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.
So then you like the 1050 but you don't like the 613?? Is the Bible about picking out the parts that "you like"
Those are not new.God has always wanted us to love each other.
They are ‘re-freshed’. In other words, Jesus was emphasizing them - under the new revelation of Him - giving them a deeper understanding.
Rom 8:4-12 says that only wicked "do not submit to the Law of God and neither indeed CAN they"
We were talking about the "613". Are you a woman Bob?
That has nothing to do with what I wrote. You are implying things I never said.
Read what I said. Again are you a woman?
Can you keep any of the "613" that are ONLY for woman? Or priests? There is no Temple either. You can ONLY keep those that apply to you at the present time.
What is your point? That you can keep all the "613"? You can't...that was my point. No one person ever could.
Apparently it does:Does it?
So then you like the 1050 but you don't like the 613?? Is the Bible about picking out the parts that "you like"
I would not be a woman in the NT or OT.
I cannot break even one of the 613 laws that pertain to a woman, either in OT or NT.
I cannot break any laws that pertain to a Nazarite or the high priest who was not to rend his priestly garments since I am not the high priest.
Heb 10:4-12 makes the case that all laws regarding animal sacrifices ended at the cross - because the type meets antitype at the cross -- "Christ our Passover has been slain" 1 Cor 5.
the example you gave regarding women and priests - is merely an example of a law I cannot break because it would not be possible for me to break it.
What? Are you serious? I said no one person can ever keep ALL of the "613" nor ever was required to. They are examples of laws you can not break but can not keep either...
Some people think so - but Jesus said Satan was a liar.
If the only way to know about the atom bomb was to have one dropped on you - then we would never know it - since nobody can survive that.
If the only way to know that someone would die if exposed to the vacuum of space is to be shoved out of the space station without any protection - then only the dead would really "know" it. At least for a few seconds before they died.
Every day life tells us that there is no such thing as having to shoot yourself before you can actually know that shooting yourself will be a bad thing.
It is not logical to argue that a man failed to keep a law that only applies to women. More precisely the man cannot break that law "by definition" since it does not apply to him and makes/applies no restriction at all to him... by definition.
So if you are not a woman, how can you keep a law that ONLY pertains to a woman?
Mankind knows of God. That there is a God. But mankind doesn’t ‘know’ God - not until God comes to live in us.
Once we have the Spirit living in us He teaches us.
No, not at all: the Pharisees were adding to God's laws their traditions, and failing to keep God's laws by the same.In other words, one ‘law’ superseded another ‘law’.
The ‘law’ Christ gave to take up his mat was greater than the ‘law’ to not carry it on the Sabbath.
How can I possibly be in violation of it - since it makes no demands at all on me in that case??
I never said it does. Others here are saying you must keep all "613"...my posts were to them...
No text says, "God is sovereign," but it is presented throughout the Bible; e.g., Da 4:35.1. No text says "The Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ"
What is the nature of, and the rest from, in "another day remaining, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God" after Canaan, that we "are to make every effort to enter"? (Heb 4:8-11)2. No text says "the Sabbath was a shadow of things to come"
From the incomplete rest of Canaan into which Joshua led them (Heb 4:8).3. Heb 4:9 9 Consequently, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
"Remains" from when ?
Remaining, as in "still available," for the people of God (Heb 4:9) to make every effort to enter (Heb 4:11).Heb 4:9 has it remaining as it was at the time of David.
1. No Christian records from the first century show week-day-1 as a weekly day of rest and worship.
2. Didache is of unknown date and authorship
"Many scholars have dated the text to the late 2nd century CE, a view still held today, other scholars have the Didache might go back to the first century. The document is a composite work, and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls with its Manual of Discipline provided evidence of development over a considerable period of time, beginning as a Jewish catechetical work which was then developed into a church manual. Additionally, apart from two minuscule fragments, the Greek text of the Didache has only survived in a single manuscript, the Codex Hierosolymitanus. Dating the document is thus made difficult both by the lack of hard evidence and its composite character.
A date of 150 is awfully good evidence regarding the NT church's practice of worship on Sunday.The Didache may have been compiled in its present form as late as 150,
Some feel more comfortable with “The Didache a Christian manual compiled before 300AD.”
So you don't think the Lord's Day is the Lord's day of resurrection, but is the Sabbath, and they changed the name Sabbath to the Lord's Day?Even then - we have not Bible text saying "week-day-1 is the Lord's Day" - which would be a great statement to make in the Bible of one were going to introduce such a doctrine in scripture.
John 15:22
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin,
but now they have no excuse for their sin.
So they were in the dark about Gods obsolete laws?
Hebrews 7:18-19
For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
Hebrews 7:11-12
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.
Hebrews 9:15
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.
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?