-
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.
Ever carry on a full conversation with only scripture for your words? It can become interesting to say the lest.
Mat 15:7
You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote,
Mat 15:8
‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
Mat 15:9
Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.
Mat 15:7
You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote,
Mat 15:8
‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
Mat 15:9
Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.
All credit to you if you want to learn the ancient language, there is no law against it - and many do. But my own view is that God looks 'on the heart whichever language one speaks and only HE can discern, not on our human intelect/understanding. Do you think this could possibly sidetrack you from spiritual growth ? just asking.
You would have to be well up on scripture to keep the conversation flowing...and even then there is absolutely no guarantee of a happy outcome and it could come to 'fisticuffs when insults start flying.
Jesus is not always the meek, mild and gentle pushover portrayed in christianity...what He said got Him killed.
Jesus is not always the meek, mild and gentle pushover portrayed in christianity...what He said got Him killed.
I never stopped to ask my self that one. It may well could, being as I work with a logical mind, and going all abstract gives me a headache. Yet at the same time, I can see that it may open new doors of understanding. Paul told to Study to show ourselves approved, did he not? Yep going to have to think on that one. Thanks for placing that in front of me.
Sabbath-keeping with all it's rules and regulations, was part of a covenant with Israel that is not applicable to Christians under the New Covenant. Even when Christians set out to worship on the Sabbath, they aren’t truly "keeping the Sabbath." To "keep the Sabbath" as it was required in the Old Testament would involve compliance with stringent regulations (Exodus 16:23; 35:3; Leviticus 23:32; Jeremiah 17:21) that were strictly enforced.
If Sabbath-day observances are still required, so would the burnt offerings which went along with them (Leviticus 19:30; 23:2-3; Numbers 28:1-10; 29:39-40; I Chronicles. 23:30-31; II Chronicles 31:2-4; Isaiah 1:13). These were commanded by God to the sons of Israel. If the seventh-day Sabbath is still in affect, then why do not the Sabbatarians seek to obey ALL that the LORD commanded? How can a person say he keeps a certain law when he keeps only part of it?
If the Sabbath-day laws were still in effect today, then according to Exodus 31:12-18; 35:1-3; and Numbers 15:32-36, anyone who profaned the Sabbath was put to death and any person who does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from his people. Who is going to enforce that? The Jewish synagogue? The Christian Church? The Seventh-day Adventist church? Or the State? Since we do not live under a theocratic state as ancient Israel did, no Sabbatarian can live consistently under the Mosaic regulations.
St. Paul said in Galatians 4:9-11: "...You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain."
In Romans 14:1-23, the Apostle Paul says: "... One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind...(NASB)." In other words, for the Christian, the Apostle is saying that no day is to be regarded holier than another. Although the Torah was read every Saturday in the synagogues, the early Gentile Christians were never commanded to be circumcised, or to rest on Saturday as the Jews were (Acts 15:1-21).
In Colossians 2:16-17, the Apostle Paul also said 16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
If Sabbath-day observances are still required, so would the burnt offerings which went along with them (Leviticus 19:30; 23:2-3; Numbers 28:1-10; 29:39-40; I Chronicles. 23:30-31; II Chronicles 31:2-4; Isaiah 1:13). These were commanded by God to the sons of Israel. If the seventh-day Sabbath is still in affect, then why do not the Sabbatarians seek to obey ALL that the LORD commanded? How can a person say he keeps a certain law when he keeps only part of it?
If the Sabbath-day laws were still in effect today, then according to Exodus 31:12-18; 35:1-3; and Numbers 15:32-36, anyone who profaned the Sabbath was put to death and any person who does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from his people. Who is going to enforce that? The Jewish synagogue? The Christian Church? The Seventh-day Adventist church? Or the State? Since we do not live under a theocratic state as ancient Israel did, no Sabbatarian can live consistently under the Mosaic regulations.
St. Paul said in Galatians 4:9-11: "...You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain."
In Romans 14:1-23, the Apostle Paul says: "... One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind...(NASB)." In other words, for the Christian, the Apostle is saying that no day is to be regarded holier than another. Although the Torah was read every Saturday in the synagogues, the early Gentile Christians were never commanded to be circumcised, or to rest on Saturday as the Jews were (Acts 15:1-21).
In Colossians 2:16-17, the Apostle Paul also said 16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
You don't know what the New Covenant is? The Old Covenant was a conditional agreement that God made with the Israelites. The Old Covenant was in effect during the dispensation of the Law. The New Covenant was promised by Jeremiah the prophet (Jeremiah 31:31, 33) and made effective by the death of Jesus Christ (Luke 22:20).
I am sure you know Biblical Law, so let me ask. Just why was the passages you gave so stringent?
So please tell me all the laws that regulate the Sacrifices, also please tell me just when HaShem Himself said He did not want them.
Is that not what the second death is about? If you will note, the Torah doesn't say they will be put to death at once, only that they will be.
Your quote of Paul is a bit incomplete don't you think? To place it in context, you need to start reading in 8. Then you will find that Paul is talking not the Sabbath, rather he is talking of going back into idolitry, and failing back into trying to earn salvation in a manner that is sinful.
True we are not commanded to be circumcised. At lest not in the flesh. That is a sign of the covenant with Avraham, not the Gentile. Yet funny how the Sabbath was given before man was removed from the Garden. Gen.2:2-3. That being said, one can't say it is for the Jewish people only.
If one wishes to place this in it's true context, then one should learn why the word is used in the plural, and not the singular.
Col 2:16 So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths.
I give you that this not true in all translations. Yet if we look it up in more than one, we find it is, more often true than not true. This should lead one to seek out what was said in the Greek. Doing that brings us back to the plural use of the word Sabbath's. Now we know that Paul didn't have a new testament to use, and that if he was to teach contrary to the Tanakh, He would have been teaching falsely. So let me ask, being as you understand the Law so well, Why would Paul say SABBATH'S and not Sabbath? Hint, read Lev. chapter 23.
There you will find that every feast has at lest one Sabbath that is not the 7th day Sabbath. This is what he was talking of.
I willl tell you now, I am willing to talk this out with you. however, you must remain respectful, you must show me where in the Bible any law has been removed, and most importantly, you ust explain away Mat. 5:17-18.
So please tell me all the laws that regulate the Sacrifices, also please tell me just when HaShem Himself said He did not want them.
Is that not what the second death is about? If you will note, the Torah doesn't say they will be put to death at once, only that they will be.
Your quote of Paul is a bit incomplete don't you think? To place it in context, you need to start reading in 8. Then you will find that Paul is talking not the Sabbath, rather he is talking of going back into idolitry, and failing back into trying to earn salvation in a manner that is sinful.
True we are not commanded to be circumcised. At lest not in the flesh. That is a sign of the covenant with Avraham, not the Gentile. Yet funny how the Sabbath was given before man was removed from the Garden. Gen.2:2-3. That being said, one can't say it is for the Jewish people only.
If one wishes to place this in it's true context, then one should learn why the word is used in the plural, and not the singular.
Col 2:16 So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths.
I give you that this not true in all translations. Yet if we look it up in more than one, we find it is, more often true than not true. This should lead one to seek out what was said in the Greek. Doing that brings us back to the plural use of the word Sabbath's. Now we know that Paul didn't have a new testament to use, and that if he was to teach contrary to the Tanakh, He would have been teaching falsely. So let me ask, being as you understand the Law so well, Why would Paul say SABBATH'S and not Sabbath? Hint, read Lev. chapter 23.
There you will find that every feast has at lest one Sabbath that is not the 7th day Sabbath. This is what he was talking of.
I willl tell you now, I am willing to talk this out with you. however, you must remain respectful, you must show me where in the Bible any law has been removed, and most importantly, you ust explain away Mat. 5:17-18.
You keep mentioning things like… "orthodox Jews" as if they somehow had a greater understanding than orthodox Gentiles. Are you saying we must obey the private interpretations of the orthodox Jewish fathers rather than the word of God as His interpretation to us?
What is your understanding on the effect of the first century reformation in respect to what you call orthodox Jews? What time period do you think that reformation restored the government of God back to now that there no longer remains a temple? The veil is rent. The Jews who did not believe I believe are shown as orthodox antichrists.
I would say His government was restored to the period of Judges before the Jews assembled themselves against God demanding he give them a king like the rest of the Pagan nations of the world…. rejecting God when he was reigning from heaven as King of kings and they no longer wanted to worship Him as King by faith
Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:Which was a figure for the "time then present", in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until "the time of reformation". Heb 9:6
What do the orthodox Jews say in repect to the time of reformation?Are thier fathers silent on the matter
What is your understanding on the effect of the first century reformation in respect to what you call orthodox Jews? What time period do you think that reformation restored the government of God back to now that there no longer remains a temple? The veil is rent. The Jews who did not believe I believe are shown as orthodox antichrists.
I would say His government was restored to the period of Judges before the Jews assembled themselves against God demanding he give them a king like the rest of the Pagan nations of the world…. rejecting God when he was reigning from heaven as King of kings and they no longer wanted to worship Him as King by faith
Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:Which was a figure for the "time then present", in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until "the time of reformation". Heb 9:6
What do the orthodox Jews say in repect to the time of reformation?Are thier fathers silent on the matter