Christian newby questions...

D.A. Wright said:

Has Daniel, Ch. 2 been fulfilled by Jesus? Revelation Chs. 19-22?

Click to expand...

Whole the Law was till Christ, as the New Testament clearly says. We can argue if this or that prophecy was fulfilled in 70AD or not, but thats not relevant to "is the Law still valid" topic.

D.A. Wright said:

Of course, it isn't literal. The Bible never seems to mean what it says.

Click to expand...

You should not be surprised that a 4,000 years old literature will not mean what you today think it means. Their vocabulary, figures of speech, concepts, cosmology, ideas were totally different from ours.

Another_uniqueUsername said:

I agree which if you look at my first ever post here on this forum I asked if I was....
I have NEVER said I don't think Pauls letters are not inspired (please I urge you to check all my posts?)
Please do not put words into my mouth.
Please?
The only reason I am here is because I have absolutely NO ONE ELSE to discuss Paul with.
Would you prefer I left your forum?
If you say yes I will happily move on elsewhere (happily).
Thank you.

Click to expand...

Well, your statements sure do not line up with supporting Paul's writings as being divine Scripture.

You said,

This sounds like you are questioning Paul as a true apostle on the basis by what he writes.

You said,


This sounds like you are unsure Paul wrote this part of the Scriptures by using the word "arguable" in reference to whether or not Paul wrote Romans 7:4. Yet, Paul identified himself as the writer to the Christians within Roman in Romans 1:1-7. This means you are questioning the validity of Paul's writings as being divine Scripture (Which is explicitly forbidden to discuss in the "Christian Only" sections of CF).

You said, I quote:


This again sounds like you are questioning Paul's writings because you say I am using Paul's letters as the only method to validate Paul's teaching as being circular reasoning. Questioning Paul's letters or teachings is questioning whether or not they divinely inspired Scripture (Which is a violation of posting in the "Christian Only" section of the CF forums).

You also said in this post I am replying to:

You said:

Because I knew someone would use forum rules as a popularity of opinion.

Click to expand...

What is the popularity of opinion? That Paul wrote inspired Scripture? Well, he did, dear sir. Paul wrote inspired Scripture. God used Paul to write the majority of the New Testament.

Side Note:

Oh, and no. Paul did not write the book of Acts (as you stated before). Luke wrote the book of Acts (by which he recorded Paul's missionary journeys).

Another_uniqueUsername said:

Well .....
Your left to make your claims, but I politely asked you to check if I ever said I do not believe Paul was inspired, have you done that yet? If your going to project your speculations then at least show me where I have said what your claiming....not very Christian like is it?
I have done my best to give my reasons for my mistunderstanding of Paul, you seem agitated by my concerns and you need not be. However....I repeat, if you want me to leave your forum, just say or ask and I will.

I thought you might just respond to the subject matter but you have shown haste to my "Christian" credentials instead, your effectively saying I am not a Christian (your judgement not mine) and perhaps indirectly calling for me to be removed.
Do you want me to leave?
Do you believe Thomas to be inspired scripture?
Why did Paul slate James the brother of Jesus and who was present throughout Jesus ministry?
Why did Paul and Peter go their seperate way?

Click to expand...

It is up to you to explain the three quotes you made in regards to Paul (that I provided to you in my previous post). If you don't explain them, then it makes it look like you are just changing your tune so as not to be banned from posting in this section of the forums. Again, I ask you to explain the three quotes you made (that you can find in my previous post to you).

Another_uniqueUsername said:

So now your left asking me to reciprocate your call to ban myself?
I stand by my conviction that your arguments use Paul to answer for himself....thats called judge jury & executioner!!
Jesus asked the woman if there was anyone else there present to accuse her....they had all gone and Jesus told her "then neither shall I"
Jesus taught that you need two or more witnesses to establish an event ("where two of you are together in my name I am with you"), so when I told you that Paul cannot witness for himself you attacked me instead.
Can you establish the event of Saul' conversion of what he saw AND heard using the power of witness testimony using two or more?
Or should I be banned for asking?

Jesus said he will not be found in the wilderness.... or in some hidden place like a prison cell (Matthew 24:26) he was seen by 12 disciples in the flesh, and the next time you will see Jesus he will be coming on a cloud in all his glory to reward you for what you have done, so in the meantime, who did Paul meet on the road to Damascus?
I AM allowed to ask?....obviously I have to check with you first?
Your interpretation of Christianity (the word first mentioned in Acts after Jesus' ascension...) depends on Paul first and foremost and NOT on my acceptance of the head of the church, namely Jesus?
Or should I become like you to win you over, standing under the authority of a internet forum to secure my salvation?

Click to expand...

Before you appeared to question Paul's writings as being divine Scripture, and then when I said that you cannot post in the "Christian Only" section of the forums (for appearing to deny Paul's writings as Scripture), you then changed your tune and said that you were not saying that Paul's words were not inspired Scripture. Now you appear to be switching back to your original position; For you are now saying that explaining your words may get you banned? Is that what you are saying? You appear to be going back and forth here.

Anyways, you are not being consistent in what you are saying, friend.
You appear to be making contradictory claims.

I am moving on.

May God bless you.

Another_uniqueUsername said:

Ok thanks to the person who after my introduction told me about this area for asking my questions..via a link. Thank you love

1: My GoodNews bible (or the author of this translation) states amongst Jesus' words in brackets () where its said that "Jesus declared all foods are fit for consumption"
(Mark or Matthew I think...sorry for poor quotation as Im on a mobile phone and I find difficult to copy and paste at present...its the "it is not what goes into a man but which comes out which defile him" quote...seems different depending on what bible you have)
Is Jesus talking about the sin of unclean foods, or does it mean should anyone say with his mouth (which comes out of a man/mans mouth) that its ok to eat pork (ie he who tells a lie against the instruction from God who commands man NOT to eat pork because it is forbidden) or is this a reference to bodily fluids/sperm if your a man?

2: Jesus (inc the OT prophets) makes many warnings about the "yeast" of the Pharisee , if this means the "expansion of their teachings" where does this leave Paul who says he is a Pharisee?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Hi,

firstly you will need to understand the basic principal of Christianity, to understand Jesus words.

The Law was given by Moses, it contained rules regarding diet, dress, and moral laws, festivals etc. There is nothing wrong with the law, if it is used correctly, and applied with mercy.

But the bible also tells us that none of us can perfectly keep the law. We are all law breakers.

Jesus came and died so that we could be forgiven for our inability to perfectly keep the law. His death forgave us for our inability to keep the law. The bible tells us that we are no longer justified by keeping the law, but by putting our faith in Jesus to forgive us.

However as a Christian we should try to keep in principal the law. i.e. we don't need to keep all the festivals, or dietary rules, although we could if we wished to. But we should obey the meaning of the law. i.e. we should not be sexually immoral, nor steal, or kill etc.

Although we are not saved by the law, but by Christ's forgiveness, we should attempt to live God's way.

Jesus statement about food, was saying "the laws dietary rules are not important", what is important is "having a pure heart, a good heart".

As for uncleanness, as the law states sperm/fluids etc, it is good if you can keep clean, by avoiding things like masturbation, but if you fail to overcome that area in life, i.e. if you still touch, I feel it is a minor infraction, and falls under God's grace and forgiveness. I am a Christian of many years, and occasionally fall into the sin. But I know God will forgive me.

Hope that helps.

Another_uniqueUsername said:

Im confused.
He didnt want to be listened to (which now meant he did for the sake of Jesus..)

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where in Scripture you're getting that Paul didn't want to be listened to. He did, but he didn't think himself to be above Christ in any way, rather he thought himself to be a servant of Christ, proclaiming the message of salvation through Christ.

Another_uniqueUsername said:

Why not simply read Jesus' words only then as they were given....or distribute the apostles messages as Jesus himself asked them anyway (while Saul ...later Paul was busy killing the early church) as that would be the common sense solution to "complex" Paul in the context of salvation, because Paul cannot offer salvation....he requires Jesus HIMSELF.

Click to expand...

Jesus already had the Twelve spreading the word, before Saul got started persecuting the church. And Paul's letters actually pre-date when the Gospels were written down, so it's not as if he had the written Gospels in his back pocket to refer to, like we can have today.

Sketcher said:

I'm not sure where in Scripture you're getting that Paul didn't want to be listened to. He did, but he didn't think himself to be above Christ in any way, rather he thought himself to be a servant of Christ, proclaiming the message of salvation through Christ.

Click to expand...

In fact, Paul says,

"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 14:37).

Note:

This is one my favorite verses.

klutedavid said:

I do not believe that not coveting an oxen, has anything to do with love.
Stealing is a sin, but not stealing something does not imply that you love others.
The whole basis of your interpretation is seriously flawed.

Click to expand...

It may not prove it, but it certainly does make for a potentially desirable relationship. Under certain circumstances, it might even imply it.

Stand by for an uncharacteristic (of me) qualification of the law.

I am not without an understanding of the historical and cultural considerations of Scripture and even the immutable law of ten commandments as they were given.

The Jews, as they were extracted from ancient Egypt, were largely a barbaric society. And God is BIG on meeting people where they are.
For example, if He had told them to release all of their slaves immediately, one of two responses seems obvious to me: They would have laughed their way all the way back to Egypt or; The slaves would have been liberated with no civil skills amongst a group of approximately 2 million refugees, whereupon unheard of mayhem would have ensued.
So, instead, He simply regulated their treatment, thus improving a reprehensible condition which could be greatly improved later on.

It is not hard to imagine how tempting it might be for a group of 2 million barbarians tightly woven together in a mass mobilization to steal from one another in an attempt to ease their daily struggles. Resisting such a temptation might have, at the time, indeed stood forth as benevolence by comparison to the expected norm to many.

The ten commandments are an expression of how human beings, under God, ought to behave. They are not universal, however. Such a code would seem strange to the angels who do not reproduce and therefore would have no use for a warning against adultery. The larger principle involved, fidelity and/or loyalty, is universal and is expressed in the higher category of law, echoed by Christ from the Torah in Matthew, Ch. 22:

37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

It is conceivable that God could have created other life forms, such as even those living upon this earth, which are governed by Divine Law as well, which may or may not be identical or similar to the ten commandments. The wolf is prophetically foreseen to dwell with the lamb, after all, in Isaiah 11:6.

There is not even a minor flaw in the interpretation cited. It merely exhibits the utter dependence of obeying the second great law upon the true observation of the first and greatest. This seems to be the popular oversight of far too many who profess Christ.

FutureAndAHope said:

Jesus statement about food, was saying "the laws dietary rules are not important", what is important is "having a pure heart, a good heart".

Click to expand...

This statement, while doubtlessly coming from a heart intent upon doing good, illustrates a common misconception about a proper interpretation of Scripture. Some statements made by Christ and the prophets are meant to convey priorities, rather than stark contrasts, as they legitimately appear to be doing (by modern--especially western--language practices). But Christ is actually here saying " the law's dietary rules are not AS (to what degree is obviously open for debate) important as having a pure heart, a good heart." This is only apparent when Scripture is painstakingly compared with Scripture.

Another_uniqueUsername said:

Did Paul enjoy a bacon sandwhich?

Click to expand...

The issue for Paul or any of us, is that the word of God was given for a reason. We don't know why pigs were unclean. It may be that wild pigs in the wilderness had disease, so God said they were unclean. It may be that bacon has some other property that makes them unsafe to eat. As such, it would not hurt for the modern Christian to forgo bacon. But Paul though his writings said regarding food,

Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

From Paul's writings we see he could have eaten bacon, but he also may have chosen not to.

Another_uniqueUsername said:

Ok thanks to the person who after my introduction told me about this area for asking my questions..via a link. Thank you love

1: My GoodNews bible (or the author of this translation) states amongst Jesus' words in brackets () where its said that "Jesus declared all foods are fit for consumption"
(Mark or Matthew I think...sorry for poor quotation as Im on a mobile phone and I find difficult to copy and paste at present...its the "it is not what goes into a man but which comes out which defile him" quote...seems different depending on what bible you have)
Is Jesus talking about the sin of unclean foods, or does it mean should anyone say with his mouth (which comes out of a man/mans mouth) that its ok to eat pork (ie he who tells a lie against the instruction from God who commands man NOT to eat pork because it is forbidden) or is this a reference to bodily fluids/sperm if your a man?

2: Jesus (inc the OT prophets) makes many warnings about the "yeast" of the Pharisee , if this means the "expansion of their teachings" where does this leave Paul who says he is a Pharisee?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Here is the meaning of the scriptures of Unclean my friend in this video. It's about 9mins long with OT and NT references for Christians.