What happened to Peter?

miknik5 · May 28, 2017

Open Heart said:
There are a great many covenants and all of them are still functioning. Jew and Gentile are now equal before God, just as men and women are equal before God. But just as there are men and women, there are Jews and Gentiles.

ONE BRIDEGROOM....ONE BRIDE.....ONE MARRIAGE COVENANT....ONE WEDDING...ONE GARMENT

miknik5 · May 28, 2017

You have totally double talked in your last post about many covenants. Jew and gentile are equal

Yet stil Jew and gentile.

The gentile will disagree with you
And so also would the Jew who is in CHRIST

The Times · May 28, 2017

Open Heart said:
Moses' words from God were written to Israel, with the exception of the words before Abraham which can be applied to all the world as well. But Moses' words are also the FOUNDATION upon which the New Covenant is formed. Jesus' words built upon Moses' words. Without the Old Covenant, there would be no New Covenant. "Salvation comes from the Jews."

It is the other way around, that is without the New Covenant, the Old Covenant would have no basis to be instituted in the first place. It is like a person who wants to arrive at a certain goal and so he chooses a way point as a start, in order to reach the intended end goal.

What is the focus here? Is it the way point or the end goal?

The end goal is what gave purpose to choosing the starting way point, otherwise there would be no meaning in choosing it in the first place.

The Old Covenant under the Mosaic Law was the starting way point, that was started with the Jews in their walk towards God, however the baton was parsed onto the Gentiles to traverse the entire end goal and some more, so that when their fullness comes at the end of the Great harvest of God, then the Jews as a race will finally also come and partake of the end goal as the 11th hour workmen, that is "the first will be the last".

As it stands the Jews who continue to peddle in the starting way point, that is the Old Covenant Mosaic Law, have raised a dispute with God, in so much as contending that the end goal has not been realised by God and his Christ and this is a preposterious claim, that would be deliberated over by God the Father and will be rejected entirely.

Again I ask my Messianic brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, why raise the dispute with God and his Christ in the first place?

We have arrived at the end goal and the old covenant Mosaic Law was just a way point that led humanity to the Christ, who is the end goal of God the Father, as far as his salvation plan was from the onset of him putting it into motion using initially the Jews of the old covenant Mosaic Law.

There is no dispute as far as I am concerned because according to Revelation, the woman who is the 1st century apostolic Jewish Church was clothed with the gospel and had the Mosaic Law under her feet as the starting way point to arrive at the end goal, which is to be clothed with the gospel/Christ.

So who is raising a dispute with God when they say, no we want to continue in the old covenant Mosaic Law?

Don't do it my brothers and sisters it is not right and you have been grossly misled.

Happy birthday and be blessed.

Blade · May 28, 2017

Who came to Peter? I dont see the "Church" in this. One is not.. one is built upon a rock. I will build MY Church. Anyway Jewish people looked at gentiles ..not in a good way. Well Jesus said.. not wise to give children's bread to the dogs. And yet.. we see her answer back with FAITH! And then we know now that with out FAITH we can never please Him. And this faith moved Him.

So since GOD never says anything for no reason. It was also about food. What has GOD made? Sure we may be born into sin but GOD made you. And it is VERY GOOD! So God was teaching Peter about good and people

Remember its HIS word not mans. And if you know HIM. you dont answer to man. So Jesus came and is coming back soon PRAISE GOD! And eat what you want or dont. If you believe its wrong or should not.. then for YOU its wrong. You read HIS word.. HE will tell you..talk to you. HE IS REAL!

miknik5 · May 28, 2017

Blade said:
Who came to Peter? I dont see the "Church" in this. One is not.. one is built upon a rock. I will build MY Church. Anyway Jewish people looked at gentiles ..not in a good way. Well Jesus said.. not wise to give children's bread to the dogs. And yet.. we see her answer back with FAITH! And then we know now that with out FAITH we can never please Him. And this faith moved Him.

So since GOD never says anything for no reason. It was also about food. What has GOD made? Sure we may be born into sin but GOD made you. And it is VERY GOOD! So God was teaching Peter about good and people

Remember its HIS word not mans. And if you know HIM. you dont answer to man. So Jesus came and is coming back soon PRAISE GOD! And eat what you want or dont. If you believe its wrong or should not.. then for YOU its wrong. You read HIS word.. HE will tell you..talk to you. HE IS REAL!

Blade
Thank you
Your beginning and last sentence basically is what this thread was supposed to be about

All the other stuff, after GOD calls and washes and marks as HIS who HE chooses to mark as HIS (no matter the color, nationality, condition of the man) was just that...

Stuff

Yarddog · May 28, 2017

miknik5 said:
acts 10
Yes. If not, he wouldn't.

Was it necessary for GOD to send this sign to Peter?

Der Alte · May 29, 2017

miknik5 said:
Blade
Thank you
Your beginning and last sentence basically is what this thread was supposed to be about
All the other stuff, after GOD calls and washes and marks as HIS who HE chooses to mark as HIS (no matter the color, nationality, condition of the man) was just that...
Stuff

To this and the post which precedes it I would add this.
.....In the mid 90s while working for DOD, the base I was working at closed and I was transferred from Oakland to El Toro MCAS, now closed.
.....While moving into a new apartment, 19 miles from Disneyland, I was having cable installed. The cable guy had a very distinctive speaking voice. My wife never bashful said to him "You have a beautiful voice you should use it to the glory of God." He said "I do, I am the cantor at my synagogue."
.....Our cable installation morphed into a 45 minute discussion of faith. My wife was born in Korea so after much explanation about synagogue, cantor etc. we learned that he was from the east coast, was born and grew up in a Jewish family. He went to college on the west coast and thanks to Campus Crusade became a Messianic Christian.
.....He still observed all the feasts, festivals etc., not as a requirement but a celebration of his Jewish heritage. Cable guy was his day job, his night job was he was the radio/TV voice of the San Diego Chargers. As I said he had a very distinctive voice.

Dartman · May 29, 2017

Soyeong said:
If I am wrong, then I don't want to continue to be wrong, but I need to be persuaded that I am wrong, and I find your assertion to be entirely unpersuasive.

Then do not waste our time with stating that your "previous post" addressed the question. Obviously, your previous post was NOT persuasive.

Soyeong said:
Jesus said he came to fulfill the law in contrast with abolishing it, and then proceeded to fulfill it six times by teaching how to correctly obey it

1st, "abolish" is a poor translation of kataluo.

It means to destroy, demolish, disintegrate.

2nd) The REASON Jesus made the statement in Matt 5:17-18 is the obvious contradiction between the NEW commandments Jehovah/YHVH God put in Jesus' mouth, and the Mosaic Law. The rest of Matt 5 is a direct REPLACEMENT of the Mosaic Law.
For instance, in the Mosaic Law, they were COMMANDED to sware by Jehovah;
Deut 6:13 Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God; and Him shalt thou serve, and shalt swear by His name.

The commandment Jehovah gave to Jesus, which Jesus repeated in Matt 5, was absolutely the opposite;

Matt 5:34-37 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Soyeong said:
.. yet you interpret him as saying that he came to abolish the law by replacing it with his own laws.

That's not what I said.
Jesus came to fulfill the Mosaic Law, just like Jehovah/YHVH promised, and to replace it with NEW commandments, directly from his God!!

Jesus' God put GODS words in Jesus' mouth.

Soyeong said:
This says that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies that the Christ would suffer, not that he is the prophet like unto Moses, and not that he would do away with God's righteous standard.

1st) You are incorrect. Peter quotes the prophecy recorded in Deut 18:15-19, stating that Jesus IS "the prophet like unto Moses".
2nd) You are failing to acknowledge that Jehovah/YHVH put NEW commandments in Moses mouth ..... exactly like He put NEW commandments in Jesus mouth!!
3rd) Jehovah/YHVH God has changed His commandments SEVERAL times, on dietary issues, and holy days!! The Sabbath was a brand new Law!
Deut 4:5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, even as Jehovah my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the midst of the land whither ye go in to possess it.

Neh 9:13-14 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: 14 And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

Dartman · May 29, 2017

miknik5 said:
Could you please review Matthew 5?

Namely that CHRIST, when teaching those who came to hear HIM (since HE did indeed have the WORDS of ETERNAL LIFE) said:

You have heard said___________
But I say to you

Did THE LORD have the right to magnify THE LAW?

Deut 18:17-19 And Jehovah said unto me, They have well said that which they have spoken. 18 I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

John 12:49-50 For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, He hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His commandment is life eternal: the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.

Dartman · May 29, 2017

Hethatreadethit said:
I believe God find's the pig an offensive creature because of it's natural design that it does not chew the cud and I believe that those of us who know the truth about the pig feel the same way as God.

Gen 9:1-3 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the heavens. With all wherewith the ground teemeth, and all the fishes of the sea, into your hand are they delivered. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be food for you. As the green herb have I given you all.

Acts 10:11-15 and he beholdeth the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth: 12 wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the heaven. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean. 15 And a voice (came) unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, make not thou common.

The Times · May 29, 2017

Dartman said:
1st, "abolish" is a poor translation of kataluo.

It means to destroy, demolish, disintegrate.

To just add to this, the word kataluo in Hebrew is a variant in both the Aramaic and Arab languages, meaning to KILL.

Soyeong · May 29, 2017

Dartman said:
Then do not waste our time with stating that your "previous post" addressed the question. Obviously, your previous post was NOT persuasive.

I had just finished writing post #157 in response to miknik5 on the same issue, so I invited you to read that post instead of copying and pasting the same response in reply to you, which means that I had no reason to assume that you had already read it or that you had found it unpersuasive. If you don't find it persuasive, then please explain why that is the case:

What happened to Peter?

1st, "abolish" is a poor translation of kataluo.

It means to destroy, demolish, disintegrate.

2nd) The REASON Jesus made the statement in Matt 5:17-18 is the obvious contradiction between the NEW commandments Jehovah/YHVH God put in Jesus' mouth, and the Mosaic Law. The rest of Matt 5 is a direct REPLACEMENT of the Mosaic Law.
For instance, in the Mosaic Law, they were COMMANDED to sware by Jehovah;
Deut 6:13 Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God; and Him shalt thou serve, and shalt swear by His name.

The commandment Jehovah gave to Jesus, which Jesus repeated in Matt 5, was absolutely the opposite;

Matt 5:34-37 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

However, you want to translate it, it was a rabbinic idiom that referred to interpreting the Law in a way that undermined it or to causing the God's will as made known in the Law to not be obeyed as it should be. Whenever Jesus quoted Scripture, he always preceded it by saying "it is written", but when he was quoting from what the people had heard being taught about the Law, it he preceded it by saying "you have heard that it was said", so he was correcting what was wrongly being taught about how to obey the law, which would have sounded to the teachers of the Law like he was undermining it, which is why he preceded that by assuring them that he came not to do that.

For example, Leviticus 19:12 commands us not to swear falsely in God's name, but it does not say that we can't swear falsely by some other name, so the Pharisees were teaching that that oaths were not binding unless they were in God's name. However, Jesus was correcting this by showing that all oaths ultimately referred to God. We see in Genesis 22:16-17, Hebrews 6:13, and Hebrews 7:21 that God swore by Himself, in Matthew 26:63 that Jesus answered under oath to the Sanhedrin, in 2 Corinthians 1:23 that Paul swore an oath to the Corinthians, and in Romans 1:9, Galatians 1:20, Philippians 1:8; 1 Corinthians 15:31, 1 Thessalonians 5:27, and Revelation 10:5-6 that they made solemn appeals to God, so the Jesus was not against oaths in general, but against false oaths. In Matthew 23:22, Jesus said that whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it, so it is referring to people who are making oaths, but saying that it ultimately refers to God.

Here's another example of Jesus nothing brand new:

Matthew 5:27-28 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

This is just the correct application of the 7th and 10th Commandments.

Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

While God's Law does command us to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), it does not command us to hate our enemy, that was again correcting what was wrongly being taught about the Law.

That's not what I said.
Jesus came to fulfill the Mosaic Law, just like Jehovah/YHVH promised, and to replace it with NEW commandments, directly from his God!!

Jesus' God put GODS words in Jesus' mouth.

The problem is that in Deuteronomy 13:4-5 God instructed His people that the way to tell that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was is they taught against obeying what He had command, even if they performed signs and wonders, so if your interpretation is correct, then you should consider Jesus to be a false prophet even though he rose from the dead.

1st) You are incorrect. Peter quotes the prophecy recorded in Deut 18:15-19, stating that Jesus IS "the prophet like unto Moses".
2nd) You are failing to acknowledge that Jehovah/YHVH put NEW commandments in Moses mouth ..... exactly like He put NEW commandments in Jesus mouth!!
3rd) Jehovah/YHVH God has changed His commandments SEVERAL times, on dietary issues, and holy days!! The Sabbath was a brand new Law!
Deut 4:5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, even as Jehovah my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the midst of the land whither ye go in to possess it.

I agree that Jesus is the prophet like unto Moses, but I disagree that the text you quoted established that fact. There are many examples of God's Laws being in place prior to Sinai, so the Law given at Sinai did not reveal a change in the way to act according to God's character, but rather it revealed what had always been and will always be the way to act according to God's character. According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what God had commanded, so that is not something that the prophet like unto Moses would commit. God did not change His commandments on dietary issues or on holy days, but rather they have always been the way to act according to God's holiness. If God did change the way to act according to His holiness, then God's holiness is not eternal, but God's holiness is eternal, therefore God did not change it. It is not clear to me what point you are making with Deuteronomy 4:5.

Neh 9:13-14

Click to expand...

Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: 14 And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

Again, there is a difference between making know the way to act according to God's holiness and the way to act according to God's holiness changing.

Dartman · May 29, 2017

The Times said:
To just add to this, the word kataluo in Hebrew is a variant in both the Aramaic and Arab languages, meaning to KILL.

Do you mean Greek, rather than Hebrew? The early manuscripts of Mathew are Greek.

Dartman · May 29, 2017

Soyeong said:
I had just finished writing post #157 in response to miknik5 on the same issue, so I invited you to read that post instead of copying and pasting the same response in reply to you, which means that I had no reason to assume that you had already read it or that you had found it unpersuasive. If you don't find it persuasive, then please explain why that is the case:

What happened to Peter?

You make erroneous assumptions in your post, and you ignore the actual statements made in the text. The text blatantly, and clearly, states that God cleansed all the creatures in the sheet.

Soyeong said:
However, you want to translate it, it was a rabbinic idiom that referred to interpreting the Law in a way that undermined it or to causing the God's will as made known in the Law to not be obeyed as it should be.

Hogwash.
Jesus was commanded by his God to give new commandments. Included in those new commandments were replacements for existing laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law, AND which Jesus altered according to his God's instructions.

Soyeong said:
Whenever Jesus quoted Scripture, he always preceded it by saying "it is written", but when he was quoting from what the people had heard being taught about the Law, it he preceded it by saying "you have heard that it was said"....

Please show in Scripture where this distinction is explained.
Of course you can't, because this assertion is your opinion, it isn't from Scripture.
"it is written" means EXACTLY the same thing as "you have heard that it was said".
This is proven by the writings that Jesus quoted;
Thou shalt not kill ... Ex 20:13, Deut 5:17
Thou shalt not commit adultery ... Ex 20:14
Writing of divorcement ...... Deut 24:1
Swearing by Jehovah ...... Deut 6:13
Sorry, your theory doesn't match Scripture.

Soyeong said:
For example, Leviticus 19:12 commands us not to swear falsely in God's name, but it does not say that we can't swear falsely by some other name, so the Pharisees were teaching that that oaths were not binding unless they were in God's name. However, Jesus was correcting this by showing that all oaths ultimately referred to God.

Your attempt to distort Christ's words are "unpersuasive"!
Jesus commanded; "swear NOT AT ALL".

Soyeong said:
We see in Genesis 22:16-17, Hebrews 6:13, and Hebrews 7:21 that God swore by Himself,

God takes vengeance also, we are commanded NOT to take vengeance. Your point isn't persuasive.

Soyeong said:
in Matthew 26:63 that Jesus answered under oath to the Sanhedrin,

No, the Sanhedrin ATTEMPTED to trap him, but Jesus didn't swear to anything!

Soyeong said:
in 2 Corinthians 1:23 that Paul swore an oath to the Corinthians, and in Romans 1:9, Galatians 1:20, Philippians 1:8; 1 Corinthians 15:31, 1 Thessalonians 5:27, and Revelation 10:5-6 that they made solemn appeals to God

Your attempt to "spin" these text into "SWEARING" is again, unpersuasive!

Soyeong said:
While God's Law does command us to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), it does not command us to hate our enemy, that was again correcting what was wrongly being taught about the Law.

Deut 7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.
Deut 13:6-11 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

Deut 19:11-13 But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: 12 Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. 13 Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.

[quote-Soyeong]
I agree that Jesus is the prophet like unto Moses, but I disagree that the text you quoted established that fact.[/quote]???? Then who do you THINK Peter is talking about ????
Acts 3:18-26 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. 19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. 22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. 24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

We KNOW Peter is talking about Jesus, AND that Peter quotes Moses, and explains that "Samuel and those that follow after .... LIKEWISE foretold" of Jesus' day!!

Soyeong said:
There are many examples of God's Laws being in place prior to Sinai, so the Law given at Sinai did not reveal a change in the way to act according to God's character, but rather it revealed what had always been and will always be the way to act according to God's character.

Not quite correct. The Mosaic Law was a NEW set of laws, that had NEVER been given until Jehovah/YHVH spoke to the nation of Israel.

Yes, the basic principles of ALL of God's laws are consistent, but the specifics, like the sabbath, and dietary laws, are absolutely NOT any contiguous law!!

Soyeong said:
According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what God had commanded, so that is not something that the prophet like unto Moses would commit.

You're attempt to spin this is "unpersuasive".

Jehovah/YHVH God made it absolutely clear, the coming prophet would be like Moses, in that Jehovah/YHVH God would "put my words in his mouth".

Jesus NEVER... EVER ... said, I am just telling you the exact same thing Moses said ... so you don't have to keep my commandments"!!!!

Soyeong said:
God did not change His commandments on dietary issues or on holy days, but rather they have always been the way to act according to God's holiness.

Moses disagrees with you;
Deut 5:1-3
And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

Soyeong said:
If God did change the way to act according to His holiness, then God's holiness is not eternal, but God's holiness is eternal, therefore God did not change it.

God's holiness isn't affected by me eating bacon, or lobster.
Nor is it affected by me keeping any day.
Acts 10, Rom 14, Matt 15:11, 1 Cor 10 ALL make it perfectly clear, the New Testament has replaced the restrictions of the Mosaic Law with "grace and freedom".

miknik5 · May 29, 2017

Dartman said:
Then do not waste our time with stating that your "previous post" addressed the question. Obviously, your previous post was NOT persuasive.

1st, "abolish" is a poor translation of kataluo.

It means to destroy, demolish, disintegrate.

2nd) The REASON Jesus made the statement in Matt 5:17-18 is the obvious contradiction between the NEW commandments Jehovah/YHVH God put in Jesus' mouth, and the Mosaic Law. The rest of Matt 5 is a direct REPLACEMENT of the Mosaic Law.
For instance, in the Mosaic Law, they were COMMANDED to sware by Jehovah;
Deut 6:13 Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God; and Him shalt thou serve, and shalt swear by His name.

The commandment Jehovah gave to Jesus, which Jesus repeated in Matt 5, was absolutely the opposite;

Matt 5:34-37 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

That's not what I said.
Jesus came to fulfill the Mosaic Law, just like Jehovah/YHVH promised, and to replace it with NEW commandments, directly from his God!!

Jesus' God put GODS words in Jesus' mouth.

1st) You are incorrect. Peter quotes the prophecy recorded in Deut 18:15-19, stating that Jesus IS "the prophet like unto Moses".
2nd) You are failing to acknowledge that Jehovah/YHVH put NEW commandments in Moses mouth ..... exactly like He put NEW commandments in Jesus mouth!!
3rd) Jehovah/YHVH God has changed His commandments SEVERAL times, on dietary issues, and holy days!! The Sabbath was a brand new Law!
Deut 4:5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, even as Jehovah my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the midst of the land whither ye go in to possess it.

Neh 9:13-14 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: 14 And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

JESUS had no problem magnifying THE LAW of GOD

If HE had not come forth from GOD, HE would have had no right to say (in Matthew 5):

You have heard it said________

BUT I SAY TO YOU

Could Moses have had that authority to say that though it is written, though it has been said (by GOD's WORD) I say to you

miknik5 · May 30, 2017

Dartman said:
Then do not waste our time with stating that your "previous post" addressed the question. Obviously, your previous post was NOT persuasive.

1st, "abolish" is a poor translation of kataluo.

It means to destroy, demolish, disintegrate.

2nd) The REASON Jesus made the statement in Matt 5:17-18 is the obvious contradiction between the NEW commandments Jehovah/YHVH God put in Jesus' mouth, and the Mosaic Law. The rest of Matt 5 is a direct REPLACEMENT of the Mosaic Law.
For instance, in the Mosaic Law, they were COMMANDED to sware by Jehovah;
Deut 6:13 Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God; and Him shalt thou serve, and shalt swear by His name.

The commandment Jehovah gave to Jesus, which Jesus repeated in Matt 5, was absolutely the opposite;

Matt 5:34-37 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

That's not what I said.
Jesus came to fulfill the Mosaic Law, just like Jehovah/YHVH promised, and to replace it with NEW commandments, directly from his God!!

Jesus' God put GODS words in Jesus' mouth.

1st) You are incorrect. Peter quotes the prophecy recorded in Deut 18:15-19, stating that Jesus IS "the prophet like unto Moses".
2nd) You are failing to acknowledge that Jehovah/YHVH put NEW commandments in Moses mouth ..... exactly like He put NEW commandments in Jesus mouth!!
3rd) Jehovah/YHVH God has changed His commandments SEVERAL times, on dietary issues, and holy days!! The Sabbath was a brand new Law!
Deut 4:5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, even as Jehovah my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the midst of the land whither ye go in to possess it.

Neh 9:13-14 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: 14 And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

Also, remember that though GOD did speak and they heard HIS VOICE as thunder and were afraid, the reaom HE sent a prophet and put HIS WORDS in HIS mouth was because the people did not want to hear GOD, lest they perish

miknik5 · May 30, 2017

Dartman said:
Deut 18:17-19 And Jehovah said unto me, They have well said that which they have spoken. 18 I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

John 12:49-50 For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, He hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His commandment is life eternal: the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.

If you do not believe ME believe the works that you may know THE FATHER is in ME and I am in THE FATHER

CHRIST said HE and The FATHER are ONE. He who has seen HIM has seen THE FATHER

HE is not separate from THE FATHER

miknik5 · May 30, 2017

Dartman said:
Gen 9:1-3 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the heavens. With all wherewith the ground teemeth, and all the fishes of the sea, into your hand are they delivered. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be food for you. As the green herb have I given you all.

Acts 10:11-15 and he beholdeth the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth: 12 wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the heaven. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean. 15 And a voice (came) unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, make not thou common.

Only eight people were saved
GOD did not send HIS SON into the world to wash animals

miknik5 · May 30, 2017

Soyeong said:
I had just finished writing post #157 in response to miknik5 on the same issue, so I invited you to read that post instead of copying and pasting the same response in reply to you, which means that I had no reason to assume that you had already read it or that you had found it unpersuasive. If you don't find it persuasive, then please explain why that is the case:

What happened to Peter?

However, you want to translate it, it was a rabbinic idiom that referred to interpreting the Law in a way that undermined it or to causing the God's will as made known in the Law to not be obeyed as it should be. Whenever Jesus quoted Scripture, he always preceded it by saying "it is written", but when he was quoting from what the people had heard being taught about the Law, it he preceded it by saying "you have heard that it was said", so he was correcting what was wrongly being taught about how to obey the law, which would have sounded to the teachers of the Law like he was undermining it, which is why he preceded that by assuring them that he came not to do that.

For example, Leviticus 19:12 commands us not to swear falsely in God's name, but it does not say that we can't swear falsely by some other name, so the Pharisees were teaching that that oaths were not binding unless they were in God's name. However, Jesus was correcting this by showing that all oaths ultimately referred to God. We see in Genesis 22:16-17, Hebrews 6:13, and Hebrews 7:21 that God swore by Himself, in Matthew 26:63 that Jesus answered under oath to the Sanhedrin, in 2 Corinthians 1:23 that Paul swore an oath to the Corinthians, and in Romans 1:9, Galatians 1:20, Philippians 1:8; 1 Corinthians 15:31, 1 Thessalonians 5:27, and Revelation 10:5-6 that they made solemn appeals to God, so the Jesus was not against oaths in general, but against false oaths. In Matthew 23:22, Jesus said that whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it, so it is referring to people who are making oaths, but saying that it ultimately refers to God.

Here's another example of Jesus nothing brand new:

Matthew 5:27-28 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

This is just the correct application of the 7th and 10th Commandments.

Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

While God's Law does command us to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), it does not command us to hate our enemy, that was again correcting what was wrongly being taught about the Law.

The problem is that in Deuteronomy 13:4-5 God instructed His people that the way to tell that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was is they taught against obeying what He had command, even if they performed signs and wonders, so if your interpretation is correct, then you should consider Jesus to be a false prophet even though he rose from the dead.

I agree that Jesus is the prophet like unto Moses, but I disagree that the text you quoted established that fact. There are many examples of God's Laws being in place prior to Sinai, so the Law given at Sinai did not reveal a change in the way to act according to God's character, but rather it revealed what had always been and will always be the way to act according to God's character. According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what God had commanded, so that is not something that the prophet like unto Moses would commit. God did not change His commandments on dietary issues or on holy days, but rather they have always been the way to act according to God's holiness. If God did change the way to act according to His holiness, then God's holiness is not eternal, but God's holiness is eternal, therefore God did not change it. It is not clear to me what point you are making with Deuteronomy 4:5.

Again, there is a difference between making know the way to act according to God's holiness and the way to act according to God's holiness changing.

Well that didn't work according to your logic

Adultery was indeed a law so why didn't Matthew 5 (according to your distinction) say "it is written"?

Instead "you have heard it said" is used

Therefore your statement which i have bolded above in your post is not a correct statement

You have heard it said , according to your word, is used when it was a man's addition while (if what was clearly a command according to GOD's law) adultery, in this according to you, we should have found what you claimed:

It is written

Yet that is not what we find

instead we find the same phrase:

You have heard it said

Therefore we have to reject your logic because it does bitbkibe up with THE WORD Of GOD

miknik5 · May 30, 2017

Dartman said:
You make erroneous assumptions in your post, and you ignore the actual statements made in the text. The text blatantly, and clearly, states that God cleansed all the creatures in the sheet.
Hogwash.
Jesus was commanded by his God to give new commandments. Included in those new commandments were replacements for existing laws, which Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law, AND which Jesus altered according to his God's instructions.

Please show in Scripture where this distinction is explained.
Of course you can't, because this assertion is your opinion, it isn't from Scripture.
"it is written" means EXACTLY the same thing as "you have heard that it was said".
This is proven by the writings that Jesus quoted;
Thou shalt not kill ... Ex 20:13, Deut 5:17
Thou shalt not commit adultery ... Ex 20:14
Writing of divorcement ...... Deut 24:1
Swearing by Jehovah ...... Deut 6:13
Sorry, your theory doesn't match Scripture.
Your attempt to distort Christ's words are "unpersuasive"!
Jesus commanded; "swear NOT AT ALL".
God takes vengeance also, we are commanded NOT to take vengeance. Your point isn't persuasive.
No, the Sanhedrin ATTEMPTED to trap him, but Jesus didn't swear to anything!
Your attempt to "spin" these text into "SWEARING" is again, unpersuasive!

Deut 7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.
Deut 13:6-11 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

Deut 19:11-13 But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: 12 Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. 13 Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.

[quote-Soyeong]
I agree that Jesus is the prophet like unto Moses, but I disagree that the text you quoted established that fact.

???? Then who do you THINK Peter is talking about ????
Acts 3:18-26 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. 19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. 22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. 24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

We KNOW Peter is talking about Jesus, AND that Peter quotes Moses, and explains that "Samuel and those that follow after .... LIKEWISE foretold" of Jesus' day!!

Not quite correct. The Mosaic Law was a NEW set of laws, that had NEVER been given until Jehovah/YHVH spoke to the nation of Israel.

Yes, the basic principles of ALL of God's laws are consistent, but the specifics, like the sabbath, and dietary laws, are absolutely NOT any contiguous law!!

You're attempt to spin this is "unpersuasive".

Jehovah/YHVH God made it absolutely clear, the coming prophet would be like Moses, in that Jehovah/YHVH God would "put my words in his mouth".

Jesus NEVER... EVER ... said, I am just telling you the exact same thing Moses said ... so you don't have to keep my commandments"!!!!

Moses disagrees with you;
Deut 5:1-3
And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
God's holiness isn't affected by me eating bacon, or lobster.
Nor is it affected by me keeping any day.
Acts 10, Rom 14, Matt 15:11, 1 Cor 10 ALL make it perfectly clear, the New Testament has replaced the restrictions of the Mosaic Law with "grace and freedom".[/QUOTE]
CHRIST did not change the law but rather magnified the law and made it honorable

Based on love and accountability to GOD and to one another

What happened to Peter?

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Well-Known Member

Veteran

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Senior Contributor

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Similar threads