The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"

[Swag365]

I am not in any group or category of dispensationalist that can try to isolate me or generalize me into . I also didn’t say “that’s part of the gospel”.
It is very clear to the unbiased reader that there was a transition and reformation snd flow decay and fading away of the old covenant. If any read scripture unbiasedly.

as far as when the old covenant and the new began. The new started after Jesus death and resurrection. When Jesus said “it is finished” a old needed for believers and a new started. Jesus also showed a type of the blood shed as pointing to the new covenant.

You seem yo approach scripture abs even this discussion as if your Papal Catholic Church is the true and all others are fakes no matter what scripture or spiritual revelation or evidence you are given. It seems no matter how clear scripture is I have noticed that some can’t see it it takes spiritual eyes. They are spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2)

consider your correction

Hebrews 9: 9. Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.”

Hebrews 8: 13. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

Luke 22: 20. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”

notice this cup was a type or shadow if the actual blood shed by Jesus in time. And the covenant was not in effect until the death of Jesys as scripture says.

Hebrews 9: 16. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. ..17. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. …20. Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. …22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”

It does not matter. Water baptism is part of the new covenant. That’s why Peter, Paul, Philip, and practically every Christian group in the 2000 year history of the church has done it. We even see the Holy Spirit directing Philip to water baptize the eunuch. And the Jews never even practiced the same baptism that Christians practice, which makes your novel theory even more implausible.

Yet you obstinately insist that I accept the private conclusions of a random 3-man house church on the internet. What has evaded all of Christendom for 2000 years has been revealed to your 3-man house church because you and only you have spiritual eyes.

No thank you.

 

[LoveofTruth]

It does not matter.

Thats the best answer you can give?? Since when doesn't correcting you with scripture matter?

I show clearly that the Jews were still coming out of the law and Old Covenant and still going into the temple all through Acts and still practicing John’s water baptism that Jesus told them was past in Acts 1 and Acts 11. And that they still were doing animal sacrifices , circumcision, keeping the whole law of Moses and customs and yet you just say, "that doesn't matter."???

Water baptism is part of the new covenant. That’s why Peter, Paul, Philip, and practically every Christian group in the 2000 year history of the church has done it..

I showed from scripture that the Jews still practicing, all through Acts, Old Covenant things and diverse washings (baptismos) and sacrifices , etc and that Paul said Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel. Paul was called the apostle of the Gentiles. The Gentiles we see in the reformation , transition in Acts were not to come under the same practices that the Jews were doing. This is clear from Acts 10 and 21. We see that the Jews were to come out of the temple sacrifices and Old Covenant and all the Mosaic law aspects that related to the Old Covenant in time. But it was not a quick change. We read about all these things in the Book of Hebrews and how the law was changed and the priesthood and sacrifices and divers washings (baptismos) and other carnal ordinances. We see how the Old Covenant was fading away, decaying ready to vanish. But it had not happened yet for many. Even though when Jesus died and rose again the New Covenant was here .

Yet you obstinately insist that I accept the private conclusions of a random 3-man house church on the internet. What has evaded all of Christendom for 2000 years has been revealed to your 3-man house church because you and only you have spiritual eyes.

No thank you.

You seem to just follow the large crowds and number and act like that alone makes you right. You may have been among the group that wanted to stone Joshua and Caleb when they came back and said we can take the land, even though there was giants in the land. The majority was wrong.

Jesus said a prophet is not without honour except in his own home and among those who know him. They didn't accept jesus for wrong reasons. They may have thought, "who is this man? isn't he just the simple carpenters son?"

Jesus said the majority go the broad path, few find the narrow path.

When the protestant reformers stood alone against many of the Papist doctrines and teachings, I am sure similar arguments ( not from scripture but from outward judgement and bias) were thrown at them. I can almost hear some saying to them , "who are you, your just a small insignificant monk, and you dare go against the Pope and the entire catholic church?".

But they were wrong to look at things like that and to avoid the scriptural correction.

And I don't insist that you accept my "private" conclusions". whatever you mean by "private". I show what Jesus, Peter, Paul and others said from way back.

You use a straw man argument a fallacy argument as many try to do when you say to me,

"has been revealed to your 3-man house church because you and only you have spiritual eyes."

I do not have a "three man house church", not did I ever say that only I have spiritual eyes. That is a false argument and let all who read on see and understand your method here. It is a straw man argument.

I can say however that I do not believe you have such spiritual eyes as scripture refers to, so that may be part of the reason you do not see things. And you seem to judge by outward appearance and are attached to a large group that I could show man scriptural corrections with ( but that would take 100 hours of clear scriptural correction, for another post perhaps).

But clearly not one of your arguments has stood the test from scripture and the corrections we have been discussing, not one.

 

[Swag365]

Thats the best answer you can give?? Since when doesn't correcting you with scripture matter?

I show clearly that the Jews were still coming out of the law and Old Covenant and still going into the temple all through Acts and still practicing Johns water baptism that Jesus told them was past in Acts 1 and Acts 11. And that they still were doing animal sacrifices , circumcision, keeping the whole law of Moses and customs and yet you just say, "that doesn't matter."???



I showed from scripture that the Jews still practicing, all through Acts, Old Covenant things and diverse washings (baptismos) and sacrifices , etc and that Paul said Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel. Paul was called the apostle of the Gentiles. The Gentiles we see in the reformation , transition in Acts were not to come under the same practices that the Jews were doing. This is clear from Acts 10 and 21. We see that the Jews were to come out of the temple sacrifices and Old Covenant and all the Mosaic law aspects that related to the Old Covenant in time. But it was not a quick change. We read about all these things in the Book of Hebrews and how the law was changed and the priesthood and sacrifices and divers washings (baptismos) and other carnal ordinances. We see how the Old Covenant was fading away, decaying ready to vanish. But it had not happened yet for many. Even though when Jesus died and rose again the New Covenant was here .



You seem to just follow the large crowds and number and act like that alone makes you right. You may have been among the group that wanted to stone Joshua and Caleb when they came back and said we can take the land, even though there was giants in the land. The majority was wrong.

Jesus said a prophet is not without honour except in his own home and among those who know him. They didn't accept jesus for wrong reasons. They may have thought, "who is this man? isn't he just the simple carpenters son?"

Jesus said the majority go the broad path, few find the narrow path.

When the protestant reformers stood alone against many of the Papist doctrines and teachings, I am sure similar arguments ( not from scripture but from outward judgement and bias) were thrown at them. I can almost hear some saying to them , "who are you, your just a small insignificant monk, and you dare go against the Pope and the entire catholic church?".

But they were wrong to look at things like that and to avoid the scriptural correction.

And I don't insist that you accept my "private" conclusions". whatever you mean by "private". I show what Jesus, Peter, Paul and others said from way back.

You use a straw man argument a fallacy argument as many try to do when you say to me,

"has been revealed to your 3-man house church because you and only you have spiritual eyes."

I do not have a "three man house church", not did I ever say that only I have spiritual eyes. That is a false argument and let all who read on see and understand your method here. It is a straw man argument.

I can say however that I do not believe you have such spiritual eyes as scripture refers to, so that may be part of the reason you do not see things. And you seem to judge by outward appearance and are attached to a large group that I could show man scriptural corrections with ( but that would take 100 hours of clear scriptural correction, for another post perhaps).

But clearly not one of your arguments has stood the test from scripture and the corrections we have been discussing, not one.

It does not matter. Water baptism is part of the new covenant. That’s why Peter, Paul, Philip, and practically every Christian group in the 2000 year history of the church has done it. We even see the Holy Spirit directing Philip to water baptize the eunuch. And the Jews never even practiced the same baptism that Christians practice, which makes your novel theory even more implausible.

Yet you obstinately insist that I accept the private conclusions of a random 3-man house church on the internet. What has evaded all of Christendom for 2000 years has been revealed to your 3-man house church because you and only you have spiritual eyes.

No thank you.

 

[LoveofTruth]

It does not matter. Water baptism is part of the new covenant. That’s why Peter, Paul, Philip, and practically every Christian group in the 2000 year history of the church has done it. We even see the Holy Spirit directing Philip to water baptize the eunuch. And the Jews never even practiced the same baptism that Christians practice, which makes your novel theory even more implausible.

Yet you obstinately insist that I accept the private conclusions of a random 3-man house church on the internet. What has evaded all of Christendom for 2000 years has been revealed to your 3-man house church because you and only you have spiritual eyes.

No thank you.

Hmmm, thats the best answer you have to regurgitate your previous post. I answer all your objections to it and showed your fallacy argument there and yet you still post it?

ok I guess you have no answer.

...and who said anything about a three-man house church??? You create a straw man and hope to say wrong things about me to create a false image. By the way we had about 70 people in one house church meeting and 30-35 in many meetings. But numbers was not the issue.

And I do not insist that you accept anything. But if you believe the scriptural evidence I have shown, through revelation and other parts of the body that have seen it as well, then I hope you would let go of your religious tradition that fights against God's truth.

And show me where God directed Phillip to water baptize? And yes all true believers have God working in them. But when Peter was to be blamed in Galatians 2 and Paul was withstanding him standing for the very truth of the gospel being in danger, do we say that Peter was directed to do what he did. But in the case of Phillip, God was working with him and condescending to the understanding they had. Remember Jesus said to the apostles before he died that he had many things to say and to judge of them but they were not able to bear it then until the Holy Ghost came and would direct them to all truth. God worked mightily through other parts of the body such as Paul to help with much teaching from the Spirit about the issues they dealt with. We see this when Paul withstood Peter, and when Paul had great contentions about trying to circumcise the gentiles and make them keep the law etc.
So, yes, Phillip did water baptize the Ethiopian, but he did it at the request of the Ethiopian, but Phillip was also (as many Jews were) still attached to the temple of Jerusalem and the animal sacrifices and circumcision and all the law and customs of the Jews. Do you say that God wanted Peter and the thousands of believing (in Jesus) Jewish people to still sacrifice animals and circumcise and stay under the Old Covenant? If not, then why did they still do it for such a long time? and was God directing them to do it? Or was God allowing them to do so knowing how hard it was to bear many things until they had the revelation of the Spirit and until the time of reformation was done?

I don't believe you have thought this out enough, or had a revelation of scripture in this area. You seem to follow the large groups and tradition more.

 

[Swag365]

Hmmm, thats the best answer you have to regurgitate your previous post. I answer all your objections to it and showed your fallacy argument there and yet you still post it?

ok I guess you have no answer.

...and who said anything about a three-man house church??? You create a straw man and hope to say wrong things about me to create a false image. By the way we had about 70 people in one house church meeting and 30-35 in many meetings. But numbers was not the issue.

And I do not insist that you accept anything. But if you believe the scriptural evidence I have shown, through revelation and other parts of the body that have seen it as well, then I hope you would let go of your religious tradition that fights against God's truth.

And show me where God directed Phillip to water baptize? And yes all true believers have God working in them. But when Peter was to be blamed in Galatians 2 and Paul was withstanding him standing for the very truth of the gospel being in danger, do we say that Peter was directed to do what he did. But in the case of Phillip, God was working with him and condescending to the understanding they had. Remember Jesus said to the apostles before he died that he had many things to say and to judge of them but they were not able to bear it then until the Holy Ghost came and would direct them to all truth. God worked mightily through other parts of the body such as Paul to help with much teaching from the Spirit about the issues they dealt with. We see this when Paul withstood Peter, and when Paul had great contentions about trying to circumcise the gentiles and make them keep the law etc.
So, yes, Phillip did water baptize the Ethiopian, but he did it at the request of the Ethiopian, but Phillip was also (as many Jews were) still attached to the temple of Jerusalem and the animal sacrifices and circumcision and all the law and customs of the Jews. Do you say that God wanted Peter and the thousands of believing (in Jesus) Jewish people to still sacrifice animals and circumcise and stay under the Old Covenant? If not, then why did they still do it for such a long time? and was God directing them to do it? Or was God allowing them to do so knowing how hard it was to bear many things until they had the revelation of the Spirit and until the time of reformation was done?

I don't believe you have thought this out enough, or had a revelation of scripture in this area. You seem to follow the large groups and tradition more.

It does not matter. Water baptism is part of the new covenant. That’s why Peter, Paul, Philip, and practically every Christian group in the 2000 year history of the church has done it. We even see the Holy Spirit directing Philip to water baptize the eunuch. And the Jews never even practiced the same baptism that Christians practice, which makes your novel theory even more implausible.

Yet you obstinately insist that I accept the private conclusions of a random 70-man house church on the internet. What has evaded all of Christendom for 2000 years has been revealed to your 70-man house church because you and only you have spiritual eyes.

No thank you.

 

[LoveofTruth]

It does not matter. Water baptism is part of the new covenant. That’s why Peter, Paul, Philip, and practically every Christian group in the 2000 year history of the church has done it. We even see the Holy Spirit directing Philip to water baptize the eunuch. And the Jews never even practiced the same baptism that Christians practice, which makes your novel theory even more implausible.

Yet you obstinately insist that I accept the private conclusions of a random 70-man house church on the internet. What has evaded all of Christendom for 2000 years has been revealed to your 70-man house church because you and only you have spiritual eyes.

No thank you.

So in your post you just make up stuff and ignore scripture and the facts I show. Oh well, not all care about the scriptural evidence, many are tied to their own erroneous traditions that make the word of God of no effect.

I never said you have to accept any private interpretations,(whatever you mean by “private”).Just accept the truth from scripture and revelation with the body.

Also I am not alone in this understanding Paul taught it and Jesus as I see in scripture. Also other believers through history have seen these things. And I never ever said only I have spiritual eyes. Another of many straw man fallacy arguments you give.

Also if you say The Jewish believers in Acts did it so that means we should, we’ll they also sacrificed animals all through Acts , we’re attached to the temple and Old Covenant , circumcision the whole Law and under it, and the diverse washings and carnal ordinances that were slowly fading away and the time of reformation was to replace the Old. So because they did these things in Acts, abs Paul even circumcised Timothy in Act 16, does that mean you should do this also today or any Jewish believers?

I don’t expect an answer, as you have shown. But consider this ..

Let all read on and understand what is said.

 

[Swag365]

So in your post you just make up stuff and ignore scripture and the facts I show. Oh well, not all care about the scriptural evidence, many are tied to their own erroneous traditions that make the word of God of no effect.

I never said you have to accept any private interpretations,(whatever you mean by “private”).Just accept the truth from scripture abs revelation eith the body.

Also I am not alone in this understanding Paul taught it and Jesus as I see in scripture. Also other believers through history have seen these things. And I never ever said only I have spiritual eyes. Another of many straw man fallacy arguments you give.

Also if you say The Jewish believers in Acts did it so that means we should, we’ll they also sacrificed animals all through Acts , we’re attached to the temple and Old Covenant , circumcision the whole Law and under it, and the diverse washings and carnal ordinances that were slowly fading away and the time of reformation was to replace the Old. So because they did these things in Acts, abs Paul even circumcised Timothy in Act 16, does that mean you should do this also today or any Jewish believers?

I don’t expect an answer, as you have shown. But consider this ..

Let all read on and understand what is said.

It does not matter. Water baptism is part of the new covenant. That’s why Peter, Paul, Philip, and practically every Christian group in the 2000 year history of the church has done it. We even see the Holy Spirit directing Philip to water baptize the eunuch. And the Jews never even practiced the same baptism that Christians practice, which makes your novel theory even more implausible.

Yet you obstinately insist that I accept the private conclusions of a random 70-man house church on the internet. What has evaded all of Christendom for 2000 years has been revealed to your 70-man house church because you and only you have spiritual eyes.

No thank you.

 

[IWalkAlone]

Tradition is flawed. One can follow the Lord washout tradition.

 

[FredVB]

I would not say that scripture alone is the rule of faith for us. Faith is really personal and it is in relationship with Christ and with Yahweh through Christ. Yet in the development of the relationship with spiritual growth that believers should have, which would show, the primacy of the scriptures, which does really have basis, should form, and what is believed have basis in scriptures, while our Christian faith is not in a vacuum and we should see how what things are said in the Bible apply to the reality around us and in our world.

Where is that evidence that early believers were all still involved in animal sacrifices? I would show it was really otherwise.

 

[LoveofTruth]

I would not say that scripture alone is the rule of faith for us. Faith is really personal and it is in relationship with Christ and with Yahweh through Christ. Yet in the development of the relationship with spiritual growth that believers should have, which would show, the primacy of the scriptures, which does really have basis, should form, and what is believed have basis in scriptures, while our Christian faith is not in a vacuum and we should see how what things are said in the Bible apply to the reality around us and in our world.

Where is that evidence that early believers were all still involved in animal sacrifices? I would show it was really otherwise.

I agree that we must always put scripture as a secondary rule and it is vital and holy.

As far as animal sacrifices among believing Jewish believers. This went on all through Acts, Even from Acts 2 Peter was going into the temple and we see the sacrifice part in Acts 21, when Paul went to the believing Jews in jerusalem, they wanted Paul to show that he kept the law and the customs and do certain sacrifices for a vow and we read about sacrifices being done. It is a shock to many, yes, but many do not read the transition and reformation in Acts. They don't see the jewish Gentile issues and the fading away of the old covenant.

"26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them."Acts 21:26 KJV)

This may have been part of a Nazarite vow,

and consider

"8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."(Hebrews 9:8-10 KJV)

 

[FredVB]

I agree that we must always put scripture as a secondary rule and it is vital and holy.

As far as animal sacrifices among believing Jewish believers. This went on all through Acts, Even from Acts 2 Peter was going into the temple and we see the sacrifice part in Acts 21, when Paul went to the believing Jews in jerusalem, they wanted Paul to show that he kept the law and the customs and do certain sacrifices for a vow and we read about sacrifices being done. It is a shock to many, yes, but many do not read the transition and reformation in Acts. They don't see the jewish Gentile issues and the fading away of the old covenant.

"26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them."Acts 21:26 KJV)

This may have been part of a Nazarite vow,

and consider

"8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."(Hebrews 9:8-10 KJV)

Personal faith which has those in repentance coming to Christ through whom they are reconciled to God and coming to trust the Bible for the word of God to them are both important, and it is spiritual deprivation to not have either one or the other. Relationship with God is truly important and it is indispensable to a believer's life, truth that is needed is with having the Bible to go to.

Being fully compassionate beyond other people, Yeshua was not eating flesh of killed animals. Many followers then after that observed to not eat any flesh of animals, and there really was the tradition passed down that they learned this from Christ their Lord who did not eat of that, while this was still not a requirement for coming to saving faith which is with repentance. It is known from documents that there were apostles, and James the brother of Christ, who avoided having meat. Temple was still attended, which could be done without sacrifices, and there were sacrifices or offerings permitted without those being animals, as well.

 

[pescador]

Personal faith which has those in repentance coming to Christ through whom they are reconciled to God and coming to trust the Bible for the word of God to them are both important, and it is spiritual deprivation to not have either one or the other. Relationship with God is truly important and it is indispensable to a believer's life, truth that is needed is with having the Bible to go to.

Being fully compassionate beyond other people, Yeshua was not eating flesh of killed animals. Many followers then after that observed to not eat any flesh of animals, and there really was the tradition passed down that they learned this from Christ their Lord who did not eat of that, while this was still not a requirement for coming to saving faith which is with repentance. It is known from documents that there were apostles, and James the brother of Christ, who avoided having meat. Temple was still attended, which could be done without sacrifices, and there were sacrifices or offerings permitted without those being animals, as well.

Where does it say that Jesus didn't eat meat (the flesh of killed animals). He said that it is permissible to everything.

Mark 7:14-19, "Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand. There is nothing outside of a person that can defile him by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles him.”

Now when Jesus had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. He said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)

And while they still could not believe it (because of their joy) and were amazed, he said to them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” So they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he (Jesus) took it and ate it in front of them. Luke 24:41-43

"When they got out on the beach, they saw a charcoal fire ready with a fish placed on it, and bread. Jesus said, “Bring some of the fish you have just now caught.” So Simon Peter went aboard and pulled the net to shore. It was full of large fish, 153, but although there were so many, the net was not torn. “Come, have breakfast,” Jesus said. But none of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord." John 21:9-12

So Jesus ate fish and cooked some for His disciples. He was not and they were not vegetarians.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Personal faith which has those in repentance coming to Christ through whom they are reconciled to God and coming to trust the Bible for the word of God to them are both important, and it is spiritual deprivation to not have either one or the other. Relationship with God is truly important and it is indispensable to a believer's life, truth that is needed is with having the Bible to go to.

Being fully compassionate beyond other people, Yeshua was not eating flesh of killed animals. Many followers then after that observed to not eat any flesh of animals, and there really was the tradition passed down that they learned this from Christ their Lord who did not eat of that, while this was still not a requirement for coming to saving faith which is with repentance. It is known from documents that there were apostles, and James the brother of Christ, who avoided having meat. Temple was still attended, which could be done without sacrifices, and there were sacrifices or offerings permitted without those being animals, as well.

They sacrificed animals in the temple under the law and they still did this until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD

all through Acts they (the Jewish believers) kept the law and sacrificed animals in the temple. It was a slow reformation out of the old to the new for some.

“ Acts 21: 17. And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law”

that would be the law of Moses and the sacrificed and all the law would be included in that including animal sacrificed . Even though they did not have to do it now for the New Covenant had come.
And Jesus would have eaten meat at the feast etc.
In the law the sacrificed were to be eaten also.

to forbid you eat meat is not right as we read

1 Timothy 4: 1. Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2. Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. 6. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.”

 

[LoveofTruth]

Personal faith which has those in repentance coming to Christ through whom they are reconciled to God and coming to trust the Bible for the word of God to them are both important, and it is spiritual deprivation to not have either one or the other. Relationship with God is truly important and it is indispensable to a believer's life, truth that is needed is with having the Bible to go to.

Being fully compassionate beyond other people, Yeshua was not eating flesh of killed animals. Many followers then after that observed to not eat any flesh of animals, and there really was the tradition passed down that they learned this from Christ their Lord who did not eat of that, while this was still not a requirement for coming to saving faith which is with repentance. It is known from documents that there were apostles, and James the brother of Christ, who avoided having meat. Temple was still attended, which could be done without sacrifices, and there were sacrifices or offerings permitted without those being animals, as well.

Hod told them to eat the meat of the sacrifice

Leviticus 6: 25. Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy. 26. The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.”

 

[LoveofTruth]

No, the text states that faith was completed by his works.

As the body without the spirit is dead(can not do anything or work etc) so a believer who has faith has God working in him to make him perfect unto every good work, Christ dwells in our heart by faith and without him we can do nothing. . God working in all through faith that work is part of our shining forth to the world that God us in us and the Father is glorified through Jesus Christ by the Spirit.

 

[FredVB]

Personal faith which has those in repentance coming to Christ through whom they are reconciled to God and coming to trust the Bible for the word of God to them are both important, and it is spiritual deprivation to not have either one or the other. Relationship with God is truly important and it is indispensable to a believer's life, truth that is needed is with having the Bible to go to.

Being fully compassionate beyond other people, Yeshua was not eating flesh of killed animals. Many followers then after that observed to not eat any flesh of animals, and there really was the tradition passed down that they learned this from Christ their Lord who did not eat of that, while this was still not a requirement for coming to saving faith which is with repentance. It is known from documents that there were apostles, and James the brother of Christ, who avoided having meat. Temple was still attended, which could be done without sacrifices, and there were sacrifices or offerings permitted without those being animals, as well.

Where does it say that Jesus didn't eat meat (the flesh of killed animals). He said that it is permissible to everything.

Mark 7:14-19, "Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand. There is nothing outside of a person that can defile him by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles him.”

Now when Jesus had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. He said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)

And while they still could not believe it (because of their joy) and were amazed, he said to them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” So they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he (Jesus) took it and ate it in front of them. Luke 24:41-43

"When they got out on the beach, they saw a charcoal fire ready with a fish placed on it, and bread. Jesus said, “Bring some of the fish you have just now caught.” So Simon Peter went aboard and pulled the net to shore. It was full of large fish, 153, but although there were so many, the net was not torn. “Come, have breakfast,” Jesus said. But none of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord." John 21:9-12

So Jesus ate fish and cooked some for His disciples. He was not and they were not vegetarians.

It would be an embarrassment to misuse scripture with such poor exegesis, I am sorry for where I see it. Contexts matter. Original texts also matter, where nothing originally there is deleted.

They sacrificed animals in the temple under the law and they still did this until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD

all through Acts they (the Jewish believers) kept the law and sacrificed animals in the temple. It was a slow reformation out of the old to the new for some.

“ Acts 21: 17. And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law”

that would be the law of Moses and the sacrificed and all the law would be included in that including animal sacrificed . Even though they did not have to do it now for the New Covenant had come.
And Jesus would have eaten meat at the feast etc.
In the law the sacrificed were to be eaten also.

to forbid you eat meat is not right as we read

1 Timothy 4: 1. Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2. Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. 6. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.”

I don't see believers sacrificing animals, from that. And the misuse of scriptures about a heretical cult to apply to those not eating meat or products from animals is really an embarrassment. Really one should know better.

Hod told them to eat the meat of the sacrifice

Leviticus 6: 25. Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy. 26. The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.”

It is a long stretch to speak from what requirements there were for the priests who were descended from Aaron to apply any more generally.

This thread topic is regarding faith and practice beyond just scriptures alone, which I was initially responding to. I don't want it closed because any are going off-topic. I would not have been, but when response to my posts are for showing something I said was wrong, if I have information to show for it I then should. Maybe we can go on about whether behaving according to faith is something further than scriptures alone. Still nothing should be contrary to things shown in the Bible to do.

Evidence That Jesus and The Original Aramaic Christians Were Vegetarians

UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION INSIDE A MAJOR U.S. HATCHERY | Animal Equality

I like to think that you are better than someone just saying, "God made them for us to do this with them, so we can enjoy things."

God's compassion is greater, God cares for the creatures of God's creation.

Respect the life of all God’s creatures. As intelligent beings, we have a duty not to cause undue pain to other creatures.

In Genesis 1:29-30 it reads,
God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

This describes animals having hayyah (life). However, in the Hebrew it also has the word nephesh in combination with hayyah, which is the exact same wording as the description of the soul in the creation of Adam in Genesis 2:7. In other words, though nephesh is only translated as “life” here, the Hebrew speaks of the soul. Animals thus have a nephesh hayyah just like Adam. The Creator cares for the creatures too.

There is not the unhealthy way with the perfect will of God. That perfection was shown in the design of the creation in the beginning. It will be that way in Heaven in eternity, there being no harming and no hurting, which came about with curses with falling to sin. God shows care for creatures in the Bible, and we are liable for not showing the care. Do you think God is okay with diseases and health problems connected with eating from such animal products which that would mean? Cancers, heart attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, rheumatoid arthritis, forms of diabetes, unhealthy weight, and many more issues? And there are verses like Proverbs 12:10 which contradict God being okay with all that abuse. And consider it is said God hates the actions of those destructive to this earth (Revelation 11:18).

Elimination of using meat and products from animals could help to really save our world from the disastrous end we are facing.

Global elimination of meat production could save the planet

Data point: Stop eating meat to save the planet?

Scientists Made Grim Discovery in Greenland Ice Sheet Made Possible by Improved Models - NewsBreak

What will Louisiana look like if Thwaites Glacier melts? Here's your answer. | Toni Koraza | NewsBreak Original

We are to come out, from anywhere we see ungodliness, it is spread widely even now.

 

[pescador]

It would be an embarrassment to misuse scripture with such poor exegesis, I am sorry for where I see it. Contexts matter. Original texts also matter, where nothing originally there is deleted.



I don't see believers sacrificing animals, from that. And the misuse of scriptures about a heretical cult to apply to those not eating meat or products from animals is really an embarrassment. Really one should know better.



It is a long stretch to speak from what requirements there were for the priests who were descended from Aaron to apply any more generally.

This thread topic is regarding faith and practice beyond just scriptures alone, which I was initially responding to. I don't want it closed because any are going off-topic. I would not have been, but when response to my posts are for showing something I said was wrong, if I have information to show for it I then should. Maybe we can go on about whether behaving according to faith is something further than scriptures alone. Still nothing should be contrary to things shown in the Bible to do.

Evidence That Jesus and The Original Aramaic Christians Were Vegetarians

UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION INSIDE A MAJOR U.S. HATCHERY | Animal Equality

I like to think that you are better than someone just saying, "God made them for us to do this with them, so we can enjoy things."

God's compassion is greater, God cares for the creatures of God's creation.

Respect the life of all God’s creatures. As intelligent beings, we have a duty not to cause undue pain to other creatures.

In Genesis 1:29-30 it reads,
God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

This describes animals having hayyah (life). However, in the Hebrew it also has the word nephesh in combination with hayyah, which is the exact same wording as the description of the soul in the creation of Adam in Genesis 2:7. In other words, though nephesh is only translated as “life” here, the Hebrew speaks of the soul. Animals thus have a nephesh hayyah just like Adam. The Creator cares for the creatures too.

There is not the unhealthy way with the perfect will of God. That perfection was shown in the design of the creation in the beginning. It will be that way in Heaven in eternity, there being no harming and no hurting, which came about with curses with falling to sin. God shows care for creatures in the Bible, and we are liable for not showing the care. Do you think God is okay with diseases and health problems connected with eating from such animal products which that would mean? Cancers, heart attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, rheumatoid arthritis, forms of diabetes, unhealthy weight, and many more issues? And there are verses like Proverbs 12:10 which contradict God being okay with all that abuse. And consider it is said God hates the actions of those destructive to this earth (Revelation 11:18).

Elimination of using meat and products from animals could help to really save our world from the disastrous end we are facing.

Global elimination of meat production could save the planet

Data point: Stop eating meat to save the planet?

Scientists Made Grim Discovery in Greenland Ice Sheet Made Possible by Improved Models - NewsBreak

What will Louisiana look like if Thwaites Glacier melts? Here's your answer. | Toni Koraza | NewsBreak Original

We are to come out, from anywhere we see ungodliness, it is spread widely even now.

I agree 100% that it would be an embarrassment to misuse scripture with your using such poor exegesis. Really one should know better. See my "signature" below.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Sola scriptura is impossible because without Holy Tradition, there would be no scriptures.

 

[pescador]

Sola scriptura is impossible because without Holy Tradition, there would be no scriptures.

Clearly you don't understand the principle of sola scriptura. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. It says nothing about the origin of the Scriptures, most of which existed long, long before "Holy Tradition".

 

[Swag365]

As the body without the spirit is dead(can not do anything or work etc) so a believer who has faith has God working in him to make him perfect unto every good work, Christ dwells in our heart by faith and without him we can do nothing. . God working in all through faith that work is part of our shining forth to the world that God us in us and the Father is glorified through Jesus Christ by the Spirit.

God works within men of faith and gives them the spiritual disposition the strength to perform good works, but good works do not "automatically flow" from faith, as you seem to suggest. If that were the case, in every single instance in which good works were required of the man of faith (you, for example), the man of faith would perform the good works. But both you and I know that is not the case. And if that were the case the man of faith would never sin, and both you and I know that is not the case either. Faith does not turn a man into a good-works producing automaton controlled by God as if he were some sort of puppet. The main of faith still has free will and must make a conscious decision to perform, or not perform, good works. So no, James does not teach what you want it to teach. Nothing of the sort.

Was Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

You tell me.