Dear 'BibleGuy' . . .

[Dan_473]

Paul and Jesus did not teach something to replace the law. The Law(Torah) tells you how to love your neighbor and how to love God. If your perception of loving God and your neighbor is something contrary to what is written in the Torah, then the Torah is there to show you the correct way of God.

I think 'love your neighbor as yourself' is clear



if one wants an example, Jesus told a great story

LUKE 10:30 Jesus answered, “A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

 

[Dan_473]

What does the text say ?

Which text?

 

[popeye]

Lawlessness are those who say "we don't have to be obedient to the law", and ignore He's commandments.
Grace has always been available. Our grace is Jesus Christ which forgives us IF we repent of our sins and practice keeping the commandments.

If you break it ,you DO NOT KEEP IT.

ARE YOU SERIOUS?
Are you aware that the law is impossible to keep?

You said you break it. Shouldn't you preach a savior instead?

 

[popeye]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You have leaders.

Do they lead?

Do they correct?

What is Sabbath breaking?

List about 5 items that would constitute breaking Gods holy command.

 

[Dan_473]

It's funny how the "law-keepers" are the very ones that water down the law to make it "doable" just like the Pharisees did which Jesus exposed this hypocrisy time after time.

Paul said that those who are trying to get others to keep the law cannot keep it themselves.

Galatians 6:13-14 (NASB)
[SUP]13 [/SUP] For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.

[SUP]14 [/SUP] But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Romans 3:19-22 (NASB)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] Nowwe know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;

[SUP]20 [/SUP] because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

[SUP]21 [/SUP] But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,

[SUP]22 [/SUP] even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

wow, I want to remember this verse

GALATIANS 6:13 For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.

 

[popeye]

It's funny how the "law-keepers" are the very ones that water down the law to make it "doable" just like the Pharisees did which Jesus exposed this hypocrisy time after time.

Paul said that those who are trying to get others to keep the law cannot keep it themselves.

Galatians 6:13-14 (NASB)
[SUP]13 [/SUP] For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.

[SUP]14 [/SUP] But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Romans 3:19-22 (NASB)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] Nowwe know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;

[SUP]20 [/SUP] because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

[SUP]21 [/SUP] But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,

[SUP]22 [/SUP] even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

Apparently our verses are off limits to the torah centered folks.

 

[popeye]

Why do "torah guys" not know the word?

 

[Dino246]

Dino246, are you a blood descendant from one of the tribes of the house of Israel ? If not, then what curse are you talking about ? If not they you were never cursed with the curses in the covenant.

Wow... I think you've totally missed something here. I was adding Scripture to support the point Popeye made, as I stated. What makes you think that I was trying to make a different point?

If you are on the same page as BibleGuy, you are affirming the need for Christians, whether Gentile or Jew, to abide by all the ordinances in the Law, yet you sidestep the curse of the Law which is quoted in Galatians. The curse is part of the Law. Either you abide by the whole Law (it is a unit) or you don't. There is no middle ground. It is abundantly clear in the NT that we cannot keep the Law. Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, Colossians... we need a Saviour because we can't keep the Law. Unless our "righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees..."; the only way that is possible is by the imputed righteousness of Christ, not by our vain and failure-bound attempts. The Holy Spirit does not empower us to keep the Law (which includes animal sacrifices); rather, He empowers us to glorify God, building on the foundation of righteousness which Christ won for us on the cross.

 

[popeye]

In the seven letters to the seven churches,why is law breaking not an issue?

" I know thy works"
"he that overcometh"

That means overcome sin.

That means they DIDN'T keep the law,but overcame sin through the power of heaven Through the living savior.

They DID NOT OVERCOME "not keeping ordinances",by obedience.

 

[JGIG]

Well then Jesus died in vain for us then if we are the ones that "achieve and maintain" righteousness.

I'll stick with the finished work of Christ and trust in Him only and the Holy Spirit in me to lead me in this life.

Romans 10:2-5 (NASB)
[SUP]2 [/SUP] For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.

[SUP]3 [/SUP] For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

[SUP]4 [/SUP] For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

[SUP]5[/SUP] For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.

Can you explain please? I'm not understanding your train of thought.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (from Jn. 1)

​

Torah folk get so focused and centered Law that the simplicity of the Gospel becomes difficult to comprehend.

Christ IS the end of the Law for righteousness for all who believe. It really IS that simple !

​-JGIG

 

[Grace777x70]

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (from Jn. 1)

​

Torah folk get so focused and centered Law that the simplicity of the Gospel becomes difficult to comprehend.

Christ IS the end of the Law for righteousness for all who believe. It really IS that simple !

​-JGIG

I agree!.....but of course to them we are just being "lawless"........religion is just plain stupid! ( I heard a minster say that one time and it made me laugh - sin is just plain stupid too )

2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (KJV)
[SUP]3 [/SUP] But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

[SUP]4 [/SUP] For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

 

[Stephen63]

Today we do not know Christ after the flesh .And the same applies to us we are not considered male or female. The distinction was removed because of the reformation. The idea of looking for a fleshly Jesus again to return would be simply repeat the matter. It would be like double jeopardy as if the lord of glory who has no form needed to be crucified again and again to public shame as if one appearing in the flesh was not enough.

Curious..... could you share some scripture on this?

 

[Stephen63]

ATTENTION!!!

Herein lies the problem with BibleGuy..... not enuff attention.

What BibleGuy needs to do is first change his name, cuz he doesn't do it justice. Next, he needs to build a bridge & get over it, because we don't have the time to babysit trolls.

 

[Dan_473]

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (from Jn. 1)

​

Torah folk get so focused and centered Law that the simplicity of the Gospel becomes difficult to comprehend.

Christ IS the end of the Law for righteousness for all who believe. It really IS that simple !

​-JGIG

I remember the first time I read Galatians thinking
This is so simple, and really good news.

 

[Stephen63]

Ecclesiastes 10:12-14 (KJV)
[SUP]12 [/SUP]The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself. [SUP]13 [/SUP]The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous madness. [SUP]14 [/SUP]A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him?

 

[Dan_473]

I agree!.....but of course to them we are just being "lawless"........religion is just plain stupid! ( I heard a minster say that one time and it made me laugh - sin is just plain stupid too )

2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (KJV)
[SUP]3 [/SUP] But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

[SUP]4 [/SUP] For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

'from the simplicity that is in Christ.'

yes, simplicity!

I've been around a few observant Jews... attempted law keeping isn't simple!

 

[Dan_473]

"You have heard" is not the same as "It is written". Yes animals has to bleed out after slaying them according to the Torah.

So, if some beef has been slaughtered such that some blood is still left in it, will eating it make a person unclean?

 

[JGIG]

.

Originally Posted by BibleGuy

After all, we don't IMPOSE canned definitions of terms onto their linguistic expression within texts....

RATHER, we EXTRAPOLATE definitions of terms FROM the text.

CANNED definitions are NOT Scripture...


BibleGuy




​

​

Originally Posted by JGIG

Well, that explains a lot . . .

Originally Posted by BibleGuy

​

Serious here? Or sarcasm?
​

Yes.

It's important to maintain a level of humor in these debates.

And you're actually a pretty funny guy .

Originally Posted by BibleGuy

Can't tell....

You, on the other hand, have taken a "canned" definition and imposed it upon a term, thereby refusing to discern the contextual OBJECT to which the defined term is referencing, and thus confusing OBJECT with DEFINITION.


​

Well this is a first. I've never had to define 'definition' before in a debate, but here goes:

def·i·ni·tion​

ˌdefəˈniSH(ə)n/​

noun​

1. a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.​

And now extrapolate:

extrapolate

[ik-strap-uh-leyt]

​

1. to infer (an unknown) from something that is known; conjecture.​

BibleGuy's interpretive method is completely subjective, not allowing for any definite definition of anything, calling that 'canned'.

Using BibleGuy's method of defining by extrapolation, one can make words mean anything they want to!

Originally Posted by BibleGuy

You won't appreciate this point if you do not know that definitions in general (and objective references in particular) are determined from contextual usage.

Surely you do not dispute this?!

After all, I thought you were a big fan of "contextual Scripture"....remember?​

To repeat what I've said in this thread and other places: When there is more than one meaning for a word, context determines which of the meanings for THAT word applies in THAT verse/passage.

What that does NOT mean is that you can pull a definition from a different word in Scripture and apply it to your word of choice in the Scripture of your choice. This is what BibleGuy has done with Deut. 8:3 and Mt. 4:4, in changing the Biblical definition of the word, 'word' in each of those verses. Being the Torah-centric guy that he is, he has defined 'word' in both of those verses as 'Torah', when the original language does not:

3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word [ H4161 - mowtsa'] that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. (from Deut. 8)


H4161 - mowtsa'​

1. act or place of going out or forth, issue, export, source, spring
   1. a going forth
      1. rising (sun), going forth of a command
      2. goings forth, those going forth
      3. way out, exit
   2. that which goes forth
      1. utterance
      2. export
   3. place of going forth
      1. source or spring (of water)
      2. place of departure
      3. east (of sun)
      4. mine (of silver)

Note that Torah is not in the listed definitions in Deut. 8:3.

4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word [G4487 - rhēma] that comes from the mouth of God.’” (from Mt. 4)​

G4487 - rhēma
​

1. that which is or has been uttered by the living voice, thing spoken, word
   1. any sound produced by the voice and having definite meaning
   2. speech, discourse
      1. what one has said
   3. a series of words joined together into a sentence (a declaration of one's mind made in words)
      1. an utterance
      2. a saying of any sort as a message, a narrative
         1. concerning some occurrence
2. subject matter of speech, thing spoken of
   1. so far forth as it is a matter of narration
   2. so far as it is a matter of command
   3. a matter of dispute, case at law

Note that Torah Law is also not in the listed definitions for 'rhema'.

Is Torah Law a part of God's word? Yes, of course, but it's not the part of God's word that Deut. 8:3 and Mt. 4:4 are referring to. In fact, 'mowtsa' and 'rhema' refer not to the written word of God, but to the leading of the Living God.


popeye summed up your methodology perfectly on another thread:

​

Originally Posted by popeye

This seems to be the foundation of your doctrine. This could be why you are term oriented. Definition oriented.

Since >>>>"this"

We can conclude >>>>>>"this"

And if you fail to make the huge jump with me>>>>>>>you are wrong.

​

I will add that BibleGuy's method of 'defining' words includes switching words for other words from other texts and using conjecture to 'define' terms. It's a completely subjective method and allows him to define a Biblical text any way he wishes. It's because of his stated methodology that his '11 points' are to be ignored. Those 11 points are - AGAIN - a giant logical fallacy based on a false premise.

One of the first things a false belief system will set out to do is to redefine Biblical terms - control the language. More on that in the next post . . .


​-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

From the Glossary Intro at JGIG, written in 2008:

Language. Powerful stuff. If you can control the language, define the terms, manipulate the paradigm of a thing – you exercise great power. [par·a·digm – A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.]

​

An Incorrect Paradigm


​

As this illustration demonstrates, having an incorrect paradigm can change the picture of a thing quite a lot! Is it any wonder that those in the Hebrew Roots Movement have claimed the area of language as their primary pillar of “expertise” as they purpose to lure Christians away from the canon of Scripture to a more “enlightened” way of reading/interpreting Scripture and discerning doctrine? It’s a seductive way to change a Christian’s paradigm, and ends up in a set of beliefs and practices that is not supported by Scripture. It turns Christianity as inside out as the above illustration turns the concept of the solar system inside out. The picture is recognizable, but is totally false and unworkable when measured by reality.

I’m no linguist, but I’m no dim bulb, either, and it’s been amazing, disturbing, and somewhat amusing to discover how those in the HRM have determined to re-define terms and doctrines as well as pseudo re-translate the New Testament.

I’ve written this before but it’s worth repeating here – One of the things that is really important to be aware of regarding this and other heretical movements is that they engage in the re-definition of terms. Once that is accomplished, those re-defined terms become fields in which seeds of questionable doctrine can be cultivated.

And it’s the perfect set up for the same thing cults do: Convince you that what you know isn’t true, or is “incomplete”, then come in with fresh revelation based on previously “hidden” information.At HRM websites and in HRM teaching materials a consistent technique is employed to bring the reader to where the writer wishes them to go, and I can’t stress this enough:
​

Faulty definitions, examples, analogies and reasonings are constructed, then those same faulty definitions, examples, analogies and reasonings are built upon as FACT to take the reader to the next doctrinal place the writer wishes the reader to go.​

I have seen the same technique over and over in articles and teachings on HRM websites and in discourse with those who hold to Law keeping doctrine from all points on the spectrum.
​

This is what we see over and over from BibleGuy and others here at CC who mix Law an for believers in Christ.

-JGIG

 

[Dino246]

Excellent points about redefinition... Thanks JGIG! I saw this with the Jehovah's Witnesses.