Myles Davis' Closing Argument

Davis’ Closing

1. In my first speech I said “Example: Before 1775 the thirteen colonies of the United States were under the law of Britain, but from 1775-1783 there was bloodshed and after the war we where no longer under the British law, but under the law of the Untied States. Now are there things from the British law that was put into the United States’ law? Yes, but does that make it the British law? No and, I can’t say that we are under the British law because we where before 1775. “ In reply to this Michael said “Now let me deal briefly with Mr. Davis’ analogy of our position to British Law.  It is true that we formally separated from the King of Britain, and so from British Law.  Is Mr. Davis actually claiming that we have rebelled and separated from Israel’s King in the same manner?” No let’s look at this even deeper. Is it not true that the Jews rebelled agents God by not accepting Jesus there for God added the Gentiles to salvation through the New Law. Also when Americans went from the British law to the U.S. law they went from a king to a three rulers the Executive Judicial and Legislative branches and the same is with the Bible, for we where under the trinity in the old law (three in one) and under the new law we went to a three leader government. So  my analogy does work.

2.   Michael also said “What is the most important commandment?  "You shall love the L-RD your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deu. 6:5, Mat. 22:37).  What we often fail to note is that this commandment does not end there, but continues to explain how we should go about loving our Father: 

"These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.  You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead.  You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” (Deu. 6:6-9)                                                                  

Question for Michael: did you know in verse four it says “Hear O Israel” which means that this passage is for the Jews and not everyone you know better than that, use common exegesis and it will help you see who this passage is talking to.

Note the clause in bold above.  In traditional Judaism, this is the verse from which the rabbis derive the practice of wearing teffilim (phylacteries) in worship.  However, if we go back to the first time this phrase is used, we find something interesting.  After telling the Israelites to observe Passover and use it as an opportunity to teach their children, God says,

"So it shall serve as a sign on your hand and as phylacteries on your forehead, for with a powerful hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt." (Exo. 13:14-16                                                                                                       

Question for Michael: who was it that was lead out of Egypt because whoever it is that is who this passage is talking to. Michael should know the first rule of exegeses is who is the writer talking to in the passage Michael is trying to apply a passage to everyone when clearly it is only for the Jews.

Therefore, binding God’s Word as a sign on our hands and as frontlets between our eyes means to do and look upon symbolic things to remind us of what He has done for us.  Specifically, Israel was commanded to keep the Passover to remind them of how God redeemed their bodies from slavery – how much more should we who God has redeemed from the bondage of sin unto eternal death, especially when He did so on the very day of Passover through an even greater Lamb!”    Therefore these passages are for Jews only and no one else! 

Next I want to look at Heb 7:12 and the word metathesis since Michael has tried to quibble on it with no Greek resources to back him up so let’s look at what some of the scholars have to say on this word.

Thayer’s: to change Heb.7:12

Arndt & Gingrich’s: when the priesthood is changed Heb.7:12

Mounce’s: To transfer Heb.7:12

That is what the scholars say this word means so unless Michael can give a scholar who will put is reputation on the line on this word meaning anything other than what these men say then I will stick with these men’s def. of what this word means. Michael is not debating me on this word now he is debating those four scholars!!! 

Next, in Col 2:16-17

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

Col 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.  

Question for Michael: since you say that we can’t pick and chose what part of the law we follow and say it is still binding than does this mean your  passing judgment on those who don’t do such things?

Last I want to ask Michael this question, why did Paul put in Gal. 5:3 those who bind circumcision must keep the whole and you say everyone must? And please explain Gal. 3:28?

To close this speech and this debate I want to thank Michael for having this debate with me. I also want to thank my girlfriend Casey Coiner for doing most of my proof reading and Michael for doing the rest of it.

Thank you, Myles Davis