This obviously isn't enough to distinguish authentic development or those who practice it would be one faith.
I don't see anything in there that wasn't said to the Jews.
Really? So Jews had a "city wholly given to idolatry" Livy (45, 27) “full of the images of gods and men, adorned with every variety of material, and with all the skill of art,” (
Barnes) who were thus reproved for this and told that God is not "worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things"?
(Acts 17:25)
But that if they set up graven images of God for worship that would be fine? Stop trying to make Scripture confirm to Catholicism.
There really aren't any idols to smash anymore. I know you think the Catholics are the idolaters of the world but you are deceived.
Really? So because Christians are not to physically do so then they are to be OK with violations of the commandment against setting up graven images for worship? How nice o tell God that His commandment no longer applies, because the nature of man and or the tactics of demons has changed since the time of Acts.
So, you say the only thing Jesus changed were laws governing lifestyle and social norms. Philosophers would call that accidental change. Do you know what it means to satisfy the demands of the Law? What event that would be the cause of? Paul taught that the power of sin is death. The Law increases the power of sin. The purpose of the Law was to show man that sin had dominion over him. This is much more than dietary laws. So, what happens when the Law is finally destroyed? Quite a change you're missing. The word reformed as a descriptive term for the fulfillment of the old covenant is new to me. It seems an odd meaning to attach to the Gospel since the Apostles descriptive word of the same is New.
No i did not say he only thing Jesus changed were laws governing lifestyle and social norms, and in fact you would be essentially saying He changed laws governing lifestyle if the morality of Law was abrogated but which instead is magnified under Christ, with the righteousness of the Law being what Christians are to fulfil.
You are equating the changes as regards the use of the law as regards salvation, so that one no longer attains salvation by actually becoming good enough (as in Roman Catholicism via baptism and Purgatory, if "by grace"), and the abrogation of literal observance of typological ceremonial and ritual laws with abrogation of the moral laws, which are reiterated.
Is the world condemned on the basis of disobeying the Law? Yes. Is there a new covenant? Yes. Is idolatry, murder, covetousness etc. still sin? Yes. Is Christ the supreme standard for righteousness? Yes. But what did He example, but fulfilling the Law in its full intent? Which again, Christians are to progressively walk as to fulfil. And which usually means keeping the moral laws according to the letter and always their intent in following Christ.
You post scriptures to support your statements as if they are going to mean to me what they mean to you. Words are transitory, it's the concepts we attach to them that are not. You aren't grasping that so a sincere exchange of ideas is impossible.
You post words to support your church as if they are going to mean to me what they mean to you. Words are transitory, it's the concepts we attach to them that are not. You aren't grasping that so a sincere exchange of ideas is impossible. But in a reasonable exchange, appeal to a supreme authority, even if subject to interpretation, is necessary.
PeaceByJesus said:
↑ But because your church does it then you must impose a change upon how demons operate.
No, actually my brain does not contain stone or porcelain or plastic images, but instead these graven (firmly fixed, carved, sculpted) images
are set up right in and on your churches, inviting souls to worship before them. Thus your compelled recourse to "but demons have changes tactics."
Not worth responding to because of the bolded. The bolded is bias that dominates your ability to exchange matters of faith and religious ideas sincerely.
Your rejection of what is manifest is bias that dominates your ability to exchange matters of faith and religious ideas sincerely.
That isn't a distinction the how is still a tradition a priesthood a temple an oracle, it's fundamentally the same.
The difference is in the details. Scriptural worship never incorporated graven images that man on his own accord set up for souls to bow down before in worship. Nor did the NT church ever ordain a separate class of sacerdotal believers, or use the<a href="
Deformation of the New Testament Church and context of the Reformation "> distinctive Greek word for such for them </a>, apart from being part of the general priesthood of all believers,
PeaceByJesus said: ↑ we see the reiterations of OT moral laws. But nothing sanctioning your graven images, ir even setting up, exalting the Mary of Catholicism, as a omnipotent ("by grace") demigoddess.
Your sophistry ignores the fact that the distinction is for the Hebrews was not simply that the true God was worshiped, but how, and thus, among other distinctions, there were not to make and set up representative graven images for people and even people to worship before, and which is nowhere abrogated under the New Covenant, in teaching or examples.
Do you think Paul would teach them that his God is the true object of their worship if what you say were true?
Yes, what i said is not contrary to Paul showing them their altar represented the True God, but who is not properly worshiped according to their manner.
I bolded a statement of yours because you missed the point of Paul's attraction to the worship of this god.
One can hardly say they actually worshipped God if they did not know who He was (can you worship a blind date?), and which a graven image would not provide, and such i nowhere sanctioned, but what therefore they worshipped as unknown, Paul gives identity to.
An unknown god is by definition a god with no 'graven images'. So He wasn't giving them commands to obey.
Except to correct their ignorant worship, since God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands [graven images], as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; (Acts 17:24-25)
That isn't a good approach to conversion. He was taking advantage of a likeness to true worship they were already doing. Basically he was using something they all agree on to persuade.
So you disagree with Paul again since confirmation bias got the best of you. Paul reproves them for their manifest idolatry, but according to you gives no command to the contrary, including form. Yes, Paul basically he was using something they all agree on to persuade, as one can with can culture, but that does not mean sanction of their form or object. We can tell lost souls that what they are really seeking in their lusts is God, but that does not mean sanction of how they seek.
PeaceByJesus said: ↑ Actually the people of God are taking their homeland of milk and honey away from peoples and nations who thought it was theirs, since the meek shall inherit the earth, and "the god of this world" presumes it is his, and thus do the rebellious, and at the end the devil will "gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea... on the breadth of the earth" against the people of God. (Revelation 20:8,9) But since you reject that prophecy as literal you will be in for a real surprise.
are they mutually exclusive? I believe both material and spiritual are united as one. You are the either or thinker not me.
Wrong. I am not the either or thinker since I do believe in both the material and spiritual being one in a literal millennial reign of Christ on the literal earth with supernatural means, while RC theology denies the millennial reign of Christ.
The surprise will be on you since you and the world are in agreement about who the enemy is right now.
Wrong once again, since the world sees God as its enemy.
no, the Divine law transcends the natural law, those two are immutable. The moral law is part inherent and part learned and conformed to the laws above it because of our fallen state. The prohomosexual polemists violate the natural law.
Prohomosexual polemists violate the Divine law against unnatural sexual relations.
PeaceByJesus said: ↑ That only applies to how the church is to treat such as not being a theocracy (contrary to your history), not to the lawfulness of what they do. idolatry, homosexual relations, etc. are still sinful, even though the church is not to execute them.
You think Jesus is ok with the Church taking up arms and going to war with a pagan nation? Because they're pagan?
Just how do you see my words as affirming the Church taking up arms and going to war with a pagan nation, when i excluded that? The point was that while the church is not to punish sin as per Lev. 20, yet the such sins that were to be punished are still sins, and the church is to discipline those who claim to be members, if not with the sword of men, even though Catholic theology sanctions coercive punishment.