I would like to respond to your posting of June 7th.

I had written:

As we read from Philo, who can be shown as having represented normative Judaism of that time period, the application of what you refer to as tefillin was purely figurative, and what was "bound" to the hand was not some box, but "justice" ... because the hand is the symbol of actions.

To which you replied:

quote:

---

my response: i think Philo's credibility as an observant follower of Torah is severely questionable, even though he does have some interesting insights from time to time. rather, i find the historical case to be that those who were not so very Hellenized were the ones who literally performed what was written in the Hebrew texts, and disregarded the Septuagintal influence. this i think is an important factor in all of this.

---

My response: I have often found that those who do not agree with Philo on such things as counting to Pentecost, the day he observed as the weekly Sabbath, and now the wearing of tefillin, go to some lengths to discredit him as a scholar. I believe this is a mistake.

Over the years, I have found that many folks attempt to portray Philo as a confused man who dabbled a little too much into Greek philosophy and had a bizarre way of expressing himself. I can see why someone might think that way. I have personally found that Philo�s writings are a �bumpy read.� However, there is much about the life of Philo that many people don�t know. Philo was more than just a Jew living in Alexandria, Egypt. He was the most prominent Jew living in Alexandria, Egypt. His fellow Jews chose him over all other Jews to represent their people in protesting an officially instigated massacre of Jews in Alexandria. This was a very serious issue � a matter of life and death for the Jews of Alexandria. In order to plead their case before the Roman emperor, they had to select the man who could best represent them. The question arises, �Would the Jews of Alexandria have chosen Philo had he not properly represented normative Jewish practice and belief?�

Indeed, they would only have chosen a man whose beliefs reflected their own beliefs, whether that be Sabbath observance, new moon observance, Pentecost observance, and yes, even the wearing of tefillin. This is indeed a significant fact, as echoed by The Cambridge History of Judaism:

�It is significant that his co-religionists chose him as ambassador to Caligula in 39-40. In such circumstances only a man who was important in the city would be appointed.�¹

For those who question the credibility and reliability of Philo, I offer the following excerpt from The Anchor Bible Dictionary:

�Philo was a prominent member of the Jewish community of Alexandria², the largest Jewish settlement outside Palestine. The only certain date known from his life comes from his account of the great pogrom³ in Alexandria which started in A.D. 38 under the prefect Flaccus, during the reign of the Roman emperor Gaius Caligula. Philo was then chosen to head a delegation (Gaium 370) sent in A.D. 39/40 by the Jewish community to Gaius Caligula in Rome.�⁴

Philo clearly had the trust of his fellow Jews in Alexandria, but did his practice and belief reflect all of normative Judaism? Again, let us turn to The Anchor Bible Dictionary for that answer:

�Was Philo then fundamentally Greek or Jewish? His loyalty to the Jewish institutions, the laws of Moses, the role of Israel as the priesthood of the world, and his harshness against renegades (even to the point of advocating lynching) shows that he was fundamentally a Jew.�⁵

Philo represented the beliefs of normative Judaism, and Philo never once wrote that the anyone should literally wear tefillin or phylacteries. He plainly wrote that this instruction was to be understood figuratively. The only recourse for someone of your persuasion is to attempt to discredit Philo as a scholar who accurately expounded upon Jewish practice and belief of his day. Your attempt to do this was not successful.

Oh, one more thing before I move on: Regarding your innuendo directed against the Septuagint ("... that those who were not so very Hellenized were the ones who literally performed what was written in the Hebrew texts, and disregarded the Septuagintal influence") ... might I ask you from which text the authors of the NT cited the most often?

Next, you wrote the following:

quote:

---

my response: the "Bene Israel" you mentioned are not the same in any way as to those i was speaking of, that just happens to be a coincidence that you found a corresponding group .

---

I reply: Yes, but remember ... the corresponding group I found is not recorded as having worn tefillin.

You continue:

quote:

---

the ones i am speaking of are not "Jews", but come from ancient tribal families of some of the scattered tribes, collectively, they are called the Pathans or the Pashtuns, and have been recognized by modern Israel as descendants of the lost tribes. you can find them on the internet, and following is from one of the sites about them:

"The Afghan people seem to keep memory of the secession of the Northern Tribes, as they themselves declare to be "Bani-Israil but not Yehudi", obviously meaning "Children of Israel, but not Jews". Two branches of the Pashtun people, called Durrani and Galzay, are credited as "Ibrani" (Hebrews), and are divided in tribes having names very similar to some of the Israelite Tribes: the Yusufzai (Yusuf-Si, Yusufzad), are the "Children of Yosef"; the Efridi or Afridi may be related to Ephrayim; the Rabbani to Reuven, the Shinwari to Shim'on, the Lewani to Levi, the Daftani to Naphtali, and the Jaji or Gaji to Gad. Following this pattern, it would be also possible to identify the Ashurai tribe with Asher, though other sources suggest they are descendents of ancient Assyrians (who exiled the Israelites). Indeed, the term "Ashura" in the Indian sub-continent is applied not only to Assyrians but also to Jews, Gypsies and other peoples coming from Mesopotamia. In this context it is likely that Asher became Ashurai in the same way as Yosef became Yusufzai, by changing "e" into "u"....* The Pashtun call themselves "Bani-Israel", and they believe to have been carried away from their original homeland.
* Jewish names such as "Israel" - never found among the Muslims - as well as Shmuel and the names of the Northern Tribes, are frequent among Afghans.
* Besides the oral tradition, there are also scrolls of genealogy that have been kept among the tribes, reaching back to the ancestors of the Jewish nation. These scrolls are well preserved and some are written in gold on doe skins.
* Their legal system, called Pashtunwali, (the Pashtu Law), has many resemblances with Torah. They have in great esteem the "Tavrad El Sharif" (meaning "Torah of Mosheh"), and they rise at the mention of Mosheh's name.
* The Pashtun practise circumcision on the 8th day like Jews, while Muslims perform circumcision usually at the age of 12, because of Yishmael, the father of the Arabs.
* They rest on Shabbath day, not working and not cooking either. On 'Erev Shabbath they prepare twelve "hallot" -traditional Jewish bread- (1), and an elder woman lights a candle in honour of the Shabbath. After lighting, the candle is usually covered by a large basket - perhaps, this might have been done in the origin to hide their Jewishness.
* They are careful about not shaving their side-locks, keeping curled hair before the ears in a similar way as Orthodox Jews do, in accordance to the commandment (2).
* They use to wear a sort of small "tallit", a four-cornered garment to which they sometimes tie strings or fringes similar to the "tzitzit", which is a Torah commandment. Some of them even wear a small box that recall the "tefillin" (phylactery). [Larry's note: I underlined the preceding sentence because I believe it is significant that only some of the Pashtun wear tefillin. Of even greater significance is the fact that the "Bani Israel" theory you are here promoting has already been debunked, but I will demonstrate this later.]
* Many Pashtun people pray facing Yerushalaym.
* They also keep "kosher", dietary laws like those observed by Jews. Some of them do not eat meat and milk together, and make difference between pure and impure birds.
* Pashtun women keep laws regarding their period of impurity. During this time and for a week after, no contact is allowed with the husband. After this period, she immerses in a river or in a bathhouse if a natural spring is not available. This is exactly like the Israeli "mikveh".
* The "Magen David" is widely used as their symbol. A Pashtun property, either house or vehicle, may be recognized for this emblem shown somewhere.
* There is also the practice of sprinkling blood on doorposts and lintels, and offering sacrifices during pestilence.
* Some customs related to marriage: endogamous, the wedding is done at the bride's family. There is also the law of levirate.
* Honour laws require the avenger of blood, as well as stoning for blasphemy.
2) Historical records:
* The Islam Encyclopaedia, published by the Turkish Ministry of Education, considered to be among the most authoritative sources, states: "The Durrani and the Galzay tribes originate from the Ibrani (the Hebrew people)...And it is asserted that many others of the Afghan composition are originally of the Ibrani as well."
* The most reliable Persian historians said that the Afghans are descended from the Jews, and that since they embraced Islam, they cautiously conceal their origin.
* The Pashtun language shows evidences of a Chaldaic influence.
It is however clear that not all Pashtun tribes are of Israelite origin. The Pashtun are a complex ethnic group, resulting from different migratory flows. Nevertheless, the tribes mentioned above have enough characteristics to be considered partially descendants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel."
http://www.imninalu.net/tribes1.htm

---

My response: First of all, as I mentioned in my insert above, if only some of the Pushtan wear (or wore) tefillin, then this means some do not! Obviously, then, if you claim that wearing frontlets is a command, then it is one that is (and was) commonly violated by some of the Pushtan, and apparently that violation didn't result in any divisions ... at least no contention about wearing frontlets was mentioned in the article.

Secondly, how's come you didn't cite other "lost" Israelites mentioned in that article, such as the Chiang-Min? The website from which you obtained the above-cited excerpt also mentions a group known as the Chiang-Min, and nothing is told of a custom including "wearing frontlets." Here is that website's notation regarding the Chiang-Min:

There is also a people in the region of Szechwan whom the Chinese call Chiang or Chiang-Min. Their ancestral monotheism has been one of their most remarkable characteristics; they worship the "Father of Heaven", Whom in times of distress they call "Yawei" (HaShem).
According to the Chiang tradition, they descend from twelve sons of Avraham, and their ancestors arrived in China from the west after a three years and three months journey. The Chiang have some ceremonies similar to those performed by the Kohanim in ancient Israel, and their own priests follow some Levitic rules:
* Before the offering of sacrifices, they are required to wash themselves as well as their white garments.
* The priests cannot be unmarried.
* Their altars are built with stones that must not be cut by any metal tool.
* Sacrificial animals must be washed and purified in a special place for that event.
* The elders and priests lay their hands on the head of the sacrifice which is to be slaughtered and offer their prayers.
* The main part of the service is performed at night.
* The Chiang tribe still practises the sprinkling of blood on the doorpost as protection of the house.
They have other rituals and ceremonies, some of them include a white scroll or parchment, perhaps in remembrance of their ancient Torah.

My reaction to the above excerpt: No mention that the Chiang-Min ever wore "frontlets." What this tells me about your research, burning one, is that you are a very biased researcher. You pick and choose the group/culture that best suits your theology, then you present it as "evidence" supporting your case. You willfully ignore those groups/cultures whose history is equally as ancient as the ones whose practices you like and appreciate ... yet whose practices do not include wearing "frontlets." Your reseach method is what I refer to as "selective scholarship."

Next, even the research you offer your readers is itself flawed. The group from Afghanistan that you refer to as "Bani Yisrael" has some historical myths that you have bought into without doing a more thorough investigation. Furthermore, DNA testing has shown that this group is not related to any Semitic group. The following information is obtained from the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia:

Oral traditions

In addition, some anthropologists lend credence to the oral traditions of the Pashtun tribes themselves. For example, according to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, the Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites is traced to Maghzan-e-Afghani, who compiled a history for Khan-e-Jehan Lodhi in the reign of Mughal Emperor Jehangir in the 16th century CE. Another book, that corresponds with most Pashtun historical records, Taaqati-Nasiri, states that in the 7th century a people called the Bani Israel settled in Ghor, southeast of Herat, Afghanistan and then migrated south and east. These Bani Israel references are in line with the commonly held view by Pashtuns that when the twelve tribes of Israel were dispersed (see Israel and Judah and Lost Ten Tribes), the tribe of Joseph, among other Hebrew tribes, settled in the region. Hence the term 'Yusef Zai' in Pashto translates to the 'sons of Joseph'.

Maghzan-e-Afghani's Bani-Israel theory has largely been debunked due to historical and linguistic inconsistencies. The oral tradition is believed to be a myth that grew out of a political and cultural struggle between Pashtuns and Mughals, which explains the historical backdrop for the creation of the myth, the inconsistencies of the mythology, and the linguistic research that refutes any Semitic origins.

To read the complete Wikipedia article from which the above excerpt was taken, you may access the following URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtun

I might add that the above article also mentions that DNA testing has shown that the so-called "Bani Yisrael" from Afghanistan are not related to any known Semitic peoples. Do I question as to whether or not there are scattered groups who, under the influence of various Semitic peoples, including Judaism, have picked up some of their traditions, including wearing "frontlets"? No, of course not! But that does not in any way show evidence of an ancient understanding on the part of ancient Israel that we are to wear "frontlets."

With this in mind, I trust you will understand why I do not feel the need to comment on your "Bukaharan Hebrew" theory, especially since the information you cite is taken from the same website from which you offered the "Bani Yisrael" info. I will also withhold commenting on your quote from the Talmud.

You continue:

quote:

---

my response: i think that frontlets have just about the same questions regarding them that tassles do. we are not told how long to wear them either. altho the purpose of both is quite clear -- to remember the Torah and do it at all times!

---

I reply: I disagree with your analysis here. Instructions for making the tassels are found in Torah. Not so for "frontlets." Length has nothing to do with it. For practical purposes, it would be silly to make tassels long. The only purpose one would have in making them long would be, as Yeshua pointed out, "to be seen by men." In these modern times, a farmer would need to be very careful about wearing tassels of any length (on the outside), as they can easily get caught in machinery, and I have seen photos of the fatal results of those whose loose clothing became entangled in PTO shafts. Here is an article for those who do not understand the significance of being careful about wearing any type of loose clothing around machinery, which would definitely include tassels:

http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/FACE/Reports/REPORT-044.htm

My point is, length has nothing to do with this discussion, whether you wish to accept it or not.

The fact is, Torah-observant Solomon understood the figurative binding of "mercy" and "truth," as well as binding the Torah on his fingers. It is this same "binding" that we do with unleavened bread (Ex. 13:7-9). We do not bind unleavened bread on our foreheads, nor can we bind the feast of unleavened bread to our foreheads, yet that is what we are told to do in that passage ... presuming you choose to take it literally.

I would add that we are told to wear tassels to remember to do YHWH's commandments. We are told not only where they are to be worn (four quarters of our garments), but also how to make them (with a ribband of blue). We are given no such instruction with regard to wearing "frontlets." Indeed, since the purported "command" regarding wearing "frontlets" was given before the Israelites left Egypt, and since the command pertaining to wearing tassels was given considerably later, in the wilderness, it would be easy to deduce that YHWH decided the "frontlets" command wasn't working, so He ordained that they do something else to [physically] help them remember His commands. Instead of believing such a thing, I believe YHWH knew the Israelites were not applying the figurative command to "bind" His Torah in their minds, so He ordained physical reminders to leave them completely without excuse.

You continue:

quote:

---

as for the rest of the comment you made, i dealt with it in the other thread i believe in a way that hopefully you will no longer present my teaching of it as you do here. in my book i don't condemn anybody for not wearing frontlets.

---

I reply: Once again, you are mistaken. You simply have a false understanding of the prefix "anti-." You present it [in that other thread] as meaning "in place of," whereas it means no such thing ... not according to any dictionary that we own, nor according to Strong's, nor according to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon. It appears that you are not only attempting to redefine the rules of the English language to suit whatever purposes it is you have, but you are now attempting to redefine the meaning of the prefix "anti-," which simply means "against, opposed to," or as Thayer's defines "antichrist," it refers to "the adversary of the Messiah."

With this in mind, I will once again cite the pertinent quote from your book in which you equate those who are "anti" (against) tefillin as bearing the mark of the beast:

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 [Larry's note: (AGAINST)] -tefillin. [Note: Emphasis and underlining mine]

Presuming you have an excellent command of the English language, you state in your book that the beast's mark is in opposition to the tefillin. Since I am starting to question your command of the English language, and certainly your understanding of Hebraic terms, I am left to believe that any future discussion between us will only result in more senseless bantering.

You continue:

quote:

---

the main purpose of the book, as i state in it, is to perceive the spiritual meaning of the command. cause if that is not grasped, then any physical performance of it would not matter. if you can grasp the spiritual meanings behind it, then awesome! that is the starting point of all observance of Torah. but there is the living of it as well, and living Torah only brings more blessing and intimacy to our lives. i'm sure you can attest to that fact. the book was meant to serve to illuminate the spiritual reasons which exist in the command. the physical aspects of the command were present, but i think if you were to read it all the way throught you would see how minimal of text they truly take up. the physical was not my direct intention in writing the book.

---

I reply: Oh, really?? Then I can only wonder why you suggest in your book that anyone who by that point had, by that point, disagreed with your proposal that believers are commanded to wear tefillin must not have a "desire for truth"? Here is that quote (from page 95):

"As for those who are reading this and who may still choose to believe that Moshiach and His followers did not observe the mitzvah [of wearing tefillin], these facts alone should be enough to change their minds. If not, then perhaps something less than the desire for truth is guiding their beliefs on this subject."

Sounds to me like the "physical" was more important in your book than you are letting on here!

You continue:

quote:

---

anyhow, i suppose that if you don't agree with me on this issue, then there is not much more to write about it. i have strived to answer your questions since you first brought them up the best i could. if you still disagree with this position, i have no qualms with you.

---

I reply: Well, I can only take your comment as though you mean it this way: "if you still disagree with this position, you have the mark of the beast and you obviously have something less than the desire for truth guiding your beliefs on this subject, but i have no qualms with you."

You continue:

quote:

---

we are all at differing levels in our walk of Torah. your level may be more advanced in the following out of some commands than mine, or vice versa. and this is only one command. i am sure we could find many minute things about the other commands that we disagree upon. but like i posted before in the post that started all this -- these types of discussions (civil) serve the body in looking at the various ways at which we can approach the commands which seem somewhat grey, and taken in that light, are profitable.

---

I reply: I believe you have hit upon our major disagreement. I do not even see this issue as being "grey" at all. Even Judaism itself admits that no one wore tefillin prior to the 3rd century BCE ... it's just one of those "hedges about the Torah" that they came up with. I don't mind them coming up with the "hedge," so long as they don't make the "hedge" a literal command, which is precisely what you are attempting to do here. I have demonstrated that normative Judaism in ancient times did not wear "frontlets," but it gradually became a practice of rabbinical Judaism. If you want to wear "frontlets," I say go for it! But when you make statements like those I have quoted from your book, then I will give you my opinion, as I have already done.

You continue:

quote:

---

i do not desire to continue debating something so "minor" in relation to fellowship if it could possibly damage ours. i've been down that road already, and regretted allowing myself to be pulled into debate to the point that it became unedifying and destructive for fellowship. i am trying to grow and mature, and i don't want that to happen any further, so i sincerely try not to respond to posts that i disagree with in the mere minor aspects.

---

I reply: Well, you chose to escalate the "minor" issue to "major" status by suggesting that those who disagree with your postion have something less than a desire for truth motivating them, not to mention your reference to "anti-tefillin" folk as having the mark of the beast.

You continue:

quote:

---

this topic sort of got out of hand in that i originally was desiring to post only according to what i wrote about the menstruation aspect. but some "fires" arose that i am sure you can understand had to be dealt with concerning what i was or was not teaching.

---

I reply: Indeed, the "frontlets" issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the "menstruation aspect, which is why I believe you should have not included it in your commentary. You knew how controversial this topic is by virtue of the thread you started on this same topic a few months ago. No one I had ever known (prior to meeting one of your converts) had ever expressed the understanding that we are literally commanded to wear "frontlets," so from my perspective it isn't even a command to be understood literally, no more than we should literally bind mercy and truth about our necks and the Torah to our fingers.

You continue:

quote:

---

frontlets are a part of my life, just as tassles are a part of my life, and so on and so forth. the issue is "huge" for me in the sense that i unintentionally ended up writing a book about it while studying it out, but other than that, it is not a big deal. my personal teaching site, which contains about 20 or so teachings, has i think 1 sentence concerning frontlets that is buried deep in a teaching. if it were truly a monumentous issue for me, i certainly would have devoted much more time to it on my site which the public can in fact see. rather, the focus of my site is on the Messiah, and perceiving Him soley from the TaNaK, as our early brothers were limited with. Messiah is my focus, not frontlets, and i hope that is the focus of everyone in the body.

---

I reply: While I appreciate the above comment very much, this is once again a very different attitude than the one conveyed in your book. I have no problem with anyone who chooses to wear "frontlets," if that is what he or she believes best honors YHWH. However, when statements are made akin to "The beast's mark is, in a sense, anti-tefillin," any subsequent remarks about having noble intentions are pretty much negated. When we start talking about "mark of the beast," it becomes a "monumentous issue."

I feel I should not complete my commentary here without addressing the comment you made to Glenn. You wrote:

quote:

---

Glenn,

as much as i would like to respond to your observations, you also know why i have chosen to remove myself from fellowship with you, and thus also why i will not respond. i hope you can understand my position.

---

I reply: I have known Glenn for several years now. Glenn and I do not agree on everything, but I do my best to choose my friends carefully, and if I felt that Glenn was not a man with outstanding character and morals, I would have nothing to do with him. Glenn has never shared with me whatever it was that came between you and him that caused you to choose to remove yourself from fellowship with him, ... and quite frankly I don't really care ... yet at the same time I will here state that I'm having a very difficult time imagining what it might have been that Glenn did or said that caused you to want to remove yourself from fellowship with him.

Moreover, I will point out that this is indeed a public forum. Glenn could have kept his identity concealed, as many here have chosen to do ... and he could have crafted his comments in such a way as to have kept you guessing as to who he really is. If he had done so, then you could not have considered the option of not responding to him because of your previous association with him. However, since he wasn't afraid of revealing his own identity, you used that as a "reason" to not respond. I personally find this method to be immature. It reminds me of some friends we have who were disfellowshipped from Worldwide for various silly reasons, such as discussing doctrinal matters with laymen instead of deacons and elders. Even if Glenn had addressed you sarcastically (which he has not done), I believe (for the sake of this open forum) it is fitting to give him your best answer instead of dragging the fact that you have personal differences into the discussion.

May YHWH bless all!

In the love of YHWH through His Son Yeshua the Messiah,
Larry

¹ From The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 3, by William Horbury, W.D. Davies and John Sturdy, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 879.
² According to this same reference, article �Alexandria,� p. 152, we learn, �By the 1st century C.E. the Jewish population in Alexandria numbered in the hundreds of thousands.� The majority of these Jews were descendants of prisoners of war who were forcibly settled there by Alexander when the city was founded.
³ "Pogrom" is defined as �An organized and often officially instigated local massacre, especially one directed against the Jews. [Russian, destruction]� � From The Reader�s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary.
⁴ From The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5, David Noel Freedman, Editor-in-Chief, article �Philo of Alexandria,� by Peder Borgen, Doubleday, 1992, p. 333.
⁵ Ibid, p. 341.
_____________________

Blessed be the name of YHWH

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

i understand your position, and i can respect that. but you obviously disagree with me. i believe the command is spiritual and literal. you believe it is spiritual. that is fine, keep up observing that, and the Father will honor you in your sincerity (so i personally believe). we are just at different places with this particular command.

but i do desire to once again make clear the intentions of what i wrote, which you do not seem to care that i have made repeated strides to clarify. i did not write or ever teach that someone who doesn't perform frontlets literally has taken the mark of the beast. that is your inference, and in spite of what i have declared in our posts. i do not believe you have taken the mark of the beast, so it would do you well to discontinue proclaiming that false teaching.

following is an excerpt showing that the english language does in fact use the word "anti" in the manner i used it in my book -- this is from answers.com:

"Anti"

example: anti-type
n.
One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
An opposite or contrasting type.
[Medieval Latin antitypus, from Late Greek antitupos, copy, antitype, from Greek, corresponding, representing : anti-, equal to, like; see anti� + tupos, print, impression.]

clearly it denotes a comparison, a corresponding to, which is exactly how i meant it in my book, even stating that it was "a comparison" in the text. however, obviously if 2 people have not taken what i wrote in the true context of how it was written, i do find that to be significant. i want what i write to be accessible to all who read it, and having 2 people arise who greatly miscomprehended what was written is enough for me to go back and clarify what i originally wrote. i already declared in the other post to you that i would do this, but if my noble intentions are not enough for you, then that is out of my hands. i can only do what i can do. i am sorry you misinterpreted what i wrote, i am sorry i did not write clearly enough, but your misunderstanding was never what i intended, therefore, i hope you can honorably say that i was not really teaching what you thought i was.

i have made my position on this very clear, and i think it would be wise for you to discontinue declaring that i am teaching that those who do not literally fulfill the command of frontlets have taken the mark of the beast. i do not teach that, i state this again. i don't know what is so wrong with noble intentions, but i did have them when i wrote it. so please pardon the fact that i did not clarify myself -- the changes have been noted and will certainly be made on any further copies, so hopefully you can toss that misunderstanding away.

as for Glenn, i have known him for a few years now as well, and i have nothing bad to say about him to anyone. the incident for disfellowship is between he and i, and i am sure he would tell you what happened if you asked him. responding to him the way i did was the best i could do. i hold it as honorable what he did in posting with his true identity, so as not to deceptively break my choice of disfellowship. he could have come on under another name and deceived me, but he did not, and that is honorable. just so you know, i am not against him, but the choice has been made and it stands until what needs to happen happens. i will not bring up our private matters on this board.

as for our positions on frontlets, i think it is safe to say we are at a standstill, and i don't know how fruitful further discussion would really be. you see the same evidence that i do, and we are just at different levels. this is something we merely disagree upon. i guess we have to leave it at that. if i ever were to come to a different position on this, i would certainly make it known, but as for now, i am where i am, and you are where you are, and that's the only place we can be expected to be.

I am now responding to your last posting addressed to me in the thread entitled "Lev 15:16-30. A menstruating woman." At first I was going to respond in that thread, but since this discussion is so far removed from the topic of that thread, I decided to answer it here in this thread instead.

I would like to begin by telling you that I rejoice that your surgery and subsequent recovery have gone well! HalleluYah for that!

Next, as you have addressed my concerns in your last posting, I would like to respond to those comments.

You wrote:

quote:

---

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.

---

I reply: Regarding your comment that I am only the second person to understand what you wrote the way I did, I would, quite frankly, like to speak with everyone who has read your book. You can add my wife as a #3 person to take it that way. I know of another person who, when I read your comment to him, also took it the same way that I did. That makes four. I mean, let's face it: If you believe literally wearing tefillin is an act of obedience, then not wearing them is an act of disobedience, which must tie in with the mark of the beast, right?

Next, regarding your remark that I am a teacher, since we do not know each other at all, I will excuse you for presenting me in this manner. I will simply let you know that I have never claimed to be a teacher insofar as it relates to the study of YHWH's Word and presenting my insights thereof to others. I am first and foremost a truth seeker and a student of the Word. I am NOT a teacher. While it is true that my wife and I have written numerous studies, in virtually every case it was because I felt compelled to defend myself against some ridicule or other form of criticism directed my way, and I knew that a verbal answer would be insufficient. I therefore consider the majority of our studies as responses to criticism, not "teachings." For example, a few years ago one individual told me that I cannot have YHWH's spirit because of the way I count to Pentecost. As a result, I put together a study on that topic ... not as a teaching ... but as my response to his unkind remark. I will state that the man I am referring to has since changed the way he counts to Pentecost, but I plainly told him that my response was not directed so as to persuade him to change, but so as to help him to better understand my position, and that is pretty much the way it is with everything we write.

It is true that a couple of studies we have written were done because we were asked to do so. Even then, in one case I simply sent the completed study to the man who asked for it, and he published it in his newsletter. It was not written from a "teaching" perspective, but rather I simply presented the results of my own personal research.

I realize that some folks will go ahead and classify me as a "teacher" in spite of what I have just written, so I will go ahead and deny it. I would only agree with them in the sense that all of us are, in some sense of the word, "teachers." We can all learn from each other. In this sense, I would include my wife and children as my teachers, so if you want to label me a "teacher," this latter sense is the only way I will accept it. And since, in this light, all of us are teachers anyway, why should I set myself apart from all the other teachers out there by calling myself a teacher? See what I mean?

I make a big deal out of this because I have grown weary, over the years, of folks promoting themselves as "elder," "rav," "rabbi," "reverend" and as "teacher." As I survey the vast array of men (and even women) who so assert themselves, I can only remark that there is no shortage of teachers, rabbis, elders, etc. However, there seems to be an acute shortage of servants. My prayer to YHWH is that He make me a servant, not a "teacher" ... at least not the kind of teachers I've been exposed to out there who call themselves "teachers."

Okay, now to address your position regarding "anti-tefillin" as being "mark of the beast." Here is what you wrote in your book, followed by your reaction to my reaction:

quote:

---

"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.

---

I reply: First of all, the above explanation does not fit the context of the complete commentary in your book. You see, you began that paragraph by writing, "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." In that one sentence you established a connection between what you perceive as the mark of the beast and the tefillin.

Secondly, I will state that your introductory sentence in that paragraph made your subsequent remark about the "corrupt comparison" very confusing, unless you mean that an "uncorrupt comparision" would be to compare the tefillin with the "mark of YHWH," Whose mark you obviously claim is the tefillin. Since you believe the "mark of the tefillin" stands in opposition to the "mark of the beast," this seems to be why you refer to the comparison of the "mark of the beast" to the tefillin as being a "corrupt comparision." Otherwise, I have no clue as to what you were trying to say. All I know is, in a previous paragraph you had already written, "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!" I take this to mean that you believe wearing tefillin is the "mark of YHWH," which in turn must mean that opposition to that mark is the "mark of the beast." Am I close?

You continue:

quote:

---

"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.

---

I reply: I deal with this comment in my previous posting, but I will simply state here that you misrepresent and hence redefine the meaning of the prefix "anti." "Anti-Messiah" is a plain reference to anyone who is opposed to Messiah, not someone who is "in place of" Messiah, even though someone who puts himself "in place of Messiah" is clearly "Anti (against) -Messiah"! But just because there is a connection, this does not make "anti" and "in place of" synonymous! "Anti" still means "against" or "opposed to," NOT "in place of."

By the way, if your remark was designed to persuade your readers that the beast's mark is "in place of tefillin," then something must be used "in place of tefillin," right? So what is it that you believe is "in place of" tefillin? One thing's for sure, at least based upon the reasoning you offer: Whatever the actual mark of the beast is, it cannot be wearing tefillin, so it would appear that (to you) a sure way to prevent bearing the mark of the beast is to wear tefillin. Thus, if not wearing tefillin is not, in your estimation, "the mark of the beast," then it would have to at least rank as a sure-fire fast track to getting that mark, right?

You continue:

quote:

---

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.

---

I reply: Well, in light of what I have shown about the true definition of the prefix "anti," you believe I am "anti-tefillin" according to your book. Because of what you wrote above, I feel like I have been reading the writings of two "burning ones" ... the one who wrote the book and the one who is contributing to this forum discussion.

You continue:

quote:

---

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."

---

I reply: The above does nothing to alleviate my previous concerns. There is no question that those who have the seal of Elohim are His servants, and those who have the mark of the beast have chosen to serve their own desires. I don't question that!!! However, since you have expressed that those who are opposed to tefillin are (at best) subject to the mark of the beast, then this can only mean that you believe folks like me have chosen to serve our own desires instead of serving YHWH!! Was that commentary of yours supposed to actually help me to have a deeper appreciation of your view?

Okay, I'll continue to try and follow your train of thought in your attempt to alleviate my concerns, only this time I'll break in to let you see my concerns as they develop within your writing: You further cite from your book:

quote:

---

also:

"The underlying purpose of the mark of the beast [i.e., those who are opposed to tefillin"] is to show those whose spiritual allegiance is solely to the beast [by choosing to not wear tefillin], 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. [Yes, those who are opposed to wearing tefillin focus on worldly things instead of YHWH, which in turn means they are rebellious.] 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� [such as by rebelliously refusing to wear tefillin] 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, [or refusal to wear tefillin] 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. [One way to make certain of this is to wear tefillin, since anyone opposed to it has already taken on the mark of the beast.] 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. [And those who are found wearing tefillin will not have the mark of the beast, so hurry up and get yours now!]"

---

I would like to now respond to your latest posting in this thread.

You wrote:

quote:

---

following is an excerpt showing that the english language does in fact use the word "anti" in the manner i used it in my book -- this is from answers.com:

"Anti"

example: anti-type
n.
One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
An opposite or contrasting type.
[Medieval Latin antitypus, from Late Greek antitupos, copy, antitype, from Greek, corresponding, representing : anti-, equal to, like; see anti� + tupos, print, impression.]

clearly it denotes a comparison, a corresponding to, which is exactly how i meant it in my book, even stating that it was "a comparison" in the text.

---

I reply: Well, here we go again. This time you have given us a false definition of the word "anti," misleading your readers into thinking this is answers.com's definition of the word, whereas it is in actual fact answers.com's definition of the word "antitype," which is a completely different word! I am not sure what you are up to with this misleading method of yours, but I will simply post the actual definition of "anti" as found at the answers.com website:

an�ti (ăn'tī, -tē)
n., pl. -tis.

A person who is opposed to something, such as a group, policy, proposal, or practice.

adj.
Opposed: �Douglas MacArthur had a coterie of worshipers, balanced off by an equal number . . . who were vehemently anti� (Joseph C. Harsch).

prep.
Opposed to; against.

[From ANTI�.]

you posted in the below bolded bracketed areas:

"The underlying purpose of the mark of the beast [i.e., those who are opposed to tefillin"] is to show those whose spiritual allegiance is solely to the beast [by choosing to not wear tefillin], 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. [Yes, those who are opposed to wearing tefillin focus on worldly things instead of YHWH, which in turn means they are rebellious.] 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� [such as by rebelliously refusing to wear tefillin] 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, [or refusal to wear tefillin] 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. [One way to make certain of this is to wear tefillin, since anyone opposed to it has already taken on the mark of the beast.] 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. [And those who are found wearing tefillin will not have the mark of the beast, so hurry up and get yours now!]"

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

My reaction: As I hope you can see, it is obvious that you are expecting me to take your words one way, but in view of how you plainly remark that those who are "anti-tefillin" [in a sense] have the mark of the beast, plus how those who disagree with your position that Messiah and others wore tefillin have "less than a desire for truth," I believe what I inserted above fits the context of what you were intending to convey.

You continue:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as you can plainly read, 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've made clear what i was saying, Larry. are you telling me that you really don't understand my clarification? your bracketed areas are rife with assumption and inappropriate sarcasm. i've already told you that not wearing frontlets does not equate with taking the mark of the beast. truthfully, this is becoming silly! my previous post shows how "anti" means in the english exactly how i used it. i don't know how i can get any plainer. i am beginning to believe you are just trying to ridicule me into non-credibility with your bracketed words. seriously, your comments in this particular post are absurd in the light of the fact that i have repeatedly made clear what i meant. if you've missed it somehow then please reread our posts, cause it think it's in just about every one of them.

we can both disagree on the performance of the command, but don't stoop to this silliness! i don't know that anyone following this thread (if there is anyone other than us) really would buy into your remarks. i say this because i have read your responses on here for years and i've never seen you make such sacastic and disregarding remarks. we're not enemies, just disagreeing. let's focus on something else that isn't a waste of time -- arguing like this when we obviously disagree edifies neither of us, and wastes both of our times which could be spent in a much better fashion. so let's just leave it at this: if you really want a copy of the revised version of my book, i'll let you know on this forum when it is done and printed and i'll send you one.

I am sorry that you interpret my bracketed remarks as being sarcastic. All I was doing was supplying my understanding of what you were stating. It was not intended as anything derogatory, demeaning or as ridicule. I will unequivocally state, however, that I do have a problem with the way you handle the English language, and I'm trying to figure out how's come you dropped the letters "-type" from the word "antitype" as it appears on answers.com's definition. Will I get myself into deeper trouble with you if I assert that the deletion of letters may have been deliberate, so as to steer gullible folk into thinking you had come up with an alternate definition of the prefix "anti"?

Here, again, is what you displayed for your reading audience to believe is true:

quote:

---

"Anti"

example: anti-type
n.
One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
An opposite or contrasting type.
[Medieval Latin antitypus, from Late Greek antitupos, copy, antitype, from Greek, corresponding, representing : anti-, equal to, like; see anti� + tupos, print, impression.]

---

Now, for those who really want to know ... the above is NOT answers.com's definition of the prefix "anti" at all! Instead, it is their definition of another word that contains the word "anti." It is the word "antitype." Here is a reproduction of what actually appears at the answers.com website:

antitype

an�ti�type ( (ăn'tĭ-tīp'))

n.
�����1. One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.
�����2. An opposite or contrasting type.

[Medieval Latin antitypus, from Late Greek antitupos, copy, antitype, from Greek, corresponding, representing : anti-, equal to, like; see anti� + tupos, print, impression.]

antitypical an'ti�typ'i�cal (-tĭp'ĭ-kəl) adj.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acheson:
Shabbat shalom, again, burning one:

I would like to now respond to your latest posting in this thread.

Well, here we go again. This time you have given us a false definition of the word "[b]anti," misleading your readers into thinking this is answers.com's definition of the word, whereas it is in actual fact answers.com's definition of the word "antitype," which is a completely different word! I am not sure what you are up to with this misleading method of yours, but I will simply post the actual definition of "anti" as found at the answers.com website:

an�ti (ăn'tī, -tē)
n., pl. -tis.

A person who is opposed to something, such as a group, policy, proposal, or practice.

adj.
Opposed: �Douglas MacArthur had a coterie of worshipers, balanced off by an equal number . . . who were vehemently anti� (Joseph C. Harsch).

prep.
Opposed to; against.

[From ANTI�.]

The above definition can be found at the following URL: http://www.answers.com/topic/anti?method=22

I will respond to the rest of your posting later. Again, I am very concerned about your methods of teaching others.

In the love of Messiah,
Larry
_____________________

Blessed be the name of YHWH
[This message has been edited by Acheson (edited 06-10-2006).][/B]

---

Shalom Larry,

the example i gave of "anti" was answer.com's example of how the prefix can be used, since we already have established that the word can be used in the sense of "against"/"oppose", there was no need for me to repeat what we already knew. there was no misleading there, i posted the word and gave an example of the other way in which it is used. i don't see the problem with that. as for my "deceptive" way of presenting it, i was typing it into the computer, so it came out different in my typing, no deception intended. sorry to get you all riled up, there!

anyhow, here's the conclusive proof you wanted, and i hope it meets your satisfaction.

Thayer's lexicon, which you quoted, it also upholds as well the version of "anti" i present (again, the word has more than one way of being used). i quote from Thayer's concerning the word "anti":

2. indicating exchange, succession, for, instead of, in place of (something).
3. as a prefix, it denotes....E. official substitution, instead of.

you can return to your own copy and see for yourself on that one.

and now, for what it is worth, as i probably should have done in the beginning to have avoided all this meaningless arguing (my fault, i'll take that one), here are some Scriptural passages where the word "anti" is used in the text as understood in the context of what i presented in my book. as you will see, there is no way to interpret these particular instances as "oppose". these are just a selection that you can check out for yourself.

so you know, the Greek word "anti" is translated into the English by the bolded words in the verses below, so you can see for certain.

MattithYahu (Matthew) 5:38
"You heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth..."

MattithYahu (Matthew) 17:27
"But, lest we cause them to stumble, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you shall find a piece of money. Take that and give it to them for Me and you."

Mark 10:45
"For even the Son of Adam did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Yochanan (John) 1:16
"And out of His completeness we all did receive, and favor upon favor."

Hebrews 12:16
"...lest there be anyone who whores, or profane one, like Esaw, who for a single meal sold his birthright."

each one of these bolded instances speaks of a context of "in place or", "substitution", a "comparing" or "relating to", which is in the same context of how i used the term in my book. now, i admit, it can be argued that my clarification was not the best (i'm not Tom Clancy), but according to both Scripturally accepted usage, as well as in english, you cannot deny that i used it in a way that is totally acceptable. the facts are evident to all, when we take the time to do our homework. but honestly, the mistake is easy to make, as i believe the word is used over 3000 times in all it's various forms in Scripture. my fault would be in stating it in such a way that it could possibly come across wrong, and your fault would be in that you did not know of the other Scriptural and english usage of the word.

sorry i did not clear this up sooner! i hope that makes everything make sense, finally, and perhaps lessens your concern about my methods of teaching!

Chayim b'Moshiach (Life in Messiah)

[This message has been edited by Burning one (edited 06-10-2006).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by ruthrush:
I have been told that phylacteries were discovered with the dead sea scrolls and are on display in Israel. They are said to be almost identical to those used today.

---

Do the Tefillin Found in Qumram Caves Prove Tefillin Are Scriptural?

The "Dead Sea Scrolls" have periodically occupied the attention of the world for over the past 50 years, since their discovery in the caves near Qumram. The numerous complete scrolls and fragments of Scripture have provided much insight into the life of the "Second Temple era." "They are the oldest examples we have of any biblical works."[1]

Amid the scrolls and fragments of scripture, targums, commentary, and daily accounts of Qumram life, they also found tefillin. The tefillin found in the caves of Qumram are also of great importance to the Biblical Archeological community. They, along with the other fragments of Scripture, validate to a certain degree the accuracy and importance of Scripture to the ancient post temple era of Israel. Here is what we know of the tefillin found in Qumram:
All together archeologists have found a total of 30 tefillin in the caves of Qumram (of course, this number is subject to change as more discoveries are made).[2]

Cave 1 = 1 tefillin
Cave 4 = 21 tefillin
Cave 5 = 3 tefillin
Cave 8 = 1 tefillin
Unknown cave or caves =         4 tefillin
___________________________________
Total Tefillin Found =    30 tefillin

What is amazing in all of this is that the passages of Scripture, the style of the tefillin, and the number of compartments in these tefillin vary from one to the other. Some of the texts follow the traditional Masoretic Hebrew, while at other times they are variant readings of those texts. Sometimes these variants even agree with the readings from other ancient versions of Scripture.[3] So what exactly are we to make of this?

The only logical answer to this dilemma is that the wearing of phylacteries did not begin as a uniform command at the time of the Exodus, some 1300 years prior to the time of the various Qumram communities, but instead it began as a loosely followed tradition which was largely limited in practice to the Hasidim of Israel (precursors to the Pharisees) and varied in the way it was to be kept.  In addition to the caves of Qumram, we also have the tefillin found in the Murabba'at caves "which were occupied by refuges at the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt (135 CE)."[4]

"Another stage in the development of phylacteries was revealed when it was discovered that the Qumran phylacteries contained the Decalogue. . . Since those phylacteries found at Qumran contain the Decalogue while those at Murabba'at do not, it is clear that the Mishnaic reform mentioned above had taken effect by 135 CE. Thus we see that while the physical elements of the phylacteries, i.e., the case, the parchment, the ties, etc., were already fixed by the 2nd century CE, the final uniformity of the text was not established until later, and even then, two traditions remained as to the ordering of the four passages."[5]

So, in that period of about 250 years there were changes in the way the tefillin were made, so that the Decalogue was at first included as part of the tefillin and then (by Rabbinic command) the use of the Decalogue was forbidden to be used in the texts of the tefillin.  Now if that were the only differences, this would be enough for us to question how tefillin could truly be a command of Scripture.  But there is more.  In addition to the later removal of the Decalogue, there is also the issue of the inconsistency of the texts that were used within the tefillin.

"One of the most remarkable finds to result from these explorations was that of phylacteries (Hebrew, tefillin) discovered in several caves. To the present day, strictly observant Jews attach leather thongs to small capsules, containing the text of Exodus 13.1-16, Deuteronomy 6.4-9 and 11.13-21, and bind these capsules to forehead and arm in literal fulfillment of the Deuteronomic injunction to 'bind [these words that I command you this day] as a sign upon your hand and as frontlets between your eyes' (Deut. 6.8). The following words, 'And you shall inscribe them upon the doorposts [mezuzot] of your house' (6.9), are likewise carried out literally by posting capsules (or mezuzot) containing Deuteronomy 6.4-9 and 11.13-21 on the doorway.

"Both Josephus and the author of the Letter of Aristeas refer to the custom among the Jews of wearing phylacteries. What remains uncertain to this day, however, is whether all ancient parties and/or sects among the Jews literally and uniformly applied the injunction to bind the words commanded by the Lord 'as a sign upon your hand . . . and as frontlets between your eyes.' The author of the Letter of Aristeas states that the Lord 'has put the [divine] oracles upon our gates and doors . . . and upon our hands, too, he expressly orders the symbol to be fastened . . . '—but he says nothing about the fastening of phylacteries to the forehead. Josephus in his own description of the laws of Moses describes the latter practice as well, but does not tell us what specific verses were embedded in the boxes. The Samaritans for their part did not have the custom of wearing phylacteries at all. The New Testament refers once to the wearing of phylacteries by Jews, but without indicating whether they were worn on the arm, hand, or both (Matt. 23.5).

"Now a considerable number of phylacteries were found in Caves 1, 4, 8, and perhaps elsewhere--approximately thirty in all. The authors of the Manual of Discipline, insofar as they evince the very opposite tendency to interpret the literal injunctions of the Pentateuch as metaphors, were not good candidates for carrying out such an injunction literally. But whether the members of the Unity, or Yahad, group did or did not actually wear phylacteries, it was already obvious by 1970 that those phylacteries discovered in the caves could not have belonged to the individuals of any single Jewish group, whether encamped upon the desert plateau of Qumran or living elsewhere. For the texts of most of the phylacteries found in the caves—published by several scholars in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s—showed no textual consistency with one another.

"This unusual feature of the Qumran phylacteries would be quite accurately described by Josef Milik in his 1977 edition of many of those from Cave 4. Some texts are much lengthier than others, taking in relatively long passages of the Pentateuch, including Exodus 12.43-13.16 and Deuteronomy 5.1-6.9 and 10.12-11.21; and to these lengthy sections the Song of Moses (Deut. 23) was also once added. Four additional texts are much shorter, approximately equaling the passages used eventually by the rabbinical Jews. In four cases the admonition contained in the sixth chapter of Deuteronomy beginning with the familiar words 'Hear O Israel, the Lord is your God'—universally considered to be at the very core of the content of phylacteries—is itself excluded. The distribution of the various passages is, in Milik's words, 'most capricious.'"[6]

If we had doubts about the consistency of those wearing tefillin in the post second temple era, the information given below should be enough to put the issue to rest—at least in regards to the tefillin that were discovered at Qumram.

"It has been suggested because of the find of tefillin at Qumran, that the "Qumran Sect" believed in the literal interpretation of Exod. 13:9,16 and Deut. 6:8 & 11:18, if this was so then how come only a few pairs of tefillin were found? For surely there would be more remains than the pitiful few artefacts found, due to the size of the Qumran community. Also there is no mention of tefillin what so ever in any of the Qumranic literature, whether halakhic or other wise. If these tefillin did not belong to the Qumranic community, then where did they come from? Various biblical scholars i.e Allegro, Driver, Roth, Vermes, Yadin, de Vaux and others claim evidence that during the first revolt against Rome (66-73 CE) there was the presence of a contingent of Zealot Sicarii (who were ardent Pharisees) at Qumran. Is it not then plausible that these phylacteries belonged to the Zealots rather than to the "Qumran Sect"!

"If the so called oral law is so pedantic about the materials used for the parchments and in the making of the tefillin, and also the manner in which tefillin are to be worn, then surely such a major issue as the order of arranging the four scriptural passages in the head compartments would also be standardized by the so called oral law? This issue as seen from above, was not finalized until the 12th-century, thus showing that the commandment to wear tefillin is not derived from the Tora, but has been developed over the centuries and is therefore due to rabbinic misinterpretation of Exod. 13:9, 16 and Deut. 6:8 & 11:18. The Mishna (m. Sanh 11.3) expressly forbids the use of five rather than four passages in the phylacteries. This Mishnaic reform is not a warning against the inclusion of an extra passage in the phylacteries but is informing the reader that a passage that had already been included should be now excluded from the phylacteries. The reason for this reform is verified by y. Ber. 3c; b. Ber. 12a. Now let us suppose that there is such a thing as the oral law and if there was, by suspending the use of the Decalogue as the fifth passage from the phylacteries, as mentioned above, then the Rabbis are surely going against the oral law and are therefore in their own eyes breaking a divine commandment, and if the Rabbis say that they are not breaking a divine commandment then they are surely negating their whole belief in a divinely transmitted oral law.

"The custom of wearing phylacteries was not as widespread in the first two centuries of the Common Era, as the Rabbis would have us believe. For the wearing of phylacteries was seen as one of the criteria distinguishing a haver (member of the rabbinic "society") from an 'am haares (one not observing rabbinic customs). According to Josephus, himself a Pharisee, there were only about 6,000 of them in Israel during the late Second Temple period (Ant. 7:2:4), out of a possible Jewish population in Israel of some 2,000,000. Thus the 'am haares formed the overwhelming majority of the population, and the wearing of phylacteries was limited to a small group." [7]

The tefillin found at Qumram do not prove that the wearing of tefillin is a command of Scripture—they, in fact, prove just the opposite.  They prove that the wearing of tefillin was a tradition introduced by the Hasidim and (at first) used almost exclusively by the sect of the Pharisees.  There is no conclusive evidence to support the idea that the Essenes of the Qumram communities wore the tefillin. The fact that they were discovered in the caves of Qumram are no more unusual than someone finding a book in my library (years after I am long gone) in support of wearing tefillin--which, of course, I do not agree with.

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

[1]QUMRAM and the Dead Sea Scrolls, http://www.geocities.com/rabbishlomo/qumran.htm
[2]James C. Vanderkam, "The Dead Sea Scrolls Today", p. 33.
[3]Ibid.
[4]Phylacteries: "A Sign Upon Your Hand and as Frontlets Between Your Eyes.", by Hakham Meir Yosef Rekhavi. http://www.karaites.org.uk/phylacteries.shtml
[5]Ibid.
[6]The Origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls, by Norman Golb. http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777190227/
[7]Phylacteries: "A Sign Upon Your Hand and as Frontlets Between Your Eyes.", by Hakham Meir Yosef Rekhavi. http://www.karaites.org.uk/phylacteries.shtml
 
Shalom to all,

Glenn

------------------
======= Time is Running Out =======

quote:

---

Originally posted by tedack:
Not having read any but the excerpts posted on this site,
I can say there's enough reason to be confused as to what
exactly was meant. However, burning one has clearly stated
he does NOT intend to say an anti-tefillin stance is directly
equated to the mark of the beast. Just using the words,
'in a sense' adds enough doubt to not impugn his motives
and call him a liar. Those words put the whole theory on a
more figurative level in my mind (not the wearing of tefillin,
but the equation).
Also, I don't find the "anti" definition at all alarming. It
clearly states that "antitype" is an example, I can easily see
that one could relate the two. Antitype DOES use that
prefix. I personally see a vast difference but from another's
perspective...
Anyway, I just wanted to throw this in because i don't agree
that there's enough reason to definitively state that burning
one was misleading anyone. He's stating that what seems to
have been meant is NOT what he meant. We don't know what
his train of thought was at the time he wrote it, or really even
now. His words may carry just enough different shades of meaning
to him than to you to leave him frustrated and you
suspicious but he's SAID he will revise his book to clarify.
The issue of figurative vs. literal comes up often in scripture
so I'm glad it's at least addressed. I enjoy seeing things brought
up for discussion, it makes me think and shows me where I need
to ask the Father for clarification, often in areas I had never
considered before!

---

Shalom to tedack,

I only wish to make a brief comment on the use of the words "anti" and "in a sense". Whatever meaning you wish to apply to "anti" it is clearly in "opposition to" or "against" or "instead of". There really is just not that much difference in meanings, no matter which one you go with. Is "anti-tefillin" really "against tefillin" or is it "instead of tefillin"? Supposing it is "instead of tefillin", then how does that solve the problem? The statement STILL is an endorsement of the idea that something that is "instead of tefillin" is the Mark of the Beast! And if in any "sense" this is the mark of the beast, then I have to agree with Larry that this does call into question the motives and purposes of the one who uses such a definition.

For example, (and remember this is merely theoretical, since in practice you cannot do this) ... if I told you to go to the store and purchase some "anti-matter" for my space ship you might say something like "well, couldn't that be dangerous? Since it is 'anti-matter' it would cause a great explosion as soon as it comes into contact with me (matter)!" And, of course I tell you "well, no it's ok I just want you to get a very small amount of it". Would you have some doubts? And then you say, "Well, even a small amount of it can be dangerous." And I say, "well, that's ok because I just meant 'in a sense'. So, it's perfectly safe." What will you say to that? Has the use of the phrase 'in a sense' made my proposition to you any safer than it was at the beginning? Is there really that much of a difference in the meaning of "anti", at least as it relates to the English language?

My purpose in posting this response is not to beat down an already "dead horse", but merely to point out that something is not quite right about the way Burning One is responding to this and other questions. I don't wish to accuse him of lying, but it seems that he is attempting to avoid the issue regarding the errors of his teaching by arguing over the meaning of words and avoiding other questions which have already been directed to him (which he is either unwilling or unable to give an answer to). His bringing up the fact that he and I had a parting of the ways and that this is his excuse for not answering my previous questions is really silly. Why even bring it up, unless it was an attempt to place doubts in the minds of others and avoid my questions altogether? It would, it seems, have been better for him to have said nothing of our differences and simply answered the questions (even if not directed toward me). And if he couldn't do that (for me or Larry) then he should have simply admitted that his teaching (on "anti-tefillin") was in error.

Shalom,

Glenn

PS: If anyone wishes to see a detailed study into the issue of the tefillin, instead of just posting it piecemeal to the forum it might be better to just put a link here and allow those who are interested to research it out from there. The title of the article is:

"Are Believers Commanded to Wear Tefillin as Taught by Rabbinic Judaism?" and it is located at this link..... http://www.ponderscripture.org/articles.html

I can only call 'em as I see 'em, and when I see language abuse, I will speak out in spite of what others may think. I see more than a serious linguistic problem here, for even IF the prefix "anti" can mean "instead of" (which it does not, at least not in English), I have shown that you are left to believe that anything "instead of tefillin" is {in a sense} the mark of the beast.

One source of confusion for some folks here is they may not understand the difference between a prefix and a separate word. The word "anti," when used by itself, can indeed mean "instead of" or "in place of." In fact, I couldn't help but notice that this is precisely what you did by citing all of those NT verses. In each instance, the Greek word found within the text was NOT used as a prefix, but as a separate word. You then proceed to explain that it's okay to make that [separate] word mean the same thing when used as a prefix! That is what I call "language abuse."

I will first address your choice of NT texts that you feel support your understanding of the proper way of using the Greek word "anti." For the sake of space, I'm editing out a couple of the verses you cited, as in each case listed below, the Greek word "anti" is used as a separate word, and not as a prefix:

quote:

---

so you know, the Greek word "anti" is translated into the English by the bolded words in the verses below, so you can see for certain.

MattithYahu (Matthew) 5:38
"You heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth..."

Hebrews 12:16
"...lest there be anyone who whores, or profane one, like Esaw, who for a single meal sold his birthright."

each one of these bolded instances speaks of a context of "in place or", "substitution", a "comparing" or "relating to", which is in the same context of how i used the term in my book.

---

I reply: The difference is, in your book, you used "anti" as a prefix, not as a separate word. I somehow am getting the feeling that you and a few others here do not understand the difference between how a word can take on one meaning when used as a prefix, and a completely different meaning when used as a separate word. This is middle school level English we're talking about here, so I don't believe I should have to explain this to anyone here. Nevertheless, since you used the above verses [with "anti" used as a separate word] to justify using your definition of the prefix "anti" [anti-tefillin] to attempt to prove that each word carries the same meaning, I am left with no choice.

To put this into laymen's terms, this would be like saying the English word "con" can be used to mean "swindle" when used as a prefix. So if I "confide in someone," this means I must be swindling him? The same with the English word "a." Since this word, by itself, is used as an indefinite article [as in "a book]," shall we deny that it means something completely different when used as a prefix [as in "amoral" or "aloof"?

Yet this is what you here promote by virtue of the NT examples you cited. Any dictionary will reveal that the prefix anti means "against" or "opposed to." I will even cite the very one you attempted to use in favor of your argument:

anti� or ant�
pref.

1.

1. Opposite: antimere.
2. Opposing; against: antiapartheid.
3. Counteracting; neutralizing: antacid.
4. Destroying: antiaircraft.

2.

1. Inverse: antilogarithm..
2. Destroying: Displaying opposite characteristics: antihero..

[Greek, from anti, opposite.]

The above information was taken from the following URL: http://www.answers.com/topic/anti-prefix

My comment: Thus, burning one, if you choose to employ an English prefix to designate something "instead of" tefillin, the word "anti" is not only a poor choice: it is also linguistically incorrect. At this point, though, our discussion has indeed degenerated into "striving over words" that don't really make any difference however you wish to convey your intended meaning.

You wrote:

quote:

---

the example i gave of "anti" was answer.com's example of how the prefix can be used, since we already have established that the word can be used in the sense of "against"/"oppose", there was no need for me to repeat what we already knew. there was no misleading there, i posted the word and gave an example of the other way in which it is used. i don't see the problem with that.

---

I reply: No, the English prefix "anti," as I plainly illustrated above, is generally understood as meaning "against" or "opposed to," not "instead of." Nevertheless, though, even if I were to accept your understanding of the meaning of this English prefix, I would still be left to wonder what the difference is between having something "in place of tefillin" vs. "opposed to tefillin." Isn't the end result the same?

You wrote:

quote:

---

as for Thayer's lexicon, which you quoted, it also upholds as well the version of "anti" i present (again, the word has more than one way of being used). i quote from Thayer's concerning the word "anti":

2. indicating exchange, succession, for, instead of, in place of (something).
3. as a prefix, it denotes....E. official substitution, instead of.

you can return to your own copy and see for yourself on that one.

---

I reply: Sure, I returned to my own copy, the first thing I noticed was that you conveniently forgot to include definitions "a" through "d." As seems to have become your trademark, you only list those items that, on the surface, might seem to embellish your own position. Actually, the complete listing in Thayer's confirms my own understanding as previously stated. When used as a prefix, "anti" means "opposite, over against." This can be found in meaning #3 of Thayer's:

3. As a prefix, it denotes a. opposite, over against. b. the mutual efficiency of two. [Larry's note: I trust you wouldn't choose this particular definition of "anti," since I doubt that you would wish to convey that the mark of the beast is ("in a sense") mutually efficient with the tefillin.] d. hostile opposition, and e. official substitution, instead of.

Now I realize the definition that you selected was "e.." But did you happen to notice the Greek word that Thayer's cited as an example of this meaning? It was the word anthupatos, which is word number 446 in Strong's and means "instead of the highest officer, i.e. (spec.) a Roman proconsul. This is what Thayer meant by an "official substitution."

Finally, after all is said and done here, I want to point out what I've learned through all this:

1. You clearly used an English word, not a Greek one, when you wrote "anti-tefillin" in your book. I believe you are honest enough to acknowledge this much. Certainly you would not have expected your reading audience to reason, "Oh, I'm sure he's using the Greek word 'anti,' and he's obviously using it in accordance with definition 3e of Thayer's Lexicon!"
2. Yes, the Greek the word "anti" can, in rare instances, be used to mean "instead of." However, Thayer's Lexicon only offers one example of such usage, and the word cited is anthupatos, a word that doesn't actually carry over the spelling "anti," plus appears to be the one and only specific reference that Thayer makes to the meaning "an official substitution." I would be very reluctant, then, to lean on that word as my "proof word." Moreover, in every case I have seen in the NT, whenever the actual Greek word anti is used as a prefix, it conveys either "against" or "opposed to." Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. In any case, I will still refer you back to item #1 above, for what you used in your book was not a Greek expression, but an English one, and I believe you know this to be true.
3. Even if the English prefix anti can linguistically be used to mean "instead of" or "in place of," this only adds confusion to the context of what you wrote instead of clarifying anything! To that end, I will reiterate something I wrote in a previous posting, but which you ignored:

By the way, if your remark was designed to persuade your readers that the beast's mark is "in place of tefillin," then something must be used "in place of tefillin," right? So what is it that you believe is "in place of" tefillin? One thing's for sure, at least based upon the reasoning you offer: Whatever the actual mark of the beast is, it cannot be wearing tefillin, so it would appear that (to you) a sure way to prevent bearing the mark of the beast is to wear tefillin. Thus, if not wearing tefillin is not, in your estimation, "the mark of the beast," then it would have to at least rank as a sure-fire fast track to getting that mark, right?

If you responded to the above, I must have missed it, so feel free to point me to where you gave answer.

You also wrote:

quote:

---

now, i admit, it can be argued that my clarification was not the best (i'm not Tom Clancy), but according to both Scripturally accepted usage, as well as in english, you cannot deny that i used it in a way that is totally acceptable.

---

I reply: 1. I'm sorry, but I have no idea who Tom Clancy is, but it sounds like he must speak and/or write things in an easy-to-understand format.
2. Sorry, but I do deny that your use of "anti" was not acceptable by any English standards that I know of, and even if it was "Scripturally acceptable," you are only saying this from the perspective of Greek linguistics, whereas you were writing to an English-speaking audience, giving them no clue that you were making a transition to a Greek way of understanding a word. And even then, your usage would have been confusing to a Greek speaker, as even in Greek, "anti," when used as a prefix, means "against" or "opposed to" at least 99% of the time.
3. Even IF it would have been proper in English to understand the term "anti-tefillin" to mean "in place of tefillin," this changes nothing! I mean, if the beast's mark is, in a sense, "in place of tefillin," then this means you must believe the mark of the beast is something apart from wearing tefillin. This, in and of itself, denotes opposition to wearing tefillin, so no matter how you slice it, you're making a reference to those who reject the wearing of tefillin as being subject to the mark of the beast. You can deny this now, but this is the idea behind what was presented in your book.
4. Along this same line, your use of the phrase "in a sense" is also very telling. Please explain how using something "instead of tefillin" could possibly "in a sense" be the mark of the beast!! I mean, either it's the mark of the beast or it isn't, right??!! LOL!! If a person who keeps towels from each hotel he stays at is told, "In a sense, you are stealing from hotels," this begs the question: Is he stealing or not?? Answer: Yes, he is!! So let's cut to the chase, burning one, instead of "adding doubt" or forms of "double talk" so as to keep anyone from impugning your motives, as alluded to by tedack.

Thus, if you believe something is "in a sense" the mark of the beast, then you really need to offer your readers that clarification you keep telling me about! Is it the mark of the beast or not?? To your credit, you have established here, in this thread, that you do not believe it is. That is wonderful. I am eager to see the changes you make in your book.

Speaking of changes, do you still believe I have "less than a desire for truth" since I do not agree with the premise of your book (p. 95)?

I realize you will likely continue to staunchly defend your use of English and Greek linguistics, and that is your prerogative, but I think you know what I need from you before you persuade me. I realize you would likely not appreciate having a student like me attending your Bible lectures, but after all the deception I've had to deal with over the years, I've learned to question everything, and when I see red flags flying like crazy I can either hold my peace or speak out. I would hope that a dedicated teacher like yourself wouldn't have it any other way.

To this point, I have not only addressed your linguistic approach to this topic, but I have also, in a previous posting today, expressed frustration with your "selective scholarship" approach to research. I was interested in how you would explain youself on that one, as I really do appreciate those who admit to flawed research and oversights, or even if they can demonstrate that I was the one with the oversight. So far all I've seen from you is a claim that I misunderstood your intentions ... not that you actually erred in anything you have written in your book. All told, I see nothing but red flags, but I haven't given up on you yet.

You concluded:

quote:

---

sorry i did not clear this up sooner! i hope that makes everything make sense, finally, and perhaps lessens your concern about my methods of teaching!

---

I reply: Not yet, but like I said, I haven't given up on you yet ... in spite of my serious concerns as expressed in this and other postings.

Take care and may YHWH bless!

Larry

P.S. Tedack, I think I should point out that I have never met burning one, and that the only exposure I have had to anything pertaining to him (prior to this forum) is the book he authored, which a mutual friend suggested that I read in order to understand why I, too, should be wearing tefillin. Admittedly, when I reached the part where he wrote that if my mind had not yet been changed after reading all he had written, then this means that "perhaps something less than the desire for truth is guiding my belief on this subject" ... at that point I completely lost interest and returned the book to its owner. That is something else I would recommend altering for his revision.
_____________________

Blessed be the name of YHWH

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Here is another question that I haven't seen an answer to yet, so I would appreciate your forthright response: How often (or for how long) is a person supposed to wear tefillin?

Thank you!

In the love of YHWH through His Son Yeshua the Messiah,
Larry

_____________________

Blessed be the name of YHWH

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Here is another question that I haven't seen an answer to yet, so I would appreciate your forthright response: How often (or for how long) is a person supposed to wear tefillin?

Thank you!

In the love of YHWH through His Son Yeshua the Messiah,
Larry

_____________________

Blessed be the name of YHWH

Shalom Larry,

(this was written in a word document and pasted here because of some repeated problems in getting my post to be displayed without being lost -- so the �conversion to correct capitalization� is only a product of the word processor, and not any real conversion by me! J )

I thought I answered this previously, but maybe I didn�t -- to be honest I don�t remember�but the answer:

Scripture does not tell us how long or how often we are to wear frontlets. From what I have read, and I believe it was even posted on this thread or the other recent one by someone else, that in Messiah's time the frontlets were worn all day by those who did wear them. Only in the passing of time and with the threat of persecution did they become relegated by the "Rabbinic authorities" in modern Judaism to set times. Now that sect performs the command during prayer, bar mitzvahs, brit milahs, and I think some Hasidic sects wear them during part of their wedding celebration.

So the wearing of the frontlets could be done all day, or part of the day, or only when you have the time, I suppose. As with most commands, Scripture doesn't decree a timeframe of performance, just merely the performance of it. Perhaps you could look at it like this: in the commands as laid forth in Devarim 6:4-9, there are of course some timeframes inherent in them, since you cannot always be laying down or always be rising up or always be walking by the way. But when you can do those commands, you do them.

I should also point out that a lack of timeframe in performing the command doesn�t entail that the command is not to be literally applied.

This merely brings us back to the context of why I originally posted what I posted so long ago. The context, if you will remember, was including frontlets along with a short list of other commands whose precise physical manner of application is not entirely stated in Scripture, thus allowing for a certain amount of leeway or freedom - a grey area - or however you want to call it. Your question goes right back to what I was originally speaking towards: there are a handful of commands in Torah that are decreed in such a manner that freedom in executing them is a must. there are certain commands whose literal performance of we cannot be dogmatic about. Frontlets/tefillin falls under this category. Rabbinic Judaism has all their rules for how frontlets must be made, worn, etc., and those are their dogmatic intrusions upon the free application we are allowed by the actual Word of the Father. Thus, we don't have to perform the command of frontlets in the exact manner in which they do. We have freedom in executing our own literal versions. Basically the view I am espousing would be like a Karaite Jew's impression of the Oral Torah: they don't hold to the authority of the Rabbinate (altho they have their own oral versions to match, I must say). If the Scripture is silent concerning the precise application of a literal command, then we have freedom in our performance of it. Just because certain information is not listed does not mean we cannot perform the commands to our own best understanding.

Again, in this instance, it holds the same ground as the tassels we are commanded to wear. I am sure your tassels do not look like mine. I have several different sets i've made and they are all a bit different. And yet as long as we are wearing them the way Scripture says to, our minute differences mean nothing.

A further example of this: There is no timeframe given in either one of the two times tassels are commanded. So it could be arguably said in the same way that tassels have no set timeframe in which we are to wear them.

All Scripture tells us is that we are to put them on the garment that covers us (BeMidbar 15:38-40; Devarim 22:12). The word �cover� is kasah, and means �to cover, conceal, hide, spread over�. We could take that in two ways: a covering like a shirt, which would hide our torso, and take this version as sufficient. Or we could just as legitimately take it to mean a large blanket-like garment, capable of truly concealing or hiding the one underneath it, much like modern orthodox Judaism employs in their version of the tallit.

So if we take it to be referencing a shirt, or perhaps even pants/shorts - in other words a garment that covers only a portion of our body - then naturally, tassels would need to be worn all the time, even while sleeping, or swimming. Maybe some folks perform the command this way, who knows. Under the instruction given in Scripture, this manner would be appropriate just as well as a larger covering that envelopes the wearer.

Another example of such a command in Scripture is circumcision (Bereshith 17:10-1)4: the command is definite, at least in my opinion, for the people who join themselves to Yisra�El. But the execution of this command allows for a bit of leeway. We are told to cut the foreskin of our males. In Scripture we see both a sharp stone and a sharp knife being used for the process, so that tells us there is some freedom in that realm, as well. But the part that is important to understand is that there is no instruction on how much is to be cut. Is it all supposed to be removed, or only a portion? Supposedly there is evidence that in the more ancient times, only a portion was removed, and the manner in which today�s circumcisions are performed takes a whole lot more off. So you see, there is some leeway with this one.

Another example is the fast on Yom Kippurim (Wayyiqra 23:27). Although the text does not come right out and say �fast�, we know that it is inferred from other Scriptures. But even at this, the requirements of a fast are not entirely listed. Does it mean from food and water? Maybe it is food only, and water is acceptable. Some people will only be able to do a version or the fast that is limited, and Yah understands this.

What about the parapet or railing/wall we are called to build around the roof of our house (Devarim 22:8)? We are told to build basically a retainer around our roof so that nobody falls off and dies at our expense. But we are not told how high the roof is to be made, nor of what material to make it. Somebody might make theirs out of wrought iron, and another out of sheet metal, or chain-length fence, and one might be six inches high while another could be 36. there is no definite declaration, so since it is not clearly listed in Scripture, there is a certain amount of freedom in it.

And then there is the issue of a woman not wearing men�s clothes, and vice versa (Devarim 22:5). Obviously in America�s society men and women dress in clothes that could be confused. my bride wears bluejeans (sounds like the name of a country song) from time to time, and there are instances where I have to check to make sure which jeans are mine and which are hers. Now if a woman wears men�s clothes and �looks� like a man, then this would be a violation of the command. Obviously men wore jeans before women, but to say that a woman wearing jeans is a violation of the command would be absurd, I would have to say. Thus, there exists a grey area in this.

This is merely a few examples of commands given whose application has a certain amount of freedom. I see frontlets as falling into that category. For me, there is enough evidence in Scripture to say that a literal meaning is being meant. If you don�t see that evidence, then you have no choice but to fulfill it only spiritually. That is where you are at. Excellent. The Father will honor you in your faith. But I do think we are beyond persuading each other one way or the other about doing a physical performance versus a spiritual. I don�t think our disagreement in this aspect is going to be resolved anytime soon. So let�s move on to something that we do agree on: that this command is to be performed spiritually.

If I may ask you, how do you �personally� fulfill this command spiritually as it is given in Scripture? I have my personal way of fulfilling it spiritually as well as physically, and I would like to know how you feel that you fulfill it spiritually. Perhaps we can salvage something from this debate that is edifying to both of us and anybody who may be reading it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Burning one:

If I may ask you, how do you “personally” fulfill this command spiritually as it is given in Scripture? I have my personal way of fulfilling it spiritually as well as physically, and I would like to know how you feel that you fulfill it spiritually. Perhaps we can salvage something from this debate that is edifying to both of us and anybody who may be reading it.

Chayim b’Moshiach (Life in Messiah)[/B]

---

Burning one has asked the question of "how do you personally fulfill this command spiritually". Since Larry has not responded I would like to give my own perception on this. I would like to point out that so far I have yet to see any evidence that the 4 texts which he is refering to are even commands at all. There is NO command in Scripture regarding the wearing of tefillin, whether literal or spiritual. It is a Rabbinic tradition which is without historical foundation (prior to about 250 BCE) and without Scriptural authority. For those of you who have been refering to the 613 commandments of Torah, I would recommend that you should revise that number--since it is based upon Jewish tradition. Maybe it would be better to say something like "612" or maybe even "600+" commands.

Now if there is someone out there who feels that my assessment is incorrect, however, I would be more than willing to see and hear whatever credible evidence which they would like to offer.

Shalom,

Glenn