I do answer, I just don't answer Froggy because he has a habit of not answering my questions. I think that's just wrong.
Upvote
0
I do answer, I just don't answer Froggy because he has a habit of not answering my questions. I think that's just wrong.
The covenants don't contradict each other. One covenant replaces the other that's all. The new covenant is completely new. It has nothing to do with us and everything to do with God. The first covenant involved the people failing to do what God said He would do in the new one. Remember how Hebrews tells us that God found fault with the people in regards what made the old covenant weak. The people were the problem, not the law or anything else.
Upvote
0
No one is saying that the law provides grace. What I'm saying is that the grace has always been around, even in the days when the law was first given.
Grace provides us, law breakers, with the means to be forgiven. If the law was done away with then there would be no need for grace. If law increases sin then why punish the lawbreaker? It wouldn't be our fault? If sin has dominion as in control over the person who is under it, then why destroy those at Mt Sinai who turned to idol worship?
Grace never replaced the law. Grace is what makes salvation possible. Grace gives us what we don't deserve, that would be forgiveness, salvation, the love of God, etc.
Upvote
0
no you become unclean. Something irrelevant with Yahshua. But it is probably better for your health not to eat it. But if we follow that reasoning then women sin every month when they have their menses. And men sin every time they copulate with their wife.
" If you ask a hundred Christians if the dietary laws of the Old Testament are still valid for us today, ninety-five of them will say No, and point out a couple of places in the New Testament that seem to prove their case. For example, in an incident recorded in both Matthew and Mark, Yahshua answered the Pharisees criticism of His disciples eating with unwashed hands with what seems like a refutation of the Levitical dietary precepts:
Jesus called to the crowds and said, Listen to what I say and try to understand. You are not defiled by what you eat; you are defiled by what you say and do. His point here is actually that the Pharisees didnt understand the nature of defilementthat which makes you unclean or unholy. They thought that neglecting the traditional ceremonial hand washing before meals would somehow separate you from God. Then Jesus went into a house to get away from the crowds, and his disciples asked him what he meant by the statement he had made. Yahshuas disciples didnt quite get it either, apparently. Dont you understand either? he asked. Cant you see that what you eat wont defile you? Food doesnt come in contact with your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then comes out again. (By saying this, he showed that every kind of food is acceptable.) Well come back to this last sentence. Its the heart of the argument, but there are problems with it.
And then he added, It is the thought-life that defiles you. For from within, out of a persons heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and make you unacceptable to God. In other words, neither the food you eat nor the way you prepare it can make you unholy. What separates you from God is your sin. Then the disciples came to him and asked, Do you realize you offended the Pharisees by what you just said? Jesus replied, Every plant not planted by my heavenly Father will be rooted up, so ignore them. They are blind guides leading the blind, and if one blind person guides another, they will both fall into a ditch. (Matthew 15:10-13 NLT, Mark 7:14-23 NLT, blended) Yahshua didnt care if He offended the Pharisees delicate sensibilities. They were leading people astray; the record needed to be corrected. And He was just the Guy to do it.
The Pharisees were doing their best to follow the strict letter of the Mosaic Law, including the dietary part. So far, so good. The problem was that they were relying on their strict outward observance of the rules to earn favor with YahwehWho sees whats in our hearts. Yahshua wasnt saying that it was wrong to follow the precepts of Moses, or that they had somehow been rendered obsolete by His coming. He was only saying that observance of the Law could not and would not reconcile us to a holy God. Just as The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, so was the rest of the Torah: the dietary laws were there for our benefit, not Gods.
But what about that incriminating parenthetical, (By saying this, he showed that every kind of food is acceptable.)? Isnt this saying that all bets are off, that we have been given divine permission to eat whatever we want? Not exactly. The primary passage defining the dietary laws is found in Leviticus 11. The summary verse reads, This is the law of the animals and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth, to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten. (Leviticus 11:46-47) Two things, it says, have been defined in the preceding passage. First are those things which are clean (as opposed to unclean). If an Israelite were even to touch anything on this list, he would be ceremonially defiled, or unclean until evening, that is, temporarily disqualified from certain duties or privileges that required ceremonial cleanliness. Second, those things which are edible (as opposed to inedible) are identified. Thus any animal that was prohibited in the Leviticus 11 list was, by definition, not food. So Yahshua is not saying, Go ahead and eat spiders and miceIm telling you its okay, never mind what the Torah said. He is, rather, saying, Nothing you put in your mouth can establish or destroy your relationship with Yahweh. Only the condition of your heartyour love, faith, and trust in Himhas any bearing on this relationship. The things that were not considered food in the first place never even entered into the discussion.
I should point out that the New Living Translation is probably guilty of unwarranted extrapolation at this point: (By saying this, he showed that every kind of food is acceptable) isnt actually in the Greek text in any recognizable way. Its katharizo pas broma: the New King James simply renders it, purifying all foods. The Greek katharizo means to cleanse, purge, or purify; or to pronounce clean in a Levitical sense. The phrase is generally thought to be an editorial insertion by Mark, not that it matters. The bottom line is that the Mark 7 passage does nothing to abrogate the Levitical dietary laws: that which is not food is not purified.
Okay, then, what about I Timothy 4? Surely thatll prove the case. Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from what we believe; they will follow lying spirits and teachings that come from demons. These teachers are hypocrites and liars. They pretend to be religious, but their consciences are dead. They will say it is wrong to be married and wrong to eat certain foods. See? See? The people telling us its wrong to eat certain foods are hypocrites and liars! But God created those foods to be eaten with thanksgiving by people who know and believe the truth. Since everything God created is good, we should not reject any of it. We may receive it gladly, with thankful hearts. For we know it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. (I Timothy 4:1-5 NLT) Hold on a minute here. Whats Gods definition of food? Its all the stuff on the okay list in Leviticus 11. The items on the no-no list arent classified as food at all. But when the rabbis tell you not to eat beef or lamb that was butchered by someone other than a duly authorized shochet, or when the Catholic Church tells you (as they did for centuries) that you cant eat meat on Fridays, you can be relatively certain youre dealing with hypocrites and liars. Again, things that arent defined as food in the Torah arent even part of the discussion. I know you were probably all watered up for some barbecued buzzard breast with minced mousemeat stuffing, but neither this passage nor the Mark 7 statement has authorized any such culinary adventures. Sorry.
Alright then, what about Peters vision of the sheet with all the non-kosher sandwich fixins on it? Rule number one: dont take my word for anything. Lets look up the passage. The day after Cornelius, a devout Roman centurion, received a vision about Peter, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And a voice came to him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean. And a voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has cleansed you must not call common. (Acts 10:9-15) Peter, like the Pharisees and indeed, most Jews of his time, made an effort to follow the Mosaic dietary laws. They were such an ingrained religious tradition, nobody really thought about them muchthey were second nature, as they should have been. But certain rabbinical prejudices had become equally ingrained in the culture, among them that gentiles were unclean dogs whom Jews were to despise and look down upon as lesser creatures.
So as Pete was puzzling over the meaning of his non-kosher vision, Cornelius messengers arrived and asked him to go with them to visit this gentile they worked for. Peter may have been impetuous, but he was teachable. He saw immediately what Yahweh was trying to tell him. He relates his conclusion in Acts 10:34-35, 43: In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation, whoever [i.e., not only Jews, but gentiles as well] fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.... Whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins. Was Peters vision about food? No. It was about dropping errant prejudices about other people whom God loved. Note that God wasnt telling Peter to be tolerant of other peoples false beliefs. Cornelius was a believer, or at the very least, an honest searcher, and Yahweh never slams the door shut on these folks, no matter what their cultural background is. The problem was on Peters end. He had assumed that because Yahweh had told the Israelites to keep themselves set apart from the nations, that gentiles could not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, at least not without becoming Jews first. God was showing him that this just wasnt true. Peter got the message. Why dont we?
As we examine Maimonides take on the Levitical dietary laws, then, let us bear in mind that nothing Yahweh instructed in the Torah has been abrogated, diminished, or otherwise done away with. There are, however, several ceremonial cleanliness issues, mentioned in Leviticus in the context of dietary law, that have been fulfilled in the person of the Messiah. Maimonides doesnt distinguish these from what and what not to eat, so I will, briefly. These seem to be indicative of whether or not an Israelite was to be admitted into the camp, to be a part of the congregation. If a person was ceremonially unclean, he was to remain outside the camp, separated from those who were not contaminated. Its never really spelled out, but we are given a picture of how it worked in Deuteronomy 23:10-11. If there is any man among you who becomes unclean by some occurrence in the night, then he shall go outside the camp; he shall not come inside the camp. But it shall be, when evening comes, that he shall wash with water; and when the sun sets, he may come into the camp. Being admitted into the camp is a picture of entering the Kingdom of God. There is no shortage of ways we can defile ourselves, making us unfit for the Kingdom. But the blood of the Messiah has washed us clean, allowing us to come into Gods very presence when the sun sets, that is, upon our death (or rapture, whichever occurs first).
As we read the Torah, it becomes plain that theres really no way to avoid becoming ceremonially unclean from time to time. (Actually, its worse than that: its next to impossible to remain ceremonially undefiled for longer than a New York minute.) Interestingly enough, Yahweh never commanded the Israelites to completely avoid this state, though being ceremonially clean is clearly to be preferreda goal to shoot for. He said far less about how to avoid becoming defiled than He did about the subsequent purification processtypically, the washing of the body or clothes with water and the passage of time.
But as I said, Maimonides stuck pretty much to the practical dietary side of the subjectwhat and what not to eat and how to prepare it. Sadly, this makes perfect sense, because ever since the wilderness wanderings ended, there was no practical way to go outside the camp. Gods instructions in that regard became purely symbolic, and the symbols pointed toward Yahshua the Messiah. Therefore, it served the interests of the rabbis whod rejected Him to bury the truth. But were following Maimonides list for organizational purposes, so the dietary rules are where were going next..." (The Owners Manual)
Upvote
0
- May 19, 2015
- 125,492
- 28,588
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Is that available at book stores
Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary
Upvote
0
"If you’re looking with despair at the Law of Moses and the Galatians lists, saying to yourself, I can’t do all this, as much as I want to—it’s too hard, and I fall on my face every time I try, then congratulations; you’re starting to figure it out. You’re right: you can’t do it. None of us can. It is only through our relationship with Yahshua, whose Spirit abides within us, that we can find rest from the burden of the Law. “Jesus said, ‘Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke fits perfectly, and the burden I give you is light.’” (Matthew 11:28-30 NLT) It’s not that the Law shouldn’t be kept. It’s that we can’t pull its weight by ourselves. We need to be “yoked” with Someone who can, Someone who has: Yahshua.
So as we return to our study of the 613 mitzvot, let us be mindful that our burden isn’t meant to be heavy. If we try to shoulder the weight of the Torah in our own strength, we’ll find it impossible to carry, but if we allow Yahshua to do the heavy lifting, what little burden He allows us to assume will be carried joyfully, thankfully, and with a sense of honor for having been entrusted with the task. It’s a privilege to serve Him, not a duty—and certainly not a payment we must make for services rendered." (The Owners Manual)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Is that available at book stores
Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary
All free, no donations asked for, no religious agenda behind it
The Owner's Manual - 1 - Instructions and Signs
Upvote
0
you said this on the other thread, if you do not think paul was scripture, as peter did, then sure..fine..if one stays only in the Torah, then one has a case. But paul was chosen by jesus, conformed two times in acts by jesus, so that is that.sound bites?
Tell you what bro..forget Paul..
State your case, and i will argue it, and lets see what happens.
I will go first.
Moses..said Abraham was justified by faith. Was Moses wrong?
Was it before circumcision, or after?
Provide the scripture you are referring to please. Moses was not wrong according to the statement you made. by the way Moses was also justified by his trust and reliance ("faith") in Yahweh. The sacrificial practices of the law where just a shadow ( a representation, a metaphor) of the permanent solution. Everyone is justified by their trust and reliance in Yahweh's salvation known as Yahshua. In genesis if you read closely Abraham was not the only one with a close relationship to Yahweh. Melchizedek was another perfect example. He was also justified by his trust and reliance of Yahweh he seemed to have a better relationship with Yahweh than Abraham. Do you really think that any of us that belive that the Torah is important and believe in Yahshua that we think we are saved by following the law and are justified by it. Well maybe that is where the problem resides. The only way to Yahweh is through His salvation.
By the way who said that Jesus picked Paul? Paul and his companion? And someone reporting what Paul was saying?
And I did not say he was not picked by Jesus and I did not say that his writings might not be useful. But in my humble maybe totally incorrect view I don't see them as scripture but this does not put my salvation in any jeopardy, so it's inconsequential to me because I don't base my salvation on Paul I base my salvation on Yahshua. Yhawhe's unmerited favor that he provided. But here is some of my stated case.
The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple;
8 the precepts of the LORD are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the LORD is pure,
enlightening the eyes;
9 the fear of the LORD is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules of the LORD are true,
and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold,
even much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey
and drippings of the honeycomb.
11 Moreover, by them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ps 19:7–11). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 19, 2015
- 125,492
- 28,588
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Thank you.
What are his credentials? I didn't find anything about his scholarship, what denomination he is or any other info about the author of that site. Is that you?
Btw, have you, or others here ever Preston Eby's commentaries? [His commentary on the "ROYAL PRIESTHOOD" is rather excellent in my most huble view]
http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/lb/LB1.htm
According to the Emphatic Diaglott the correct rendering of the latter part of this passage is: "The Book of the Life of the Lamb." Now, what is meant by this term – THE BOOK OF THE LIFE OF THE LAMB? The wise man said, "...of the making of many books there is no end..." (Eccl. 12:12).
The book stores are filled to overflowing today with all types of books dealing with every aspect of earthly life. Even in the church world there are books setting forth every kind of viewpoint relating to God, the Bible, doctrine, Christian experience, and church order. However the subject material of most of these books largely contains a message of religious tradition and spiritual death.
But God is also producing a book – a book containing a message of life. For the past two millenniums God, by His Holy Spirit, has been writing portions of this Book in the minds and hearts of His people.
Upvote
0
No definitely not me. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says either. He is probably a non denominational Christian with no real associations. For What I know of Ken and I have corresponded with him he is just someone that Loves Yahshua, that has some great insights into scripture, and a great way of explaining it. He just wants to share his walk with God and his love for scripture and God and what he has learned. He wrote another book called Tea with Terrorist it is a novel that he did with Craig Winn. Craig I feal is way more radical in his views than Ken but he also has some great insights into scripture worth reading. And thanks for the link
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
F
from scratch
Guest
I see this often. one of these days I am going to check who ask the first question and who refuesed to answer that question. I do have an idea. Wonder if it is true?
Upvote
0
F
from scratch
Guest
What? Are you trying to make me a sinner because of unblief?
I can hardly believe my eyes. Am I seeing things? Did I read the new covenant is entirely new by Stryder? Something must be wrong with my screen. Better go get my computer checked out. I think it even says one covenant replaced the other.Why then do you say we are obligated to the replaced covenant?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- May 19, 2015
- 125,492
- 28,588
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
Frogster
Galatians is the best!
gee..it is not like i asked you to figure out the galaxies, or the square of a triopholies triangle, or the sum participle of all equations..
...just tell me, where does sin have dominiom , law or grace? And pleeeease do not ask for a definiton of what is...is,,William jefferson clinton.
Upvote
0
I total impossiblity. Clever argument? No. The bible isn't composed of Paul.ya know ricardo, you are a good and smart bro..
But if you do not start to post Paul, it becomes kinda..hmmmm..already...
Give us scripture already please.
Show us using Paul , that we are wrong.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
However if you can find people to follow your vain preaching then .... add comment here _____________________gee..it is not like i asked you to figure out the galaxies, or the square of a triopholies triangle, or the sum participle of all equations..
just tell me, where does sin have dominiom , law or geace? And pleeeease do not ask for a definiton of what is...is,,William jefferson clinton.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
