What is the difference?

[New_Wineskin]

to New_Wineskin ...

But how do you explain his statements that if one loves him he'll obey his commands?

JN 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command.

??? It seems that you are talking down to me .

Anyway . this obviously has nothing to do with the Scriptures . Does He say , "If you love me , you will read what I have commanded others ?" Nope . If *I* love Him , *I* will obey what He commands *me* - not what He is recorded to have commanded someone else . I am talking about the New Covenant as "Hebrews" discusses .

Of course , He did command others to have animal sacrifices - are these the commands of His being obeyed ? Doesn't look like it .

And how would one know what he commands unless he reads about it?

I shake my head in unbelief at such a statement . How can I answer this to someone seems to think that I don't have a solid grasp of the Scriptures ?

What was Paul talking about when he urged people to follow the Spirit and not the written code ( that which is read ) ? How did Abraham know what to do ( the Lord called him His friend ) ? Moses ( the Lord spoke to him face to face as a man to his friend ) ? Noah ? Enoch ? All of these are well commended even though they knew Him before there were writings to read . Abraham was referred to as "the father of all who believe " .

The New Covenant is *defined* by this . Even Moses wrote that man doesn't live on bread alone but by every word that proceeds ( present tense ) from the mouth of God . Jesus is recorded to have quoted that passage . "Hebrews" goes into a similar concept at length as being a cornerstone of the New Covenant - "Today , if you hear His voice " . And , "I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts" - nothing about putting His laws back in writing . Paul writes "Faith comes by hearing" . *Reading* is not the point of this - it is a relationship with a living Being . Jesus said that His sheep listen to His voice . If one does not think that they know what to do without reading , His voice is shut out .

 

[Edial]

...


I have already stated my objection(s) :
a) first and foremost , people contradict themselves by using the Scriptures as Law and insisting that *I* produce righteousness by obedience to *their* interpretation of them .

b) They contradict themselves in the above a) by ignoring the many passages that Paul wrote to sway people from that ery attitude .

c) people who say that one should do as *they* interpret the Scriptures themselves refuse to obey parts of it . It isn't that they are ignorant of the commands or "slip" while attempting to obey the commands - they outright refuse to obey them while stating that people should obey the Scriptures .

d) All of the above create the same atmosphere with which Jesus dealt in His confrontations with the religious leaders of His time . There is hypocracy in how people deal with the Scriptures and there is the turning away from the Lord by focussing on the writings instead of Him while using the writings to earn righteousness . While the leaders of His time had logical reasons for being that way , Christians don't . The very writings used to circumvent that atmosphere are turned into another set of laws to create the cycle again .

People's interpretations vary.
I am not referring to interpretations, but to statements of the text that are clear and need no interpretation ... such as "Do not steal".

e) All but one ( that I know of ) doctrine of the Scriptures that people use is self-contradictory . I have asked several times for people to abide by their own doctrines to explain them and they won't abide by their own doctrines .

Please explain.
And which one doctrine is not self-contradictory in your view?

Accuracy of the record is not the point at present . But , it is a very argueable point ..

So, do you believe that the NT is reflective of Christ's words or not?

If so , then what is the purpose of this disussion ? If you refuse to obey all of the Scriptures , why insist that I follow the few that you have chosen of your own accord to obey ? Why have you given yourself the right to pick and choose which passages to obey and yet deny me the same right ?

I referred to Christ's text where he stated that he fulfilled the Law.
That definition is supportive of further statements that we are not under the Law (we could eat pork, as an example).

The separation is clear.

What I am saying is that we are to obey EVERYTHING under the New Covenant.

Like here, in the last verse of Matthew ...
MT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Before I answer , please explain why you ask about my understanding of *any* text ?

Because if one does not have an understanding of a text yet ignores it, he simply denies it.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[New_Wineskin]

People's interpretations vary.
I am not referring to interpretations, but to statements of the text that are clear and need no interpretation ... such as "Do not steal".

LOL !! Even *that* needs interpreting . The Lord had the Israelites loot Egypt before leaving . And , that very text you gave is an interpretation of a translator - it is not in the language of the originals .

Please explain.
And which one doctrine is not self-contradictory in your view?

The one that they give as an actual quote - that the Scriptures are inspired by the Lord . Yet , several other doctrines that use this are self-contradictory or say things that the passage doesn't say .

So, do you believe that the NT is reflective of Christ's words or not?

Why "NT" ? Do *you* believe that *all* of the Scriptures are reflective of the Christ's words or not ( whatever that means ) ?

I referred to Christ's text where he stated that he fulfilled the Law.

That definition is supportive of further statements that we are not under the Law (we could eat pork, as an example).

The separation is clear.

That would mean something if I was ever under the Law to begin with . Once again , I am a Gentile . I have never been under the Law . His fulfilling or abolishing or anything else with the Law has nothing to do with me .

However , you are saying that the Scriptures are not authoritative . Since any passage that speaks of authority ( which are none for a Gentile ) speaks of the old writings , then none are authoritative . And , I have already provided the passage of Paul where he states that , if any writing could produce righteousness , it would be the Law .

What I am saying is that we are to obey EVERYTHING under the New Covenant.

What is this *we* stuff ? Why does the typical christian have to have everyone do what they do and everyone not do what they don't do ? What is this fixation on the Law ? Why can't they allow each to have a relationship with the Lord so that they learn from Him ?

What is this "everything under the New Covenant ? It still seems that you are discussing the Laws of the Scriptures . The New Covenant is not about the Scriptures . It is about having the faith that Abraham had before the Scriptures existed . And , you already stated that the Laws of the Scriptures are abolished .

Now , as far as *I* am concerned ... *I* am to obey the Lord . That is why I call Him "the Lord" . If I obeyed anything else , *that* would be my Lord and He would not .

Because if one does not have an understanding of a text yet ignores it, he simply denies it.

Thanks,
Ed

That is not really an explanation . Why do you wish *anyone* to have an understanding of *any* text ? You are assuming a doctrine is being accepted even though I have shown that I don't accept it and why I don't accept it . You would need to first convince me of that first doctrine in order for me to agree with the doctrine that you are trying to give in that passage .

You think that I agree with some underlying doctrines which I do not .

 

[brother daniel]

I think there is more to it. I am inclined toward Anabaptist theology in house or local church.

I have a basic distrust for any form of governence other than local accounability.

I understand that.
In 2000 years much corruption was instilled.

Disciples are accountable to God through the local congregation. Even when disciples plant a local church they give place to Christ in his members.

"Anabaptist theology was remarkably consistent. They viewed the essential nature of the Christian faith in terms of the common elements of discipleship, non-resistance, and community."

The starting point for the evangelical Anabaptists was discipleship

"follow after Christ." Christianity, for them, was tested by one's behavior. They had no well-developed theology of salvation. If one walked as Christ had walked; if one kept His commandments, then one was saved. Conversely, if one did not so walk; if one did not keep His commandments, then one surely could not be saved, irrespective of whatever beliefs were claimed.

This understanding of discipleship implied a unique attitude toward the Bible

The Anabaptists, claiming that the New Testament (that part of the Bible that most directly reveals Christ's commands) was more important to those who claimed to be followers of Christ. Moreover, they espoused "the principle of the harder reading," refusing to soften even the hardest demands of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount.

"Hard reading" is the only way of reading - literal reading. That's the way I personally read and I feel comfortable doing that.

However, I noticed that "hard reading" often takes an incorrect form of interpretation due to the misunderstanding of that same literal text.

What misunderstandings are possable from a literal reading of the sermon on the mount?

This concept of discipleship and view of scripture led the evangelical Anabaptists to the practice of non-resistance. At least for the most radical of the Anabaptists, this meant the absolute refusal to bear arms, to hold political office, to swear an oath of loyalty to the state, or to sue in courts of law.

.

This is the point where I am not bound by a denominational doctrine or interpetation.

Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luk 22:37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

Luk 22:38And they said, Lord, behold, here [are] two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Luk 22:49When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?

Luk 22:50And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.



Luk 22:51And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.


I have wondered and prayed about this, and I can only conclude that Jesus did not intend for the sword to be used in self defense, but rather demonstrate meekness by not using it when rightously provoked.

I have litagated in Courts of law on civil rights matters but I would not go to Law with a person I knew was a brother in Christ.

really sympathize with non-resistance.
I do not agree with it due to various NT texts (and I also believe that NT is much more relevant to a believer than the OT), but one cannot help, but sympathize with it.

Non-resistance keeps one close to the Lord.
And the Lord honors that methodology regardless of "theological" leanings. {/qoute]

What NT texts cause you to not agree with, NON resistance.

[quote=brother daniel;28289645]

The third key element in the Anabaptist understanding of the Christian faith was the necessity of community. The Anabaptists clearly saw themselves as a righteous remnant, a people set apart from the world. They denied absolutely the role of the state in the church, rightly assuming that any such role involved coercion. In contrast, they insisted that adults freely consent to join the redeemed community. The rite of baptism was reserved for adults on scriptural grounds, but also because only adults could choose freely. Furthermore, only adults could voluntarily submit themselves to the discipline of the community as outlined in Matthew 18: 15-20.

The local or household church.
.
The Anabaptists understood that not all Christians would interpret Christ's commands in the same way, and the commitment to subjecting one's actions and interpretations to review by the discerning community provided a needed-but not always successful-corrective.

This commitment to community carried economic as well as spiritual implications. From the very beginnings in Zurich in 1525, mutual aid was a central feature of Anabaptist church practice. Its most extreme manifestation, of course, was among the Anabaptists of Moravia, but the concept was present everywhere. Commitment to the community clearly implied the willingness to sacrifice all one's possessions on its behalf.

Again, I sympathize with that.
There are things that I do not agree with in that context and I believe that are incorrect, but that is theology.
I am certain that "my theology" also has holes in it.

I use the word theology with tongue in cheek.
I am convinced the Holy Ghost is our teacher and Jesus is present as we exchange our views.

My wife who is also a sister in the Lord and makes sure my knowledge of scripture doesnt get in the way of love.


1Cr 13:8Charity never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away.

I do not believe any other christian must do what I am doing. But as I study and pray, for me I see no other way.

Jesus is still working on me.
with love in Christ
brother daniel

 

[Edial]

What misunderstandings are possable from a literal reading of the sermon on the mount?

Like this one ...
MT 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Now, I take the text literally.
However, it is easy to make a mistake here.

Some might teach others: "If someone abuses you whether it be physically, sexually, mentally - take it".

The text however, once it is taken really literally, does not teach that.

Striking on a cheek is a form of insult. An extreme form of insult that becomes physical ... like a challenge to a French duel.
Do not fall for it, take the insult by turning the other cheek.

How do we know that this does not mean stopping resisting during abuse?

Because it is stated that the one hitting is an evil man.
If an evil man would want to hurt you, he would not hit a cheek, but something more painful, like a nose.

So, the intent is to challenge you to a duel via insults.

Besides, when they were hitting Christ on the cheek, he did not turn the other cheek, but questioned them for hitting him.


.

This is the point where I am not bound by a denominational doctrine or interpetation.

Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luk 22:37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

Luk 22:38And they said, Lord, behold, here [are] two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Luk 22:49When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?

Luk 22:50And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.



Luk 22:51And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.


I have wondered and prayed about this, and I can only conclude that Jesus did not intend for the sword to be used in self defense, but rather demonstrate meekness by not using it when rightously provoked.
I have litagated in Courts of law on civil rights matters but I would not go to Law with a person I knew was a brother in Christ.

In that specific case, it was not Christ's intent that they defend him, since he needed to go to the cross.

However, the swords were given out and no instructions were given not to use them.
So, if they were given out, they are to be used, ... but apparently sparingly.

How does that apply to you and I?

Christ said that when he leaves the disciples there would be no one to protect them.
And he did leave them to go on the cross

But with us, he never left.

I do not own weapons and feel quite confortable like that.








.

I use the word theology with tongue in cheek.

I am convinced the Holy Ghost is our teacher and Jesus is present as we exchange our views.

My wife who is also a sister in the Lord and makes sure my knowledge of scripture doesnt get in the way of love.


1Cr 13:8Charity never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away.

I personally feel uncomfortable during theological debates, but I know theology pretty well and use it.

When theology becomes a front for one's debating preferences - I do not respect that, since such methodology divides.
All see that no love comes out of such a "victory".



.

Jesus is still working on me.
with love in Christ
brother daniel

Boy oh boy.
I'll really start worrying when Christ stops working on me.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[brother daniel]

Like this one ...
MT 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Now, I take the text literally.
However, it is easy to make a mistake here.

Notice here you open the door to doubt.

Some might teach others: "If someone abuses you whether it be physically, sexually, mentally - take it".

Depart if you can. Otherwise take it, forgive and bless.
They know not what they do.

I do not own weapons and feel quite confortable like that.

When anger moves everything becomes a weapon.

Boy oh boy.
I'll really start worrying when Christ stops working on me.

Thanks,
Ed

You sound like a mature brother.
How far away are you?

With love in Christ
brother daniel

 

[Edial]

...How far away are you?

With love in Christ
brother daniel

I live in Queens, NY, that's New York City area.

You live in Catskills area from what I remember?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[brother daniel]

I live in Queens, NY, that's New York City area.

You live in Catskills area from what I remember?

Thanks,
Ed

You are invited to visit anytime. We are a retreat if you need to get away from the city for a time to pray.

With love in Christ
brother daniel

 

[Edial]

You are invited to visit anytime. We are a retreat if you need to get away from the city for a time to pray.

With love in Christ
brother daniel

Thank you so much.

I know I want to.
If the Lord provides for this I would drive over.
But it does not look like it will be within the next couple of weeks.

How many miles is it from me?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[brother daniel]

Thank you so much.

I know I want to.
If the Lord provides for this I would drive over.
But it does not look like it will be within the next couple of weeks.

How many miles is it from me?

Thanks,
Ed

its a $20 dollar bus ride from the Port Authority to Monticello.

It doesent matter when, there may be snow and then again maybe not.

No matter when you arrive there will be wood on the fire
and prayers in the wind.

The other day a woman said to my wife Abigail, "Its the last days", my wife responded, " they wont be saying that much longer."

with love in Christ
brother daniel

 

[Edial]

its a $20 dollar bus ride from the Port Authority to Monticello.

It doesent matter when, there may be snow and then again maybe not.

No matter when you arrive there will be wood on the fire
and prayers in the wind.

The other day a woman said to my wife Abigail, "Its the last days", my wife responded, " they wont be saying that much longer."

with love in Christ
brother daniel

I am definitely keeping this in my mind and heart.

Thanks a lot.

Ed