01.06. Liar, Liar Pants on Fire

Liar, Liar Pants on Fire by Clint Branham clint@AwakenedChurch.com http://AwakenedChurch.com Your perspective, on any given circumstance is based on the set of experiences and education. This explains why, for the most part, liberals have liberal kids, conservatives have conservative kids. Why Catholics beget little Catholics, Baptists little Baptists, Muslims little Muslims, Buddhists little Buddhists, you get the picture.

Why is this? It is part of our nature to trust those in authority over us, Parents especially. So this is a continuing cycle that is based on the trust of children in their Parents, them in theirs, and so on back the family tree. When Children “rebel” against authority it is this in-born belief system that they are challenging. Sometimes the rebellion sticks, conservatives become liberals and vice versa. But most of the time the “rebel” reverts back to the dogma of the parents. What about our spiritual teachers? Our Pastors learned from their parents but also from “spiritual parents” at seminaries and thru the reading of commentaries. This trust is just as great as those for parents sometimes more so. When a liberal hears that raising taxes is the wrong way to stimulate the economy this goes against the very core of their beliefs. To the evangelical Christian the writings in the “New Testament” are the basis for all of their doctrines (except tithingJ) but when we look at the doctrines that are practiced - the New Testament is full of conundrums and contradictions, that are called "Mysteries." When the doctrines are analyzed against scripture and not the commentaries of the Church, these Doctrines make no sense and fall apart and have to be stitched back together with tradition and the writings of “Scholars”.

Summary of the Universal Doctrines:

1.    Jesus started a new religion, Christianity.

2.    Even though Jesus “Came not to do away with the Law” - by fulfilling it, he did away with the need to follow it.

3.    Grace covers all Sin, Grace supersedes the Law.

4.    Paul makes this crystal clear that “The Law” was completely and utterly done away with.

5.    Following “The Law” is legalism.

6.    The Church supersedes Israel as the bride.

We will look at each of these points and measure them against the entire scripture.

There are some fundamental precepts that I will follow in all Doctrinal analysis and will be used in this article:

God’s word is Truth.

God never changes.

God’s word will not and cannot contradict itself. Who was “Jesus”? He was born of the tribe of Judah. He was a Prophet. He was the Jewish/Hebrew Messiah. He was the focus of the entire “Old Testament”. Jesus/Yehoshua was a Kosher observant Rabbi. Jesus/Yehoshua was prophesied from the beginning of the Scriptures.

Point 1: “Jesus started a new religion, Christianity.”

What would constitute a “New Religion?” What is the definition of “new?”

New NEW, a. 1. Lately made, invented, produced or come into being; that has existed a short time only; recent in origin; novel; opposed to old, and used of things; as a new coat; a new house; a new book; a new fashion; a new theory; the new chemistry; a new discovery. So if the “New Religion” is opposed to the “Old Religion” can that be supported by scripture?

Acts 3:22-26 KJV For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

What is the original Scripture that the writer of “Acts” is referencing?

Deuteronomy 18:17-20 KJV And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

According to Deuteronomy 18:20 IF Jesus created a “New Religion” that was opposed to the words of The Father, that were given to Moses, then he was/is a false prophet, a false Messiah, and should have been put to death for going against the words of Moses. Was this charge ever made against Jesus? No, it wasn’t. So the first assertion that Jesus started a “New Religion” CANNOT reconcile both the old and new testaments.

Point 2: “Even though Jesus ‘Came not to destroy the Law’ - by fulfilling it, he did away with the need to follow it.”

Matthew 5:17-20 KJV Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

“Jesus quoted a Hebrew idiom when He said He came not to destroy the Law or the prophets.He was using a familiar phrase easily understood during Biblical times.Jesus had been accused of misinterpreting the Torah, yet He said that He was actually rightly and correctly teaching it.Traditional Jewish writings support this idiom, "Should all the nations of the world unite to uproot one word of the Law, they would be unable to do it," Leviticus Rabbah 19:2.To understand the meaning of this verse, everything hinges on the meaning of the words "destroy" and "fulfill" in verse 17. What does Jesus mean by "destroy the Law" and "fulfill the Law"? "Destroy" and "fulfill" are technical terms used in rabbinic argumentation. When a sage felt that a colleague had misinterpreted a passage of Scripture, he would say, "You are destroying the Law!" Needless to say, in most cases, his colleagues strongly disagreed. What was "destroying the Law" for one sage was "fulfilling the Law" (correctly interpreting Scripture) for another," wrote Bivin and Blizzard in their bookUnderstanding the Difficult Words of Jesus (Yahshua). Does this explanation of this statement fit within the context? Yes, extremely well. Let’s look at the next few verses:

Matthew 5:21 KJV Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Matthew 5:27-28 KJV Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Each one of these examples is a correct interpretation of the Old Testament Law - the Torah. He was giving Full interpretation of the Scriptures. He is teaching intent or deeper meaning of the Law not the letter of the Law.

Point 3: Grace covers all Sin, Grace supersedes the Law.

Romans 6:14 KJV For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. This one appears to be this appears to be an open/shut case. There in verse 14 it says it plainly “for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” But most don’t want to acknowledge the very next verse.

Romans 6:15 KJV What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. This clarifies the previous verse. But it brings up the question: How does the Scripture define “sin”?

1 John 3:4 KJV Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Transgression TRANSGRES’SION, n. The act of passing over or beyond any law or rule of moral duty; the violation of a law or known principle of rectitude; breach of command.

Let’s restate Romans 6:15 : What then? Shall we violate the law, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God Forbid. As we can see in this example it is clear that Grace does not supersede the law.

Point 4: “Paul makes this crystal clear that “The Law” was completely and utterly done away with.”

Really? Let’s look at an instance that absolutely proves the opposite.

Acts 18:18 KJV And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.

What vow?

Acts 21:17-22 KJV And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

Paul was before James and the Elders in Jerusalem, They are dealing with a false rumor about Paul teaching the Jews that are among the Gentiles to practice things contrary to Moses.

Acts 21:23-24 KJV Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. The phrase: “and be at charges with them” is translated in many other translations as “pay their expenses”

Acts 21:25 KJV As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. This is a restatement of the counsel of Jerusalem where James and the Elders decided the “minimum requirements” for Gentile converts in Acts 15:1-41 :

Acts 15:19-21 KJV Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Back to Acts 21.

Acts 21:26-28 KJV Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place. So what was this vow?

According to J.Vernon McGee: “The vow he (Paul) took is actually not in the word of God. It was never part of the Law, it was something they (the Jews) added.”

Paul and the four men had the same vow. The vow required entering the Temple, Shaving of their heads, Offerings, and Expenses. Is there a vow described in scripture that fits these criteria? Yes there is - J. Vernon McGee is wrong. It is the Nazarite vow that is described in Numbers 6:1-27.

Please read this passage for yourself. Here is a summary:

1.    Abstinence from wine and strong drink,

2.    Refraining from cutting the hair off the head during the whole period of the continuance of the vow, and…

3.    The avoidance of contact with the dead.

Numbers 6:13-20 KJV [Emphasis mine] And this is the law of the Nazarite, when the days of his separation are fulfilled: he shall be brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: And he shall offer his offering unto the LORD, one he lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings, And a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, and wafers of unleavened bread anointed with oil, and their meat offering, and their drink offerings. And the priest shall bring them before the LORD, and shall offer his sin offering, and his burnt offering: And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, with the basket of unleavened bread: the priest shall offer also his meat offering, and his drink offering. And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings. And the priest shall take the sodden shoulder of the ram, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them upon the hands of the Nazarite, after the hair of his separation is shaven: d the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine. Do you see the significance of this vow to the argument that “Paul made it clear that the law was done away with?” This is why J. Vernon McGee lied about it. It goes against his underlying premise of the New Testament that the Law is done away with. There was Sacrifice!! Burnt Sacrifice! And to top that off one of the animals was a SIN Sacrifice! And Paul paid for 3 animals per person 15 animals!!! This could easily amount to over $5,000! Not an insignificant amount!

If Paul was against the Law… why did he take on the Nazarite Vow? why did he participate with 4 other men? why did he participate in Burnt offerings and Sacrifices? why did James and the Elders urge him to do this? why would Paul pay for the 4 other men’s sacrifice? then the false accusations were not false.

If all the sacrifices were nailed to the cross… why did Paul participate in a vow that required sacrifice? why did James (Jesus’ brother) and the Elders even suggest it?

If Jesus was the ONLY sin offering… why would Paul participate in a Sin Sacrifice?

Clearly Paul was Not against the Law, and Sacrifice was not done away with or made into a sacrifice of Praise.