Do you throw out parts of the bible?

[Nuhen]

Originally Posted by Mal316

Oh, but haven't you heard? If you follow the 'old rules' you're rejecting Christ's sacrifice. *eye roll*

I know! 'Cause, you know, G-d doesn't care if you have a beard or eat pork or have a tattoo. But you better not have long hair, men, and you women better not have short hair and you should only be wearing dresses!

'Cause, you know, G-d cares about THOSE trivial issues, but not beards and the like.

[loveschild]

Nuhen part of the old rules is food. Jesus said we can eat all food. To stay with the old rules is wrong. The old testament was to show people they needed God. Yes the old testament still has much learning for us. Mostly follow God and you will be blessed. Don't follow and you will be cursed. Thank God for the New Testament.

[Nuhen]

Originally Posted by loveschild

Nuhen part of the old rules is food. Jesus said we can eat all food. To stay with the old rules is wrong. The old testament was to show people they needed God. Yes the old testament still has much learning for us. Mostly follow God and you will be blessed. Don't follow and you will be cursed. Thank God for the New Testament.

It's still that way, you know. If you don't follow G-d, you won't find eternity with Him. If you do follow Him, you will have eternity with Him.

Furthermore, it's been discussed time and time again: Yeshua was talking not about food, but about people.

[HumbleSaint]

Originally Posted by Nuhen

I know! 'Cause, you know, G-d doesn't care if you have a beard or eat pork or have a tattoo. But you better not have long hair, men, and you women better not have short hair and you should only be wearing dresses!

'Cause, you know, G-d cares about THOSE trivial issues, but not beards and the like.

Amen, you are starting to make some good points. Although I don't think God likes tatoos. And I would say that it is not so much an emphasis on the way we dress itself, but why we do it. We don't do these things because we think that they save us. We do them because we love others and don't want to cause them to stray. We want to be an example of who the believer is. Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart.

[Nuhen]

Originally Posted by HumbleSaint

Amen, you are starting to make some good points. Although I don't think God likes tatoos. And I would say that it is not so much an emphasis on the way we dress itself, but why we do it. We don't do these things because we think that they save us. We do them because we love others and don't want to cause them to stray. We want to be an example of who the believer is. Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart.

Exactly. That's the core of the issue.

"Nuhen part of the old rules is food. Jesus said we can eat all food."

When Jesus said 'whatever goes into a person', what did he mean by 'whatever?' I think Jesus meant whatever is on your unwashed hands.
I think the point is not washing your hands and then eating food does not make you unclean (ritually impure). Jesus meant that all foods are clean whether you wash your hands before eating or not. I believe that as a Jew, Jesus would have kept to the laws of Torah and considered pork and shellfish unclean. And so 'all foods' means foods that we are allowed to eat in the first place.

Declaring all foods clean does not obviate the laws of kashrut. God meant for His commands to be eternal. Jesus did not come to abolish the laws. Saying that unclean animals are now ok to eat would abolish the laws of kashrut set forth in Leviticus 11. God warns us not to add or take away from His Word.

"To stay with the old rules is wrong." So to stay with God is wrong? Thanks, but no thanks. If I'm wrong for staying with God, then so be it. I'll be wrong following God. You can go ahead and be right rejecting the commands of God and adhering to the traditions of men.

"Mostly follow God and you will be blessed." Mostly right.

"Don't follow and you will be cursed." You got that right. So why not follow God?

"Thank God for the New Testament." The New Testament has obviated the Tanakh? The laws are abolished? The jot and tittle have passed away? *smacks forehead* That has to be it. Because Jesus came to abolish the law. He fulfilled the law so you no longer have to follow it. You can go ahead and sin because you're not under the law but under grace. Go on sinning so that grace may increase.

[wattie]

(Rom 4:1) What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

(Rom 4:2) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

(Rom 4:6) Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

(Rom 4:7) Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.


this supposedly contradicts James-

Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Jas 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?


But the thing is.. the context of James.. mostly isn't about receiving eternal life.. where in Romans it is about receiving eternal life.

James also has:

Jas 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Jas 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

which agrees with Romans

also

Pretty much all of James is about acts of service.. christian testimony.. our daily work. In Romans - like Romans chapter 10.. you see the call for salvation.. entrusting your salvation with Jesus. They don't contradict.. they are different contexts and subjects.

The reason James was included in the canon is because they knew by context it did not disagree with Paul's writings.

Originally Posted by wattie

But the thing is.. the context of James.. mostly isn't about receiving eternal life.. where in Romans it is about receiving eternal life.

I'm not sure. In the same chapter we read:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man says he has faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? <...> Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. <...> Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

He seems to be talking about the sufficiency of faith without works to save. The same verb is used in a variety of contexts, but in James it definitely can mean salvation in the sense we usually think of it:

James 1:21: Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

James 5:20: let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

Less commonly it can mean healing:

James 5:15: And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Originally Posted by Nuhen

It's still that way, you know. If you don't follow G-d, you won't find eternity with Him. If you do follow Him, you will have eternity with Him.

Do you believe it is neccesary to follow the "Torah" of Laws in order to follow God?

[Nuhen]

Originally Posted by charisenexcelcis

Do you believe it is neccesary to follow the "Torah" of Laws in order to follow God?

Not necessary, no. I do find it hard to understand though why anyone would claim to follow Him and yet not even put an effort into following His commands...

[DinoDillinger]

Originally Posted by Nuhen

All of this untrue. I and those who believe as I do have expressed time and time and time again that we are NOT trying to say that following Torah makes you righteous before G-d (even though Yeshua says that it is part of the process), nor are we saying you HAVE to follow it.

Furthermore, I haven't assaulted anyone's faith on this site. I've merely expressed mine, just as you all have expressed yours. The truth need not fear a lie, so if what all of you believe is true, you shouldn't have a problem with me and those who believe as I do because if what we believe really is so wrong and yours are so right, yours will win out in the end.

If what you believe is true, you shouldn't have to worry about us. Yet, you obviously do, so what does that say about what you believe?



Acts is a history book. Whether or not I accept it as scripture has no bearing on my acceptance of Luke, because it's not about the author, it's about the content of their writings.

Do you wear tap shoes while you post?

The point of this thread was to warn people who read your posts and also yourselves when your own logic clouds your judgement to the point of disregarding scripture that is has been established as inspired by the Holy Spirit for the history of the church. Paul did not tell those who had come to faith as jews to stop following the law, and if you think the stuff classified as 'civil law' no longer applies to those under the law then you contridict your bread and butter verse. Anyways, rebellious children would be a family matter would it not? God does not change does He? Your explanation implies that God follows current culture on the matter of punishment but not, hmm I dont know, keeping up your personal appearance by shaving?

In circumsion of the flesh you make a covenant with God to keep the Law of Moses. You see in the last supper if you haven't thrown that out yet that a new covenant is made. It is of faith, not the law, faith making all things new where the law made sin abound.

I see double speak coming from alot of people who try to keep all the law, since you believe that following God would by definition mean keeping it, or keeping it to the best of your ability. Maybe you get saved and want to please God so you look and see, hey! there is all this law to keep me busy, for He who keeps the law shall live by it. If you had been a Jew in the first place then found the Messiah then I doubt anyone would mind you keeping the law, since then you would understand the law and to whom it was given. And you wouldn't also busy yourself trying to convince people who aren't under the law to radically change their lifestyle to conform to the law of Moses which under the people perish without faith.

[Nuhen]

Originally Posted by DinoDillinger

Your explanation implies that God follows current culture on the matter of punishment but not, hmm I dont know, keeping up your personal appearance by shaving?

Apples to oranges. In one case the law is still in effect with a different kind of punishment. In the other, you disregard the law completely.

In circumsion of the flesh you make a covenant with God to keep the Law of Moses. You see in the last supper if you haven't thrown that out yet that a new covenant is made. It is of faith, not the law, faith making all things new where the law made sin abound.

That word "new" gets thrown around alot, but I don't think anyone actually understands what it means.

[DinoDillinger]

Originally Posted by Nuhen

Not necessary, no. I do find it hard to understand though why anyone would claim to follow Him and yet not even put an effort into following His commands...

People do put great effort into following the commands of the heart, which by the way, is alot harder than not shaving, not eating certain foods, or the other fleshly ordinances which were to set the jewish people apart in customs and the like. You can say that Jesus was refering to unwashed hands being that which doesn't defile a man, but even so, the point I believe is that a man who is defiled is one whose heart is defiled. A man's spirit even, which is the sort of worship God desires. From the heart without hypocrisy.

Focus on fullfilling that law.

[Nuhen]

Originally Posted by DinoDillinger

People do put great effort into following the commands of the heart

Picking and choosing. I thought that was a bad thing?

[MahogonySnail]

The punishments of the day were to put to death the people committing those offenses, so G-d said "put them to death". As times change, so do our punishments. We're supposed to continue observing His commands, but not in the same way they did in those days.

If the punishments change with time, then so does the Torah, because the Torah details the specific punishments to be given out. I thought the Torah was the unchangeable Law of God? You can't really blame christians for changing some laws, eg worship on Sunday not Saturday, when you yourself believe they change with time. But if God says kill, surely He means kill. I remember when he punished the Israelites when they failed to kill those who he said must die, and failed to destroy their idols. How do you know, that when the Jewish sanhedrin decided to abolish capital punishment, they weren't doing it out of disobedience to God's laws? Or are they like the Pope are they and make up the rules as they go?

Furthermore, the point of Torah observance was never to follow 100% of it.

Ahh excellent, that's what I like to hear. *chews a pork bone*

That's YOUR saying, not mine. The point is to TRY. Put some gorram effort into obeying the One who gave up His own Son for you. Seems like a small task for such a great gift.

Yes why don't you put some effort into your stone throwing? It's not hard, you just pick up a stone, find the nearest adulterer or sabbath breaker (maybe start with the catholic church, they started it), and throw it. Why stop at 60% of obeying the Law, when by throwing stones you could obey 70%?

We CAN'T follow 100% of it 100% of the time because it is impossible. But that doesn't mean we stop trying. THAT is the point.

You try to follow something 100% when you know you will never make it ? So if you see a cliff you want to climb, you start climbing it knowing you will not reach the top anyway? The question to ask then is what's the point of climbing?

[DinoDillinger]

Originally Posted by Nuhen

Apples to oranges. In one case the law is still in effect with a different kind of punishment. In the other, you disregard the law completely.



That word "new" gets thrown around alot, but I don't think anyone actually understands what it means.

You say the second is disregarded completely but I think a christians understanding on that law spiritually is to not appear as the world does, whose hearts are full of wicked desires, some being covetousness (flashy,expensive jewlery), fornications/adulteries (revealing clothing that seeks the sexual attentions of the opposite sex) I'm sure you could throw idolatry in there somehow, it seems to be in everything.

So you see, a christian who does not seek to follow the letter of the Law of Moses can still look in it on matters of how to live their life. In a sense they put more restrictions on certian parts than a Torah observer would.

Make sense?

[MahogonySnail]

By the way Nuhen, I know that God isn't fooled by your using the potty mouth word gorram. That's not becoming of someone who takes particular care to hyphenate God's name. That's right you don't believe cussing is a sin do you? Not even if it involves God's name?

[DinoDillinger]

Originally Posted by Nuhen

Picking and choosing. I thought that was a bad thing?

As i just posted, how the law is actually spirit. It comes from the idea that God regards the spirit, He not seeing men as we see them.

[HumbleSaint]

It is good to correct a person were they are wrong, but we must remember to use love toward Nahen and not base this discution on trying to make ourselves look like we are better than he is.

Originally Posted by Nuhen

Not necessary, no. I do find it hard to understand though why anyone would claim to follow Him and yet not even put an effort into following His commands...

So, no but yes...