Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Obeying the Law? Even stoning people, like adulterers?For Israel to enter the kingdom of God, under the gospel of the kingdom, faith in Jesus + obeying the Law are required.
You would be in JAIL if anyone STONED anyone today !!Obeying the Law? Even stoning people, like adulterers?
Obeying the Law? Even stoning people, like adulterers?
Ahhh . . . Revelation 14:12 laws. That's good because these would be the Laws of the Spirit of Life and not the Mosaic Law.Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Ahhh . . . Revelation 14:12 laws. That's good because these would be the Laws of the Spirit of Life and not the Mosaic Law.
Okie doke. I think you're saying that the Laws of Moses are still to be followed. This is when I step away.Jesus taught obedience to the Law of Moses in his first coming to Israel. He never told them, even after he resurrected that the Law was nailed to the cross.
At last we agree. So why would the message be "faith only" if obedience IS required. That meaning if one truly has faith there will be evidence of it in their actions. So why throw out obedience. Apologies if I got the wrong impression of your earlier posts. I certainly would not seek to put words in your mouth.For Israel to enter the kingdom of God, under the gospel of the kingdom, faith in Jesus + obeying the Law are required.
Remember Jesus Christ said that no one knows the day or the hour of judgement but the Father. How can we as readers of prophecy put a time table on when God will complete his work for all time? Again, please excuse me if I have misunderstood the content of your post. While I have been taught to believe in what I believe, I openly admit I am no biblical scholar and am open to correction.Daniel's prophetic timetable, that the Messiah was cut off/crucified at the end of week 69th, that means Israel has an upcoming 7 years of Tribulation (the 70th week) that can take place anytime starting from Acts 1
It begs the question, why would St James be referred to as "the brother of Jesus" if he never knew him and had no understanding of his teachings? I believe it was Peter who was meant to go to Rome and by his work, teachings, and writings convert the Roman Empire which in time would turn out to be the conversion of 3/4 of the known world. Even in this modern godless time, the Roman Church has more followers than any other religion or denomination. I believe that St Peter accomplished what he was sent to accomplish. I don't believe his writings have more truth than Paul even being corrected by Paul in the way that Gentiles should be accepted into The Church. It's just that Peter did the work that would covert most of the known world in time.In Acts 15, James, who was not even one of the 12, came literally out of nowhere to become in charge of the Jerusalem church and made the final decision at the council instead of Peter.
At last we agree. So why would the message be "faith only" if obedience IS required. That meaning if one truly has faith there will be evidence of it in their actions. So why throw out obedience. Apologies if I got the wrong impression of your earlier posts. I certainly would not seek to put words in your mouth.
Remember Jesus Christ said that no one knows the day or the hour of judgement but the Father. How can we as readers of prophecy put a time table on when God will complete his work for all time? Again, please excuse me if I have misunderstood the content of your post. While I have been taught to believe in what I believe, I openly admit I am no biblical scholar and am open to correction.
It begs the question, why would St James be referred to as "the brother of Jesus" if he never knew him and had no understanding of his teachings? I believe it was Peter who was meant to go to Rome and by his work, teachings, and writings convert the Roman Empire which in time would turn out to be the conversion of 3/4 of the known world. Even in this modern godless time, the Roman Church has more followers than any other religion or denomination. I believe that St Peter accomplished what he was sent to accomplish. I don't believe his writings have more truth than Paul even being corrected by Paul in the way that Gentiles should be accepted into The Church. It's just that Peter did the work that would covert most of the known world in time.
Okie doke. I think you're saying that the Laws of Moses are still to be followed. This is when I step away.
The key is to understand that we gentiles are not the audience of Jesus's first coming.
No worries, none of us are under the gospel of the kingdom today (Matthew 10:5).
Interesting concept. What is the "gospel of the kingdom"?
By this are saying that we are actually "Pauleans" and not "Christians?" In my belief system Paul's teachings should not eclipse and of Jesus' directThe key is to understand that we gentiles are not the audience of Jesus's first coming. (Romans 15:8, Matthew 10:5, Matthew 15:24)
We were cut off from God ever since Abraham (Ephesians 2:11-12)
So Jesus's words in his first coming are not directly written TO us, but of course, all scripture is FOR our learning.
I thought the 3 wise men (as I was taught) were Zoroastreans and were able to read the stars concerning the birth of Jesus Christ.The 3 kings of Orient would not know to visit Jerusalem at Jesus's birth as well
What he actually did was respect the dietary laws and wishes of his guests Paul is the one who would be more likely to eat with the gentiles while they were violating Kosher laws and then brought what the Jewish Christians would consider defiled hands, lips, and appetite to the Kosher table However even Paul wasn't arrogant enough to do that so it just illustrated the commandments of Moses that were disregarded by him Peter, like Jesus Christ respected Mosaic Law.. Even though he ended up agreeing with Paul that keeping Kosher was not a requirement for converted Gentiles, he respected his guests by not defiling their table with non-Kosher food or behavior.The more interesting question you should ask is why was Peter afraid of the "Men from James" in Galatians 2?
Shouldn't he have reminded them "Hey Jesus called me the rock where your church is built! I should have the right to eat with gentiles whenever I want!"
By this are saying that we are actually "Pauleans" and not "Christians?" In my belief system Paul's teachings should not eclipse and of Jesus' direct
What he actually did was respect the dietary laws and wishes of his guests Paul is the one who would be more likely to eat with the gentiles while they were violating Kosher laws and then brought what the Jewish Christians would consider defiled hands, lips, and appetite to the Kosher table However even Paul wasn't arrogant enough to do that so it just illustrated the commandments of Moses that were disregarded by him Peter, like Jesus Christ respected Mosaic Law.. Even though he ended up agreeing with Paul that keeping Kosher was not a requirement for converted Gentiles, he respected his guests by not defiling their table with non-Kosher food or behavior.
- Jesus was sent to save Israel in his first coming (Romans 15:8, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 15:24, Luke 1:68-75)
- Like how Moses was recognized by Israel thru signs (Exodus 4:29-31), Israel will likewise recognize Jesus by the signs that he will perform. (Deuteronomy 18:15, Luke 7:20-22, Acts 3:22-23, John 11:45-48).
- Israel's correct response to those signs is to believe that he is THAT promised Messiah (Deuteronomy 34:10-12, Exodus 34:10, John 6:28-29, John 20:30-31, John 10:37-38).
Interesting. I looked at all of those references and don't recall reading the word "kingdom." I don't get it. What do the passages above have to do with the "gospel of the kingdom"?
Say what? This is about food? Are you sure that this circumstance with Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and the many others who were led astray, that this was about physical circumcision? Peter was tired of being harassed by the circumcision group about his eating with the uncircumcised. This has nothing to do with food. This has to do with this massive and dividing issue of physical circumcision. This word, even today, is incredibly divisive. In fact, it may be a Word that divides like a Spiritual Sword.What he actually did was respect the dietary laws and wishes of his guests Paul is the one who would be more likely to eat with the gentiles while they were violating Kosher laws and then brought what the Jewish Christians would consider defiled hands, lips, and appetite to the Kosher table However even Paul wasn't arrogant enough to do that so it just illustrated the commandments of Moses that were disregarded by him Peter, like Jesus Christ respected Mosaic Law.. Even though he ended up agreeing with Paul that keeping Kosher was not a requirement for converted Gentiles, he respected his guests by not defiling their table with non-Kosher food or behavior.
What do you think of the 3 passages I have provided for you? (Romans 15:8, Matthew 10:5, Matthew 15:24)
I believe it is still the case that Peter did not want to offend the followers of James and wanted to stay relevant to the Jewish Christian movement, he yielded to the Jewish law that he lived all of his life. He was chastised by Paul for his obedience to the law and Peter accepted that Pagans would likely refuse to follow Jewish Law, he also caught to make his teachings available to Gentiles as well. However, in that moment referred to by Galatians, I believe that St Peter firstly wanted to keep the peace as in those violent times apostates were subject to be executed. So I think St Peter very wisely made his appeal to both Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles, having no dietary restrictions, it seems that he respected and did not want to defile the table of those people who kept Kosher. We also see that after St Peter founded the Roman Church, his students and the students of his students converted the Roman Empire which was Pagan. Not wanting to offend either side (Jew or Gentile), he made his message acceptable to everyone universally, that is why Catholic means (universal) it was and still is the universal church open to everyone, Jew or Gentile.Scripture said he was afraid of the men from James (Galatians 2:12) KJV
If you want to conclude that he "respected his guests" instead, we can agree to disagree then.
The food issue has to do with following Jewish Law. It would have been considered unforgivable to come from a non-Kosher Gentile table and profane the Jewish table with his non-Kosher meat-stained hands and lips. It's not just about the food one eats, it's about respecting the culture one belongs to. Profaning the Jewish table after eating unclean food with the Gentiles could get a person killed in those days. Peter was a mediator and bot groups were respected for what they believed.Say what? This is about food? Are you sure that this circumstance with Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and the many others who were led astray, that this was about physical circumcision? Peter was tired of being harassed by the circumcision group about his eating with the uncircumcised. This has nothing to do with food. This has to do with this massive and dividing issue of physical circumcision. This word, even today, is incredibly divisive. In fact, it may be a Word that divides like a Spiritual Sword.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?