GOD'S DIETARY LAWS AND BAT SOUP STEW - COVID 19

[LoveGodsWord]

He is talking about what is proceeding from His own mouth, for Christ is the Lord God Incarnate, as well possibly, as the handful of statements we can authoritatively attribute to the father, (specifically, “This is my son, in which I am well pleased.”), although this seems less likely for the Father is incorporeal and therefore lacks a mouth. The mere mention of the mouth of the Lord makes it clear to me these are references to what Jesus taught, for Jesus Christ is God in the prosopon of the incarnate Logos.

Not really dear friend. Jesus in Matthew 4:4 was quoting what Moses was speaking to the Children of Israel in Deuteronomy 8:3 about following God's Word. All scripture we are told is God breathed in 2 Timothy 3:16. So it really makes no difference if we have the "spoken" Word of God or the "written" recorded Word of God, it is still God's Word and is to be believed and followed according to the scriptures as our salvation is only in Gods' Word as we believe and follow it *John 17:17; John 8:31-36; Romans 10:16; 1 John 5:3-4; Romans 3:31. There is just too many scripture examples in the old and new testament to list here that are directly applicable to being the Word of God that they would simply take too long to list and all these scriptures disagree with your claims above.

You do accept the Godhood of Christ thanks to Ellen White, and one consequence of that is statements referring to the Lord or God apply to Him. And they also apply to both His human and Divine nature because of the doctrine of communicatio idiomatum, which is required to avoid the kind of ugly Nestorianism we see in the poetry of Mar Narsai, for example.

Please do not presume you know anything about me. My faith is in God's Word alone and I believe God is my guide and teacher who I seek through his Word claiming his promises for His Spirit to guide me and teach me His truth which is a part of His new covenant promise to those who believe and follow him *Hebrews 8:11; John 14:26; John 16:13; John 17:17; John 8:31-36; 1 John 2:27. We cannot know God's Word unless we seek him for it. Remember it was most of the scholars in the days of Jesus that put him on the cross, rejected His Word and crucified him. Nothing has changed in this regards. No one can find God if His Spirit does not guide and lead them through His Word according to the scriptures.

Have you ever read Mar Narsai? If not, you should, and you should read his Orthodox counterpart Jacob of Sarugh, and the writings of St. Cyril compared to the ugliness of Nestorius. Good theology has to be beautiful. If God made His child, who was a creature, and not himself God, die for our sins, that would be ugly, but the scriptural doctrine, that God himself has three persons (prosopa, a word which also has the sense of theatrical mask or face in Greek, but which I think is best translated as “person” because it fundamentally refers to a unique identity), and that God the Son willingly allowed himself to be crucified to restore us in His image for the glory of His father and the Holy Spirit, who sent Him, and who He would then send to be our paraclete, is much more beautiful. I don’t want a God who kills his son in lieu of killing me, to paraphrase Billy Graham, I want a God who willingly will die for me, and then after resting in a tomb, rise again on the third day, trampling down death by death, and that is the God we actually find in the Bible.

I do not believe we need to read outside sources from God's Word to know God's love and sacrifice for the sins of the world dear friend. You can find all this by seeking God and finding him through his written Word.

This is why I think, personally, that the Sabbath now includes Friday and Sunday, because the Paschal Triduum is so heavily interconnected. Christ our God is crucified, dies and is placed in a sepulchre, and on the third day, the stone has been rolled back and He has risen from the dead.

The Sabbath never included Sunday according to the scriptures. *Exodus 20:8-11.

 

[The Liturgist]

Question: what is your understanding of 2Ti 3:16: "All Scriptures is God-breathed" (theopnuestos)?

And of Lev 1:1, 4:1, 5:14, 6:1, 8, 19, 24, 7:22, 28, 8:1, 10:8, 11:1, 12:1, 13:1, 14:1, 33, 15:1, 16:1, 17:1, 18:1, 19:1, 20:1 21:1, 22:1, 16, 22:1, 17, 23:1, 9, 23, 26, 33, 24:1, 13, 25:1, 27:1?

That's 36. Is the whole book the words of God himself?

It literally means that it was divinely inspired. And it is the Holy Spirit who inspires. Thus is why we call the study of the theology of the Spirit Pneumatology (compare Patrology and Christology; Triadology is the study of the Trinity and theology without qualification means knowledge about God, which the Eastern Orthodox believe, and I agree, is only attainable through prayer, the mysteries and so on, with Scripture at the center of a Tradition which points us to the correct God, since, for example, prayer to the evil Islamic deity would not benefit us in any way. That said, for the sake of convenience, we use the word theologian to refer to scholars of divinity.

As I said, all of scripture is equally divinely inspired. This does not mean that God took control of the hand of the authors of scripture and compelled them to write precisely what He desired. This is why, as I said, there are divergent accounts of the same event by different inspired authors, and also we see stylistic variations which allow us to see whether or not a book was likely written by Solomon, for example.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Question: what is your understanding of 2Ti 3:16: "All Scriptures is God-breathed" (theopnuestos)?

And of Lev 1:1, 4:1, 5:14, 6:1, 8, 19, 24, 7:22, 28, 8:1, 10:8, 11:1, 12:1, 13:1, 14:1, 33, 15:1, 16:1, 17:1, 18:1, 19:1, 20:1 21:1, 22:1, 16, 22:1, 17, 23:1, 9, 23, 26, 33, 24:1, 13, 25:1, 27:1?

That's 36. Is the whole book the words of God himself?

There is much more than 36. (search; God spoke; Lord spoke; Thus says the Lord; The word of the Lord came etc etc) I did not count them but its 100s + all through the bible. The written Word is God's recorded Word. It is the Word of God and God's Word given to all mankind.

 

[The Liturgist]

Not really dear friend. Jesus in Matthew 4:4 was quoting what Moses was speaking to the Children of Israel in Deuteronomy 8:3 about following God's Word. All scripture we are told is God breathed in 2 Timothy 3:16. So it really makes no difference if we have the "spoken" Word of God or the "written" recorded Word of God, it is still God's Word and is to be believed and followed according to the scriptures as our salvation is only in Gods' Word as we believe and follow it *John 17:17; John 8:31-36; Romans 10:16; 1 John 5:3-4; Romans 3:31. There is just too many scripture examples in the old and new testament to list here that are directly applicable to being the Word of God that they would simply take too long to list and all these scriptures disagree with your claims above.

Please do not presume you know anything about me.

This may surprise you, but I don’t, other than your self-identification as a Seventh Day Adventist. I am a High Church Congregationalist minister. I assumed incorrectly based on my experiences with other Adventists that you had an intense familiarity with Ellen White and regarded her writings as an authoritative guide to scriptural interpretation.

But beyond what you have declared about yourself, I claim no knowledge of you, except that I will say it is abundantly evident that you love God, and this I admire. If only 10% more of the world’s population loved about God and cared about the correct interpretation of His revelations to us, imagine how much better the world is. I therefore know that your soul is beautiful.

That is why, as I have said repeatedly, I wish we could set aside these debates over doctrines where we know we will not change our respective views, and instead join together to fight the evils invading the Christian religion through the mainline Protestant churches, like gay marriage. I am angry that every time I see a United Church of Christ (my former denomination, basically, Congregationalists), there is a rainbow flag and not a Christian flag or an American flag waving. I am angry about the differences between my beliefs and those of the SDA, it is simply a difference of opinion.

The reason why I am even in this otherwise futile debate is to promote that we cease it, and use our rhetorical skills to challenge those things we can agree are endangering the entire Christian faith.

My faith is in God's Word alone and I believe God is my guide and teacher who I seek through his Word claiming his promises for His Spirit to guide me and teach me His truth which is a part of His new covenant promise to those who believe and follow him *Hebrews 8:11; John 14:26; John 16:13; John 17:17; John 8:31-36; 1 John 2:27. We cannot know God's Word unless we seek him for it. Remember it was most of the scholars in the days of Jesus that put him on the cross, rejected His Word and crucified him. Nothing has changed in this regards. No one can find God if His Spirit does not guide and lead them through His Word according to the scriptures.

I agree, which is why I reject the likes of Richard Dawkins, Bart Ehrman, Karen King, and other atheists, apostates and heretics, but I do read their writings so as to identify their error. Conversely, those who have found the Spirit have written books that aid an understanding of scripture, such as CS Lewis, or John Wesley, or Kallistos Ware , because, to quote Vincent of Lerins, scripture is not in the reading but the interpretation, and I would note most of the controversy in this thread has been over the meaning of different verses.

I do not believe we need to read outside sources from God's Word to know God's love and sacrifice for the sins of the world dear friend. You can find all this by seeking God and finding him through his written Word.

So on that note, I hope we can can at least agree the writings of Ellen G. White are mostly dated, prone to error, contain a terrible anti-Roman Catholic bias, promote unusual doctrines like the Investigative Judgement, and that surely, any time spent reading them would be better spent reading sacred scripture?

Also, note that I suggested a comparative study between the metrical homilies of Mar Narsai, whose Nestorian doctrine I reject, and Jacob of Sarugh, who was his opponent, Christologically speaking.

The Sabbath has never included Sunday according to the scriptures. *Exodus 20:8-11.

You just literally quoted Exodus completely out of context, in that in my pricate view, the Sabbath was a single day until God made Himself the Paschal sacrifice.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is much more than 36. (search; God spoke; Lord spoke; Thus says the Lord; The word of the Lord came etc etc) I did not count them but its 100s + all through the bible. The written Word is God's recorded Word. It is the Word of God and God's Word given to all mankind.

If you would reread my post, you would note I account for those statements. When a prophet is moved by the Spirit to say certain things, he will usually say “thus saith the Lord.” The Word invariably refers to Christ Jesus, and where it says God Spoke, this probably means the Word is speaking, but in the Gospels it is explicit when the Word or the Father speaks. And all of Scripture is divinely inspired, but the words chosen to express this inspiration were chosen by those God inspired, the holy prophets, apostles and evangelists, except in the specific cases mentioned above.

When we understand the Word as a person, so much scripture makes so much more sense, and it is a purely Biblical doctrine (John 1:1-18 might be the most important pericope; to their credit, Armenians read John 1:1-14 at the end of every liturgy, and Roman Catholics used to do this at the end of every High Mass before the Novus Ordo disaster).

 

[LoveGodsWord]

This may surprise you, but I don’t, other than your self-identification as a Seventh Day Adventist. I am a High Church Congregationalist minister. I assumed incorrectly based on my experiences with other Adventists that you had an intense familiarity with Ellen White and regarded her writings as an authoritative guide to scriptural interpretation.

Whether you are a high Church congregational Minister I know not neither do I care. What is important to me is the truth of God's Word. My guide to understanding God's Word are God's promises. I am a no one, only a voice crying in the wilderness make straight the paths of the Lord. All I am without Him is nothing which is all I can do but he tells me He must increase in my life and I must decrease so all I can do is share His Word. His Words are not my Words but His Word who sends me. Freely I have received so freely I give. He tells me many are called but few are chosen. He stand at the door of many hearts knocking, but very few open the door to let him in because the things of the world are too noisy for the many traveling the broad way.

That is why, as I have said repeatedly, I wish we could set aside these debates over doctrines where we know we will not change our respective views, and instead join together to fight the evils invading the Christian religion through the mainline Protestant churches, like gay marriage. I am angry that every time I see a United Church of Christ (my former denomination, basically, Congregationalists), there is a rainbow flag and not a Christian flag or an American flag waving. I am angry about the differences between my beliefs and those of the SDA, it is simply a difference of opinion.

It is one thing dear friend to see the obvious things that can destroy Church faith and lead God's sheep away from God and His Word. It is another thing not to see the obvious or the less obvious things that will achieve the same outcome from within the Church. God's Word tells us that many of God's watchman today (not a reference to anyone here) are leading God's sheep away from God and His Word by not warning God's people with God's Word. The Ministers are God's watchman. Yet when the enemy comes in like a flood today they speak smooth things and do not speak the Word of the Lord crying instead peace and safety when there is no peace and no safety not knowing that sudden destruction is on the door steps. Yet God says at this time; All you beasts of the field, come to devour, yes, all you beasts in the forest. His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yes, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter. Come you, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant. God sees these things that we do not see. He is calling today but we close our eyes and ears to seeing and hearing His Words. His Words are life but we do not see them and close our ears to hearing them drunk with the wine of false teachings. Gods people are in every church but the hour is coming and now is that the true worshipers will hear His voice (the Word) and follow Him. God is a Spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth. BABYLON has fallen has fallen, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. God is calling us all out to return to His Word but His watchman are all drunk with wine and have fallen asleep.

The reason why I am even in this otherwise futile debate is to promote that we cease it, and use our rhetorical skills to challenge those things we can agree are endangering the entire Christian faith.

The light has no unity in darkness neither can they mix as the one extinguishes the other. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? We can call all people to come to the light (God's Word) but it is written men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are worked in God.

LoveGodsWord said: My faith is in God's Word alone and I believe God is my guide and teacher who I seek through his Word claiming his promises for His Spirit to guide me and teach me His truth which is a part of His new covenant promise to those who believe and follow him *Hebrews 8:11; John 14:26; John 16:13; John 17:17; John 8:31-36; 1 John 2:27. We cannot know God's Word unless we seek him for it. Remember it was most of the scholars in the days of Jesus that put him on the cross, rejected His Word and crucified him. Nothing has changed in this regards. No one can find God if His Spirit does not guide and lead them through His Word according to the scriptures.

Your response here...

I agree, which is why I reject the likes of Richard Dawkins, Bart Ehrman, Karen King, and other atheists, apostates and heretics, but I do read their writings so as to identify their error. Conversely, those who have found the Spirit have written books that aid an understanding of scripture, such as CS Lewis, or John Wesley, or Kallistos Ware , because, to quote Vincent of Lerins, scripture is not in the reading but the interpretation, and I would note most of the controversy in this thread has been over the meaning of different verses.

Yet here is the same problem today. There is much more dangerous things happening within the Church leading God's people away from God and His Word then the obvious things every Christian can see. Yet according to the scriptures those who lead their flock are drunken with strange wine that blinds the eyes so they cannot see and their ears so they cannot hear. They are suppose to be God's watchman yet they are asleep and the enemy comes in like a flood.

So on that note, I hope we can can at least agree the writings of Ellen G. White are mostly dated, prone to error, contain a terrible anti-Roman Catholic bias, promote unusual doctrines like the Investigative Judgement, and that surely, any time spent reading them would be better spent reading sacred scripture?

You may have noticed in this post I have not provided any references. Do you know what scriptures I have been quoting and what they mean? That said I disagree with your claims here as many things have been prophesied in Gods Word that are coming to pass but many do not see and hear because they do not know God's Word.

LoveGodsWord wrote: The Sabbath has never included Sunday according to the scriptures. *Exodus 20:8-11.

Your response here...

You just literally quoted Exodus completely out of context, in that in my pricate view, the Sabbath was a single day until God made Himself the Paschal sacrifice.

I did not take Exodus out of context. I quoted God's 4th commandment of the 10 commandments which is the only scripture that defines what God's Sabbath is (seventh day). This was in response to your claim that the Sabbath is Friday to Sunday. God's Word says no, the Sabbath according to God's Word (not my words) is the "seventh day of the week" so who should we believe you or God? For me only Gods Word is true and we should believe and follow them. Do you know what unreferenced scriptures have been shared with you here and what do you think they mean? Your a minister in the Church you should know these things should you not?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

If you would reread my post, you would note I account for those statements. When a prophet is moved by the Spirit to say certain things, he will usually say “thus saith the Lord.” The Word invariably refers to Christ Jesus, and where it says God Spoke, this probably means the Word is speaking, but in the Gospels it is explicit when the Word or the Father speaks. And all of Scripture is divinely inspired, but the words chosen to express this inspiration were chosen by those God inspired, the holy prophets, apostles and evangelists, except in the specific cases mentioned above.

When we understand the Word as a person, so much scripture makes so much more sense, and it is a purely Biblical doctrine (John 1:1-18 might be the most important pericope; to their credit, Armenians read John 1:1-14 at the end of every liturgy, and Roman Catholics used to do this at the end of every High Mass before the Novus Ordo disaster).

Nothing personal but you making an account of something does not mean I agree with you as I did not think your view supported the scripture. I posted scripture earlier showing why I did not agree with your claims in post # 315 linked

 

[Clare73]

There is much more than 36. (search; God spoke; Lord spoke; Thus says the Lord; The word of the Lord came etc etc) I did not count them but its 100s + all through the bible. The written Word is God's recorded Word. It is the Word of God and God's Word given to all mankind.

The "whole book" I was referring to was Leviticus, where "The LORD said" is stated 36 times. There is hardly a word in the whole book of Leviticus that does not come directly from mouth of the LORD.

 

[DamianWarS]

I cannot see any scripture in both the old and new testament that says that God's health and dietary laws have been abolished

I protest the word "abolished" I think it is deliberately manipulating the conversation into a strawman immediately defended with Mat 5:17. So I'll be clear, I reject the idea that the dietary laws are abolished but I do accept they are fulfilled.

With that said how do I know they are fulfilled? Well, Peter's dream reveals to us unclean animals are the gentiles and declaring them clean is a release of God's spirit unto the gentiles. So what does this mean? The purpose of the dream is to show Peter God's spirit is for the gentiles too and it actually is nothing about food at all. But here's the rub. The dream reveals to us the meaning of the dietary laws and if the dream is not about food this also means the law is actually not about food either. the two are mirror images of each other and if the dietary laws are not fulfilled then God's spirit is also not released to the gentiles. Likewise, if God's spirit is released to the Gentiles then the dietary laws are fulfilled. But you cannot say God's spirit is released to the Gentiles and the dietary laws are still in effect as this would be a contradiction. There is purpose with the laws and when those laws reach their purpose we need to let them continue to proclaim God's glory. I'm not dictating what you should or should not eat but rather would encourage you as Paul does "whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."

 

[Clare73]

I protest the word "abolished" I think it is deliberately manipulating the conversation into a strawman immediately defended with Mat 5:17. So I'll be clear, I reject the idea that the dietary laws are abolished but I do accept they are fulfilled.

That puts you in dispute with Paul, who received his revelation from Jesus Christ personally, in the third heaven (2Co 12:1-7); to wit:

"(Christ) has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility (of which the food laws were the chief),
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations." (Eph 2:14-15).

The Mosaic ceremonial and governmental laws have been abolished because they have been fulfilled in Christ (Mt 5:17),
while the Decalogue is fulfilled in Jesus' commandments (Mt 22:37-40; Jn 13:34; Ro 13:8-10).

The many regulations regarding clean and unclean food, persons, garments, houses and their cleansings were the barrier, dividing wall, or wall of partition by which God both separated Israel from the sin of the pagan Gentiles and governed their daily lives until the time of the new order (Heb 9:10); i.e., the New Covenant, with its new priesthood (Heb 7:11), new sanctuary (Heb 9:11, 24), and new once-for-all sacrifice (Heb 9:12, 28).

Some animals were made unclean temporarily by the Mosaic laws, as were people, garments and houses, and as the sacrifices were also temporary--to present in patterns and shadows (Col 2:17; Heb 10:1) the meaning of spiritual defilement and its cleansing, which was to come in the new order (Heb 9:10); i.e., cleansing of spiritual defilement (sin) by the sacrifice of the only begotten Son of God.
.

 

[DamianWarS]

"(Christ) has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility (of which the food laws were the chief),
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations." (Eph 2:14-15).

The OP however is using the language as a strawman to be defended with Mat 5:17. So when the OP uses "abolished" the context is from the Mat 5:17 abolished not the Eph 2:15 abolished. In Greek they are different words and it's important to not conflate them as the same word. Mat 5:17 the word is "kataluot - to destroy, overthrow" and the Eph 2:15 word is "katargeo - to render inoperative, abolish". When I say I reject that the law is abolished I mean in the sense as Jesus rejected it.

So according to Jesus he did not come to overthrow the law and according to Paul he rendered the law inoperative. It's unfortunate the words are commonly translated the same as it causes a lot of confusion and I generally stay away from affirming the language abolished because the point never seems to come across. but I felt I needed to address that the law is not abolished/overthrown by Christ because I refuse to concede with language that is just a strawman trap. To me Christ saying he came to fulfill the law is in harmony with Paul saying he rendered the law inoperative but I don't use the work abolished to describe that process.

 

[Clare73]

The OP however is using the language as a strawman to be defended with Mat 5:17. So when the OP uses "abolished" the context is from the Mat 5:17 abolished not the Eph 2:15 abolished. In Greek they are different words and it's important to not conflate them as the same word. Mat 5:17 the word is "kataluot - to destroy, overthrow" and the Eph 2:15 word is "katargeo - to render inoperative, abolish". When I say I reject that the law is abolished I mean in the sense as Jesus rejected it.

So according to Jesus he did not come to overthrow the law and according to Paul he rendered the law inoperative. It's unfortunate the words are commonly translated the same as it causes a lot of confusion and I generally stay away from affirming the language abolished because the point never seems to come across. but I felt I needed to address that the law is not abolished/overthrown by Christ because I refuse to concede with language that is just a strawman trap. To me Christ saying he came to fulfill the law is in harmony with Paul saying he rendered the law inoperative but I don't use the work abolished to describe that process.

Thanks!

Upon examination, in Eph 2:14, Paul also uses luo,"breaking down" the wall of hostility (in the ceremonial laws).

So we have luo, kataluo and katargeo ( break down, destroy and abolish) all used in regard to the Mosaic laws (excluding the Decalogue) in the NT.

That's strong language.
.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I protest the word "abolished" I think it is deliberately manipulating the conversation into a strawman immediately defended with Mat 5:17. So I'll be clear, I reject the idea that the dietary laws are abolished but I do accept they are fulfilled.

With that said how do I know they are fulfilled? Well, Peter's dream reveals to us unclean animals are the gentiles and declaring them clean is a release of God's spirit unto the gentiles. So what does this mean? The purpose of the dream is to show Peter God's spirit is for the gentiles too and it actually is nothing about food at all. But here's the rub. The dream reveals to us the meaning of the dietary laws and if the dream is not about food this also means the law is actually not about food either. the two are mirror images of each other and if the dietary laws are not fulfilled then God's spirit is also not released to the gentiles. Likewise, if God's spirit is released to the Gentiles then the dietary laws are fulfilled. But you cannot say God's spirit is released to the Gentiles and the dietary laws are still in effect as this would be a contradiction. There is purpose with the laws and when those laws reach their purpose we need to let them continue to proclaim God's glory. I'm not dictating what you should or should not eat but rather would encourage you as Paul does "whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."

Your protest would be with Jesus then not me...

Matthew 5:17-20 [17], Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. [18], For truly I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one stroke or one pronunciation mark shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19], Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20], For I say to you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

These are God's Words not my words. So your argument is with God not me. Quoting the scriptures here that disagree with your teachings is not a strawman argument it is God's Word.

Hope this is helpful

 

[DamianWarS]

Your protest would be with Jesus then not me...

Matthew 5:17-20 [17], Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. [18], For truly I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one stroke or one pronunciation mark shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19], Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20], For I say to you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

These are God's Words not my words. So your argument is with God not me. Quoting the scriptures here that disagree with your teachings is not a strawman argument it is God's Word.

Hope this is helpful

You're ignoring my words and conflating them with abolished. You can't break something that's fulfilled. The strawman is not the scripture it is forcing everyone who disagrees with you to abolished.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You're ignoring my words and conflating them with abolished. You can't break something that's fulfilled. The strawman is not the scripture is forcing everyone you disagrees with you to abolished.

Your post makes no sense to what you are quoting from.

 

[DamianWarS]

Your post makes no sense to what you are quoting from.

Then you will have to trust me, you are presenting a strawman argument

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Then you will have to trust me, you are presenting a strawman argument

Sorry dear friend God's Word is not a strawman we should believe and follow what it says. God's sheep hear His Voice (the Word) and follows Him *John 10:26-27; Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29

 

[DamianWarS]

Sorry dear friend God's Word is not a strawman we should believe and follow what it says. God's sheep hear His Voice (the Word) and follows Him *John 10:26-27; Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29

I don't think you know what a strawman is. God's word is not the strawman but your argument is. And it's because its how you force everything that disagrees with you to fit abolished so you can defended it using verses like Mat 5:17 thinking it is a victory. it's not because you have misrepresented the words and manipulate them to fit your argument. You need to learn how to respect what people say using the words they use then make counter agrumements to those points. But when you change someones words to fit something you can defend you are just defending a made up agrument that no one is actually saying (that's the strawman). I'm telling you explictly that I reject that the law is abolished yet you don't accept this and still change my words to abolished. This shows me a poor defence and a deceitful character.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I don't think you know what a strawman is. God's word is not the strawman but your argument is. And it's because its how you force everything that disagrees with you to fit abolished so you can defended it using verses like Mat 5:17 thinking it is a victory. it's not because you have misrepresented the words and manipulate them to fit your argument. You need to learn how to respect what people say using the words they use then make counter agrumements to those points. But when you change someones words to fit something you can defend you are just defending a made up agrument that no one is actually saying (that's the strawman). I'm telling you explictly that I reject that the law is abolished yet you don't accept this and still change my words to abolished. This shows me a poor defence and a deceitful character.

Sure I know what a strawman is. Your making one now as a response to the scriptures shared with you that disagree with you. You say you do not say the law is abolished yet you teach God's dietary laws and God's 4th commandment is abolished? How does that work?

 

[DamianWarS]

Sure I know what a strawman is. Your making one now as a response to the scriptures shared with you that disagree with you. You say you do not say the law is abolished yet you teach God's dietary laws and God's 4th commandment is abolished? How does that work?

that's not what a strawman is. a strawman is defending an argument that no one is actually making that you can easily defend. In doing so you put can manipulate the argument to show whatever it is you want it to show while giving the impression you've addressed the argbut you've actually not addressed the issues at all and instead only focusing on the made-up argument no one is representing.

it's called a strawman because it's easy to build and even easier to knock over. You've built the argument no one is defending and then you knock it over and pretend that this works. Who said Jesus abolished the law? I certainly haven't, in fact, I have been very explicitly said he hasn't, so why are you telling me that's what I'm saying and then taking this made-up argument and proving it wrong? Who are you talking to and what argument are you proving wrong? it isn't mine because that's not what I said. You are refuting your own made-up argument.

Your primary method seems to be refuting other people's ideas by labelling them in the spirit of abolished (which you have done in this reply) and then accusing them of going against God's words and in doing and liberally misrepresent their words to force the abolished side. That my friend is called a strawman and there is nothing else that it can be called. it is a deceitful poor defence and shows you actually don't care about discussing the issue critically.

My position is not a strawman because it's actually what I believe. I'm not taking your words, changing them, and then telling you why my version of your words do not follow God's word (that's what you're doing) and if I was doing that it would be a strawman. What I am doing is representing my own words and using scripture to show why I think dietary laws are no longer in effect which then implicitly disagrees with your position. that's not called a strawman, it's called defending my own position.

So I will say it again, I explicitly reject that Christ came to abolish any laws and explicitly accept that Christ came to fulfill the law. now I will explicitly tell you the moment you tell me what I actually am saying is "abolished" this is a strawman. As far as I can see this is your only defence to throw out every one's comments and say they don't follow God but without showing any sources. We get why you think this way but you're not disproving anything your just repeating the same lines over and over and accusing people of rejecting God's words. This is antagonistic and shows poor character on your part.