expos4ever
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2008
- 11,234
- 6,222
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
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.
Yes, you are free to be judgmental, self-righteous, and sanctimonious.I am free to speak freely as I wish. It's a free country;
I am saying that if both the Father and the Son agree that the time has come to end the Law of Moses, then this could explain why Jesus "breaks" the Law - in so doing, He is symbolically declaring the end of the Law of Moses.
I am saying that if both the Father and the Son agree that the time has come to end the Law of Moses, then this could explain why Jesus "breaks" the Law - in so doing, He is symbolically declaring the end of the Law of Moses.
Yes, you are free to be judgmental, self-righteous, and sanctimonious.
Go nuts.
Jesus says this:Jesus did not break God's laws. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise. God is good, and if He does not uphold His own standard of right living, then He could not have been our spotless Lamb to die for our sins.
Yes, you are free to be judgmental, self-righteous, and sanctimonious.
Go nuts.
Two points: As God in the flesh, Jesus has the authority to replace the Law of Moses with the indwelling Spirit. It is certainly not "sin" for Jesus to do so.1 John 3:5 says, "And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin."
Sorry... just going by what you said. Next time be more clear. You said, "Does a Christian with the indwelling Holy Spirit need a written code to tell them that?" You are leading the question, the answer you want, the answer you believe, is no. You have even said you don't need God's law (you said Law of Moses but everyone knows Moses wrote God's words, the law of Moses is God's law). I simply pointed out... since you only need the HS and don't need the written, then you don't need the NT either. If that isn't true, then YOU clean up your statement and don't expect the rest of us to be able to read your mind. I can only read my wife's mind, just ask her. LOLWhat? Why are you continuing to misrepresent? I never posted anything that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that I object to any of the NT commandments.
I told you, I am not replying to you. You don't desire to hear anything outside of what you believe.No, we're asked to use critical thinking. Remember Peter's experience on the rooftop in Acts 10? God asked him to go against the Mosaic law (by eating "unclean" animals). Peter tells God "no", even rebuking Him by essentially saying, "No, God, I don't want to break the law".
That's basically what you're doing now; Jesus wants us to graduate into a deeper understanding of what it means to be spiritual adults developing integrity and wisdom, and you're still stuck in the old testament pointing to a list of rules to do all the thinking for you.
First of all, when two Christians, two people with the same Father, have a disagreement, why does it always end up like this? Why can't we just exist with some mutual respect concerning where each is in Him today?Do you think the only role of the Spirit is to give you warm fuzzies?
Jesus says this:
Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,
Are you aware of the many elements of the Law of Moses that do indeed declare that certain foods defile?
So how is Jesus not directly challenging the Law of Moses?
Two points: As God in the flesh, Jesus has the authority to replace the Law of Moses with the indwelling Spirit. It is certainly not "sin" for Jesus to do so.
By the way... go back and read Acts. Peter HIMSELF told us that the vision was about MEN not animals. God used something Peter knew well you make a point about MAN not catfish for crying out loud.
Remember: In Mark 7, Jesus clearly defies the kosher food law.
I have addressed this matter in detail in post 47. No point in repeating the entire argument. But I will ask you this question:No it does not. Why is it that people like you can't read? It CLEARLY says they were eating without washing their hands...they did not ask why they were eating non-kosher food, because they weren't.
"And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands?"
If Jesus is still concerned specifically with the addition of man-made traditions to Levtical food laws, why is He challenging the very premise of the Levitical food laws, which is that foods that go into the man defile him?
His own words say it was about men. So that isn't me, that is Peter, take it up with him.My goodness, talk about only hearing what you want to hear. The context is that Peter's stubborn adherence to the law was preventing him from fellowshipping with those who did not practice the same laws of Moses.
In other words, his stubborness regarding "unclean" food (and it was stubbornness by this time, because Jesus had already told him it's not what goes into the mouth that makes a person unclean) was stopping him from going into all the world to preach the gospel.
This is what hanging onto the old law will always result in; an ineffectual witness pointing in the wrong direction.
And they are mistaken. Here's why: while the discussion starts with the topic of handwashing, Jesus steers it in a different direction. Again:To be fair, what they're saying is that the context was hand washing, and not food.
His own words say it was about men. So that isn't me, that is Peter, take it up with him.
What those who disagree that Jesus is challenging the food laws of Torah itself are forced to do is this: They are forced to impose a completely ridiculous generalization: that if a discussions starts with a focus on X, it cannot then be subsequently directed to address a different issue Y. And this is absurd.
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?