How can one learn?

[Rainrider]

@posthuman

I shouldn't have stopped there. As I read over what I posted I find that I haven't addressed your reasoning. It isn't that the physical laws have change, or the spiritual aspects have changed. They do remain the same. What we see here is Paul giving voice to the spiritual part of a physical act. Although we are never told in Torah that any part of the law holds a spiritual aspect, it is there. In the feast, and Laws. It only when we seek this that we find it. Although for anyone that STUDIES the N.T. it is made clear in the Words of Yeshua. So in my mind, there is no change, simply a clarification.

 

[posthuman]

@posthuman

I shouldn't have stopped there. As I read over what I posted I find that I haven't addressed your reasoning. It isn't that the physical laws have change, or the spiritual aspects have changed. They do remain the same. What we see here is Paul giving voice to the spiritual part of a physical act. Although we are never told in Torah that any part of the law holds a spiritual aspect, it is there. In the feast, and Laws. It only when we seek this that we find it. Although for anyone that STUDIES the N.T. it is made clear in the Words of Yeshua. So in my mind, there is no change, simply a clarification.

yes

and in the case of circumcision, He took away the physical requirement, done by human hands, and replaced it with the spiritual, done by the hand of our Lord.
this is very clear in Galatians, because they are Gentiles who have entered into fellowship of the kingdom Heaven, and they are instructed NOT to allow themselves to be physically circumcised, because if they do, they have made Christ of no effect and they would. then make themselves liable to keep the whole Law.
so i mentioned John because this is an astounding thing, that they should not allow themselves to be circumcised! circumcision came before the Law, being given to Abraham, and within the Law it must be done even if it means doing work on sabbath, and it was so important that Moses was nearly killed for failing to do it. a Gentile under the Law who had joined themselves with Israel could not take Seder without physical circumcision or enter the temple are - but now those joined to Christ are told not to.

so the spiritual has precedence over the physical: this is a change. before, the circumcised in flesh but not in heart could keep the feast. now the true feast is revealed, and the physical keeping of circumcision is not required.

 

[posthuman]

yes

and in the case of circumcision, He took away the physical requirement, done by human hands, and replaced it with the spiritual, done by the hand of our Lord.
this is very clear in Galatians, because they are Gentiles who have entered into fellowship of the kingdom Heaven, and they are instructed NOT to allow themselves to be physically circumcised, because if they do, they have made Christ of no effect and they would. then make themselves liable to keep the whole Law.
so i mentioned John because this is an astounding thing, that they should not allow themselves to be circumcised! circumcision came before the Law, being given to Abraham, and within the Law it must be done even if it means doing work on sabbath, and it was so important that Moses was nearly killed for failing to do it. a Gentile under the Law who had joined themselves with Israel could not take Seder without physical circumcision or enter the temple are - but now those joined to Christ are told not to.

so the spiritual has precedence over the physical: this is a change. before, the circumcised in flesh but not in heart could keep the feast. now the true feast is revealed, and the physical keeping of circumcision is not required.

@Rainrider

Galatians 5:2-4​

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.​

​

​

this is a ton of bricks, brother. it is a mountain cast at presuppositions.
being obligated to keep the Law is called equal to being severed from Christ.

it bears careful meditation

 

[Rainrider]

yes

and in the case of circumcision, He took away the physical requirement, done by human hands, and replaced it with the spiritual, done by the hand of our Lord.
this is very clear in Galatians, because they are Gentiles who have entered into fellowship of the kingdom Heaven, and they are instructed NOT to allow themselves to be physically circumcised, because if they do, they have made Christ of no effect and they would. then make themselves liable to keep the whole Law.
so i mentioned John because this is an astounding thing, that they should not allow themselves to be circumcised! circumcision came before the Law, being given to Abraham, and within the Law it must be done even if it means doing work on sabbath, and it was so important that Moses was nearly killed for failing to do it. a Gentile under the Law who had joined themselves with Israel could not take Seder without physical circumcision or enter the temple are - but now those joined to Christ are told not to.

so the spiritual has precedence over the physical: this is a change. before, the circumcised in flesh but not in heart could keep the feast. now the true feast is revealed, and the physical keeping of circumcision is not required.

Gal 5:2Listen! I, Paul, tell you this: If you are counting on circumcision to make you right with God, then Christ will be of no benefit to you.
As you can see Paul said IF you count on physical circumcision for salvation, you make the sacrifice of Yeshua wroth nothing. He did not remove it, as he knows that to try and do so puts one in sin. Besides that, Paul doesn't have the authority to change anything HaShem has put into place.

 

[Rainrider]

@Rainrider

Galatians 5:2-4​

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.​

​

​

this is a ton of bricks, brother. it is a mountain cast at presuppositions.
being obligated to keep the Law is called equal to being severed from Christ.

it bears careful meditation

You are right it is, that is to the idea that Paul removed circumcision. When read corectly, we find that this telling us we CAN"T place our faith in any physical act for salvation, and I agree 100%. However to say Paul removed he pysical act as a sign of the Avrahamic covenant is not backed by any of Paul's writings. Always keep in mind that I look at the full chapter to find the context. As we all should. Does this make me 100% right not at all. Does looking only a part of a chapter make any one 100% right, not even close.

 

[Rainrider]

But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, brings
adultery upon her. And he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5:32

Looking back I find I have left this unanswered. With out going into a full reading of what the Word has to say here, I will reply with only the passages needed. As we find in Deut. 24:2, the Torah does give the right for a woman to remarry if the conditions are met. If she had been put out for any reason other that adultery, she may remarry.
However that doesn't change the fact that Marriage was, is, and should remain forever. As they say, Until death do you part. HaShem knowing the evil in the heart of man, gave them reasons for divorcee. Yet with that right came some rather resound consequences. You can never remarry, you bring sin upon the one you set aside, and more.
Divorcee was never intended, and so to try to saw the people away from this action, HaShem said ok, just keep in mind what I have told you. With that in mind, if we look at mat.5:32 we don't find a change of the law, rather it's true intent. That being that marriage is not a toy one can dispose of at will. Rather it is a blood covenant, or is intended to be.
Now we can spend the next 100 years on this topic, and still turn up nothing that will satisfy both sides, due to both sides holding back on answers, or thoughts. Or we can simply place it all on the table, and let the cards fall where they may. As for me, I will seek only the Whole of the Word, and stand on every word.
I do so dislike divisive topics. However, we can not run form them. Answers must be found, yet at the same time, we can only find them when both sides are truly seeking them, with a pure heart and mind. Then that goes with all things does it not.

 

[Rainrider]

@Rainrider i did not have much time on my hands during the week, but on sabbath i have freedom.
so let me give scripture supporting these points - i simply presumed earlier you either knew them already or would go search them out.
then perhaps you won't consider the truth to be 'hateful' when the evidence is made more clear, yes?

• laws for clean and unclean food have changed over time.
  • Genesis 1:29 — Adam is given plants for food
  • Genesis 9:3 — Noah is given all flesh for food without restriction
  • Leviticus 11 — Israel is given distinction between clean and unclean meat
  • Mark 7:19, Acts 10, Romans 14 — all food is clean for a Christian with a clear conscience
• laws requiring circumcision have changed
  • Genesis 17 — circumcision is commanded physically long before the Law of Moses. in fact Moses is nearly killed by God for it, if not for the intervention of Zipporah.
  • Leviticus 12 —physical circumcision is reiterated in the Law of Moses
  • John 7:23 — circumcision precedes sabbath. very important!
  • Romans 2 — circumcision is "nothing"
  • Galatians 5 —physical circumcision is not only no longer required but can be sinful if carried out in order to keep the Law of Moses as justification
• laws concerning where animal sacrifices may be made have changed
  • prior to Exodus 20, there were no restrictions on how an altar could be built. Exodus 20 specifies details of construction of altars, immediately after the decalogue, giving it great import within the Law. but no restrictions on location of any altar is given.
  • Leviticus 17:3-6 — after the tabernacle is built, any sacrifice at any place other than the tabernacle is considered murder under the Law.
  • (same reference) after the temple is built, similarly all sacrifices must be made at the temple
  • John 4 —acceptable worship is unilaterally declared spiritual having no restrictions on location
  • Hebrews 10:26-27 — there are no more acceptable blood sacrifices, period, after Christ. this is a RADICAL change in Law.
• the law of priesthood has changed
  • Genesis 4 — Cain and Abel bring offerings with no intermediary priest whatsoever. this is a pattern repeated numerous times until Exodus 20
  • Genesis 14 — out of nowhere appears Melchizadek called "priest of the Most High God"
  • Exodus/Leviticus/Deuteronomy — tge tribe of Levi is declared the only acceptable priesthood
  • Hebrews 7 —the priesthood of Levi, which is an explicit matter of the Law given in the Torah, is dissolved and supplanted by the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ. SPECIFICALLY stated is that it means the Law must be changed for the priesthood to change.

Sacrifice was your next topic. So lets look at see.
When one speaks of a time before Sinai, we must understand somethings. First, there can be law that would hold a temple that isn't there. Trying to set a passage against anyother in this manner can only serve to muddy the water. Much like telling a person they must registor their car, when they don't even know what one is. Now before anyone tries to say,' See there had to be a change in the Law." keep in mind, the only requirement for a sacrifice before the Temple, or Tabernacle, was that it be a clean animal.
As we know Cain's sacrifice was rejected, showing that some of the Laws we see later were in place. As we know Cain brought from his harvest, as he was a farmer. It is also clear that Cain only brought an offering after he seen Able doing so. One may draw the conclusion that Able came with a pure heart, and with only one intent, to please HaShem. Where it may seem that Cain was only doing what he thought might keep him in favor with HaShem. It may be that Cain just didn't offer the first, and best of his harvest, or with thanks giving in mind.
On that we must also understand that to give an offering, or sacrifice today would be a sin in ti's self. Deut. 12:5-6 gives this commandment. The use of Paul to say that say this is wrong is a bit hard to do. After all in Acts 21 Paul takes 4 men to the Temple to pay for them to shave their heads. Just as Paul had done in chapter 18. Now for any are N.T. only, you have no idea what that vow is, or all it entails at the end of this vow. Please see Numbers chapter 6 for the full story.
John 4
As it seems you like to change topics a lot, we will follow along for the ride. Even in the time of the First temple, Moses tabernacle, and before that, worship was permitted in the bathtub if one was moved to do so. The Temple had it's place yes, however if one was to worship HaShem, HaShem loved them for it. Even if it was in the bathtub. How many times in the Word do we find someone giving praise, praying, or seeking HaShem out side of the Temple? I am not going to give a number, as I never counted them, however any of the 3 actions given are worship. Even today, one is free to worship at any time or place. Now keep in mind, Peter, Paul, and the rest of the world often came together in someones house to worship. Even when the Temple was standing.
Now if we look at the divide between Israel and Judah we find a new topic. Israel didn't want to make the long trip to Jerusalem for the feast. So they set up their own temples. That was in direct violation of Torah, and they paid the price. Before that, they worshiped in homes, or on the side of the road if need be. Worship and sacrifice are not boned together. Even though sacrifice was a form or worship, the act held a meaning all it's own. As it was, is, and will be an act undertaken to bring one closer to HaShem. The Fellowship, and Love offering is the best examples that comes to mind.
Hebrews 10:26-27
Again all I can do here is point out the plain text, and what it tells us. Not once did Paul say, "sacrifices are now a sin." or "No sacrifice is ever going to excepted." What he did make clear is that if we know the truth, and keep on sinning, we are lost. That is where some come up with the teachings about willful sin. If one knows not to lie and so on, yet does so anyway, they fall into willful sin. No matter what sin one commutes, if it is done with intent, and they knew better, it can't be forgiven. I my self simply don't follow that teaching. There are to many stories in the Word that show it can't be true. Every time the Hebrew people sinned, HaShem forgave them. Yeshua told us to forgive not 7 times, rather 7X70.
If I am moving to fast for you let me know. I am simply working with what I have, and doing my best. As I have made it clear, I am not one to say I am 100% right on any topic. However I do think the only way to find truth is to read every word, in it's context. when we try to replce the intent with our own ideas, we will always come up short. That is how I know full well that no man can hold all the answers. As man kind does have a habit of seeking only what they think they know.
I am so looking forward to the next post. I am sure you will find it a bit odd, if not call it out right delusional. Who knows you may be right on all counts. However I will hold my judgement for HaShem. After all, it He who will be our just, and final Judge.

 

[posthuman]

It is also clear that Cain only brought an offering after he seen Able doing so. One may draw the conclusion that Able came with a pure heart, and with only one intent, to please HaShem. Where it may seem that Cain was only doing what he thought might keep him in favor with HaShem.

that is not at all a valid interpretation.

they did this at "in the course of time" indicating a set time, as though it was not the first offering, and in fact Cain is mentioned having brought the offering first, before Abel. see Genesis 4:3

the text also says nothing about their intent, but God tells Cain "if you do what is right" see v.7 - - clearly indicating Cain knew what he should have "done" and did not "do" the thing. this isn't about 'having a right mindset' - that is 100% eisegesis on your part. it is about doing the right thing.

There is also zero mention here of clean/unclean or any law of sacrifice. the only detail concerning this is 'in the course of time' again suggesting an appropriate time, and the only thing in Genesis 1-3 which correlates to sacrifice is God shedding innocent blood to cover Adam and his wife.

it follows that what they are doing is commemorative of God's stoning gift, prophetic of the cross, and that there must include blood - which Abel brought but Cain did not.

Abel brought a lamb because it was a Lamb Slain by God to atone for the sin of tge man a d the woman and to cover them with His Own blood.
Cin could not provide his own lamb and had to receive it in order to present it before the LORD - instead he brought his own works, and filthy rags as they were before God, they were rejected.
he hated his brother Abel because it was through Abel Cain had received the Lamb, the symbol of Christ.

this is precursor to Pascha and testifies of Christ.

 

[posthuman]

As it seems you like to change topics a lot

There is only one topic, and it is Christ.

it is Christ Who set us free from the Law, and Christ Who is able to give and to change law. it is Christ of Whom all these things speak of, and He is received, a gift, not earned. salvation cannot be bought with labor - it is His work, and it is free

Adam did not keep any law to have his sin forgiven and covered by the blood of The Lamb. he believed God, and God showed him mercy and grace clothing him with garments made not by human hands.

 

[posthuman]

On that we must also understand that to give an offering, or sacrifice today would be a sin in ti's self. Deut. 12:5-6 gives this commandment. The use of Paul to say that say this is wrong is a bit hard to do. After all in Acts 21 Paul takes 4 men to the Temple to pay for them to shave their heads. Just as Paul had done in chapter 18. Now for any are N.T. only, you have no idea what that vow is, or all it entails at the end of this vow. Please see Numbers chapter 6 for the full story.

Acts 21:10-11
While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, "Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'"

note that the prophet said the Jews would bind Paul, but it was the Romans who put him in physical chains and led him away.
The prophecy is about the Jews, contrary to the Law, compelling Paul to participate in the strictly voluntary vow the 4 men had taken. they bound Paul falsely with the Law.

note also that what Paul did was pay for the men's expenses - but did not offer any sacrifice. instead he was arrested on the 7th day.

to those under the Law, though not being under the Law, he made himself as though under it, even while they were perverting it - for the sake of winning them to Christ.


so Christ too has paid all our debt

 

[posthuman]

On that we must also understand that to give an offering, or sacrifice today would be a sin in ti's self. Deut. 12:5-6 gives this commandment.

just to be clear,

your position is that the ONLY reason it is a sin to make animal sacrifices today is because there is no temple currently built in Jerusalem?

so if the temple was rebuilt, you would say any Christian who does not bring animal sacrifices to Jerusalem, as Leviticus commands, is in sin?

 

[posthuman]

Again all I can do here is point out the plain text, and what it tells us. Not once did Paul say, "sacrifices are now a sin." or "No sacrifice is ever going to excepted."

Hebrews 10:4-9
It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll— I have come to do your will, my God.'"
First he said,
"Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them"
—though they were offered in accordance with the law. Then he said,
"Here I am, I have come to do your will."
He sets aside the first to establish the second.

context of Hebrews 10 is Christ having done away with sacrifices by His own once-and-forever sacrifice of Himself.

Hebrews 10:28-29
Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

in THAT VERY CONTEXT it is called trampling Christ underfoot and insulting the Holy Spirit to do what?
to continue in sacrifices.

exactly the same argument as Paul says in Galatians 5 calling anyone who accepts circumcision after believing in Christ fallen from grace, declaring that Christ is worthless to them and they are alienated /estranged from God by doing so - IN PARTICULAR because they place themselves under the Law that Christ fulfilled already and died to free them from.

 

[Rainrider]

just to be clear,

your position is that the ONLY reason it is a sin to make animal sacrifices today is because there is no temple currently built in Jerusalem?

so if the temple was rebuilt, you would say any Christian who does not bring animal sacrifices to Jerusalem, as Leviticus commands, is in sin?

As I said many times, we as genties are not permitted to enter the inter court. So the odds of a gentile giveing a sacrifice is slim at best.

 

[Rainrider]

that is not at all a valid interpretation.

they did this at "in the course of time" indicating a set time, as though it was not the first offering, and in fact Cain is mentioned having brought the offering first, before Abel. see Genesis 4:3

the text also says nothing about their intent, but God tells Cain "if you do what is right" see v.7 - - clearly indicating Cain knew what he should have "done" and did not "do" the thing. this isn't about 'having a right mindset' - that is 100% eisegesis on your part. it is about doing the right thing.

There is also zero mention here of clean/unclean or any law of sacrifice. the only detail concerning this is 'in the course of time' again suggesting an appropriate time, and the only thing in Genesis 1-3 which correlates to sacrifice is God shedding innocent blood to cover Adam and his wife.

it follows that what they are doing is commemorative of God's stoning gift, prophetic of the cross, and that there must include blood - which Abel brought but Cain did not.

Abel brought a lamb because it was a Lamb Slain by God to atone for the sin of tge man a d the woman and to cover them with His Own blood.
Cin could not provide his own lamb and had to receive it in order to present it before the LORD - instead he brought his own works, and filthy rags as they were before God, they were rejected.
he hated his brother Abel because it was through Abel Cain had received the Lamb, the symbol of Christ.

this is precursor to Pascha and testifies of Christ.

If you will notice Able brought a lamb. As we know or should a lamb is a clean animal.
As to the intent of their hearts, though it is true that isn't said out right, and we are simply left to speculate. There had to be a reason for Cains being rejected.
Also keep in mind that not all sacrifices are sin offerings, and that grain is an acceptable sacrifice. Lev. 2. Therefore we must understand that something other than what was offered was wrong. Though it is true many others things can be wrong, it is most likely that Cain was simply going through the motions.

 

[Rainrider]

There is only one topic, and it is Christ.

it is Christ Who set us free from the Law, and Christ Who is able to give and to change law. it is Christ of Whom all these things speak of, and He is received, a gift, not earned. salvation cannot be bought with labor - it is His work, and it is free

Adam did not keep any law to have his sin forgiven and covered by the blood of The Lamb. he believed God, and God showed him mercy and grace clothing him with garments made not by human hands.

Asgain as I have said many times, the LAW never has, and still can't and never will bring salvation. Even Abraham was counted as right with haShem not by any law, rather by the grace of HaShem. So do us both a favor and keep that in mind.

 

[Rainrider]

Acts 21:10-11
While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, "Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'"

note that the prophet said the Jews would bind Paul, but it was the Romans who put him in physical chains and led him away.
The prophecy is about the Jews, contrary to the Law, compelling Paul to participate in the strictly voluntary vow the 4 men had taken. they bound Paul falsely with the Law.

note also that what Paul did was pay for the men's expenses - but did not offer any sacrifice. instead he was arrested on the 7th day.

to those under the Law, though not being under the Law, he made himself as though under it, even while they were perverting it - for the sake of winning them to Christ.


so Christ too has paid all our debt

So your saying that Paul was deceptive? If so we really shouldn't pay any attention to anything he has said. Yet we must note that when Paul said he lived as though under the law when with those that live by the law, and not when when he was with those that didn't. He also said, But I do not ignore the law of God; I obey the law of Christ. Keep this in mind when we look the priesthood.

 

[Rainrider]

just to be clear,

your position is that the ONLY reason it is a sin to make animal sacrifices today is because there is no temple currently built in Jerusalem?

so if the temple was rebuilt, you would say any Christian who does not bring animal sacrifices to Jerusalem, as Leviticus commands, is in sin?

Again Gentiles are not permitted into the inter court.

 

[Rainrider]

Hebrews 10:4-9
It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll— I have come to do your will, my God.'"
First he said,
"Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them"
—though they were offered in accordance with the law. Then he said,
"Here I am, I have come to do your will."
He sets aside the first to establish the second.

context of Hebrews 10 is Christ having done away with sacrifices by His own once-and-forever sacrifice of Himself.

Hebrews 10:28-29
Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

in THAT VERY CONTEXT it is called trampling Christ underfoot and insulting the Holy Spirit to do what?
to continue in sacrifices.

exactly the same argument as Paul says in Galatians 5 calling anyone who accepts circumcision after believing in Christ fallen from grace, declaring that Christ is worthless to them and they are alienated /estranged from God by doing so - IN PARTICULAR because they place themselves under the Law that Christ fulfilled already and died to free them from.

As we read this in 2 differant ways, we may need to agree to disagree. The way I read this is, If we reject Yeshua, we also reject salvation. Though it is true that the sacrificial system only covered the sin, and didn't wash it way, it wasn't perfect.
Yet can we say that to offer a fellowship offering is sin? I think not. After all, that would mean that placing the Jewish people, and our selves in sin. You see, when a person gives, they offer a sacrifice. In that we sacrifice what we have, and give it to HaShem. This includes time, money, and so on. How is it a sacrifice? We are giving up something we may have needed. If we help a person in the parking lot load their goods, we sacrifice our time to do so. Is that sin?
We simply can't look at sacrifice with a narrow definition.
Yet if we turn to sacrifice as a means of salvation, yes that would be wrong. We would pay a high price for that, and salvation wouldn't be given. As I keep saying, sacrifice in way lead to salvation, it has always been a gift, graciously given by HaShem through His grace.

 

[Rainrider]

At this point all I can is hope I got to everything. It is so much easier if you post one reply to cover one post. When it is split up, it is hard to keep up with what I have adderssed, and not.

 

[Brightfame63]

I came so close to posting something that I may have regretted later down the road. The following is a revised version of that post.
I came to this forum seeking answers. I found out so much about today's religion that explains a lot.
First I found that it seems we have a following of church doctrine over the True Word. As has been made clear in almost every thread I opened. As if your church doctrine holds more truth.
Second, it seems that being a true follower of the True Word, must be shunned at all cost.
The True Word is clear on this, and the words made me ask. Do I truly know? Or am I following what tickles the ear? 2Tim. 4:3-4
Not an exact quote mind you. However it does convey the same idea, and understanding.
As not many people on here has the spirit of worrier as the Word is clear we are called to be, or has the fortitude to even try, I feel for you all. You will be in my prayers in hopes that HaShem, or Yahovah will find a way to lead you to truth. His Truth.
Yeshua when he called out the Pharisees may well have been speaking to religious leaders of today. Again not an exact quote. What he said not an easy thing to swallow.
He called the sons of Satan, hypocrites, teaching man's doctrine as if it was HaShems own. Mat.15:7-9
What so many on here wish to do is push away any that see things in a different light. Wishing to persent themselves as knowing more than they really do. Yet when pressed on a topic, they say they know so well, can't or won't even try to make the other see how they are wrong. It's kind of like telling some one they were speeding, when they were doing 35 in a 40mile an hour zone. You say it, yet when asked your only reply is, Because I said so. Ok not in those words, yet by not engaging on a topic you brought forth, you may as well say it that way.
So now I ask you, if you wish to be the teacher you are in your own mind, why hide from it?
Rather than turn to name calling, belittlement, or be dismissive, why not engage? It gives you the chance to teach, and learn. Yet on here it as though the one that stands a lone prevails simply by asking how your teaching is in context with the Whole of the Word. As for myself, I welcome any challenge to my understanding. As it opens the door to seeing how I may be wrong. That in turns makes me a better teacher, and student.
What it doesn't do is show how right I am. You see once we take on the thinking of ME, MY CHURCH, and so on, we leave the True Word behind in favor of my thoughts, my church, and so on.
As true followers, we should have a hunger to learn, and a thirst for truth. Though for many the quest for understanding stops at the door of their church. They don't study the word, and many don't read it at all. Oh they have it with them, and may even open it when the pastor gives a passage. Then they just blindly follow what ever is told to them.
Once more, in closing, I came here to learn more than I think I know. I came to seek truth. Something that is not forthcoming in a place that one would think it should be. If one follows what the Word truly says, they are called names, belittled, and so on. Yet nothing of substance is ever offered up.
I have seen people say they know the Word, and have mesmerized most of the Bible, or N.T. That's all good, if you have a true understanding of it. Yet is made pointless if you know it, and don't follow it. So will someone please explain to me, why do say you hold more understanding, yet are so unwilling to debate most topics, when you see something wrong with a teaching or understanding?

(Friend: I read over your entire post, and truer words have never been more spoken!)
"You say, " I came here to learn more than I think I know."
There's no need, for wisdom, truth and knowledge all come from God, and all you have to do is ask.,
(John 16:13, Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.)
The reasoning of the Holy Spirit is the "reason" no one can answer you, for the very ones who claim to be of God, seek their own glory. For example: People preach salvation without repentance? Come On Now! And, Once Saved, Always Saved? I give the scripture Gen. 3:4; And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: , but do people desire sound doctrine? No, sir. What they desire, is not to glorify God, but rather to exalt themselves. Keep on, Keeping on, my friend! (Always in Christ)