Jesus Came To Fulfill Not To Destroy

[BroTan]

@BroTan,

Are you going to give an answer?

You have to have both, Faith and works. Jesus say in John 14: 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Let's go into (James 2: (v.14) What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? (v.15) If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of a daily food, (v.16) And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? If someone came to you hungry and needed clothes and all you told them was peace be unto you, and God bless you, be ye warmed and filled. All you did was give lip service, no works, you didn’t help the problem.

(v.17) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. The bible has been telling you all alone that you must have fruits to prove your faith. (v.18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. True faith goes hand in hand with good works. (v.20) But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Did you know that? Has anybody ever read this verse to you? How can you, after reading this verse ever say again that we need not work? You can have all the faith you want, but if you have no works to go along with that faith, that faith is in vain, that faith is dead.

So if you claim to have faith in Jesus and no works, then your faith is in vain. You have to keep the Commandments that the Lord gave to Moses in Exodus 20: 1-17

 

[justbyfaith]

How do we obtain the love of God?

By doing good works?

Or, by faith in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:14, Romans 5:5)?

Do we not do good works as the result of having received the love of God?

But you cannot obtain the love of God or be regenerated and renewed in the Holy Ghost by any kind of works (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:5-6, Titus 3:5, Romans 11:5-6).

If I give $5 to the poor, or even $5,000,000, that is not going to obtain the love of God for me.

The only thing that is going to do that is if I receive the Holy Spirit through faith (Galatians 3:14) and the love of the Lord through the Holy Ghost (Romans 5:5).

This simply does not come about by works; for God will not owe any thing to any man (see Romans 4:4).

Works are the result of having received the love of the Lord in your heart; they have no power to obtain that love (Galatians 3:21). If any law had the power to impart life, surely righteousness should have been by the law.

 

[BroTan]

How do we obtain the love of God?

By doing good works?

Or, by faith in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:14, Romans 5:5)?

Do we not do good works as the result of having received the love of God?

But you cannot obtain the love of God or be regenerated and renewed in the Holy Ghost by any kind of works (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:5-6, Titus 3:5, Romans 11:5-6).

If I give $5 to the poor, or even $5,000,000, that is not going to obtain the love of God for me.

The only thing that is going to do that is if I receive the Holy Spirit through faith (Galatians 3:14) and the love of the Lord through the Holy Ghost (Romans 5:5).

This simply does not come about by works; for God will not owe any thing to any man (see Romans 4:4).

Works are the result of having received the love of the Lord in your heart; they have no power to obtain that love (Galatians 3:21). If any law had the power to impart life, surely righteousness should have been by the law.

Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: (I Timothy 1:5)
What does he mean the end of the commandment is charity? What is charity? It means love fore mankind correct? Now take a look at these verses in the Book of Romans.

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:8-10)

Take heed to what Paul says, "love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love (which is charity) is the fulfilling of the law. Paul says, "If you LOVE your neighbor you will not, commit adultery, kill, steal, bear false witness nor covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Once again Paul is quoting from the books Moses! As a matter of fact Paul was quoting the Lord God, remember the Lord gave the Laws to Moses.

Take a look. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. (Exodus 20: 8-10, 13-17)

What do we see here? We see Paul is inline with the rest of the Bible. He is not trying to do away with the Lords commandments. It is the false prophets that do not read the entire book from Genesis to Revelation! They are trying to do away with the Lord's laws. Paul was well aware that the law was to be kept. This include the Sabbath day on the seventh day of the week!

Let's end this with James 1: 23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: 24 for he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. 25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

 

[justbyfaith]

Now you can try to earn your salvation by obeying a set of do's and don'ts; or you can receive salvation through faith in Jesus Christ;

In which case He will be certain to shed abroad His love in your heart; and you would then be obedient to the commandments because love is the fulfilling of the law.

But your outward obedience to a set of do's and don'ts does not mean that you have the love of the Lord in your heart. It only means that you have the outward facsimile thereof.

If you do not have the love of the Lord in your heart, you are not saved; even if all of your outward behaviour testifies to having the love of the Lord in your heart.

This is what God says to the one who is seeking to be justified by works, law-keeping, or personal merits.

Isa 57:12, I will declare thy righteousness, and thy works; for they shall not profit thee.

1Co 4:5, Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

While every man shall have praise from God, not every man will enter in to the kingdom.

 

[justbyfaith]

https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/our-new-relationship-to-the-law.201671/

 

[BroTan]

Paul obviously went through a process of reasoning whereby he came to a different conclusion by the time he got to Romans 3:28.

Rom 3:28, Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 3: 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Paul is talking about the animal sacrificial law which was the deed of the law. Until Jesus came that was the process for the people. But now there's no more animal sacrificial law, only coming under the blood of Jesus which is your faith.

Let's keep down...Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20)

Once again, we have both laws within this verse. Notice the first part of the verse, "by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight." What law is this? It is the sacrificial law. Why? Remember in Hebrews the 10th chapter verse 4 it states, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." So, by the deeds of the sacrificial law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.

Now, look at the second part of the verse, "for by the law is the knowledge of sin." What law is this? The commandments. Why? Sin is the transgression of the law (1John 3:4), and if there is no law how would any of us have knowledge of sin. Let's take a look at the next verse.

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; (Romans 3:21)

Notice what Paul says, "The righteousness of God without the law is manifested." What law is this? It is the sacrificial law. Why? And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Colossians 2:13-14).

Paul and all the rest of the Prophets and Apostles are on the same page and are teaching us to keep the law. If we are not familiar with the entire bible, we will make the same mistake as these false preachers that think there was only one law given to Moses. Look at the last part of the verse, "being witnessed by the law and the prophets." If we read the law and the prophets, once we get to the New Testament we know that Jesus was manifested to take away a law that was contrary to us, that could never take away sin. He became our final sacrifice nailing the blood ordinances to His cross. Let's go into Romans chapter 7 and look at a verse these so call preachers skip over every time.

Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. (Romans 7:12)

 

[BroTan]

Now you can try to earn your salvation by obeying a set of do's and don'ts; or you can receive salvation through faith in Jesus Christ;

In which case He will be certain to shed abroad His love in your heart; and you would then be obedient to the commandments because love is the fulfilling of the law.

But your outward obedience to a set of do's and don'ts does not mean that you have the love of the Lord in your heart. It only means that you have the outward facsimile thereof.

If you do not have the love of the Lord in your heart, you are not saved; even if all of your outward behaviour testifies to having the love of the Lord in your heart.

This is what God says to the one who is seeking to be justified by works, law-keeping, or personal merits.

Isa 57:12, I will declare thy righteousness, and thy works; for they shall not profit thee.

1Co 4:5, Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

While every man shall have praise from God, not every man will enter in to the kingdom.

You are putting forth the wrong precept, you are not righty diving the word of truth. Let's go to the future in Isaiah 56:
1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. 3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

So this is the future at the second coming of Jesus and the Sabbath will still be kept as today, not Sunday which is not written in the word of God at all to do. For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. (Hebrews 10:26-27) Note what Paul says, "If we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." Remember in Leviticus how the scripture mentions sinning in ignorance, but when the sin came to the person’s knowledge they offered up a clean animal without blemish. Now that the Seed (Jesus) has come there is no more sacrifice for sin.

 

[Phoneman-777]

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it."

I think we should breakdown what Paul says here:

"The handwriting of ordinances that was against us"​

Paul clarifies the "ordinances" he's referring to a few lines later in the letter...


Colossians 2:20-22
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;

22 Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

"Why...are ye subject to ordinances...after the commandments and doctrine of men?"​

Paul defines the ordinances as the traditions of the Pharisees that they added to God's law to make them APPEAR holier and more set apart from others. These were called the "takanot" & "ma'asim" of the Rabbis (becoming the basis of modern-day Judaism).

This is why Paul says they "indeed have a show (i.e. the appearance) of wisdom, good worship, humility" etc, but they don't do anything but satisfy the flesh. Thus Paul is ABSOLUTELY NOT speaking about The Almighty's Commandments. The flesh hates God's law, and so obedience to God's law would never "satisfy the flesh" unlike he says these man-made ordinances did.

"which was contrary to us"​

These ordinances are not in the Almighty's law but are traditions men came up with (based on His law) that "puff up" the message (like leaven) and placed a heavier burden on the people as opposed to Messiah's "easy" yoke. The following are not written in The Almighty's law:


Matt 9:10-12 - Pharisee tradition: to sit separately from sinners and tax collectors...to not even be touched by them.

Matt 12:1-8 - Pharisee tradition: even so much as plucking grain with the hand to eat it was breaking Sabbath.

Matt 12:10; John 9:13-16 - Pharisee tradition: no healings on Sabbath. No making mud on Sabbath.

John 5:10 - Pharisee tradition: even so much as carrying a (bamboo-type) matt was breaking Sabbath.

Matt 15:1; Mark 7:1-4; John 1:6 - Pharisee tradition: must wash hands (and dishware in ritual washing) before eating food, else it makes even clean food being eaten unclean.

Matt 15:4-6 - Pharisee tradition: that it's not "dishonoring parents" to refuse to help them financially if that potential aid is "devoted to God" (i.e. given to the Pharisees).

Matt 23:16 - Pharisee tradition: Oaths sworn by the temple and/or altar aren't valid, but oaths sworn by temple gold and/or altar gifts are binding.


Matthew 23:4-7; 28
They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

28...on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

"And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it"​

Almost every miracle that the Messiah performed openly and defiantly contradicted a man-made Pharisaic tradition that nullified the Almighty's Law.

- Breaking bread with "unclean" people
- Using "sacred" water pots for cleansing for wine
- Making mud with spital to heal a blind man
- Telling a man to take up his mat and walk
- Plucking Grain and eating it
- Telling the people not to do as the Pharisees do because they are hypocrites
- Teaching parables that directly implicated and embarrassed the Pharisees
- Passing every "test" and scriptural "trap" they thought of, stumping them


-----

This is what Paul is referring to in Colossians 2; the religious traditions that made the Law of none effect, which is why Paul concludes his point in the next passage:


Colossians 3:1-6
Therefore, since you have been raised with Christ, strive for the things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.

5 Put to death, therefore, the components of your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience


Being raised with Christ, we are put to death sinful flesh which leads to disobedience. We are to obey.

When it comes to what exactly was "nailed to the Cross" in Colossians 2:14-16 KJV, we hear different things:

1. Everything except the Two Great commandments
2. Only the Mosaic Law
3. Only the Mishna and Talmud (bogus "ex cathedra" oral tradition)

If only people would compare Colossians 2:14-16 KJV to Deuteronomy 31:24-26 KJV, the indisputable answer would emerge:

31:24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing (the handwriting of Moses, not the finger-writing of God) the words of this law ("this law" demands there also be a "that law", namely the Mosaic Law and the Moral Law) in a book (Moses wrote by his hand in a scroll - God wrote by His finger on stone) until they were finished,​

31:25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,​

31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark (the Ten Commandments on stone were inside the Ark, while the Law of Moses in a book was placed outside) of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness AGAINST thee (the Mosaic Law outlined penalties and judgments "against" those who violate the things written therein, while the Ten Commandments were "for" the people, containing promise and blessing).​

​

Jesus made clear the Mishna was illegit from the get go. But, honest scholars recognize that the "handwriting of ordinances" (Col. 2:14-16 KJV) and the companion text "...even the law of commandments contained in ordinances" (Eph. 2:15 KJV) in Paul's writings both refer to a "bill of debt" which is found in the Mosaic Law, not the Ten Commandments. The average unlearned, propagandized "Christian scholar" is ignorant of or ignores this distinction and thus nails the Ten Commandments to the Cross along with the Mosaic Law, forgetting that we can't nail stone to anything and what God wrote "stands fast forever and ever".

 

[Phoneman-777]

I see that the OT "place the Book of the Law beside the ark" reference is Deuteronomy 31:26. That book of the law would have included the Mosaic ten commandments. I assume we fundamentally have a disagreement about the best approach for interpreting Col 2:14. What counts as the "handwriting of ordinances that was against us"? One interpretation is that this is talking about the letter of the law as it was passed down. The spirit of the law (the law unto righteousness) would then still remain but the written ordinances (inclusive of the Book of Law) would be covered by Christ. From what I can gather from your position, you are identifying different passages or instructions in the OT that somehow fall outside of the scope of the "handwriting of ordinances". I don't understand the scheme you are using in order to make that identification possible. It would be helpful if you made that aspect of your argument clear.

Now we're getting into some heavy hermeneutics. This is a bit long, so sorry in advance: "Handwriting of ordinances" and "law of commandments contained in ordinances" both refer to the concept known as "bills of debt", which is MOSAIC, NOT MORAL. This is, among several other of articles of reason, proof of the Biblical distinction between the Mosaic Law and the Ten Commandments, which distinction should be easily seen by any Christian willing to be honest: Abraham's seed, of which Christians are according to Galatians 3:29 KJV), are no longer obligated to get circumcised, sacrifice lambs, keep Passover, etc., but it will for all eternity be sin to worship another god, steal, lie, etc. No one has a problem with this until we bring up the Sabbath, which they know full well will be kept for all eternity but for some reason think they can weasel out of keeping it now by virtue of some of the most unBiblical, crafty, legalistic reasoning that would make even the most crooked lawyer grin ear to ear with admiration.

Yes. If you find someone that esteems a bug crawling across a plate to be clean to eat, he is good to go in accordance with scripture. If anyone is unnerved by eating a bucket of crickets, it is unclean to them. But since Jesus can turn a rock into bread, anything can be fit to eat (but your conscience and faith will lead you to understand whether it is or isn't). There are some exceptions we see in the NT, but a bucket of crawling crickets can be clean to eat, yes. I suspect that most people would inherently not esteem human flesh, blood, and maggots to be fit for consumption. The opposite can be true too. Something might esteem milk to be unfit for consumption because they are lactose intolerant and it would therefore be unfit for them (and sinful for them to consume if they doubted the cleanliness of milk for them).

You're trying to have it both ways: you can't retain "every creature of God is good" but reject "nothing to be refused" because if you refuse a plate of maggots covered in E-coli sauce, you are violating Romans 14:14 KJV, if "every creature" includes every creature. But, thankfully, you don't have to worry, because what we are to consume is "sanctified by the word of God" in Leviticus, and pork and shellfish ain't on the menu.

What is rest? What is labour?

"...as God did from His (labor)". What kind of rest did God take? Literal rest, and according to Hebrews 4:9-10 KJV, those resting spiritually in Jesus inwardly will rest literally and outwardly.

E.g. At what point did you make the determination that the Katrina event went from emergency to routine? And if we have a circumstance like the current SARS-2 state of emergency declared by the state, is it the state's declaration that makes it an emergency or something else?

Biblical principle and Holy Spirit conviction tells me restoring communications for first responders, telehealth, caregivers, etc., is emergency - however, new service for residential or business profit/leisure is routine. My refusal to perform such work on the Sabbath is what ultimately led to my termination.

1) Isaiah 66:15-17 is not necessarily about literal swineflesh. 2) Isaiah 66:15-17 is not necessarily a condemnation of all partakers of pork
3) Isaiah 66:15-17 necessarily does not describe sanctification of food through Christ

Although that is exactly what the text says, right?

If the reason you feel your position on Isaiah 66:15-17 is compelling is due to another argument, you need to first establish that other argument as either necessarily true or compelling.

No, friend, while there are other arguments to support the NT distinction between cleain and unclean meat, the burden is upon YOU to show why the plain words of Isaiah are to be interpreted to mean the exact OPPOSITE of what they are, as you claim.

I can show you how points 1)-3) are supported by other scripture. You should be able to do the same in order to counter those points, if you have a valid counter (which there aren't). Yes. It is entirely possible that fire is a metaphor for an extremely unpleasant sensation that is not necessarily literal sustained chemical combustion.

Sorry, but you can't show that at all. You've tried to show that "unclean of itself" in Romans 14:14 proves we can now eat anything that crawls across our plate, but I shot that down by showing you Paul's original Greek should be rendered "common of itself". If you try to prove this from Acts 10, I'm prepared to shoot that down, as well.

This is branching into a different topic, but the RCC concept is that: 1) There are saved individuals (referenced as sheep and wheat in some cases) 2) There are unsaved individuals (referenced as goats and tares in some cases)
3) A person at their time of death is either saved or unsaved 4) A saved individual requires or is destined to experience purification 5) Purgatory is a purification process 6) The weight of one's sins determines the extent of a person that must be purified 7) The purification process is temporal, therefore more required purification (more sin) translates to a longer stay in purgatory 8) More time doing good works necessarily means less time doing sinful works ("idle hands are the devil's play things") 9) Conclusion: Therefore, doing good works equates to less time in Purgatory. I don't represent the RCC, but the concept is consistent with scripture.

Let's be clear: there's nothing about the RCC that is consistent with Scripture, except that Scripture identifies the papacy (the union of the RCC and the State) as the end time Antichrist kingdom.

Your statement "Isaiah 66:15-17 supports the view that pork is forever bad" is not necessarily true. Your statement "Pork was never made clean through Christ" is not necessarily true. Nothing has ever been unclean in itself. Uncleanliness has always been a relationship between the person and object. Even in OT scripture it states "don't eat this because it is unclean to you", and in the NT we see that anything can be sanctified (made clean for a person) by God.

I keep showing you "unclean of itself" is not the proper rendering of Romans 14:14, and yet you continue to ignore solid exegesis in order to remain contrary. Why?

The equivalent of your argument is essentially the proposition: "It is impossible for God to make pork clean for his children" which I reject on the basis that God is omnipotent and it is not outside of His options to do.

No it isn't. God's choice not to act in no way limits His limitless ability to act.

"Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”" - 1 Corinthians 10:25-26 NIV
There is no explicit exception in Corinthians 10:25 for pork. You could add one, but it isn't a necessary addition.

No, Isaiah's Messianic Second Coming prophecy which is well into the future of 1st century Paul sure does, so why do you continue to reject it? Paul says the things written aforetime pertain to us down here at the end of time, which include Isaiah's Messianic writings.

"And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man." - Mark 7:18-20 KJV This is another passage that is often brought to the forefront as evidence that all meats are clean. You could add a context about ceremonial cleansing of meats, but it isn't a necessary addition. The word for purging in this section is "katharizōn" which means to purify or make clean.

Wrong again. Jesus and Paul did not once attempt to lift the prohibition against eating unclean food and Peter himself, who ate at Jesus' side 3 1/2 years, protested against the idea before Almighty God while in vision. Let's be spiritually mature, OK? Jesus was clarifying the issue of "spiritual cleanliness/uncleanliness", which the Jewish leaders claim depended on ritualistic washing, while Jesus correctly stated was dependent on faith in Him alone.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Luke 23:43. It might have been a difference in grammar of the day of King James versus modern grammar. But it's entirely possible to have transcription errors and the like between editions. I don't necessarily see KJV as absolutely correct in all regards. The "kill" vs "murder" translation choice is one KJV example that deserves attention and criticism. I'm not a KJV purist (KJV is just my usual go-to).

Thanks, I know it's Luke, but I must've been distracted and wrote John. Regarding the comma, we've got to remember the people who generated Biblical punctuation had been brainwashed by over 1,000 years of Papal dogma, so it's understandable that they saw an opportunity to substantiate the false idea "innate immortality" by placing the comma before "today", when the evidence is overwhelming to the contrary. I prefer the KJV as well, believing the Textus Receptus is the best Greek NT composite of all Byzantian MSS.

I believe you are trying to make the case that unclean and common are two different things. But that still brings us back to Acts 10.

Not necessary to make a case for that which is already established Biblically: clean means clean, unclean means unclean, and "common" was the false idea that a clean thing could be made unclean by means of "spiritual" contamination.

"But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." - Acts 10:14-15 KJV

The word for "cleansed" here is antonymous to "unclean". The voice is functionally saying to not call something common because its unclean nature has been removed. You could add a context that this isn't saying that God can or will clean everything, but it isn't a necessary addition. [/QUOTE] The issue in Acts 10 isn't about whether a cleansing took place, but what exactly was cleansed. The moment God directed his chef's knife to unclean animals and was told a cleansing has taken place, Peter instantly knew that cleansing had nothing to do with unclean animals, and is why he returned from vision confused about what the symbolism meant...but later confidently proclaimed of it, "God hath shown me not to call any man common or unclean".

I'm not terrible familiar with this kind of thing. I try to sample from a wide range of editions when I look at things. I would gladly look at arguments based on the differences between translations.

My friend, the history of the Bible is perhaps the most gripping story to unfold since Jesus went on to become our High Priest. Paul himself said there were those in his day who "corrupt the word of God". Early church fathers like Origen and Eusibius were notorious for attacking the divinity of Jesus and/or the necessity of blood atonement. Suffice it to say, the Roman Catholic church is at the center of the corruption, with its centuries-long suppression of the Bible, followed by Vatican II's endorsement of it (after the advent of the corrupt "Critical Text", the rival of the Textus Receptus). A word from the 19th century Jesuits:

"Then the Bible, that serpent which, with head erect and eyes flashing, threatens us with its venom while it trails along the ground, SHALL BE CHANGED into a rod AS SOON AS WE ARE ABLE TO SEIZE IT... for three centuries past this cruel asp has left us no repose. You well know with what folds it entwines us and with what fangs it gnaws us." (The Jesuits in History, Hector Macpherson, Ozark Book Publishers, 1997, Appendix 1). [emphases added]​

The Rabbinic Order, the Roman Catholic Papacy, and the Greek Catholic Patriarchy each claim to represent the priesthood in some capacity. The Rabbinic Order flat out states that Christ has no place with them, which the Papacy and Patriarchy each claim to be earthy representatives of Christ (a middle man instead of a replacement). The Rabbinic Order is inherently antiChrist, but the Papacy and Patriarchy aren't inherently antiChrist. The Papacy or Patriarchy may be circumstantially antiChrist (if an antiChrist decree where declared, etc). I don't know enough about the history and structure of the Catholic decrees to give a hard assessment as to whether they would fit into that category (but I imagine that they diligently ensure it doesn't fit into that category).

There is some truth to all of this: all these institutions sought/seek to dethrone Christ and take His place as Redeemer, Mediator, Savior, etc., and thus could be called "Anti-Christ", but the prophecies primarily point to one specific religio-political kingdom, which according to the Daniel/Revelation prophetic timeline and eschatological prophetic symbolism, can refer to only one institution to ever grace the topside of the Earth: the papacy. It should be no wonder that the roots of both Jesuit "Left Behind" Futurism and Jesuit Preterism can be traced all the way back to the Vatican; ideas which surfaced only after the Protestant Reformation's preaching of Protestant Historicism, the twin pillars of which were "salvation by grace through faith alone" and "the Papacy is the Antichrist of end times prophecy".

 

[BroTan]

When it comes to what exactly was "nailed to the Cross" in Colossians 2:14-16 KJV, we hear different things:

1. Everything except the Two Great commandments
2. Only the Mosaic Law
3. Only the Mishna and Talmud (bogus "ex cathedra" oral tradition)

If only people would compare Colossians 2:14-16 KJV to Deuteronomy 31:24-26 KJV, the indisputable answer would emerge:

31:24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing (the handwriting of Moses, not the finger-writing of God) the words of this law ("this law" demands there also be a "that law", namely the Mosaic Law and the Moral Law) in a book (Moses wrote by his hand in a scroll - God wrote by His finger on stone) until they were finished,​

31:25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,​

31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark (the Ten Commandments on stone were inside the Ark, while the Law of Moses in a book was placed outside) of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness AGAINST thee (the Mosaic Law outlined penalties and judgments "against" those who violate the things written therein, while the Ten Commandments were "for" the people, containing promise and blessing).​

​

Jesus made clear the Mishna was illegit from the get go. But, honest scholars recognize that the "handwriting of ordinances" (Col. 2:14-16 KJV) and the companion text "...even the law of commandments contained in ordinances" (Eph. 2:15 KJV) in Paul's writings both refer to a "bill of debt" which is found in the Mosaic Law, not the Ten Commandments. The average unlearned, propagandized "Christian scholar" is ignorant of or ignores this distinction and thus nails the Ten Commandments to the Cross along with the Mosaic Law, forgetting that we can't nail stone to anything and what God wrote "stands fast forever and ever".

That right and that's why Jesus say in Matthew 13: 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith,
By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, And their ears are dull of hearing, And their eyes they have closed; Lest at any time they should see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And should understand with their heart, And should be converted, and I should heal them. 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear

 

[Duckybill]

Because it is a schoolmaster to lead men to Christ (Galatians 3:24); and I want men to come to Christ.

So you admit that you preach the Law of Moses but don't obey it.

 

[justbyfaith]

So you admit that you preach the Law of Moses but don't obey it.

Inasmuch as I walk according to the Spirit rather than the flesh, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in me (Romans 8:4).

 

[Duckybill]

Inasmuch as I walk according to the Spirit rather than the flesh, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in me (Romans 8:4).

IOW, you don't obey the Law.

 

[justbyfaith]

IOW, you don't obey the Law.

If that is what you think I said, you would be wrong.

The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in me inasmuch as I walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit (Romans 8:4).

Now, what do you think that means?

Do you think that it is not possible to walk consistently according to the Spirit rather than the flesh for an extended period of time?

We are not obligated to obey the flesh (Romans 8:12 (kjv, NLT)).

 

[Duckybill]

If that is what you think I said, you would be wrong.

The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in me inasmuch as I walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit (Romans 8:4).

Now, what do you think that means?

Do you think that it is not possible to walk consistently according to the Spirit rather than the flesh for an extended period of time?

We are not obligated to obey the flesh (Romans 8:12 (kjv, NLT)).

No Christian has ever been under the Law!

 

[justbyfaith]

No Christian has ever been under the Law!

Being under the law, and obeying it, are two different things.

One can obey the law while not being under it (Romans 6:14, 1 John 3:4).

 

[BroTan]

So you admit that you preach the Law of Moses but don't obey it.

Look like you caught someone with they foot in their mouth.

 

[justbyfaith]

Look like you caught someone with they foot in their mouth.

Don't be ridiculous.

Inasmuch as I walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in me (Romans 8:4).

And I am certainly not obligated to obey the flesh (Romans 8:12 (kjv, NLT)); and therefore I can walk consistently according to the Spirit rather than the flesh for an extended period of time; even for the rest of my life (Luke 1:74-75).

 

[justbyfaith]

It should also be clear, that no one can keep the letter of the law (Galatians 6:13); but that we have been delivered from the letter of the law and have been set free to be obedient according to the spirit of what is written (Romans 7:6).