-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Please show where Christ used the phrase "spirit of the law," or where it is even found in the NT.
Likewise, please show where the phrase, "letter of the law" is found in the NT.
The letter is the law, they are not separate,
and the spirit is the Holy Spirit, not my spirit or heart attitude.
Now reconsider your understanding of what these mean.
No, but he would have called it the weak conscience (1Co 8:7, 9-11, 10:28-29)
of a weak brother (1Co 8:11), allowed it, and exhorted you to mature in the faith,
to go from milk to solid food, as we find in Heb 5:11-6:1.
That's assuming the issue is the weak conscience of a weak brother,
and not the will worship (Col 2:22-23) of one who prefers the old order over
God's prescribed new order (Heb 9:10), begging off as a weak conscience,
which then is disobedience to God's prescribed NT order.
Likewise, please show where the phrase, "letter of the law" is found in the NT.
The letter is the law, they are not separate,
and the spirit is the Holy Spirit, not my spirit or heart attitude.
Now reconsider your understanding of what these mean.
No, but he would have called it the weak conscience (1Co 8:7, 9-11, 10:28-29)
of a weak brother (1Co 8:11), allowed it, and exhorted you to mature in the faith,
to go from milk to solid food, as we find in Heb 5:11-6:1.
That's assuming the issue is the weak conscience of a weak brother,
and not the will worship (Col 2:22-23) of one who prefers the old order over
God's prescribed new order (Heb 9:10), begging off as a weak conscience,
which then is disobedience to God's prescribed NT order.
Last edited:
L
Don't you know you are my friendliest "enemy" here? 
You guys have been forcing me deep into the Scriptures because of this topic!
D
(Thus He declared all foods clean.) Is not in the greek and added I have posted the greek to you today.
also you continually twistMark 7 is about a pharisee hand washing ritual:Mark 7:1-9, "Then the Pharisees and certain scribes came together to Him, having come from Yerusalem. And when they saw some of His disciples eating bread with defiled- that is to say, unwashed--hands, they found fault. (Now the Pharisees, and the Yahdaim generally, never eat without washing their hands, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the marketplaces, they do not eat unless they wash. And many other traditions they observe, such as the ritual washing of cups, pots, bronze utensils, and beds.) Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him; Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands? He answered, and said to them: Well has Isayah prophesied of you hypocrites--as it is written: This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. For laying aside the Law of Yahweh, you hold the tradition of men! Then He said to them: How well you reject the Law of Yahweh, so that you may keep your own tradition!"
also you continually twistMark 7 is about a pharisee hand washing ritual:Mark 7:1-9, "Then the Pharisees and certain scribes came together to Him, having come from Yerusalem. And when they saw some of His disciples eating bread with defiled- that is to say, unwashed--hands, they found fault. (Now the Pharisees, and the Yahdaim generally, never eat without washing their hands, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the marketplaces, they do not eat unless they wash. And many other traditions they observe, such as the ritual washing of cups, pots, bronze utensils, and beds.) Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him; Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands? He answered, and said to them: Well has Isayah prophesied of you hypocrites--as it is written: This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. For laying aside the Law of Yahweh, you hold the tradition of men! Then He said to them: How well you reject the Law of Yahweh, so that you may keep your own tradition!"
Okay...but the book of Hebrews was written in Greek.
And nowhere in the Greek is the word "obedience" used in Heb. 4:2.
You can check it out at biblehub. Greek texts and analysis.
And nowhere in the Greek is the word "obedience" used in Heb. 4:2.
You can check it out at biblehub. Greek texts and analysis.
However, I would point out that "disobedience" and "unbelief" are the same Greek word, apeitheia,
and let you to connect the dots.
Okay, Messianic Jews and Judaizers are two very different things.
The Messianic Jew just adds Christ to his Judaism.
Note "Jew" is the noun, "Messianic" is just the adjective.
He is first of all a Jew. The NT is secondary.
The Judaizer is not first of all a Jew, as is the Messianic,
he just wants to keep some of the Mosaic law which has been replaced with Christ's law (1Co 9:21;
Mt 22:37-40) because he prefers it to God's new order of the NT (Heb 9:10).
The Messianic Jew just adds Christ to his Judaism.
Note "Jew" is the noun, "Messianic" is just the adjective.
He is first of all a Jew. The NT is secondary.
The Judaizer is not first of all a Jew, as is the Messianic,
he just wants to keep some of the Mosaic law which has been replaced with Christ's law (1Co 9:21;
Mt 22:37-40) because he prefers it to God's new order of the NT (Heb 9:10).
Last edited:
L
Not according to the NT.
The law did not enter because of transgression,
because where there is no law, there is no transgression (of the law)--(Ro 4:15),
and there was no law between Adam and Moses (Ro 5:14).
However, there was sin (Ro 5:12),
but if sin is transgression of the law (1Jn 3:4), and there was no law,
then what sin caused death to reign, which is the penalty for sin (Ro 6:23), between Adam and Moses (Ro 5:14)?
That is the riddle Paul solves in Ro 5:12-21.
And yep, God changed his ordinances in Ge 9:3; Lev 11 and Mk 7:19; Heb 9:10.
The law did not enter because of transgression,
because where there is no law, there is no transgression (of the law)--(Ro 4:15),
and there was no law between Adam and Moses (Ro 5:14).
However, there was sin (Ro 5:12),
but if sin is transgression of the law (1Jn 3:4), and there was no law,
then what sin caused death to reign, which is the penalty for sin (Ro 6:23), between Adam and Moses (Ro 5:14)?
That is the riddle Paul solves in Ro 5:12-21.
And yep, God changed his ordinances in Ge 9:3; Lev 11 and Mk 7:19; Heb 9:10.
Last edited:
Firstly Abraham’s time was not Moses’ time … they were both under different contracts/covenants. Secondly the contention was about “cheating”. What Abraham and his wife did (she was also involved in this arrangement) was not the best solution but it did not involve Abraham “cheating” on her, which is very offensive to God’s family to say such a thing.
Regarding law that says “a man can only have a certain number of wives.”
It is difficult for people to differentiate between God’s law, which is spirit (His unlimited nature) and His contracts/covenants. And I have to keep repeating myself because all the old covenant breakers keep repeating themselves. Let us use this interesting example you just gave to show the difference between God’s law (His nature) and His contracts, which may help show why people need to relate to God in spirit and not by letter
The old national contract (that was designed by God for the sovereign physical nation of Israel and not for individuals enslaved under gentile nations like everyone is here on this discussion board) did not have a clause, to the best of my knowledge, stipulating the number of wives a man could have.
You say there was no “law’ that says a man can only have a certain amount of wives. But if you understand that the “law’ is God’s nature you would not be saying that. Because then you would be saying that it is in God’s nature for men to have more than one wife. If you really knew God’s nature (law), in other words, if you really new anything about God in the spirit then you would know that God does not agree with man having more than one wife. But that does not mean that He will not allow it through contract/covenant. But it is not according to His law, His nature that is spirit. What should be said is that there is no written clause in the national contract/covenant with Israel that restricted the number of wives a man could have. And there was also no requirement in the non-written agreement/covenant that God made with Abraham to limit the number of wives he could have. But that does not mean that those contracts fulfill God’s nature (law).
You see if Abram (who was not perfect and learning about God’s law/nature) would have ignored what was permissible through his agreement/contract/covenant with God and instead yielded to the nature of God, the law of God which is spirit, he would not have agreed with His wife, he would have yielded to the nature of God and he would have saved himself a lot of trouble. But God knows the weakness of man, which is why He designs contracts through which imperfect men (in the case of Israel an entire nation) can come to terms with His nature (law).
Now since Christ, the children of God have a new contract that is spirit. It is not attached to the old written national contract or the butchered make-believe varied contracts thrown together by the old covenant breakers here on the board. This contract works with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that transforms the child into God’s nature. This enables the child of God to fulfill the law of God by taking on His nature. The child of God does not need a clause reducing or expanding the number of wives he can have, the child of God knows God’s nature by the Holy Spirit and knows that one wife may be too much to handle in this most evil age and may prefer to be as Paul was.
Regarding law that says “a man can only have a certain number of wives.”
It is difficult for people to differentiate between God’s law, which is spirit (His unlimited nature) and His contracts/covenants. And I have to keep repeating myself because all the old covenant breakers keep repeating themselves. Let us use this interesting example you just gave to show the difference between God’s law (His nature) and His contracts, which may help show why people need to relate to God in spirit and not by letter
The old national contract (that was designed by God for the sovereign physical nation of Israel and not for individuals enslaved under gentile nations like everyone is here on this discussion board) did not have a clause, to the best of my knowledge, stipulating the number of wives a man could have.
You say there was no “law’ that says a man can only have a certain amount of wives. But if you understand that the “law’ is God’s nature you would not be saying that. Because then you would be saying that it is in God’s nature for men to have more than one wife. If you really knew God’s nature (law), in other words, if you really new anything about God in the spirit then you would know that God does not agree with man having more than one wife. But that does not mean that He will not allow it through contract/covenant. But it is not according to His law, His nature that is spirit. What should be said is that there is no written clause in the national contract/covenant with Israel that restricted the number of wives a man could have. And there was also no requirement in the non-written agreement/covenant that God made with Abraham to limit the number of wives he could have. But that does not mean that those contracts fulfill God’s nature (law).
You see if Abram (who was not perfect and learning about God’s law/nature) would have ignored what was permissible through his agreement/contract/covenant with God and instead yielded to the nature of God, the law of God which is spirit, he would not have agreed with His wife, he would have yielded to the nature of God and he would have saved himself a lot of trouble. But God knows the weakness of man, which is why He designs contracts through which imperfect men (in the case of Israel an entire nation) can come to terms with His nature (law).
Now since Christ, the children of God have a new contract that is spirit. It is not attached to the old written national contract or the butchered make-believe varied contracts thrown together by the old covenant breakers here on the board. This contract works with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that transforms the child into God’s nature. This enables the child of God to fulfill the law of God by taking on His nature. The child of God does not need a clause reducing or expanding the number of wives he can have, the child of God knows God’s nature by the Holy Spirit and knows that one wife may be too much to handle in this most evil age and may prefer to be as Paul was.
Don't need a quote for clean animals being for sacrifice before the flood.
It's pretty clear.
They weren't food because meat was not food at that time.
Therefore, they would be for sacrifice.
It's not for us to decide why God called some animals clean, and others unclean in the sacrificial regulations.
But I suspect it had something to do with foreshadowing Christ, as did the sacrifices.
It's pretty clear.
They weren't food because meat was not food at that time.
Therefore, they would be for sacrifice.
It's not for us to decide why God called some animals clean, and others unclean in the sacrificial regulations.
But I suspect it had something to do with foreshadowing Christ, as did the sacrifices.
Last edited:
o.k. again we agree to disagree in the food issue, however, you say the new law 2 (NT) is Love God and love fellow man... I just gotta say here I'm not feeling the love.
I love your passion to prove a point and believe it or not I love you as a sister in Christ. We are not all on the same level of learning and understanding and I am so thankful that God is our judge.
I love your passion to prove a point and believe it or not I love you as a sister in Christ. We are not all on the same level of learning and understanding and I am so thankful that God is our judge.
Your historicity may be limping a little.
There was no agreement in the earliest centuries regarding its authorship.
And its writing style is remarkably different from Paul's.
You can't read Romans and Hebrews and not come to that conclusion.
I vote for Apollos (Ac 18:24-28), associated with Paul in the early years of the church in Corinth (1Co 1:12, 3:4-6, 22).
There was no agreement in the earliest centuries regarding its authorship.
And its writing style is remarkably different from Paul's.
You can't read Romans and Hebrews and not come to that conclusion.
I vote for Apollos (Ac 18:24-28), associated with Paul in the early years of the church in Corinth (1Co 1:12, 3:4-6, 22).
