Your argument against "many paths to God"

Ygrene Imref said:

yi: I believe The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the God of gods. I believe His law is always good, and therefore should be followed (in entirety). I do not believe obedience justifies salvation - just like a son or daughter is the child whether or not s/he is obedient (e.g. prodigal son.)

We were never to be governed by a man, which is why the literal Word of God Himself was to be our King on earth. We sinned, and became ignorant of God - and out of that ignorance, we were allowed to have a man-king. This failed from the beginning, which paved the way for the Son of the God of gods to sacrifice Himself so that we could regain our lost titles as sons and daughters of God - forsaking our carnality for purity in spirituality. The Word of God is our living King to date.

But, Christ's sacrifice did not erase law, or the compulsion to be obedient. Faith in Christ and His sacrifice, His mission and His Father is what justifies your salvation. But, faith without works is dead - when we select law to follow we are putting faith into our respective modernity. It is saying that we know when God's law is applicable (e.g. we don't live in the "desert" anymore...")

Click to expand...

If Christ's death justified our salvation, then why do we still need to sacrifice animals?

yi: I believe that Christ's sacrifice was proof that God's laws are not too hard for man, and He vindicated Himself to the entirety of creation in all permeability (not that He needed to.) This is especially true since Christ succeeded where Adam 1 failed - and Christ had a handicap (He was born a son of man with no living "spirit" of His own, susceptible to sin where Adam began with his own spirit "breathed" into Him by God Himself - and chose to sin.)

Click to expand...

How was Christ's sacrifice proof that God's laws are not too hard for man? Have you ever lusted after a woman? If you have then you have broken God's law. How can you say His law is not too hard for man alone? We can follow His law up to a point and get better at it over time, but only because His holy spirit indwells us as a Helper as Christ said. Evidence that Christ did not have a spirit? All humans have a spirit and Christ was 100% human and 100% God.

yi: The resurrection of Christ, therefore, is consequential of what He is - perfection. By God's Universal Law, if you are perfect in your ways you deserve full life. Mortality is not a boundary for perfect beings - because they get immortality. This is what Man was supposed to be, and will be yet; no need for technology to induce transhumanism - just Faith in Christ, obedience to God, and full love for God and His Creation.

Click to expand...

So you think humans can be morally perfect in this life?

yi: Actual Christians are those who have full faith in Christ and His sacrifice, the Word of God, and its function and application in their lives for the best. These are ones that may be defiled in terms of sin, but are striving and heart-consciously making strides toward knowing their Father, and coming to obedience to Him and His laws. Even in ignorance, these are the ones who, when told something, will consult their Father in faith, correcting themselves in accordance to the Word of God.

That is far as I will go, which may already be too far.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of this statement. What church do you go to?

yi: We aren't too lost at all. We have more than the people under the old covenant had: e.g. an "on loan" Holy spirit that convicts us. Most people call this consciousness; the OT calls it wisdom. If we choose, we have Christ/God. Christ fulfilled every single law because He did exactly what God commanded of a human perfectly - it wasn't because of some mystical or spiritual absorption of the laws into his person. We are bound by all laws; please show me any place in the canon or apocryphal library where Christ/God says that we are only bound to certain laws and we can ignore others.

Click to expand...

We do have more knowledge than the old covenant people, but we still have a sin nature. See my post above.

yi: Qualifications of frequency do not invalidate the egregious and grossly barbaric treatment of slaves by the West - especially in the name of gods, or justification thereof.

Click to expand...

Actually in North America many slave owners treated them like family as shown in the book "The End of Racism". But many slave owners did treat them very badly also. While None of this justifies the violation of Gods moral law against involuntary slavery, it does show that the West and especially the US was ahead of its time relative to most other slaveholding nations.

yi: Both the Northwestern and Southwestern hemisphere of the world was dramatically changed - not necessarily for the better - by imperialism and slavery. Their "modern" nations were physically built on free labor.

Click to expand...

Evidence? Most slaves only built the wealthy homes and some government buildings like the White House. I would hardly call that the modern nations were physical built on free labor.

yi: The West tries to marginalize the affects of slavery to date, and that may be because to recognize this would mean one would also need to recognize that the "greatness" and "innovation" of the West is due in very large part to the exploitation of slavery and [religious] imperialism.

Click to expand...

You have provided absolutely no evidence for this claim, see above for evidence against it. I am referring to the true greatness not the materialism but rather the development of human rights and freedoms. None of those things came from slavery in fact it was an impetus to later go back to our founding principles which were actually against slavery. The original colonists only utilized indentured servitude not involuntary slavery.

yi: Brasil does not speak Portugeuse because that is the original language. Haitians don't speak French because that was the language they learned on a cruise trip - or in their native country.
Puertorriquenos y cubanos no hablan espanol porque era su lengua materna. Native Americans do not speak English because that was their native language.

North and South America are examples of exploitation of imperialism and slave trade - many through direct order of a "Holy Empire," where a monarch or governor is bedfellows with the Church of modernity.

Click to expand...

See above none of this brought the greatness and uniqueness of the West. Again I am referring to how we worked towared our goals which were Christian principles that helped us to change to the point where we condemned slavery and imperialism. No other societies have done this or have such objective standards of right and good.

cloudyday2 said:

How would you persuade somebody who seeks God that Christianity is either the best way or the only way (without simply quoting from Christian sources that the other person doesn't yet accept)?

Click to expand...

I probably wouldn't try and persuade someone that Christianity is the only way to God. But I would confess that according to Christianity it's not about us making our way to God, but that God has made His way to us in Jesus. When Jesus says "I am the way to the Father" it should be understood in the context of everything else being said and in the general theme of John's Gospel: Jesus is God's own Word and Self-Disclosure of Himself. When the disciples ask Jesus, "How can we know the way?" Jesus points to Himself, "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father" because we meet God in Jesus. Jesus is the way because in Him God makes God's Self known.

Christianity isn't a path that shows us how to reach up to God. Christianity is the confession that God comes down--God always comes down.

-CryptoLutheran

Ygrene Imref said:

You are right that there are certainly exceptions to the rule. However, those exceptions were consequential of their ignorance of the orders and occultism within their own "religion." I wouldn't say they improved anyone's culture, however, because I am sure that the slaughtered, genocided native and enslaved people would rather have no technology and their people than skyscrapers, people stacked on each other, a brutal law enforcement and a system that does everything to erase history.

Click to expand...

I don't know of any missionaries that slaughtered, genocided, or enslaved people. Do you have any evidence of missionaries doing these things? Missionaries have ended infanticide, gladiatorial fights, widow burning, taught thousands how to read, rescued orphans, ended human sacrifice and cannibalism among many other things. I would say that those are major improvements to those cultures that did those things.

Ygrene Imref said:

Passive Christianity teaches that you obey God because you love Him - yet they dont acknowledge or follow His law. Rather even, they themselves stipulate what is supposed to be followed and what isnt.

Show me one place in the bible where God or Christ says that we don't have to follow the rules he has set up despite the offer of Grace and Salvation.

Show me one place.

Click to expand...

I don't deny that the West and the US have done bad things and sometimes in the name of Christianity. But it is a fact of history that the founding documents are based on Christian principles and many of our leaders have tried to meet those principles and standards, no nations outside of western ones have those objectively existing standards as their goal even when they don't always meet them or follow them. But our striving for them and judging others for falling short of them have caused us to become the greatest nations on earth and greatest forces for good on the earth. BTW, what is a horn with a beast system? You sound like a dispensationalist interpretation of Daniel.[/quote]

You are not Christian if you use slaves to exploit labor - and your purposefully breed them with their relatives to produce stronger slaves, purposefully keep them from an education so they will never want for a better life, and penetrate the men for the purposes of breaking them, etc. That is not Christian; the foundation of Columbia is not Christian. And, that is just what America has done to one group of its citizens.


You have to ignore the majority horrific history of the West to claim with a straight face that anyone should take "good" from the forging of an empire without pointing to the reality of how that empire was built - and how the same tactics of denigration and dehumanization are being used.






You still need to show me one place where God or Christ said that we dont have to follow any of His laws (and list them.) I am not being funny.

Either people need to stop saying that 'we are under grace; we don't have to follow [insert God's Law here,]" or they need to show where God and/or Christ said this - not a man. The foundation of Christianity is God's word; how can you expect to love God if you don't follow His Laws? You don't adsorb righteousness by osmosis. Stop telling people the dangerous tale that they don't have to follow the laws of God, and that Christ saved them from being obedient. No one is saying obedience justifies salvation, but faith without works is dead.

I ask for one verse from the APOCRYPHA OR CANON that says God/Christ gave us permission to disregard ANY law of God previously set up, or to come.[/QUOTE]
See my earlier post where I provided verses.

Ed1wolf said:

I don't deny that the West and the US have done bad things and sometimes in the name of Christianity. But it is a fact of history that the founding documents are based on Christian principles and many of our leaders have tried to meet those principles and standards, no nations outside of western ones have those objectively existing standards as their goal even when they don't always meet them or follow them. But our striving for them and judging others for falling short of them have caused us to become the greatest nations on earth and greatest forces for good on the earth. BTW, what is a horn with a beast system? You sound like a dispensationalist interpretation of Daniel.

Click to expand...

You are not Christian if you use slaves to exploit labor - and your purposefully breed them with their relatives to produce stronger slaves, purposefully keep them from an education so they will never want for a better life, and penetrate the men for the purposes of breaking them, etc. That is not Christian; the foundation of Columbia is not Christian. And, that is just what America has done to one group of its citizens.


You have to ignore the majority horrific history of the West to claim with a straight face that anyone should take "good" from the forging of an empire without pointing to the reality of how that empire was built - and how the same tactics of denigration and dehumanization are being used.






You still need to show me one place where God or Christ said that we dont have to follow any of His laws (and list them.) I am not being funny.

Either people need to stop saying that 'we are under grace; we don't have to follow [insert God's Law here,]" or they need to show where God and/or Christ said this - not a man. The foundation of Christianity is God's word; how can you expect to love God if you don't follow His Laws? You don't adsorb righteousness by osmosis. Stop telling people the dangerous tale that they don't have to follow the laws of God, and that Christ saved them from being obedient. No one is saying obedience justifies salvation, but faith without works is dead.

I ask for one verse from the APOCRYPHA OR CANON that says God/Christ gave us permission to disregard ANY law of God previously set up, or to come.

Click to expand...

See my earlier post where I provided verses.

Click to expand...

Your earlier posts never showed where Christ, or God directly stated any of His law is not applicable for whatever reason.

That is why I haven't responded to any of your posts. If you cant begin with that foundation - finding direct commands or verbal instruction from God or Christ that we can ignore any of His laws for whatever reason - then we don't have any progress.

A large lot of what is being argued depends on the acknowledgment that God Himself never told any of us that we could selectively follow His commandments. When we get there (or, if you can show me proof from Christ or God of the contrary,) then we can move onto the historicity of the Church, and its negligent/egregious influence on "Western Civilization," as it were.

Ygrene Imref said:

Your earlier posts never showed where Christ, or God directly stated any of His law is not applicable for whatever reason.

That is why I haven't responded to any of your posts. If you cant begin with that foundation - finding direct commands or verbal instruction from God or Christ that we can ignore any of His laws for whatever reason - then we don't have any progress.

A large lot of what is being argued depends on the acknowledgment that God Himself never told any of us that we could selectively follow His commandments. When we get there (or, if you can show me proof from Christ or God of the contrary,) then we can move onto the historicity of the Church, and its negligent/egregious influence on "Western Civilization," as it were.

Click to expand...

Yes I did. I provided multiple verses from God/Christ Himself from His Word in post 300.

Ed1wolf said:

What do you mean by mixed with mysticism?



Who are people who are Hebrews but do not know it?




While the categories are not explicitly stated, careful analysis of the original Hebrew and context shows that there were subtle differences between the categories of law. For example, why do you think that only the Ten Commandments were written on stone? Everything God does is for a purpose.

Again, while not explicit it is plainly implied throughout the New Covenant that the ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ. Read Ephesians 2:15, Matt. 15:20, Mark 7:15-19, Acts 10:9-16, Hebrews 10:1-14, 13:9, 10.




See verses above why the ceremonial law no longer applies to anyone. And other verses such as Matt. 5:18 show that the moral law applies to everyone even those that that don't want to know Him as Father.


He didn't absorb the law, He obeyed it perfectly so His righteousness could be imputed upon those that accept it and thereby allow us to be considered righteous and thereby be saved. And one of the signs that that has happened is that we want to obey His moral law to show our love for Him.



No, we still had to adhere to them but God's second chosen representative (Adam being the first) Jesus, obeyed them perfectly and imputed His righteousness on to us so that now we obey the moral laws out of love for Him as a sign of whose we are and not as way to gain God's favor.


See above where God and Christ plainly imply some of these things throughout the New Covenant.​

Click to expand...

I didn't ask for implicit statements from God/Christ; I asked you to show me where Christ and/or God said that we can ignore any or all of His laws - especially under certain conditions and/or for certain people.


Ephesians 2:15: Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Paul said this; God/The Word of God did NOT say this. We cant even get into the historicity of Paul until we get past this point. I asked for where God/Christ said something directly about our ability to ignore some, or all of His laws.


Matt. 15:20: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Christ said this, but this has nothing to do with (dis)obeying laws of God. Christ responded to Peter's ineptitude concerning the parable about what defiles a person. Christ tells you exactly what He means in the verses before the one you chose. Let's look at it in context:


Mark 7:15-19:
There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.

And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

This is the same thing as Matthew 15:17-20. Christ is nowhere near talking about Laws of God that a man can/not follow: the context is what defiles a man. He is pointing out that it isn't what you eat that defiles your spirit, but your heart. The disciples missed the entire point of the Law: it isn't about giving up following it and making the best of it, it is about understanding the very purpose of righteousness so that you long and hunger for it only. The laws still apply, but Christ came to teach us the function of them - and life. He did not come to change, amend or delete laws.

Christ is the same [Word of] God the OT prophets spoke with.


Acts 10:9-16: This entire chapter is not about food laws at all - it is about treatment of gentiles. Peter explains himself in clear detail about what the dream is in the very same chapter. Even still, this was neither God, nor the Word of God that intimated at anything allowing us to disregard any law or statute God previously set up. It is Peter.

And, Acts 10 is a horrible, grossly horrible quote for defending the position that we can eat "anything." Peter specifically explains himself, and his dream in the SAME CHAPTER:

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.

But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. 36 The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all—

that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached:

how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree.

Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly,

not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.

And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead.

To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” Acts 10:34-43

And, it still isn't God saying anything about His laws being void, or selectively applicable.


Hebrews was a book by Paul - a Human. I asked for where God said that we can selectively follow His law - directly from Him, and/or The Word of God. I respect the Patriarchs, but they are not gods. They are human; their words are fallible. One who quotes God directly would have a hefty price to pay, not to mention the work God would do to vindicate Himself, and weed out artificiality. Part of that is our job; for me, humans are no greater than me, and certainly don't hold more weight than Christ.

If you cant show me a place where God directly tells us we can selectively follow His laws (like He gave them directly to Moses,) then we may not be able to go forward.

NO humans implying something you interpret; something as serious as following the Law of God should be explicitly stated so that we know for sure we can/not do what we think we can/should do. If you assert God did allow certain laws to be void, and nullified - then that means the entire Church is in an apostate, as the many denominations do not come to this conclusion in unity.

Ygrene Imref said:

I didn't ask for implicit statements from God/Christ; I asked you to show me where Christ and/or God said that we can ignore any or all of His laws - especially under certain conditions and/or for certain people.

Click to expand...

Many of Christ's teachings are implicit and not explicit.

ed: Ephesians 2:15: Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

yi: Paul said this; God/The Word of God did NOT say this. We cant even get into the historicity of Paul until we get past this point. I asked for where God/Christ said something directly about our ability to ignore some, or all of His laws.

Click to expand...

As a Christian I believe along with the majority of Christians for 2000 years, that Paul's Holy Spirit inspired writings ARE part of the infallible Word of God/Christ. So this verse does plainly imply that the ceremonial laws no longer apply to the followers of Christ. Christ's death and life fulfilled them so that it is no longer necessary to sacrifice animals and etc.

Matt. 15:20: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

yi: Christ said this, but this has nothing to do with (dis)obeying laws of God. Christ responded to Peter's ineptitude concerning the parable about what defiles a person. Christ tells you exactly what He means in the verses before the one you chose. Let's look at it in context:

Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.


For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Matthew 15:17-20​

Click to expand...

ed: Mark 7:15-19:

Click to expand...

There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.

And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

This is the same thing as Matthew 15:17-20. Christ is nowhere near talking about Laws of God that a man can/not follow: the context is what defiles a man. He is pointing out that it isn't what you eat that defiles your spirit, but your heart. The disciples missed the entire point of the Law: it isn't about giving up following it and making the best of it, it is about understanding the very purpose of righteousness so that you long and hunger for it only. The laws still apply, but Christ came to teach us the function of them - and life. He did not come to change, amend or delete laws.

Christ is the same [Word of] God the OT prophets spoke with.

Click to expand...

No, it is obvious that He is saying that you can eat ceremonially unclean foods and not engage in ceremonial washings (ie not follow the ceremonial laws) and you are not committing a sin. IOW they are no longer necessary because He fulfilled them with His life and death and resurrection.

Acts 10:9-16: This entire chapter is not about food laws at all - it is about treatment of gentiles. Peter explains himself in clear detail about what the dream is in the very same chapter. Even still, this was neither God, nor the Word of God that intimated at anything allowing us to disregard any law or statute God previously set up. It is Peter.

Click to expand...

The majority of Christians and Christian churches have believed that Peter and the writer of Acts, Luke, were inspired by God and their inspired writings ARE the Words of God and Christ for 2000 years.

Ed1wolf said:

Many of Christ's teachings are implicit and not explicit.




As a Christian I believe along with the majority of Christians for 2000 years, that Paul's Holy Spirit inspired writings ARE part of the infallible Word of God/Christ. So this verse does plainly imply that the ceremonial laws no longer apply to the followers of Christ. Christ's death and life fulfilled them so that it is no longer necessary to sacrifice animals and etc.

That is right, in context not eating pork or other unclean foods and not engaging in ceremonial washings does not make you unclean, it is the things you say, think, and do morally, ie disobeying the moral Law that make you unclean.
​

No, it is obvious that He is saying that you can eat ceremonially unclean foods and not engage in ceremonial washings (ie not follow the ceremonial laws) and you are not committing a sin. IOW they are no longer necessary because He fulfilled them with His life and death and resurrection.




The majority of Christians and Christian churches have believed that Peter and the writer of Acts, Luke, were inspired by God and their inspired writings ARE the Words of God and Christ for 2000 years.

Click to expand...

Peter is not talking about eating unclean foods. That is why he responded to God by saying, "nothing unclean has touched my mouth" when God told him to "kill and eat."

It is not about eating clean or unclean meat at all. It is about the non-judgmental inclusion of gentiles (non-blood Hebrews) into the House of God should they want to follow Him. That is what that chapter is about. Peter says this himself.


And, you still have not shown me one command or suggestion from Christ/God that show that we can reject their laws. As far as I see, a bunch of humans are the ones who have given you the confidence to abandon God's laws. If He never voided His law, and especially if He sent His Word to explicitly state that He did not come to change the law, then why would you get the impression that humans - no matter how revered - have the authority to challenge the obedience standards of God?


Even Paul tells us to test everything against the Word of God. The literal living Word of God said that He did not come to change the law. Fulfilling the law does not mean it is erased; it means it is fulfilled. Christ did what no other human could do - follow God 100% of the time and exist perfectly blameless.


If you can show me one verse where God explicitly gives these men or any men - revered or not - the authority to tell other men what laws of God we can/not follow, the I am all ears.


EDIT: Christ is the same today as He was before existence itself. The Word of God is very direct; He has never been vague about what He expects of us, what we should hope for if we are righteous, and what will happen to us if we disobey Him. Christ said that He didn't come to change the law because He was referencing His "unchanging" nature that He directly expressed in the OT. His instructions are simple; He is not the author of confusion. He spoke in parables so that the evil serpents (persons/entities) wouldn't understand what He was talking about. He didn't do it to be vague.

The Word of God is the same One that was besting the most prominent 10 Egyptian gods that allegedly walked the earth and exhibited power of their own. It is the same God that prevented Moses from going to the promised land because he disobeyed Him (much more precisely, Moses allowed men to drive him to disobey God.) God is God... does it make sense that He is demanding of obedience in one "Act," and the He suddenly doesn't care in the next "Act" - if He is unchanging?

Ygrene Imref said:

Hebrews was a book by Paul - a Human.

Click to expand...

Actually scholars are not sure who wrote Hebrews, but some think it could have been Paul. But nevertheless the early leaders and people of the church guided by the Holy spirit determined that it was written by someone who was inspired by God and therefore is considered part of the infallible Word of God and Christ.

yi: I asked for where God said that we can selectively follow His law - directly from Him, and/or The Word of God. I respect the Patriarchs, but they are not gods. They are human; their words are fallible.

Click to expand...

Not when their writings were inspired by God, those writings were infallible. It sounds like you are selectively choosing what parts of the Word of God you like and only consider those Gods Word.

yi: One who quotes God directly would have a hefty price to pay, not to mention the work God would do to vindicate Himself, and weed out artificiality. Part of that is our job; for me, humans are no greater than me, and certainly don't hold more weight than Christ.

Click to expand...

But God commanded men like Moses to quote Him and record what happened in ancient times and His dealings with His people the Hebrews and then later Christians. Our job is not to pick and choose what parts of His word we like and then only accept those things as His word. Our job is to accept His infallible word in trust and faith and study and learn from it.

yi: If you cant show me a place where God directly tells us we can selectively follow His laws (like He gave them directly to Moses,) then we may not be able to go forward.

Click to expand...

I have, but it sounds like you are a theological liberal that does not accept the Bible as God's infallible Word. And you just pick and choose out of the bible what you want to believe. If that is the thing you are doing and recommending for others to do then we can know almost nothing about God and Christ.

yi: NO humans implying something you interpret; something as serious as following the Law of God should be explicitly stated so that we know for sure we can/not do what we think we can/should do. If you assert God did allow certain laws to be void, and nullified - then that means the entire Church is in an apostate, as the many denominations do not come to this conclusion in unity.

Click to expand...

But if God's word is full of errors or incomplete or just human inspired then we cannot know what God's Law is. Most churches that accept the infallible authority of the Bible generally agree on what God's moral laws are.

Ed1wolf said:

Actually scholars are not sure who wrote Hebrews, but some think it could have been Paul. But nevertheless the early leaders and people of the church guided by the Holy spirit determined that it was written by someone who was inspired by God and therefore is considered part of the infallible Word of God and Christ.

Click to expand...

Being guided by the Holy Spirit is not the same as from the word of God Himself.

God's word is infallible - not the human. And, even when The Word of God Himself was on this planet, He said He did not come to change the Law. Men said that His law is conditional.

Not when their writings were inspired by God, those writings were infallible. It sounds like you are selectively choosing what parts of the Word of God you like and only consider those Gods Word.

Click to expand...

Yes, when their writings were inspired by God - they are still human. Peter denied The Word of God Himself three times, and Peter was in the presence of the Word of God Himself during His ministries. So, we shouldn't make an image of the canon itself.

The Word of God is infallible, not the human. Through Christ, we have a Holy Spirit that convicts us, and instructs us. But, saying an anointed person other The Anointed One (Christ) has authority to change or add conditions to law is dangerously erroneous. The philosophy that divine inspiration is a broad-stroke of perfection applied to the human is what allows cults to thrive in the past and present. The messenger becomes unconsciously deified - rather than the Word itself.

But God commanded men like Moses to quote Him and record what happened in ancient times and His dealings with His people the Hebrews and then later Christians. Our job is not to pick and choose what parts of His word we like and then only accept those things as His word. Our job is to accept His infallible word in trust and faith and study and learn from it.

Click to expand...

Thats right! God commanded...

not humans.

God never told us we could pick and choose which law we can be obedient to in order to please Him. That is why the arguments about whether or not His unchanging laws are applicable in modernity is dangerously asinine. No scholar, prophet or even angel has the authority to dictate which law is applicable. His Word is not a phantom; it is real - at one point even walking on this earth. Accepting and trusting His word in faith means you believe it is relevant - all of it. You don't choose to make a doctrine of not following His law because it fits with the times and egos/wants.

I have, but it sounds like you are a theological liberal that does not accept the Bible as God's infallible Word. And you just pick and choose out of the bible what you want to believe. If that is the thing you are doing and recommending for others to do then we can know almost nothing about God and Christ.

Click to expand...

So even though I specifically and explicitly told you where I stand, you still believe I am a theologial liberal?

Does a theological liberal believe we should all be following ALL of God's laws - that no laws have been disposed of, made inert or conditional - no matter if one is Christian or Hebrew? No, "conservative" Christians still try to make conditions on the obedience of the 10 commandments - they certainly don't believe one would be obedient in following so called "Old Testament" laws.

I am nowhere near a theological liberal, I do believe my Father when He says something - which is why I am asking you where HE said that we could ignore any or all parts of His law. Seriously.

Do not show me implicit and vague text from HUMANS speaking on God's behalf. Show me where God Himself said that we could stop being obedient to His laws. This is a very serious matter of the spirit - understanding what is expected of us by the Most High.


1 verse where Christ or God explicitly tell us we have the option to conditionally follow His law - especially when it was the Word of God who said that those who love the Most High will follow/keep His Commandments.

What you, and people who share the same sentiments as you, are suggesting is that God is some lukewarm god that would conditionally apply His standards to certain people. God is not a respecter of persons; if you want to be in a relationship with Him, you keep His commandments. It is very simple.

Nowhere in the bible canon, apocrypha or gnostics is it ever said by God that His laws are conditional to certain groups - especially in the second covenant (which was prophesied in the OT.)

It is a dangerous game to keep telling people they can ignore His word when He explicitly says the opposite on several occasions.

Ed1wolf said:

But if God's word is full of errors or incomplete or just human inspired then we cannot know what God's Law is. Most churches that accept the infallible authority of the Bible generally agree on what God's moral laws are.

Click to expand...

I never said the Word of God is full of errors or incomplete. The canon is written by humans, which we trust is (overall) the inspired word of God. Making an image of the bible itself is faulty - which is what many churches like to do. The book itself is not sacred - it is paper and ink.

The Word of God - by the New COvenant - is already in your heart; you dont have to ask your neighbor, or consult a book, concerning the things of God. He, and His word are already in your heart. Through sin and ignorance we dampen that influence of the Holy Spirit, but if you were stuck on an island and you were a Christian, you should be able to fully know God with no need of a canon.

Most Churches accept the canonical authority of the religion. The Word of God itself is rejected - in many parts - based on doctrine. Where, for example, does God stipulate that we can follow only nine of the ten commandments?

It would do well for everyone to understand that YOU (self) - no one else - determines the trajectory of your (self) soul. If another human contradicts [the Word of] God, then that human is wrong, or a liar depending on the circumstances. The type of twisting of the word of God to fit times is not new; scholarly support of such a thing is not new. Christ spent a lot of time chastising the same temporal analogues of theology - the Pharisees. (Of course, back then they were culturally the "scholars" and leaders of the time.)





One last time, and I open this up to anyone who can show this:

Ygrene Imref said:

Peter is not talking about eating unclean foods. That is why he responded to God by saying, "nothing unclean has touched my mouth" when God told him to "kill and eat."

Click to expand...

He meant up until that time. But God showed him animals that had been unclean originally but now God declared clean under the New Covenant.

yi: It is not about eating clean or unclean meat at all. It is about the non-judgmental inclusion of gentiles (non-blood Hebrews) into the House of God should they want to follow Him. That is what that chapter is about. Peter says this himself.

Click to expand...

Yes, but if you read Galatians 2 you see that part of that non-judgemental inclusion of gentiles was to not force Gentile believers to abide by the dietary laws.

yi: And, you still have not shown me one command or suggestion from Christ/God that show that we can reject their laws. As far as I see, a bunch of humans are the ones who have given you the confidence to abandon God's laws. If He never voided His law, and especially if He sent His Word to explicitly state that He did not come to change the law, then why would you get the impression that humans - no matter how revered - have the authority to challenge the obedience standards of God?

Click to expand...

Not sure what humans you are referring to. If you are referring to Peter and Paul then you are rejecting His chosen prophets of the NT. I never said His law was voided, I said it was fulfilled. So we no longer have to follow the dietary laws or sacrificial laws, IOW the ceremonial laws.

Ed1wolf said:

He meant up until that time. But God showed him animals that had been unclean originally but now God declared clean under the New Covenant.


Yes, but if you read Galatians 2 you see that part of that non-judgemental inclusion of gentiles was to not force Gentile believers to abide by the dietary laws.




Not sure what humans you are referring to. If you are referring to Peter and Paul then you are rejecting His chosen prophets of the NT. I never said His law was voided, I said it was fulfilled. So we no longer have to follow the dietary laws or sacrificial laws, IOW the ceremonial laws.

Click to expand...

So, again...

Where does God explicitly tell us that any part of his law is voided, or to be conditionally applied to certain persons?

I respect the Patriarchs and prophets, but if they tell me something that contradicts God, they they are liars. God said He never changes - that his law will exist until the end and that He did not come to destroy the law.

It is very simple: If you tell me I don't have to follow a certain rule of God, but God has never said this Himself (nor has He ever intimated such a thing,) then I go with God.

Where is the verse that would without a shadow of a doubt tell the believer what laws s/he is allowed to forget and under what conditions? Where does God say, "and the Lord God commanded... saying, "you don't have to follow the OT laws if you are Christian?'"

You still havent shown where God said anything relating to the authority or command He allegedy gives us to break, bend and ignore any or all parts of His law. Again, where did GOD say this - not man. If it is something this important (following His law...) then God would have been explicit about it for the sake of the "foolish." He isn't the author of the occult and/or confusion. If we had the power to follow some of His laws, dont you think Christ would have said that He came to change the rules - instead of saying that He came NOT to destroy the law?

This idea that we can select what rules are special conditions from the Most High God's commandments - such that the person doesn't strive for obedience - is a very dangerous idea spiritually. You set people up to fail if you tell them they can select what laws they can follow. God never said you could do this (unless you have those verses that show otherwise.)

Ygrene Imref said:

EDIT: Christ is the same today as He was before existence itself. The Word of God is very direct; He has never been vague about what He expects of us, what we should hope for if we are righteous, and what will happen to us if we disobey Him. Christ said that He didn't come to change the law because He was referencing His "unchanging" nature that He directly expressed in the OT. His instructions are simple; He is not the author of confusion. He spoke in parables so that the evil serpents (persons/entities) wouldn't understand what He was talking about. He didn't do it to be vague.

The Word of God is the same One that was besting the most prominent 10 Egyptian gods that allegedly walked the earth and exhibited power of their own. It is the same God that prevented Moses from going to the promised land because he disobeyed Him (much more precisely, Moses allowed men to drive him to disobey God.) God is God... does it make sense that He is demanding of obedience in one "Act," and the He suddenly doesn't care in the next "Act" - if He is unchanging?

Click to expand...

You are right that Christ and His word are unchanging. But so is His plan unchanging and according to His plan there was to be a New Covenant whereby the ceremonial laws would be fulfilled and no longer needed.

Ed1wolf said:

You are right that Christ and His word are unchanging. But so is His plan unchanging and according to His plan there was to be a New Covenant whereby the ceremonial laws would be fulfilled and no longer needed.

Click to expand...

Now that is something we can sort of agree on - that the ceremonial laws are fulfilled in Christ. However, I would argue that they are still in effect - their purpose has been fulfilled through Christ as the perfect sacrifice. All of the sacrifices before Him were foreshadowings; the Abraham-Isaac interaction was an on the nose prophecy of Christ - especially since God gave Abraham a ram ensnared/prepared for slaughter.

But this is what I mean: God explicitly told us that He was tired of our vain oblations, and our Sabbaths because we were hypocrites. The law was still in effect, but even God said stop giving vain oblation. We would look forward to "BBQ" instead of retarding our sinful ways. We made the sacrifices moot to us because of our iniquity and sin. But, they are still applicable, and always will be.

(This is an especially important point to recognize, seeing as some entity will begin the daily sacrifice so that it can be stopped.) The law is still in effect; the sacrifice is just Perfect this time. This was explicit from The Word of God. Even the Justice laws are still in effect - but if you believe Christ is alive, and Christ is King, then only He has authority to execute judgment. People who try to execute judgment when the King has declared mercy are treasonous. The Word of God even says that in the future the saints will be judges - under what codex will these saints judge? Under the codex of the unchanging and everlasting Word of God that never changes.

Ygrene Imref said:

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually scholars are not sure who wrote Hebrews, but some think it could have been Paul. But nevertheless the early leaders and people of the church guided by the Holy spirit determined that it was written by someone who was inspired by God and therefore is considered part of the infallible Word of God and Christ.

yi: Being guided by the Holy Spirit is not the same as from the word of God Himself.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is since they are the same being. God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are the same being. They are both God. In fact, if not for the Holy Spirt whom Jesus Himself said would reveal what is true and what is not about Himself, we would not even know who Jesus is.

yi: God's word is infallible - not the human.

Click to expand...

I didn't say the human was infallible, I said the human's inspired writings are infallible because they were inspired by God.

yi: And, even when The Word of God Himself was on this planet, He said He did not come to change the Law. Men said that His law is conditional.

Click to expand...

Right, He said He came to fulfill the ceremonial law and He did, thereby rendering it obsolete. But of course we can still learn things from it that is why God preserved it in the Bible.

ed: Not when their writings were inspired by God, those writings were infallible. It sounds like you are selectively choosing what parts of the Word of God you like and only consider those Gods Word.

yi:Yes, when their writings were inspired by God - they are still human. Peter denied The Word of God Himself three times, and Peter was in the presence of the Word of God Himself during His ministries. So, we shouldn't make an image of the canon itself.

Click to expand...

Without the inspired canon you would not even know that Peter denied Christ three times. No body is making an image of the canon, whatever that means. The canon is God's love letter to us so we want to obey it because He loves us.

yi: The Word of God is infallible, not the human. Through Christ, we have a Holy Spirit that convicts us, and instructs us. But, saying an anointed person other The Anointed One (Christ) has authority to change or add conditions to law is dangerously erroneous. The philosophy that divine inspiration is a broad-stroke of perfection applied to the human is what allows cults to thrive in the past and present. The messenger becomes unconsciously deified - rather than the Word itself.

Click to expand...

Ummm I have said multiple times that the human is not infallible, only his inspired writings are. Please actually read my posts before responding. Is English your second language or first language? You seem to have some trouble reading my posts. Christ inspired the writings of these men so it is Christ Himself the living Word of God that revealed to us that the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled and are now obsolete.

ed: But God commanded men like Moses to quote Him and record what happened in ancient times and His dealings with His people the Hebrews and then later Christians. Our job is not to pick and choose what parts of His word we like and then only accept those things as His word. Our job is to accept His infallible word in trust and faith and study and learn from it.

yi: Thats right! God commanded...

not humans.

Click to expand...

I never said that we should obey human commandments, but God did command us through his chosen human prophets and disciples by inspiring their writings.

yi: God never told us we could pick and choose which law we can be obedient to in order to please Him. That is why the arguments about whether or not His unchanging laws are applicable in modernity is dangerously asinine. No scholar, prophet or even angel has the authority to dictate which law is applicable. His Word is not a phantom; it is real - at one point even walking on this earth. Accepting and trusting His word in faith means you believe it is relevant - all of it. You don't choose to make a doctrine of not following His law because it fits with the times and egos/wants.

Click to expand...

If that prophet or disciple has been inspired by the Holy Spirit to write parts of the canon then his writings ARE the written Word of God equal in authority to the LIving Word of God Jesus Christ because they are one and the SAME. The Word of God consists of two facets, Christ and the Canon or written Word of GOD. Without one we cannot know the other in any significant way.

Ed1wolf said:

Yes, it is since they are the same being. God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are the same being. They are both God. In fact, if not for the Holy Spirt whom Jesus Himself said would reveal what is true and what is not about Himself, we would not even know who Jesus is.



I didn't say the human was infallible, I said the human's inspired writings are infallible because they were inspired by God.


Right, He said He came to fulfill the ceremonial law and He did, thereby rendering it obsolete. But of course we can still learn things from it that is why God preserved it in the Bible.



Without the inspired canon you would not even know that Peter denied Christ three times. No body is making an image of the canon, whatever that means. The canon is God's love letter to us so we want to obey it because He loves us.


Ummm I have said multiple times that the human is not infallible, only his inspired writings are. Please actually read my posts before responding. Is English your second language or first language? You seem to have some trouble reading my posts. Christ inspired the writings of these men so it is Christ Himself the living Word of God that revealed to us that the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled and are now obsolete.



I never said that we should obey human commandments, but God did command us through his chosen human prophets and disciples by inspiring their writings.


If that prophet or disciple has been inspired by the Holy Spirit to write parts of the canon then his writings ARE the written Word of God equal in authority to the LIving Word of God Jesus Christ because they are one and the SAME. The Word of God consists of two facets, Christ and the Canon or written Word of GOD. Without one we cannot know the other in any significant way.

Click to expand...

Being inspired by the Holy Spirit is not the same as the Holy Spirit itself. I am aware of the relationship between the Holy Spirit, God and Christ. However, just because a human is inspired by the Holy Spirit does not automatically make everything s/he says and does right. That is a fact, not opinion.

Moses was in direct communication with God (a foreshadowing to the gift of the Holy Spirit), and he still did things during his ministry that were not things the Holy Spirit would do (or command.) One specific thing kept him from entering the promised land.

Jonah was directed by God to prophesy to Nineveh, and despite being a prophet he chose to fight the will of God until he was forced to submit.

Peter denied Christ three time, and He was in the presence of the Word of God Itself.

God is no joke; He demands perfection even in humans. We have an Advocate - who is [the Word of] God Himself - to, on our behalf, say, "C'mon Dad give em a pass... I went through it and [x-righteous thing here] is harder for humans than it is for "Us" (Elohim.)" But, that Advocate doesn't mean we get free-rein to break whatever law we have chosen as a culture that is not applicable to our lives. That is supremely dangerous for one's spirit, don't you think?


The canon is - at best - a compilation of texts concerning the Most High God and his basic requirements. It is in no way the absolute end-all-be-all perfect collection of texts. The amount of politics that went into making the canon alone disqualifies the canon as a pure piece of inspirational work by men concerning God. Men put their will into the addition and removal of books, words and resources.


Yet, and still, The Most High God never told any of us - in the canon or apocrypha - that He would allow us to pick and choose what law to follow, that He Himself said any of His law is no longer applicable, or that His law is conditional based on genetics or respect. Never.

In fact, the Apocryphal books (beyond Enoch) constantly talk about the Christ, and His advent that birthed Christianity. Not one of the books ever hints that the Most High God allows us to follow some of His laws based on conditions. The Ancient of Days (Christ) never says this. When He came to the planet and ministered He said that the law would never be changed until heaven and earth pass (which is also never; earth puts on new garments, it doesn't go away.)

I have to disqualify any human that contradicts God, because His spirit poured on someone won't contradict Him. I don't care how much inspiration they claim to have: if they contradict God then they are liars. It is very simple.

Any entity saying that God says we don't have to follow all of His laws as an obedient child of God who loves Him is erroneous - when Christ and God throughout the canon say that if you love God, you will keep His commandments. That means all of them. If you can show where Christ said that we only have to follow some laws for some condition, then I am all ears. But, just know that the "...in these two are contained the entire law of God" is because 1) if you love God, you will do what He says (Commandment 1-4, anything that begins with a command) and 2) if you love your neighbor like you love yourself, then you won't steal from them, enslave them more than 7 years without debt forgiveness, they won't rape someone, etc.

I want to know where God/Christ say explicitly that we can conditionally follow any of His laws? IF you cannot tell me other than implications from prophets, then with respect I reject those completely. I would like to see it from the Horses' Mouth.

Ygrene Imref said:

yi: So even though I specifically and explicitly told you where I stand, you still believe I am a theologial liberal?

Does a theological liberal believe we should all be following ALL of God's laws - that no laws have been disposed of, made inert or conditional - no matter if one is Christian or Hebrew? No, "conservative" Christians still try to make conditions on the obedience of the 10 commandments - they certainly don't believe one would be obedient in following so called "Old Testament" laws.

I am nowhere near a theological liberal, I do believe my Father when He says something - which is why I am asking you where HE said that we could ignore any or all parts of His law. Seriously.

Click to expand...

Some of your statements appear to be liberal in that you seem to think the writings of Paul and Peter and Luke are not inspired or part of Gods word. That is what liberals think. They think that only the parts of the bible that they like are really Gods Word and disbelieve the rest. You seem to think only Gods law is His word or only the words directly quoted from Christ are His Word. But in fact that is not true.

yi: Do not show me implicit and vague text from HUMANS speaking on God's behalf. Show me where God Himself said that we could stop being obedient to His laws. This is a very serious matter of the spirit - understanding what is expected of us by the Most High.

Click to expand...

They are not speaking on God's behalf, they are speaking and writing God's Words. And they are not vague. Implied teachings can be plain and these are. Just because they are not explicit does not make them vague.

yi: 1 verse where Christ or God explicitly tell us we have the option to conditionally follow His law - especially when it was the Word of God who said that those who love the Most High will follow/keep His Commandments.

Click to expand...

I have provided multiple verses where Christ and God speaking thru Paul and Luke and Peter that the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled and are now obsolete. The verse you quote is Jesus talking about the Moral Law.

yi: What you, and people who share the same sentiments as you, are suggesting is that God is some lukewarm god that would conditionally apply His standards to certain people. God is not a respecter of persons; if you want to be in a relationship with Him, you keep His commandments. It is very simple.

Nowhere in the bible canon, apocrypha or gnostics is it ever said by God that His laws are conditional to certain groups - especially in the second covenant (which was prophesied in the OT.)

It is a dangerous game to keep telling people they can ignore His word when He explicitly says the opposite on several occasions.

Click to expand...

I didn't say they should ignore it, I just said the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled and are now obsolete but we can still learn from them. So do you belong to a church that sacrifices animals on an altar?

Ed1wolf said:

Some of your statements appear to be liberal in that you seem to think the writings of Paul and Peter and Luke are not inspired or part of Gods word. That is what liberals think. They think that only the parts of the bible that they like are really Gods Word and disbelieve the rest. You seem to think only Gods law is His word or only the words directly quoted from Christ are His Word. But in fact that is not true.

Click to expand...

Paul, Peter, Luke, Moses, Noah, Enoch, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elias, Joshua (Moses' successor, not Christ,) etc. are not holy spirits. The deification of the humans, and the marginalization of God's actual word is dangerous.

The men are the ministers/messengers speaking on behalf of God. But, they are not God themselves. They are not angelic holy hosts. They were prophets and messengers.

And yes, the only words that matter are what God said - directly from Him. Are you really going to tell me that you also follow humans as if you would follow God? Do you put as much faith - or more in the words of these men (who are actually just regurgitating what God has always said?)

However, by the New Covenant, you don't even have to worry about splitting spiritual hairs between the men of the bible. The Word of God is written on the hearts of men now - along with the conviction of the Holy Spirit. You no longer need to go to a prophet, or minister to learn the word of God. His spirit poured out will provide the conviction and teaching you need.

This is serious business; where is your foundation if it isn't the Word of God first?

They are not speaking on God's behalf, they are speaking and writing God's Words. And they are not vague. Implied teachings can be plain and these are. Just because they are not explicit does not make them vague.

Click to expand...

They are speaking on God's behalf; however, you are mixing up the compilation of the canon of the bible with the context of the bible script. Politics of Christian history is enough to firmly say that the canon is not the complete word of God, and its creation was due to squelching and ecumenical agenda. Here, you are arguing which prophet to follow when humans have been manipulating the canonical word of God, while telling people it is the infallible word of God. The book is not holy; His words are - and they are HIS words - not another human.

Why even pay attention to, "and the Lord God said..." if you are going to take what humans say as the primary instruction.

The Word of God told us specifically that not one iota or tittle will pass from the Law.
The Word of God told us that He did not come to change the Law (at all.)
The Word of God told us that if we love God, we will keep His commandments.
The Word of God told us that if we even look at another person in lust, we have committed adultery.

The Word of God is very specific, yet the Church has chosen to deify the words of Paul and the NT ministers instead of the Word of God. Any argument made that says we can follow only parts of God's law is absolutely a lie. If it isn't, show me where God says otherwise.

I have provided multiple verses where Christ and God speaking thru Paul and Luke and Peter that the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled and are now obsolete. The verse you quote is Jesus talking about the Moral Law.

Click to expand...

You haven't provided one verse where The Word of God explicitly states that we can be excluded from any of His laws. That is what I asked for several times, and you keep providing me with the same opposite of what I asked for. You keep bringing up what men said...

I didn't say they should ignore it, I just said the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled and are now obsolete but we can still learn from them. So do you belong to a church that sacrifices animals on an altar?

Click to expand...

You didn't say they should be followed either.

And, GOD never said they shouldn't be followed.

Fulfillment does not mean inert or not applicable. That is what the modern church teaches - which is extremely dangerous. This idea of relativism when it comes to God (from 400AD to present) is what is damning souls and giving people supposed ministers near-death experiences in which (to their surprise) they go to hell. The interesting thing is that the ecumenical PTB have destroyed and removed texts that very clearly explain details of God's will, and replaced them with redundant texts that do not explicitly explain much of anything except what it has to - Christ and His message. And, even that is an abbreviated text provided to the masses while the "holier" texts are archived.

You still have grace in that if you mess up, and you are repentant, then you are forgiven. However, you have to believe you have to follow His laws in order to feel like you messed up, repent and then get forgiveness. If you believe the only law is the "law of love" - that phantom response that really means nothing concerning the actual application of the Law of God - then you are deluding yourself (or your minister is deluding you.)



I know you cannot give me what I am asking for, because it isn't in the bible. Nowhere are we ever told we can conditionally follow God, and Christ Himself told us explicitly what to do. God never told us we have the luxury to pick and choose His law to follow. Christ never said this. Even the prophets never said this.


I have done this same experiment on these forums before, and not one person is able to show where God lays out conditions for following His law. They always point to Paul, and doctrine made by men. And, that is unfortunate, because for doctrine that is so sound in the minds of believers, no one can show me evidence where God Himself - the arbiter of the law - gave us that permission (to conditionally follow the Law.)


Christ is the same Word of God that spoke to Moses - why, then, would He contradict Himself thousands of years later by literally coming to earth and allegedly undoing everything He said to the prophets about righteousness? That is the argument being made when one qualifies the Word of God.




I am not going to ask you again for direct reference to where God tells us we can conditionally follow His law. I would hope that believers really look and consider what God says, and stop following doctrine of men. We all know what is right and wrong as per the contract/covenant given to us through Christ; we don't need humans to lead and teach us.