncleanness and the sacrificial laws? That would help me understand you better.

---

Well actually, seeing as we all now live outside the camp (since the camp no longer exists), every law dealing with the camp itself is beyond our power to implement. Look at the following passage and tell me how we can apply this today.

Deut 23:10 If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp: 11 But it shall be, when evening cometh on, he shall wash himself with water: and when the sun is down, he shall come into the camp again. 12 Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: 13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: 14 For Yahweh thy Elohim walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.

quote:

---

Dave52 wrote: But sin is not always imputed to those who are ignorant of sinning (Lev 5:3-4).

John Cordaro wrote: The JPS Torah Commentary on Leviticus translates verses 3 & 4 differently. It reads, "Or when he touches humaan uncleanness - any such uncleanness whereby one becomes unclean - and, though he has known it, the fact has escaped him, but later he realizes his guilt; Or when a person utters an oath ...and, though he has known it, the fact has escaped him, but later he realizes his guilt in any of these matters, he shall confess that wherein he sinned."

Their note on verse 3 reads, "As has been emphasized repeatedly, according to cultic law guilt is not a function of awareness; it is a function of committing an act or failing to commit one..."

---

Yes, “guilt is not a function of awareness” and of course all of us are guilty of every little sin we commit, whether consciously or unconsciously, but I believe this guilt is not always imputed or charged against us if we were unaware of our actions.

Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin.
Ro 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Ro 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is

quote:

---

John Cordaro wrote: We can't seem to stop sinning either. If I break the Sabbath by working on that day, I would be sinning. I would not then say to myself, "Well, since I am a sinner, there is no point in me trying to remain sinless from this point on." I would repent and try to sin no more. I approach uncleanness the same way. I try to avoid uncleanness. If I become unclean, I bath and become clean again at sunset.

---

You had written, “Since our bodies are now the temple of the Holy Spirit, I believe we should keep them clean” even though you know it is physically impossible for many to accomplish this. Comparing physical uncleanness to working on Sabbath is hardly fair since we at least can attempt to obey the Sabbath commandment, whereas there is nothing many can do to remain clean for extended periods.

What can a person do who has some type of perpetual issue, wash each day and expect to be clean at sundown? What I would like to determine is whether our bodies are acceptable as Yahweh’s temple when we are unclean according to the Law of Moses. Or did Yahshua’s covering change this requirement enabling Yahweh to dwell in us regardless of any issues, menstruating or other uncleanness.

quote:

---

John Cordaro wrote: I guess that depends on how one understands the heart/conscience issue of verse 22; "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." Can our hearts be defiled (Mt.15:18,19) or our conscience seared (1 Tim.4:2) even though they have been sprinkled by the blood of Yahshua? Those two references seem to suggest they can. Why, then, can't our bodies become unclean even though they have been washed?

---

Heb 10:22 was speaking of those of us who “Hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering” (verse 23), not those who have “Evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (Mt 15:18-19) or are “ Giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of demons; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron” (1Tim 4:1-2).

If you believe our bodies can still become unclean even though they have been washed in pure water by Yahshua, then do you think during those periods they are unfit to be the temple of Yahweh?

quote:

---

Acheson wrote: Nevertheless, there is nothing in Torah that I'm aware of stipulating that it is a sin for a man to touch a woman who happens to be menstruating. We are only told that it makes him unclean until evening, that's all.

Dave52 wrote: Uncleanness is not sin otherwise any woman who died during her menstrual cycle would die in sin.

John Cordaro wrote: It seems you have misunderstood Larry's statement. He is saying it is NOT a sin to be unclean.

---

I did agree with Larry, only instead of saying “it is NOT a sin to be unclean” I wrote, “Uncleanness is not sin.”

Hello Burning One:

I would like to respond to this post to Larry:

"Originally posted by Burning one: to Larry,

you stated that i made an allusion in my book that those who do not wear frontlets have taken the mark of the beast.

i have to say that this is categoretically FALSE.that is an insane teaching which i do not believe in any way, shape, or form. never was that even in my head when i wrote the book. please understand that believing i teach that is a perversion of what i really did teach.

you said you only read portions of the study, so i don't know if you got that from what you personally read, or else you were told that.

if it was something you gleaned by actually reading my written words, then i would advise you to reread that section because i never stated that or even attempted to allude to that.

if it was something someone merely told you was written in the book, then i would say to be extremely cautious what you hear about what someone teaches before publically declaring it as truth.

i deny that teaching from beginning to end so if you would you might want to delete that part of your post, as it is not something i teach nor advocate, especially since i had not even thought of it when writing that part of the book. i hope you can understand my desire in this to make sure that what is true about one's teaching is made known. even if we disagree about something in Scripture, misinterpretation of one's teaching, or slander is not the way to go.

Chayim b'Moshiach (Life in Messiah)

First, we have continued this thread in the topic entitled: frontlets:
literal vs figurative

Nevertheless,
since this question was brought up in this particular forum topic--I feel it is
necessary to clarify this particular issue of "slander" here in this
forum.

First, let's review what the
teaching of Scripture is concerning the use of witnesses:

"At the mouth of two witnesses, or
three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but
at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death." 
(Deuteronomy 17:6)

"One witness shall not rise up
against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at
the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the
matter be established. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify
against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the
controversy is, shall stand before Yahweh, before the priests and the
judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent
inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and
hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he
had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away
from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall
henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not
pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,
hand for hand, foot for foot."  (Deuteronomy 19:15-21)

Now Larry has recently given his response to
this particular issue of the "mark of the beast" and I believe that it
is only right that a "double witness" is in order here if we are to be
fair and impartial according to Scripture.

I have your book here before me and I have to
be honest in reporting what you actually said in your book.  If you wish to
change this in the future and/or clarify your position, that would be
good.  However, at this time the statement is still there and so I will
simply do as Larry has done, and quote directly from your book:

In The Sign of the Servant:  Revealing the Meaning Behind a Mysterious
Mitzvah, (your name withheld), chapter 6
called "Tefillin, The Seal, and the Mark of the Beast" on page 66-67
you quote Revelation 13:16 and follow with this:

"The 'he' mentioned here is the second beast described in this
chapter, and this beast is later known as the false prophet.  This tells
us much, namely, that the mark of the beast is instigated by a corrupt
spiritual leader, and the heart of its evil lies in this.  The mark also
affects the social and economic relations for those who take it, but its main
focus is a spiritual one.  As I have earnestly tried to make clear in
this study, the significance of a physical mitzvah needs to be perceived even
more clearly in its spiritual applications, or else one will approach that
mitzvah in an incorrect light.  The purpose, the spirit behind the letter
of the Torah, is something we all need to endeavor to comprehend.  When
one is obedient, or in this case, disobedient, in things spiritual, there will
always be ramifications in the physical.  This is a truth that is laid
out constantly in the Torah and shown to be true in application throughout the
stories of Scripture.

"This mark is to be taken upon the right hand or the forehead. 
There is only one mitzvah in Scripture that speaks of something being placed
upon the hand or the forehead, and that of course is tefillin!  Attempts
have been made to say that it is simply coincidence, and that they do not
share any relation, but this line of thought is totally inappropriate. 
Scripture is a completely unified message, and when something is written to us
in a prophecy that bears striking resemblance to another past passage or
verse, then we should be quick to realize that the Spirit of Yah is referring
us back to that original context and its spiritual and physical implications. 
The connection here is therefore unquestionable, for Yochanan, the one writing
down this vision, would even himself have seen a connection between the two,
for tefillin would have been a common part of his life of obedience to the
Torah.  Most believers have failed to see the relation for so long, due
to their lack of study and observance of Yah's Word.  But the relation is
clearly present, and is undeniable.

"The book of Revelation quotes and makes references to the ancient Hebrew
Scriptures more than any other book in the Messianic Writings.  It
contains images and allusions to things from the Torah, the Prophets and the
Writings; all of Scripture!  In our pursuit to comprehend this, one of
Scripture's most mystical writings, rivaling or even perhaps surpassing
similar texts found in the prophetic books of Dani ' El (Daniel), Yechezq ' El
(Ezekiel), Zekar Yah (Zechariah), or if I may, even Shir HaShirim (The Song of
Songs), we must keep in the forefront of our thinking that it needs to be
viewed and interpreted through the lens of the Hebrew Scriptures.  If we
desire to rightly divide this so often wrongly divided book, the only path for
doing so lay through the rest of Yah's written revelation.  Doing this,
we can safely arrive at a better grasp of this troublesome topic.

"In having a foundation laid showing the direct relation of tefillin with
the mark of the beast, we can now delve deeper into the study.  The first
stone set has to be that we see this connection, or else the rest of the study
will be fruitless.  The relationship of the mark of the beast being given
on the hand or the forehead is a clear and distinct comparison to tefillin,
albeit in a corrupt and perverted way.  The beast's mark is, in a sense,
anti-tefillin.  The importance of this will be dealt with soon. . ."

By the way I and other researchers have found that there is a very
clear and definite connection between the mark of the beast and the four
passages used to supposedly support the wearing of tefillin.  However, since I do
not believe the tefillin are LITERAL therefore my understanding of the mark of
the beast is that it is a SYMBOLIC mark--just as the sign on the forehead and
the hand is to be understood as SYMBOLIC!!

Nevertheless, let this statement by myself here
in confirmation of Larry's prior statements serve as a reminder that our
testimony regarding your published statements is indeed true and correct. 
It is not wise to publish statements on the internet about others unless it can
be verified.

I understand that you are undergoing some sort
of surgery.  Hope and pray for your recovery.

Shalom,

Glenn

quote:

---

Well actually, seeing as we all now live outside the camp (since the camp no longer exists), every law dealing with the camp itself is beyond our power to implement. Look at the following passage and tell me how we can apply this today.

Deut 23:10 If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp: 11 But it shall be, when evening cometh on, he shall wash himself with water: and when the sun is down, he shall come into the camp again. 12 Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: 13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: 14 For Yahweh thy Elohim walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.

---

Verses 12-13 teach us a sanitation law, that is, to bury our excrement. With flush toilets, this is easily accomplished. However, if one is unavailable, we should still practice this law by burying it so that others don't come in contact with our uncleanness. The going out of and coming into the camp would be irrelevant now that there is no camp. The same would be true for verses 10-11. If we have a nocturnal emission, we should still wash for sanitary reasons and avoid having others contact our uncleanness. After the sun sets, we are clean again.

quote:

---

What can a person do who has some type of perpetual issue, wash each day and expect to be clean at sundown? What I would like to determine is whether our bodies are acceptable as Yahweh’s temple when we are unclean according to the Law of Moses. Or did Yahshua’s covering change this requirement enabling Yahweh to dwell in us regardless of any issues, menstruating or other uncleanness.

---

Good questions. I do not think that Yahweh's Spirit would leave a person because they became unclean. On the other hand, I do not believe we should ignore these laws and teach that we can now touch a person's issue or any objects that the issue touched. Its seems to be quite a dilemma. I choose to err on the side of obedience even if I can't understand it all now.

quote:

---

Heb 10:22 was speaking of those of us who “Hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering” (verse 23), not those who have “Evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (Mt 15:18-19) or are “ Giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of demons; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron” (1Tim 4:1-2).

---

1 Tim.4:1-2 is talking about brethren who departed from the true faith. They originally had their hearts sprinkled by Yahshua's blood resulting in a clean conscience, but then they could no longer hold fast to that faith. Their conscience became seared. So, if that can happen to a true believer, why can't a true believer's washed body become unclean again, especially by willfully have relations with a menstruous spouse, etc.?

quote:

---

If you believe our bodies can still become unclean even though they have been washed in pure water by Yahshua, then do you think during those periods they are unfit to be the temple of Yahweh?

---

I don't know how Yahweh views the situation, but I don't think He would remove His Spirit from us at those times. Maybe some unseen, unknown spiritual reality takes place at that time. Maybe our spiritual power is diminished at those times. Who knows?

quote:

---

John Cordaro wrote: Good questions. I do not think that Yahweh's Spirit would leave a person because they became unclean. On the other hand, I do not believe we should ignore these laws and teach that we can now touch a person's issue or any objects that the issue touched. Its seems to be quite a dilemma. I choose to err on the side of obedience even if I can't understand it all now.

---

i am finally up and moving around -- the surgery could not have gone better! prayers were answered specifically about it so all praise to the Father and thanks to those who lifted my up. the pain was quite minimal as well, which is always a wonderful thing!

i do want to address your concerns about my teaching as i promised i would, and i'll use the same format as before.

Hi, Burning one:
Yow wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you stated that i made an allusion in my book that those who do not wear frontlets have taken the mark of the beast.
i have to say that this is categoretically FALSE.

that is an insane teaching which i do not believe in any way, shape, or form. never was that even in my head when i wrote the book. please understand that believing i teach that is a perversion of what i really did teach.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You concluded your posting by strongly implying that I either misinterpreted your teaching or slandered you. I do not mean to slander you in any way, so I apologize if I misrepresented your beliefs.

my response: i had no idea exactly what parts of my book you read, since you only mentioned reading parts of it, and truth be told, of all who have read the study, you are only the 2nd person to take what was written in that fashion. due to your friendship with the only other one who holds that view of my work, i think the postulation of "slander" was not totally unmerited. i hope you can understand my position. you are a teacher as well, and if i were to mispresent any of the teachings from your website, i would hope you would defend your original meaning as well. our teachings, even if not agreed upon, should always be presented in the actual context of their intent. i don't think you want to dishonor or mispresent me in any way, seeing as how on this forum you have never done that in response to anyone's post, but i had to present that under the circumstances. your apology is accepted, and i apologize if i offended you by bringing it up.

Here's what I will do: I will simply offer the quotation from page 67 of your book The Sign of the Servant: Revealing the Meaning Behind a Mysterious Mitzvah. In the following excerpt, it certainly seems clear that you attempt to make a connection between the tefillin and the mark of the beast. You certainly do state that "anti-tefillin" in some way or another constitutes the mark of the beast, right?? So whether or not a person receives the mark of the beast by not actually wearing the tefillin, it is clear from the following commentary that you believe one receives the mark of the beast by taking a position which is "anti-tefillin." Am I close? Here is the quotation from your study:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the book The Sign of the Servant: Revealing the Meaning Behind a Mysterious Mitzvah, authored by Burning one (I presume you prefer to conceal your true name), page 67:

The "he" mentioned here is the second beast described in this chapter, and this beast is later known as the false prophet. This tells us much, namely, that the mark of the beast is instigated by a corrupt spiritual leader, and the heart of its evil lies in this. The mark also affects the social and economic relations for those who take it, but its main focus is a spiritual one. As I have earnestly tried to make clear in this study, the significance of a physical mitzvah needs to be perceived even more clearly in its spiritual applications, or else one will approach that mitzvah in an incorrect light. The purpose, the spirit behind the letter of the Torah, is something we all need to endeavor to comprehend. When one is obedient, or in this case, disobedient, in things spiritual, there will always be ramifications in the physical. This is a truth that is laid out constantly in the Torah and shown to be true in application throughout the stories of Scripture.

This mark is to be taken upon the right hand or the forehead. There is only one mitzvah in Scripture that speaks of something being placed upon the hand or the forehead, and that of course is tefillin! Attempts have been made to say that it is simply coincidence, and that they do not share any relation, but this line of thought is totally inappropriate. Scripture is a completely unified message, and when something is written to us in a prophecy that bears striking resemblance to another past passage or verse, then we should be quick to realize that the Spirit of Yah is referring us back to that original context and its spiritual and physical implications. The connection here is therefore unquestionable, for Yochanan, the one writing down this vision, would even himself have seen a connection between the two, for tefillin would have been a common part of his life of obedience to the Torah. Most believers have failed to see the relation for so long, due to their lack of study and observance of Yah's Word. But the relation is clearly present, and is undeniable.

The book of Revelation quotes and makes references to the ancient Hebrew Scriptures more than any other book in the Messianic Writings. It contains images and allusions to things from the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings; all of Scripture! In our pursuit to comprehend this, one of Scripture's most mystical writings, rivaling or even perhaps surpassing similar texts found in the prophetic books of Dani'El (Daniel), Yechezq'El (Ezekiel), Zekar Yah (Zechariah), or if I may, even Shir HaShirim (The Song of Songs), we must keep in the forefront of our thinking that it needs to be viewed and interpreted through the lens of the Hebrew Scriptures. If we desire to rightly divide this so often wrongly divided book, the only path for doing so lay through the rest of Yah's written revelation. Doing this, we can safely arrive at a better grasp of this troublesome topic.

In having a foundation laid showing the direct relation of tefillin with the mark of the beast, we can now delve deeper into the study. The first stone set has to be that we see this connection, or else the rest of the study will be fruitless. The relationship of the mark of the beast being given on the hand or the forehead is a clear and distinct comparison to tefillin, albeit in a corrupt and perverted way. The beast's mark is, in a sense, anti-tefillin. [Note: Emphasis and underlining mine]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reaction to the above quote: Whatever it is you are saying here regarding the relationship between tefillin and the mark of the beast, it is obvious to me that you do see a connection between the two and you DO believe that "anti-tefillin" (in some way or another) constitutes the mark of the beast. Whether one receives the mark of the beast by not wearing the tefillin, it is clear from your statements that you believe a person receives the mark of the beast by taking a position which is "anti-tefillin." What that means, at least based on what you wrote above, is that you believe people who do not know how to keep the "mysterious mitzvah" of the tefillin are not condemned UNTIL and UNLESS we are presented with the (supposed) "TRUTH" of this commandment and then reject it --THEN we receive the mark of the beast! At least that is what you appear to be saying. If this is not what you are saying, then I certainly believe a clarification is well in order. Since I obviously do not agree with your position regarding wearing tefillin, then based upon what I read in your book, you must believe I have taken the mark of the beast.

my response: i truly believe you are not interpreting what i have written within the context of what you have quoted from my book. i think if we look at it step by step, you will realize the error. allow me to quote again certain parts of what you quoted, and the context becomes clear:

"This mark is to be taken upon the right hand or the forehead. There is only one mitzvah in Scripture that speaks of something being placed upon the hand or the forehead, and that of course is tefillin!"

as you can see, there is a mark that i personally believe will be administered. how it finally comes about, i cannot profess to say. but i do personally believe that it will in the end become physical. and since it is obviously linked to the command of Torah about putting the Word on our head and hands (aside from whether or not you see it as physical or spiritual), the comparison is undeniable. so as you can see, the context of what i am saying here is that there is a [u]relation[/u] between the two.

"The relationship of the mark of the beast being given on the hand or the forehead is a clear and distinct comparison to tefillin, albeit in a corrupt and perverted way. The beast's mark is, in a sense, anti-tefillin."

this seems to be the contending passage of the book which is causing the problems. as can be clearly read, i state that the mark is a comparison to tefillin, and in a corrupt way. i do not state that the mark consists of those who do not believe in the physical application of the command. that is nowhere to be found. i am speaking of it being a perverse comparison. this is further made clear in the following sentence which calls the mark "anti-tefillin". obviously this is the major problem we are dealing with. but the meaning is clear when we take it step by step. "anti" can mean one of two things in Greek: "oppose" or "in place of" - like a "vicar". Scripture even uses the word in both ways, and it is only by observing the context of the surrounding passages that the reader can determine how we are to take that instance of "anti". my usage of the word in this instance was intended to mean "in place of", just as we see it used in 1st Yochanan 2:18-19. i think if you will read back over the passages quoted with that in mind, you will see precisely what was intended by my usage of the term. so in truth, you are not anti-tefillin in any way, at least from my perspective of what i wrote. neither have you taken the mark of the beast, in my opinion. read some further passages from that same part of the study and you will see that i never meant it to be taken the way you have taken it to mean.

"Those who are given the seal of Elohim are without a doubt the servants of Yah, and those who take upon themselves the mark of the beast are surely the ones who have chosen to serve instead their own desires. This is the key and central understanding between the two. They are intimately related, and yet at the same time, polar opposites. In the seal, we see that it is Yah’s doing, that He controls the administering of it, whereas in the mark, it is the people who seek to obtain it. In this insight is revealed the difference between the redeeming grace of Yah and the blasphemous, works-based salvation taught by man. In the seal, we see Him doing the work of saving, and in the mark, we see man attempting to save himself, which in the end leads only to his destruction."

also:

"The underlying purpose of the mark of the beast is to show those whose spiritual allegiance is solely to the beast, but on the surface, it looks merely like a device required so that all personal needs and their way of life can be attained and continued. The obvious purpose of the mark is a material, worldly focus, and at its core is self, and not Yah, so that it is a rebellious purpose. The people of Elohim look unto Him for their sustenance in this world. We are to rely upon His hand to give us what we need, and not make “deals with the devil” to insure our well-being.
Whether the mark of the beast remains a spiritual thing, or comes into the physical as a tattoo, or a stamp, or even a high-tech computer chip, does not matter at first. What does matter is it shall always be taken to allow the person the ability to continue in their comfortable way of life. It is allegiance to self, just as much as it is allegiance to the beast. If we do not rely on our Father to give us what we need, then we will rely on something else, and anything else is not good enough!
If the time comes and something is offered to be taken upon our hands or head to allow us access to our material needs, that should be where the line is drawn in the sand. But until that time it is imperative that our hearts perceive the spiritual aspects of the mark, and do everything in our power to make sure it is not found upon us. We must refuse to bow to the needs of our flesh, and instead bow to our Yah, even if it means the destruction of that flesh by the world.

Looking back now, we see that the mark of the beast is an integral part of discerning who it is we are really worshipping."

as you can plainly read, i [i]never stated or alluded that those who refuse to physically perform the commandment of frontlets have taken the mark of the beast. when things are read in context all will fall seamlessly in place. i know you said you did not read my entire book before, and even that is not necessary in understanding our current topic. but if you at least read the entire chapter concerning the mark of the beast and it's relation to tefillin in context and not in focusing in on minor pieces of the whole, i don't think you will come to the conclusion you arrived at.[/i]

This, then, explains why I remarked in my previous posting that you made allusion to your belief that those who do not wear tefillin have taken the mark of the beast. I continue to maintain that these types of remarks complicate things insofar as accomplishing a productive dialogue with those who do not share your position.

my response: i understand your concerns, and i share them. it was never my intention in writing the book to present it in such a way as you received it. i do try to make my teachings as easily accessible to every reader as possible. sometimes i do fail at that, and seeing as how yours is the 2nd instance of misinterpretation of what i wrote, you can rest assured that i have now taken note and will make the necessary clarifications that will appear in any further printings. like i wrote before, even if we may not agree on something, i do want to make my teachings clear so that what i am [i]actually teaching comes across plainly to everyone.

i hope what i've presented in this post clarifies my position for you, and you can at least disregard what you formerly thought i was presenting, aside from whethere or not you agree with my position on frontlets.[/i]

I was put onto this link as I was interested in this topic, I understand what you are saying below it does make sense but I need to know a couple of things clearly..
1. Are we as women unclean through that time ( like you mentioned how do we or men know who is unclean when we come into contact with people in the supermarket, bakery,bank etc, also what about the touching of money?? I am not trying to be silly ok but am really interested in finding the truth about this.. I understand about sexual relations and that is not a problem.. I need to know can you sleep together in the same bed without touching.. this is a problem due to room... the blood is not going on anything or being touched by anyone..

Also how can we be unclean as Yahushua and Yahweh cannot be in us if we are unclean and then if we died at this time are we saved??? that is the part not sure of and would be greatful for your view on these things, can you make it simple like you usually do as it helps me to understand.
Blessings and thanks
Deb

quote:

---

Originally posted by Missy:
Okay.. now on to Yeshua. Yeshua died for the remission of sins, and as I am sure you know that many Christians believe that when Yeshua died that Law was passed away..meaning ALL LAW.. moral, sacrificial, civil. But this is inaccurate. The only Law that was passed away when Yeshua died was SACRIFICIAL LAW. In other words, Laws that had to do with sacrifice for atonement sake, this does not mean if someone feels like sacrificing an animal to Yahweh now, they can't if they have the means, but it is to say there is no need for sacrifice for the sake of atonement.

Those laws were no longer needed because Yeshua MADE A ONCE AND FOR ALL ATONEMENT. So those issues concerning sacrificial law are no longer an issue. This in no way means that we can suddenly toss the commands of Yahweh away. We should still follow them but realize the sacrificial aspect is no longer an issue because Yeshua paid that atonement price once and for all. Hence why the woman no longer needs to bring the turtle doves and have the priest make a sin-offering for her uncleaness. Yeshua is the HIGH PRIEST. He already has this under control and made atonement when he died. When a woman has her cycle, she is still under obligation to do what Yahweh commanded in Leviticus and so is the man, but there is no longer a need to worry about it in the sense of being unclean in a ceremonial aspect.

[b]DISCLAIMER This is my personal belief. It is no way meant to suggest I am 100% correct. It's just to say what my personal view point is of this subject and nothing more. IF I am in error in some way, I am open to correction with proof.

Shalom,
M

[/B]

---

Blessings Missy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Missy:
LOL.. Well it really depends on one's definition of "unclean". Are we talking about physically unclean as in "soiled" or ceremonially unclean.. as in you can't go before Yahweh.

Frankly, Yeshua has taken care of the "unclean" ceremonial aspect of everything. If a woman takes care to make sure her bed is clean (clean linens), she showers well everyday like I hope ANY woman on her period would have common decency to do, and uses proper feminine products we have on the market today there is no reason to label her "unclean" simple because she's on her period. (Not saying you said any of this).

I mean not every man knows anyway when every lady is on her period, and frankly not every man needs to be all in her business that way anyway. I mean I am sure a man is not going to constantly be asking his daughter, female co workers, mother, and other female relatives and friends, "Are you on your period cause I don't want to touch you.. " I mean really... He'd get his face slapped on a daily basis.

A person could go to the store and accidently brush up against a woman on her period or sit in the same seat at a doctors office a woman on her period previously sat.. in some minds it could render a person "unclean". Well that means probably 99% of the time when you go out your door, you immediately become unclean.

So I definitely get your point about always walking around with our hands in our pockets.. we could even go further though..we better not sit down anywhere either.. LOL!

I mean you aren't always going to know.. and I don't think it's something to go balistic over since Yeshua eradicated the ceremonial issues when he died. And that was the whole point.. Yahweh didn't want any filth around his Temple and in the camp and so forth. But Yeshua has handled all that for us. At least that's my view..

Shalom,
M

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Cordaro:
Dauid ben Yacob wrote;

Aside from studies that have shown that Jewish women have a 1:15 ratio of not getting cervical cancer compared to other women, I would say this; If we desire to not defile the temple of the Holy Spirit (our bodies) and remain clean by eating clean, why shouldn't we apply that same desire to any other matter of uncleanness? I have no desire to defile my temple by having intercourse with a menstruous woman or to touch a dead body or to eat unclean, etc. Yahweh has told us not to do such things. If that has changed, then please provide the necessary proof from Scripture.

Shalom,
John

---

I knew there were a number of other men that would not have sexual relations with there wife, I was told on my topic that no one heard of any man saying NO to sexual intercourse at this time, my husband for one could not understand this and to say a man is lustful and would not turn an opportunity down at this time is so sinnful and wrong... But Praise Yahweh there is men like you here that would say no.. if it is wrong then you don;t do it end of story, it should not be a problem at all.. that is a true follower of Yahweh..Blessings

quote:

---

Originally posted by dauid_ben_yacov:
"Aside from studies that have shown that Jewish women have a 1:15 ratio of not getting cervical cancer compared to other women, I would say this; If we desire to not defile the temple of the Holy Spirit (our bodies) and remain clean by eating clean, why shouldn't we apply that same desire to any other matter of uncleanness? I have no desire to defile my temple by having intercourse with a menstruous woman or to touch a dead body or to eat unclean, etc. Yahweh has told us not to do such things. If that has changed, then please provide the necessary proof from Scripture."

Dear John,

I do not have sexual relationships with anyone since I am single but if I had a wife I would not have relationships with her during her menstration and I see no reason to want to touch a dead body even though I would clarify that I have not lost someone very close to me in my immediate family and both my parents and all my siblings are alive so I do not intend to touch them after death but greif has a way of changing your mind. Or if they died at home I might have to assist in removing them from the residence. Where would I get the asses of a red heifer if I did desire to be ritually clean in this manner?

On the other hand I do not think a woman should stay home from the holy convocation during menstration because it has nothing to do with making my Holy Spirit temple unclean any more that I believe a man who has an involuntiry emission in the night after bathing should stay away either. Or if as happened recently with the pastor here in Rockport Texas would I worry about going to convocation with someone's relatives who recently died and they no doubt toched him. We do not meet in the temple or tabernacle of Yahueh or within the camp spoken of as Dave52 so aptly pointed out so I do not think the law applies to us until that tabernacle or temple is rebuilt when Messiah returns if I understadn prophesy correctly then He will settle the matter once and for all times.

If you wish for you and your wife to seperate from your local congregation during these times I don't have a problem with that and I would ask my wife if I had one to let you know when she is unclean as I would also if I was unclean if we met with you or your family on a weekly or even at a feast or had touched a dead body of a loved one. Please do not impose your personal interpretations and conviction on others though.

---

He 9:13-14 states if the blood of animals made them fleshly clean in the OT how much more must the blood of Messiah make us still cleaner.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenanddeb:
In researching this topic and I am still reading, you make a very good point here.. if they had animal blood to clean them how much more better is Yahushuas blood.. are we underestermating His blood and what He did?? can we be unclean inside if so He cannot dwell in us as the scriptures says He cannot have anything to do with a sinner and that is what we are when we are unclean?? again if we died then we have no part of Heaven.. many thanks

He 9:13-14 states if the blood of animals made them fleshly clean in the OT how much more must the blood of Messiah make us still cleaner.

---

I think unclean is sort of misnomered in these posts. It is not equivalent with sin. I am sure there was a time in Yahshua's life that he was unclean for a reason. Perhaps he skinned his knee when he was 10 and he had puss days later. It is only logical though at some point in time in his unrecorded life, something happened where he was pronounced unclean until the evening.

The rules of the clean and unclean are typically there for our benefit. The black plague for example...ceased to spread in communities who began to observe levitical clean/unclean laws. You were not a sinner because you got sick; however you were unclean.

------------------
Shalom,

Jim

quote:

---

Shalom John, Can you explain the mens discharge ( I am not trying to be graphic but mean have discharge each day and get this on them when they go to the toliet - I have nursed a number of years so know about this as do many) so men are unclean daily.. and touch others also, so how do you work this one out, I am only trying to work this out.
Thank you

---

If you are talking about the discharges in Lev.15:1-15, I believe that is referring to a chronic discharge or infection, not urination.
Am I understanding you correctly that you believe urination causes men to be “unclean daily”?

Nocturnal emissions and emissions during sexual relations are other types of discharge.

While it is impossible to remain clean from others with discharges, we should at least (IMHO) wash when we know that we have a discharge and avoid touching others. Sometimes touching is unavoidable. Thankfully, it is not a sin to become unclean.

Shalom,
John