-
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.
M
Heb 1:1 ¶ God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his Power.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
"the express Image of His Person"
No man knows God except through the Person Of the Lord Jesus Christ!
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his Power.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
"the express Image of His Person"
No man knows God except through the Person Of the Lord Jesus Christ!
Last edited by a moderator:
I in no way mean to offend, but what is a persons bottom line? Is it the bible? Paul speaks of ''disputable matters'' in Rom ch 14
He mentions one man considers one day more sacred than another, another man considers every day alike. He twice them states, he believes all food is clean. But he finishes by saying, whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. That would say to me those particular things are up to the individuals conviction, and are therefore not laws written on the heart and mind.
I agree. we are in the flesh, but if the law is placed in our most inward parts, there is nowhere to hide from conscience when you fail to keep it.
He mentions one man considers one day more sacred than another, another man considers every day alike. He twice them states, he believes all food is clean. But he finishes by saying, whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. That would say to me those particular things are up to the individuals conviction, and are therefore not laws written on the heart and mind.
I agree. we are in the flesh, but if the law is placed in our most inward parts, there is nowhere to hide from conscience when you fail to keep it.
The name God gave Jacob, Israel, means contender with God. The obvious double take is:
1) Contender in God's Behalf 2) Contender against God
From the time of the Exodus to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. most of Israel has chosen the second option.
To see God's response, one must look to: Hos 2:19-20, Jer 31:31-34, Zec 12:10-13:2
Herein is Grace (God's unmerited favor)
Israel has much to be criticized for; but the Shield of Abraham is not among them!
As indicated in my citation from JFB, a star is a figurative representation of God.
The message on the Israeli flag is:
God is the Shield of Abraham and the Shield of David.
1) Contender in God's Behalf 2) Contender against God
From the time of the Exodus to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. most of Israel has chosen the second option.
To see God's response, one must look to: Hos 2:19-20, Jer 31:31-34, Zec 12:10-13:2
Herein is Grace (God's unmerited favor)
Israel has much to be criticized for; but the Shield of Abraham is not among them!
As indicated in my citation from JFB, a star is a figurative representation of God.
The message on the Israeli flag is:
God is the Shield of Abraham and the Shield of David.
Last edited:
☝t<><
I agree with you totally!
HIS GRACE IS FROM BEFORE THE BEGINNING.
NOTICE, this verse is talking about those who go into 1000 year Kingdom of Jesus Christ, and those who do NOT:
Revelation 13:8 (HCSB)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] All those who live on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name was not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slaughtered.
NOTICE how the ISV words it:
Revelation 13:8 (ISV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] All those living on earth will worship it, everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life belonging to the lamb that was slaughtered from the foundation of the world.
CLEARLY those who ARE SAVED had their names written in the Book of Life before the Earth was formed.
So where does that leave FREE WILL TO CHOOSE whom you will serve?
Some say the all knowing GOD foreknew those who would choose to serve HIM. That is a reasonable explanation, but NOT the best explanation. I will show you one that you may NEVER have thought of before:
[qoute]OMNIPRESENCEBeing present everywhere at once; one of God’s unique attributes. One of the characteristics of created objects is that they are limited by space. An object or person can occupy only one place at a time. Because God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1) and through His Son continually sustains all that is (Heb. 1:3), He is present to the whole of creation and to its parts. King David realized that there was nowhere he could go to escape God’s presence (Ps. 139:7-12), and no conditions such as darkness could hide him from God. Even though God is present everywhere, He is not perceived everywhere. He can be fully present and yet hidden from the eyes of creatures, or He can make His presence felt either in blessing or judgment. See God.
Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary.[/quote]
That is a typical explanation of the Omnipresence of GOD. However, I am going to show you what the Holy Spirit revealed to me back in the late 80s when I was meditating about the Omnipresence of GOD.
First of all, do you understand that GOD is always Omnipresent?
The answer is YES, because He is Eternal and being Omnipresent is part of HIS DIVINE NATURE.
Hold on to your hat, I am going to vastly expand your understanding of just How BIG and POWERFUL our ETERNAL GOD REALLY IS:
Exodus 3:13-14 (HCSB)
[SUP]13 [/SUP] Then Moses asked God, “If I go to the Israelites and say to them: The God of your fathers has sent me to you, and they ask me, ‘What is His name?’ what should I tell them?”
[SUP]14 [/SUP] God replied to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you.”
NOTICE: He did not say, "I WAS, I AM, and I WILL BE". That is because HIS OMNIPRESENCE not only spans every cubic inch of everything that exists, but ALSO every second of TIME as we know it, all at the same time. HE TRULY IS THEE "I AM".
HE declares the End from the Beginning because HE is OMPRESENT in all TIME at the same time.
HE is not a created being traveling through time as we know it,
HE IS THE CREATOR of time as we know it.
HE writes the names of the SAVED in the Book of Life of the Lamb before the foundation of the world, because HE IS OMNIPRESENT at every CONVERSION when they CHOOSE whom they will serve.
NOW, hopefully you will forever more have great difficulty trying to stuff GOD back in the BOX we call TIME. We can just just sit in AWE of Mighty Omnipresent GOD we serve.
S
Hi again. No offense taken. To the extent that you think I am misunderstanding, logically I must be thinking you are misunderstanding by an equal measure. But this should be nothing among brothers and sisters. 
The Bible is certainly a part of the bottom line. Not only the last 1/3rd of it which contains the example of the Messiah's walk and the writings of the apostles, but also the first 2/3rd's of it which contain God's revelatory instructions and the words of many of the prophets. Additionally, the Holy Spirit was given as a guide and believers are to "put on the Messiah," so to speak, so the bottom line is certainly not limited to the texts we have available to us, but definitely should include these texts!
On Rom. 14, I gave my interpretation in a recent post, so please refer to that for a fuller explanation. The difference between us is what we think is a disputable matter. I do not believe the clear commands and instructions of God as provided in the Torah-Law are "disputable matters" or "matters of opinion." To me, the command to not eat unclean meats is not any more disputable or a matter of opinion than the command forbidding homosexual acts. Just as you may believe unclean meats is a disputable matter of opinion, the pro-homosexual movement within the "church" thinks homosexuality is a disputable matter of opinion. From my perspective, God spoke very clearly on them both without ambiguity. And this is probably why we will disagree on our understanding of passages such as Rom. 14 because I come into the text with the belief that God has already spoken clearly on the matter, our interpretation of the texts should include an understanding of what God has clearly spoken, and no human has the authority to overrule God on the matter.
It's an interesting approach some take to look to any of the apostolic writings, come up with their own interpretation, and then try to read how they understand God's commands into that interpretation. Is this really the standard God has set up in His word? I thought that God, in speaking through Moses and the prophets, set up the test methodology in this manner: If anyone comes and speaks not in agreement with My [God's] words, then he is speaking against God and is not a prophet of God (cf., Deut. 13). Is our approach to interpreting Paul reflecting that test methodology? It seems we're willing to accept whatever interpretation of Paul we come up with if we can somehow find a way to explain how the situation has changed and God's commands don't apply anymore. Honestly, one can do this with many commands and begin to unravel much of God's will for us if we're not firmly rooted in His instructions.
I would define a "disputable matter of opinion" as anything that the Torah-Law doesn't clearly define or as a disagreement among believers concerning things outside the framework of the Torah-Law. In this manner, I believe Rom. 14 truly is about "disputable matters of opinion" because I do not believe Paul is addressing the dietary restrictions found in Lev. 11. Please see my longer post on Romans to see how I interpret the passage in alignment with what Paul himself describes: a debate between vegetarians and non-vegetarians, likely on matters of asceticism and/or meat sacrificed to idols. Paul does not have the authority to say we can eat whatever we like and, in my opinion, if he did so then he would be speaking outside of his authority as an apostle. All of Paul's statements in Rom. 14 should be understand in the proper context of the specific debate that is being held, which he clearly defines when he references people who only eat vegetables (v.2) and also refrain from drinking wine (v.21). Moreover, we should be very careful about trying to apply his words more broadly to other matters outside the context of that specific situation. Our conclusions, which are not drawn directly from the text but are instead based on our personal interpretations and broader application, should not oppose God's commands which are clearly stated. Surely context matters and there are limitations to what Paul could possibly be talking about.
For example, there is no way he could be saying we are free to eat human flesh and drink blood. But your interpretation of the passage allows for the possibility of that being a "disputable matter," up to our individual conviction, and between us and God. But we should know based on the context and the study of the rest of God's word that this is not a possibility. The same logic applies to consuming unclean meats: it is outside the boundaries of what is specifically being discussed, so none of Paul's statements can be said to apply to that issue or support the idea that we can consume absolutely anything we like.
The Bible is certainly a part of the bottom line. Not only the last 1/3rd of it which contains the example of the Messiah's walk and the writings of the apostles, but also the first 2/3rd's of it which contain God's revelatory instructions and the words of many of the prophets. Additionally, the Holy Spirit was given as a guide and believers are to "put on the Messiah," so to speak, so the bottom line is certainly not limited to the texts we have available to us, but definitely should include these texts!
On Rom. 14, I gave my interpretation in a recent post, so please refer to that for a fuller explanation. The difference between us is what we think is a disputable matter. I do not believe the clear commands and instructions of God as provided in the Torah-Law are "disputable matters" or "matters of opinion." To me, the command to not eat unclean meats is not any more disputable or a matter of opinion than the command forbidding homosexual acts. Just as you may believe unclean meats is a disputable matter of opinion, the pro-homosexual movement within the "church" thinks homosexuality is a disputable matter of opinion. From my perspective, God spoke very clearly on them both without ambiguity. And this is probably why we will disagree on our understanding of passages such as Rom. 14 because I come into the text with the belief that God has already spoken clearly on the matter, our interpretation of the texts should include an understanding of what God has clearly spoken, and no human has the authority to overrule God on the matter.
It's an interesting approach some take to look to any of the apostolic writings, come up with their own interpretation, and then try to read how they understand God's commands into that interpretation. Is this really the standard God has set up in His word? I thought that God, in speaking through Moses and the prophets, set up the test methodology in this manner: If anyone comes and speaks not in agreement with My [God's] words, then he is speaking against God and is not a prophet of God (cf., Deut. 13). Is our approach to interpreting Paul reflecting that test methodology? It seems we're willing to accept whatever interpretation of Paul we come up with if we can somehow find a way to explain how the situation has changed and God's commands don't apply anymore. Honestly, one can do this with many commands and begin to unravel much of God's will for us if we're not firmly rooted in His instructions.
I would define a "disputable matter of opinion" as anything that the Torah-Law doesn't clearly define or as a disagreement among believers concerning things outside the framework of the Torah-Law. In this manner, I believe Rom. 14 truly is about "disputable matters of opinion" because I do not believe Paul is addressing the dietary restrictions found in Lev. 11. Please see my longer post on Romans to see how I interpret the passage in alignment with what Paul himself describes: a debate between vegetarians and non-vegetarians, likely on matters of asceticism and/or meat sacrificed to idols. Paul does not have the authority to say we can eat whatever we like and, in my opinion, if he did so then he would be speaking outside of his authority as an apostle. All of Paul's statements in Rom. 14 should be understand in the proper context of the specific debate that is being held, which he clearly defines when he references people who only eat vegetables (v.2) and also refrain from drinking wine (v.21). Moreover, we should be very careful about trying to apply his words more broadly to other matters outside the context of that specific situation. Our conclusions, which are not drawn directly from the text but are instead based on our personal interpretations and broader application, should not oppose God's commands which are clearly stated. Surely context matters and there are limitations to what Paul could possibly be talking about.
For example, there is no way he could be saying we are free to eat human flesh and drink blood. But your interpretation of the passage allows for the possibility of that being a "disputable matter," up to our individual conviction, and between us and God. But we should know based on the context and the study of the rest of God's word that this is not a possibility. The same logic applies to consuming unclean meats: it is outside the boundaries of what is specifically being discussed, so none of Paul's statements can be said to apply to that issue or support the idea that we can consume absolutely anything we like.
torah law, and christian belief are different. ie a temple of stone, v a saviour jesus christ( 3.16 john)
proof and assume are what is called, believe in a saviour, that saves people.
so adding to facts, the bible went to print about 1500 ad, and you jumping about only prove, the bible is not read as wrote.
even a diary, would have a last know entry. and a date. to put it in the time frame, of the writer.
you miss they bigger point, up to acts 10 proves, no gentile could speak to a jewish person, so would ask how did he know anything about babylon, ie the romans stole the torah and other books to that point in time, just like neb, when he took down the first temple. so the torah would be the same, but what other books would have been added, to the 66 books of the bible, as in neb v romans ,(add in the time frame of the 3rd temple being took down).in what books were added. ie gentiles who had a copy of the torah, so time and dates would again lead to last know entry. to books that have been added, so time and dates prove other thing also(,neb v romans) and what changes were made through these books. ie what the writers had done for god.
to god saving gentiles.
so up this point in time, everything could be classed as old or new testament.
all the new covenant believer , now believed in a god through jesus christ. ie not a law, but a saviour.
however the new had two class of people jew and gentile. we already know jewish were connected to the law and via a temple of stone. the gentiles were not. again acts 15 proves this, if no gentile had been give the holy spirit, why meet for acts 15 in the first place..
your starter instructions. lead to 70 ad , ieto last known entry date, a non christian jew, being able to follow the law , give to moses. fully.
belief in a saviour and his grace led to eternal life.
16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.John 3
to Galatians etc to ware paul
4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.Galatians 5
please keep your posts smaller . thank you.
proof and assume are what is called, believe in a saviour, that saves people.
so adding to facts, the bible went to print about 1500 ad, and you jumping about only prove, the bible is not read as wrote.
even a diary, would have a last know entry. and a date. to put it in the time frame, of the writer.
you miss they bigger point, up to acts 10 proves, no gentile could speak to a jewish person, so would ask how did he know anything about babylon, ie the romans stole the torah and other books to that point in time, just like neb, when he took down the first temple. so the torah would be the same, but what other books would have been added, to the 66 books of the bible, as in neb v romans ,(add in the time frame of the 3rd temple being took down).in what books were added. ie gentiles who had a copy of the torah, so time and dates would again lead to last know entry. to books that have been added, so time and dates prove other thing also(,neb v romans) and what changes were made through these books. ie what the writers had done for god.
to god saving gentiles.
so up this point in time, everything could be classed as old or new testament.
all the new covenant believer , now believed in a god through jesus christ. ie not a law, but a saviour.
however the new had two class of people jew and gentile. we already know jewish were connected to the law and via a temple of stone. the gentiles were not. again acts 15 proves this, if no gentile had been give the holy spirit, why meet for acts 15 in the first place..
your starter instructions. lead to 70 ad , ieto last known entry date, a non christian jew, being able to follow the law , give to moses. fully.
belief in a saviour and his grace led to eternal life.
16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.John 3
to Galatians etc to ware paul
4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.Galatians 5
please keep your posts smaller . thank you.
Last edited:
S
As I've said elsewhere, I don't think the NT speaks as clearly on these issues as you think it does. God's commands in the Torah-Law are clear and indisputable. He straightforwardly says, "Don't eat this. It's detestable. Consecrate yourself and be holy as I am holy." There is no other way to interpret how to apply this: you simply don't eat the thing he says not to eat. Disputable matters of opinion can arise from dietary commands, such as: Will dirty hands contaminate a clean meat and make it unfit for consumption? But the core command remains clear and indisputable. The Messiah disputed the Torah-Law teachers and Pharisees on this debatable issue of unwashed hands. It's a debatable issue because it's not directly addressed in the Torah-Law. The Torah-Law teachers and Pharisees had sound logic about why this could be the case, and their logic was derived from their understanding of the Torah-Law, but the Messiah clearly chastised them that their own rule was not equivalent to the command of God and that, by attempting to enforce it, they were teaching the doctrines of men as if they were the commands of God. (cf., Matt 15; Mark 7)
The command of God is simple and clear. Paul's writings are not, they require proper context and understanding, thus your interpretation of Paul's writings should not automatically be assumed to be what he intends for you to understand. Peter warns Paul's writings are difficult (2 Peter 3). Paul is the only Biblical author who another writer has to provide a stern warning about how we handle his texts! Shouldn't that tell us something? And what is Peter's warning? That we not be carried away by the error of the lawless! The warning isn't: Be careful not to get carried away by the error of those who keep the law! Now, where is the supportive evidence of what Peter's warning is all about? In Acts 21, James tells Paul that people are falsely accusing him of teaching against the Torah-Law. So James recommends he make a public display at the Temple to prove the accusations are false and that he walks in obedience to the Law. Paul agrees and does so without resistance. The "Law" being referenced here isn't some newly defined law that you subjectively interpret to agree with your doctrine. They are all plainly referencing the Torah-Law, God's revelatory instructions given through Moses.
I accept the God of command. I do not accept your interpretation of Paul's writings. If your interpretation of Col. 2 and Rom. 14 is correct that we are able to eat whatever we like, then there's nothing stopping you from eating human flesh or drinking blood. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, right? If you look at these passages in isolation, there is no reason to deny a person of human flesh and blood. However, we must bring wisdom and understanding to the passages before we begin interpreting, then we will know that this conclusion regarding human flesh and blood is impossible. God's revelatory instructions provide a part of this understanding.
We agree the commands in Lev. 11 say what they say. We disagree on how to interpret Paul in light of these instructions. Interpretation is certainly up for debate. I've already provided my interpretation of Rom. 14 in a few other recent posts, so please refer to those for my perspective on how to properly handle the text. On Col. 2, there is abundant contextual evidence to suggest the issue being discussed is connected to asceticism and proto-gnosticism. I've also already posited in this thread that I believe Paul is saying the charges against us were nailed to the cross, not the commands of the Torah-Law. This passage evokes the imagery of the cross where the Messiah's charge was placed above His head (blasphemy). There were no commands above His head. The cross is about the Messiah paying the penalty for our sin (which is death) and dismissing the charges against us, not about dismissing God's instructions.
On Paul's statement about judging in Col. 2, the text doesn't explicitly state that his letter recipients weren't keeping these things and were being judged for not keeping them. Have you ever considered they were possibly being judged for keeping them? Or possibly for the manner in which were keeping them? Eating and drinking, especially with regards to holy days, was a joyful, festive activity. Ascetic practice taught against such pleasurable activity. To gain any pleasure from life was considered sin! They abstained from sex, ate without joy, mutilated their bodies, lived in poverty, and more! Ascetics, which had infiltrated Judaism and Christianity at the time, would have charged these people as unrighteous sinners for enjoying the holy feasts, and eating and drinking merrily! With this understanding, the verses about the Messiah taking the charges against us to the cross segway very nicely into Paul's warning about charges coming from ascetics or anyone else who would judge them for abiding in these things. They also could have likely faced judgment from their fellow Gentile neighbors (for departing from pagan practices and keeping God's appointed times) or other Christian or non-Christian Jews for various reasons connected to how to "properly" keep these things. Paul's reasoning why they should not let these judgments stop them from keeping these things: they are a shadow of the coming things and the body is of the Messiah. He's saying, "Continue keeping these things! Don't let others deter you! These things are intimately connected to the Messiah (He is the body) and to God's plan of redemption (the coming things)!"
Most people who keep these things (holy days especially) understand how they are connected to the Messiah and God's redemption plan. One popular understanding is they are all either reminders of what has happened during the Messiah's first ministry (spring festivals) or rehearsals for what is to come at the end of days (fall festivals).
I'm bracing for the response this will get!!!
M
My friend, I don't think the New Testament could be any clearer on this issue...I guess this goes back to the big debate on this forum...are we under the legal code of the law or are we under the law of the Spirit?
Now I could post dozens of scriptures to show what is evident, but you seem to ignore the New Testament and the Word of Christ written in His Blood...so it seems all I can do is warn legalist of their errors and hope that through fear I might save some... Thanks for your kindness but I must deal with the issue of legalism and how it is evidence of the devils control of a person that claims to have faith in Christ...May God have mercy on your soul and remember your kindness towards others.
1Ti 4:1 ¶ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
Now I could post dozens of scriptures to show what is evident, but you seem to ignore the New Testament and the Word of Christ written in His Blood...so it seems all I can do is warn legalist of their errors and hope that through fear I might save some... Thanks for your kindness but I must deal with the issue of legalism and how it is evidence of the devils control of a person that claims to have faith in Christ...May God have mercy on your soul and remember your kindness towards others.
1Ti 4:1 ¶ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
Mitspa, please try to learn. You are desperately trying to apply false doctrine to the meaning of
2 Cor. 3:6:
John 14:23-24 (NASB)
[SUP]23 [/SUP] Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.
[SUP]24 [/SUP] "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.
M
His Word is the New Testament written in His Blood...not the law of Moses...
Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
M
So what? He came to preach to those under the law...and the purpose of the law was to bring them to Him...read the New testament ..
1Ti 1:5 ¶ But the end of what is enjoined is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith;
6 which [things] some having missed, have turned aside to vain discourse,
7 desiring to be law-teachers, not understanding either what they say or concerning what they [so] strenuously affirm.
1Ti 1:5 ¶ But the end of what is enjoined is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith;
6 which [things] some having missed, have turned aside to vain discourse,
7 desiring to be law-teachers, not understanding either what they say or concerning what they [so] strenuously affirm.
S
Hello again. I think you make two very unfair charges against me:
1) I ignore the NT and Words of Christ? Hardly so! I have handled all the Scriptures (and accompanying interpretations) you've brought to the discussion and I've provided a different interpretation or way of understanding each of them. On the contrary, I don't think you've responded to any of the Scripture I've brought throughout this entire thread, but instead want to keep posting "dozens of Scriptures to show what is evident" while not dealing with any of the Scripture I've brought to the discussion.
2) The devil's controlling me while I claim to have faith in Christ? That's an interesting charge to say that to follow the Messiah and aim to walk the way that He walked is evidence of the devil's control. Wow! I always thought the devil didn't want us to be like the Messiah, but turns out he's been wanting us to live like the Messiah the whole time! (That's sarcasm, but sorry, I just had to! Please don't take it personally, I'm just trying to have some fun with this thread.)
I'll continue my routine of providing a response to the Scripture you provided. I understand the logic of you posting it since it seemingly connects doctrines of devils to keeping God's dietary commands, thus seeming to support your point about me being controlled by the devil for choosing to keep these commands. Once again, I don't agree with your use of these verses. I'm going to repost the passage to include the 5th verse, which is crucial to understanding this passage:
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. -- 1 Tim. 4:1-5 (NIV)
This one is actually quite straightforward. Simply put, unclean meats are not consecrated by the word of God. Where does the word of God consecrate certain meats? The answer: Lev. 11 (and again in Deut. 14). It's the only place where God does any sort of consecrating, systematically listing which meats are fit for consumption and which ones are not. Then after doing this consecrating, He tells us to likewise consecrate ourselves and be holy because He is holy. The clean meats are the ones that God says are permissible to eat. Unclean meats are not to be received with thanksgiving. Praying over them will not consecrate them or make them acceptable. The ones in the "later times" who are "speaking lies" are those telling others that they cannot eat clean meats (which are the ones consecrated by the word of God). The one who says not to eat unclean meats is in agreement with God's Word. The one who says not to eat clean meats is in disagreement with God's Word.
But let's assume for a second that your interpretation of Paul is correct and that he was teaching against the commands found in the Torah-Law. If so, shouldn't this be evident in his life? Shouldn't we be able to see this in his actions? So, where's the evidence from the NT writings? And I'm not talking about your interpretations of his teachings since those interpretations are what we're looking to test. Instead, provide for me the verses that clearly demonstrate him, by his actions, willfully and unrepentantly violating the Torah-Law.
While you're trying to find those verses, please consider the following from Acts. These seem to pretty clearly demonstrate that Paul was constantly being accused of violating or teaching against the Torah-Law and repeatedly went to great lengths to defend himself and prove the accusations to be false.
They falsely accused Paul of teaching Jews to turn away from Moses and of living in disobedience to the Torah-Law.
They [Jewish believers in Jerusalem] have been informed that you [Paul] teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs." -- Acts 21:21 (NIV)
They [some Jews at the Temple] stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help us! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place." -- Acts 21:27b-28a (NIV)
And what was Paul's response to these false accusations? At the request of James, Paul makes a public display of his obedience to the Torah-Law.
"What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them. -- Acts 21:22-26 (NIV)
He defends himself to Felix against the false accusations.
"And they [Paul's accusers] cannot prove to you the charges they are now making against me. However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. -- Acts 24:13-15 (NIV)
He defends himself to Festus against the false accusations.
Then Paul made his defense: “I have done nothing wrong against the Jewish law or against the temple or against Caesar.” -- Acts 25:8
He defends himself to local Jewish leaders in Rome against the false charges.
Three days later he called together the local Jewish leaders. When they had assembled, Paul said to them: “My brothers, although I have done nothing against our people or against the customs of our ancestors, I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans. -- Acts 28:17 (NIV)