Sorry: A figure which needs help from Michael, an angel obviously at least as high as this figure, is not God. Not in the OT.But the Old Testament does, in fact, present a very detailed image of the creator.
Daniel 10:5-6
I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult.
I was about to argue against Soyeong, but then I realitzed it was me who made a mistake:Are you sure about that?
No, it is Ivrit, the language now spoken in Israel. The ancient Hebrew was without a, but with Ayin. In spoken Ivrit, there is no Ayin, the letter is either pronounced as an a or as an Aleph. Written Ivrit is like Hebrew (some differences for neologisms, loan words etc., but basically identical).
No, Yeshu (with neither a nor Ayin) is an distortion of the name used by Jews to curse the one who (in their perception) caused so many persecution of Jews.
Did you overlook the mark for Ayin? Well, instead of a sign similar to the small sign used in scientific transcription, I can use phonetic signs: Yeshuʕ If you can't see the "ʕ" you fonts lack phonetic symbols. But anyway: please notice the difference between Yeshu (a curse) and Yeshu` (the name of our Savior in ancient Aramaic).
"ʕisho" is a transcription from Greek iesou(s) (with itacism) into Aramaic, not the original name. You are right that this is the origin of Arabic "ʕisa". Note that both names begin with an Ayin, because the long "i" (or "ee" for English speekers) in Middle and modern Greek is a vowel and has to be preceded by a consonant, either Ayin or Aleph.
No, it is not. It is from myoglobin. See also the text previous to the linked passage for the difference to blood (hemoglobin)
You forgot the Holy Spirit (v.28).
Well, why do you say "Catholic Church"? It is the orthodox church that maintains leadership not by one person, but by all patriarchs. The Latin patriarch (aka Pope) has left this church, founded his own church (and installed "patriarchs", which should not confused with his colleagues, the real patriarchs).
The Coptic church (which separated out of quite different reasons) calls its patriarchs "pope", I suppose there is no difference in the Coptic language between these two terms.
If I would believe that a Church Council will be automatically led by the Holy Spirit as the assembly described in Acts 15, I would become Orthodox, not a Catholic schismatic.
This person is not God?Sorry: A figure which needs help from Michael, an angel obviously at least as high as this figure, is not God. Not in the OT.
Can you explain that again as what you said seems to be a paradox.Would that be BECAUSE the believer KEEPS the Law? We are not "under the law" because since we keep it, we are not under its curse...because Yeshua got rid of the curse when we DO break it.
Well this depends on whether the command to abstain from blood concerns the Jewish and Gentile fellowship. Jews were under specific food laws and the Gentiles were not under any laws regarding food consumption. The Jews were deeply offended by the filthy Gentile diet.I'll respond to the rest later, but I looked up the verse. Here it is:
Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
So we should abstain from meat from blood. Did you eat a nice, juicy steak that is red inside? Isn't that redness from blood? So would anyone who eats red meat disobeying the Bible?
The commands given to the Gentiles in Jerusalem (Acts 15) are from the Holy Spirit.Also, this command came not from the Lord. It came from the apostles AND the elders (verse 22). So what was this? It was a Church Council. So since the Bible is quoting a Council as if it is infallible, this shows that Church Councils are infallibly led by the Holy Spirit.
Acts 15:28
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials...
So I would not say what you said, 'this command came not from the Lord'.
If it came from the Holy Spirit, then of course it is Jesus speaking directly to the church.I meant that it did not come from Jesus. Of course, if a person of Divine authority, such as a prophet or an apostle, speaks the inspiration comes for the Holy Spirit.
Can you explain that again as what you said seems to be a paradox.
We are not under the law because we keep it?
Then you said, 'when we do break it'.
You either keep the law or you are a law breaker; which one is it?
Were are not under it because we keep it but if we do break it, because of Yeshua we do not have to pay the penalty. We go 55 in a 55, but if we go 70, we are not under the penalty (curse).
No Council is valid without the approval of successor to St. Peter. If you disagree, then you must concur that the infamous "Robber Council" was a valid Council. This council has all the bishops, and they sided with the heresy of Monophysitism. Everything was valid except it did not have the approval of the pope.
Also, it is curious that the Orthodox churches have had not one council since they split from Rome. Why is that? It seems, that the patriarchs cannot agree on anything. This is only human nature. You need one guy who can ultimately call the shots. Orthodoxy does not have that, so they never never have a Council.
Also, it is only to Peter that our Lord that he is the Rock that He will be build His Church. It is only to the Church built on Peter that He said that the gates of death and hell shall not prevail against it. It is only to Peter that Jesus gave Him the keys to the kingdom. Not to the other apostles. Also, do a search in the Bible. There is no Biblical justification at all that certain bishops, patriarchs, are higher than the other bishops.
Interesting, but so what? If call myself "pope" does that mean I am the head of the Church? If I call myself "President of the United States" does that mean I am the President?
Instead, you are a Protestant schismatic. Check out you own denomination. Each one split from another church. I heard that there are overs 30,000 splits in Protestantism. It it at least in the thousands. Just the Baptists alone, they have over 200 splits.
Also, the Early Church Fathers BEFORE the Orthodox split saw Peter himself as the Rock that Jesus built the Church. Some are even from the East. Here is just some of them:
Tertullian
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).
Origen
“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).
Ambrose of Milan
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
Augustine
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Council of Ephesus
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
We are not under the law but we keep the law?Were are not under it because we keep it but if we do break it, because of Yeshua we do not have to pay the penalty. We go 55 in a 55, but if we go 70, we are not under the penalty (curse).
God manifested Himself to Isaiah in a way that he could comprehend Him, but that does not mean that this if what God actually looked like. Theologians call this a theophany. God is everywhere. He is omnipresent. What Isaiah saw was an outline of God. But God, before the Incarnation, had no outline. If He did, He would be limited, but God is infinite. I think this is the kind of the image that God forbade. We tend to think that God is like us - only bigger. That is making God into an image, into our image.Well, he had a form,. as you can read in Isaiah 6. Or in other OT passages where it is said that men saw the LORD. And since no-one can see the Father, they must have seen Jesus.
How do you understand the NT command that we should abstain from images? This is the literal translation in Acts 15:20, or other verses like 1.John 5:21. An image venerated by you is an idol for you.
We are not under the law but we keep the law?
You said yourself that you break the law, so logically, you do not keep the law.
That is a contradiction.
Graciousness and righteousness have always been compatible character traits of the same God, which He expressed throughout the Bible (Exodus 34:6-7, Psalms 119:29). In Hebrews 11:7, Noah was listed as an example of faith and in Genesis 6:8-9, it says that he found grace in the eyes of God and that he was a righteous man, so he was saved by grace through faith in the same one and only way as everyone else.
In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, which is essentially what God's Law was given to instruct us how to do. Furthermore, verse 14 says that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so if we believe in what Jesus accomplished on the cross, then we will become zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's Law (Acts 21:20) and will not return to the Lawlessness that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from. Our salvation is from sin and sin is defined as disobedience to God's Law (1 John 3:4), so being trained by grace to live in obedience to God's Law through faith is what being saved from living in disobedience to God's Law looks like.
God commanded His followers to keep the Sabbath holy by doing no work and by having a holy convocation. So if we did on every day what God wants us to do on the Sabbath, then we would do no work, but God also wants us to work.
Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17-23) and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel of Christ. The same goes for Acts 2:38 when Peter told his audience to repent for the forgiveness of sins. In Romans 15:4, Paul said OT Scripture was written for our instruction and in 15:18-19, His Gospel message involved bringing the Gentiles to full obedience in word and in deed, so he was on the same page as Jesus in regard to teaching repentance from our sins.
If God's Law were His instructions for how to become self-righteous, and God does not want us to become self-righteous, then it would follow that therefore God doesn't want to be obeyed, which is absurd, therefore God's Law was not given as instructions for how to become self-righteous, and as instructions for how to express God's righteousness. In Romans 10:4, Jesus is the goal of the Law for righteousness for everyone who has faith and in Philippians 3:8, Paul had been outwardly keeping the Law without having a focus on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the Law, and counted it all as rubbish, so the right solution to incorrectly obeying God's Law is to repent and to start obeying it correctly with the right focus, not to stop obeying God.
Jesus did not come to start his own religion following a different god, but rather he came to bring fullness to Judaism as its Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. He practice Judaism by sinlessly keeping the Torah and by teaching his followers how to obey it by word and by example. All Christians were Torah observant Jews for roughly the first 7-15 years after Christ's resurrection up until the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10, so Christianity at its origin was the form of Judaism that Jesus practiced and which recognized him as their prophesied Messiah, and this is the form of Christianity that I seek to follow with the inclusion of Gentiles. So it is not necessary for Messianics to be Jewish by birth and in fact Gentile Messianics far outnumber Jewish Messianics due to Jews making up a small percentage of the world's population, however, I do happen to be a Jew by birth and a follower of Jesus by new birth.
Loving others is way to spend the Sabbath. If you think that Paul was saying that all things are lawful, then that would include everything that Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:9-12 that would cause someone not to inherit the Kingdom. However, he was quoting that phrase in order to argue against it, not in order to endorse it. Furthermore, Paul did not have the authority to countermand God by saying that all things are lawful, nor should we follow Paul instead of God even if you think that is what he was saying.
You are correct that in 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul was not speaking about sinning in order to reach sinners because that would have completely undermined his message to them, and sin is disobedience to God's Law. Rather, he said in a parallel statement that he was not outside the Law of God, but under the Law of Christ, so he equated the Mosaic Law with the Law of Christ.
I do not wear clothes mixed with wool and linen. We are not commanded to blow the shofar though we are commanded to hear the voice of the shofar during the Feast of Trumpets. Even when the Law was first given to Moses, there wasn't a single person who was required to follow every single Law, and not even Jesus followed the laws in regard to giving birth or to having a period. Some laws were only given to govern the conduct of the King, the High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, children, widows, those who are married, those with servants, those with animals, those with crops, those with tzaraat, those living in the land, and for strangers living among them, while others were given for everyone. Furthermore, many of the laws came with conditions under which they should be obeyed, such as the command to keep the Sabbath holy, which should only be obeyed under the condition that it is the 7th day or laws in regard to temple practice, which should only be obeyed under the condition that there is a temple in which to practice them.
So understanding how much of the Law to follow is a matter of careful prayer, study, and leading of the Spirit. However, if we believe the Bible that the Law was given for our own good and that God can be trusted to guide us in how to rightly live, then we will have the attitude of looking for reasons why we have the delight of getting to obey God's instructions rather than the attitude of looking for every excuse under the sun to avoid following God's guidance.
In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, which is essentially what God's Law was given to instruct us how to do. Furthermore, verse 14 says that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so if we believe in what Jesus accomplished on the cross, then we will become zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's Law (Acts 21:20) and will not return to the Lawlessness that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from. Our salvation is from sin and sin is defined as disobedience to God's Law (1 John 3:4), so being trained by grace to live in obedience to God's Law through faith is what being saved from living in disobedience to God's Law looks like.
God commanded His followers to keep the Sabbath holy by doing no work and by having a holy convocation. So if we did on every day what God wants us to do on the Sabbath, then we would do no work, but God also wants us to work.
Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17-23) and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel of Christ. The same goes for Acts 2:38 when Peter told his audience to repent for the forgiveness of sins. In Romans 15:4, Paul said OT Scripture was written for our instruction and in 15:18-19, His Gospel message involved bringing the Gentiles to full obedience in word and in deed, so he was on the same page as Jesus in regard to teaching repentance from our sins.
If God's Law were His instructions for how to become self-righteous, and God does not want us to become self-righteous, then it would follow that therefore God doesn't want to be obeyed, which is absurd, therefore God's Law was not given as instructions for how to become self-righteous, and as instructions for how to express God's righteousness. In Romans 10:4, Jesus is the goal of the Law for righteousness for everyone who has faith and in Philippians 3:8, Paul had been outwardly keeping the Law without having a focus on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the Law, and counted it all as rubbish, so the right solution to incorrectly obeying God's Law is to repent and to start obeying it correctly with the right focus, not to stop obeying God.
Jesus did not come to start his own religion following a different god, but rather he came to bring fullness to Judaism as its Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. He practice Judaism by sinlessly keeping the Torah and by teaching his followers how to obey it by word and by example. All Christians were Torah observant Jews for roughly the first 7-15 years after Christ's resurrection up until the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10, so Christianity at its origin was the form of Judaism that Jesus practiced and which recognized him as their prophesied Messiah, and this is the form of Christianity that I seek to follow with the inclusion of Gentiles. So it is not necessary for Messianics to be Jewish by birth and in fact Gentile Messianics far outnumber Jewish Messianics due to Jews making up a small percentage of the world's population, however, I do happen to be a Jew by birth and a follower of Jesus by new birth.
Loving others is way to spend the Sabbath. If you think that Paul was saying that all things are lawful, then that would include everything that Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:9-12 that would cause someone not to inherit the Kingdom. However, he was quoting that phrase in order to argue against it, not in order to endorse it. Furthermore, Paul did not have the authority to countermand God by saying that all things are lawful, nor should we follow Paul instead of God even if you think that is what he was saying.
You are correct that in 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul was not speaking about sinning in order to reach sinners because that would have completely undermined his message to them, and sin is disobedience to God's Law. Rather, he said in a parallel statement that he was not outside the Law of God, but under the Law of Christ, so he equated the Mosaic Law with the Law of Christ.
I do not wear clothes mixed with wool and linen. We are not commanded to blow the shofar though we are commanded to hear the voice of the shofar during the Feast of Trumpets. Even when the Law was first given to Moses, there wasn't a single person who was required to follow every single Law, and not even Jesus followed the laws in regard to giving birth or to having a period. Some laws were only given to govern the conduct of the King, the High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, children, widows, those who are married, those with servants, those with animals, those with crops, those with tzaraat, those living in the land, and for strangers living among them, while others were given for everyone. Furthermore, many of the laws came with conditions under which they should be obeyed, such as the command to keep the Sabbath holy, which should only be obeyed under the condition that it is the 7th day or laws in regard to temple practice, which should only be obeyed under the condition that there is a temple in which to practice them.
So understanding how much of the Law to follow is a matter of careful prayer, study, and leading of the Spirit. However, if we believe the Bible that the Law was given for our own good and that God can be trusted to guide us in how to rightly live, then we will have the attitude of looking for reasons why we have the delight of getting to obey God's instructions rather than the attitude of looking for every excuse under the sun to avoid following God's guidance.
What does 'curse' mean?I am not under the curse, that was done away. Sin is still the transgression of the law.
If it came from the Holy Spirit, then of course it is Jesus speaking directly to the church.
A person of divine authority has never existed.
Peter was confronted and rebuked publicly by Paul at the church of Antioch. That was a minimum of seventeen years after Paul's conversion and many more years after the resurrection.
Peter was self condemned and definitely in Paul's eyes, Peter was not a person who could be trusted.
I would never see Peter as some sort of pope.
Everything a prophet speaks must be subjected to examination, it must be tested. Nothing spoken by any prophet can ever be accepted too quickly.
I am not under the curse, that was done away. Sin is still the transgression of the law.
What does 'curse' mean?
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?