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.
Acts 11, in Antioch was not the same event as with Peter in Acts 11, if you read the flow you will see what I mean.
Paul was about the law in gal 2 in his correction of of Peter, he went into the law in Gal 2, not oral law in Gal 2, it is the Antioch event recorded in Gal 2, not the Cornelius event!
no, you were just about oral law, then you started to say written law, because I was right.
I didn't say it proved everything, I was just being thankful for it.
And yay for ripping verses out of context.
yes you did.
Peter and Paul agreed, and the law was the yoke, and the fathers could not bear it, those are facts.
Acts 15 could not be oral law, Paul and crew, and the Jerusalem council would laugh if Paul came there to argue against oral law for gentiles!
I quoted the first post I made about the oral and written law to prove that I was talking about both since the beginning when you started making these baseless accusations the last time, so you truly have your head in the sand. If you have no interest in understand me, why do you continue to make posts directed at me?
I said they traced the oral law back to Moses, not that there were Pharisees during his time.
There's no way someone can misunderstand me so badly without trying, so at this point you're just trolling me, goodbye.
What do you do with John 5:24? It says I've already passed the judgment and attained life.On judgement day, you are judged by your works according to scriptures, NOT the Nicene Creed.
What do you do wit John 5:24? It says I've already passed the judgment and attained life.
bugkiller
Why is it that two short verses from the book of The Acts of the Apostles can be so troublesome from MJ teaching? Could it be because those two verses expose the nudity of the emperor parading down the street in his "new clothes"?
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;These are the "necessary things" and even so they are necessary because "Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath".
from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Acts 15:28-29
- That ye abstain from meats offered to idols,
- and from blood,
- and from things strangled,
- and from fornication:
Those four necessary things fall far short of the 613 commandments that Messianic Judaism concerns itself with.
That does seem to be a very interesting fact here at CF.lol, Paul is understood by the vast majority of not feast, non food law, non Sabbath people who know the Lord!
really James was just saying don't freak out the Jews who were integrating with the gentiles, as you know.
Yes, that's seems to be the motive for the message. But it seems to be very troublesome for the 613 commandments lobby.
That is partly why I no longer attend.Forgive me for holding a minority viewpoint. Thankfully MJ is rapidly growing as more Christians are starting to gain a better understanding of the Bible's cultural context.
Politics have not changed!
That is partly why I no longer attend.
bugkiller
Same for me. If you do go there don't mention Paul. There are a few of them who no longer post in this section because of Paul.do you want me to believe that your perspective is right?
Then prove it!
See what I mean? So do for me as you want me to do for you. Ask around, it is a fact that some reject Paul, big time! Go ask around the MJ section, I would, but if the frog goes there he is reported!
You only want us to agree with you about oral and written law. You do not really care if we understand it or not.You haven't shown that you are willing to try to understand what I'm talking about, let alone that you understand what you're talking about. So you'll forgive me if I don't take you're word about something which you've put no effort into studying.
By the mouths of at least two witnesses a thing can be established. What I said is my actual experience and not just a collaboration with my friend frogster.I'm sorry, you do not have free reign to make up whatever you want about MJ and then expect others to believe you. If you make a claim then the burden is on you to support it. I do my best to support my claims. As I've said before, I have no doubt that there are some MJ's who reject Paul, but that's also true of some non-MJ Christians.
Neither are we talking about the whole world. We're talking about Christians. You claim Christians are obligated to the law. You are also claiming all Gentiles are obligated to the law. The Bible doesn't support you.And I pointed that requiring Gentiles to become circumcised to eat of the Passover lamb is hardly a requirement for all Gentiles to become circumcised. Nor does the passage say anything about converting to Judaism.
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?