Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is not applied to a single definition of the scriptures but to the scriptures collectively.
No problem Cormack. For me an argument from silence is not an argument when the application of scripture demonstrates meaning. I appreciate our discussions and enjoy talking with you.This indirectly answers my question. Thank you.
Although the Law is taught every Sabbath in every city, Gentile believers would not be accepted - for one because they are not considered Jewish - not being circumcized. If the Apostles and Elders thought Gentile believers needed to attend synagogue on the Sabbath they would have commanded that they convert to Judaism - but they did not! Can you start seeing the problem the Apostles and Elders were addressing in Acts 5:23-29, instead of overreacting? Their solution does not include imposing many Jewish traditions on the Gentiles.Incredible: the very reference that justifies the brevity of the list, the fact that the law is taught every Sabbath in every city, is dismissed by you as James just pointing out that the Jewish laws are taught everywhere to Jews... Amazing.
Thanks Marty, I mostly good post. All the Word of God is indeed God's good news (gospel) to all mankind. In what you have written above what is your take on a false gospel?
We thought this issue was resolved sorry. Here is the Net2 which is basically translated from Alexandrian text. Below it is the text to which it is translated from. And below that is the Byzantine text. The only difference, variant was highlighted with a bold emphasis. It is the same word. The only difference is the first's gender is masculine and the second entry's gender is neuter. This does not affect the translation at all in this text.Since codex Sinaiticus, vaticanus and alexandrinus contain that particular reading of Mark 7:19, I’d consider those manuscripts to be less than modern.
Not really John you have your facts wrong here. Gentiles that were interested in learning about the Word of God were allowed to enter into the synagogues to hear the Word of God without being circumcised. This is different to the Temple that was at Jerusalem where gentiles needed to be circumcised to enter the temple or they were restricted to the "court of the gentiles" Uncircumcised gentiles (non proselytes) interested in learning about Gods Word in the synagogues were called "proselytes at the gate" or those "who feared God" (see Acts of the Apostles 10:2; Acts of the Apostles 10:22 and Acts of the Apostles 13:14-16), while proselytes were gentiles that had converted to Judaism and were circumcised. There was no restrictions placed on anyone wanting to hear the Word of God in the synagogues in the days of Jesus and the Apostles if they wanted to learn about God and His Word.Although the Law is taught every Sabbath in every city, Gentile believers would not be accepted - for one because they are not considered Jewish - not being circumcized. If the Apostles and Elders thought Gentile believers needed to attend synagogue on the Sabbath they would have commanded that they convert to Judaism - but they did not! Can you start seeing the problem the Apostles and Elders were addressing in Acts 5:23-29, instead of overreacting? Their solution does not include imposing many Jewish traditions on the Gentiles.
You have a point. It probably varied from Synagogue to Synagogue. Jesus said to his followers that they can be expected to be cast out of the Synagogue in John 16:2. How much more so Gentile believers.Not really John you have your facts wrong here. Gentiles that were interested in learning about the Word of God were allowed to enter into the synagogues to hear the Word of God without being circumcised.
I think I follow what you're saying, yet I need more clarity before responding: please expound your response more fully to me--thanks in advance.Hello Religiot, Christ is the Law for those who believe in His name..the letter of the law cannot provide anyone with that knowledge BUT the Spirit. Knowledge is one of spiritual gifts in which the Spirit will give to anyone according to His desire..
Some follow the letter of the law to be righteous... their works leads to death...
Some were given gifts of the Holy Spirit, their faith leads to holiness and life....
I'm not against the 10 commandments is just that it doesn't change us from our evil ways...
If you want to change ask God for His Spirit...Not only He teaches you But also leads you to holiness...
Hello, the written code (law given through Moses ) cannot lead us to Christ..But the Spirit will..I think I follow what you're saying, yet I need more clarity before responding: please expound your response more fully to me--thanks in advance.
Your allegation is an obvious projection of your own sentiments, obscured by your own ignorance: the didactic you claim to be looking for is sitting right in front of you, the scriptures, thus you're question is oxymoronic:That’s my point. You have an argument, some presupposition, paradigmatic thought construct that you insist is within scripture, but you can’t share with me one section of scripture that explicitly argues in favour of your definition.
Paul writing Jesus died for humanity “according to Scripture” simply means that the death is something predicted within OT scripture. It’s according to OT scripture, not synonymous with OT scripture.
You have no didactic verses that argue for your viewpoint. You have leaps in logic (which you’re entitle to.)
Here again, you don't know what you are talking about, yet your conjectures are articulated as observations--you need to step back to reckon the facts, otherwise, you will continue to reference your imagination as the source for inspiration--this will inevitably result in a blindness that cannot be enlightened, because it will be from God.Although the Law is taught every Sabbath in every city, Gentile believers would not be accepted - for one because they are not considered Jewish - not being circumcized. If the Apostles and Elders thought Gentile believers needed to attend synagogue on the Sabbath they would have commanded that they convert to Judaism - but they did not! Can you start seeing the problem the Apostles and Elders were addressing in Acts 5:23-29, instead of overreacting? Their solution does not include imposing many Jewish traditions on the Gentiles.
Just some more clarity for your post:Mark 7:19 οτι (that) ουκ (not) εισπορευεται (going) αυτου (him), εις (into) την (the) καρδιαν (heart) αλλ (but) εις (into) την (the) κοιλιαν (bowels) και (and) εις (into) τον (the) αφεδρωνα(sewer) εκπορευεται (discharged) καθαριζων (cleansing) παντα (all) τα (the) βρωματα (foods)
I would not ask questions of someone of your disposition.Here again, you don't know what you are talking about, yet your conjectures are articulated as observations--you need to step back to reckon the facts, otherwise, you will continue to reference your imagination as the source for inspiration--this will inevitably result in a blindness that cannot be enlightened, because it will be from God.
I strongly recommend that you start asking questions instead of making assertions, otherwise, this conversation will continue to devolve into more of the same.
ad hominem is the only recourse your kind has--they did the same to my Master, yet He did everything perfectly; even when He flipped their tables and drove by whip their animals from out of His house, He sinned not; but they counted Him a sinner, and despised His disposition.I would not ask questions of someone of your disposition.
To summarize, Acts 15 demonstrates that the Gentile believers were not commanded to "Keep the Sabbath". If that was important, it would have been stated in the letter to the Gentiles, termed the Jerusalem Decree, in Acts 15:23-29.
Well, yes, of course... ...truly, this is not an expansion of what you said before, but a contraction: I cannot, therefore, respond to it more than to agree with it; tho I perceive that we don't agree, hence I asked for you to expound to me more fully what you meant by what you formerly said.Hello, the written code (law given through Moses ) cannot lead us to Christ..But the Spirit will..
Your version of contending for the faith includes adding OT commandments to Gentile believers not included in the "Jerusalem Decree" of Acts 15:23-29.My disposition is to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, for since the founders now sleep, the wolves have crept in, and have wreaked a havoc never before seen since the world began.
You don't know what you're talking about, yet you persist in making assertions and allegations that are contrary to observation.Your version of contending for the faith includes adding OT commandments to Gentile believers not included in the "Jerusalem Decree" of Acts 15:23-29.
I know what the ten commandments are, but how are they the old covenant? Can you really explain your claim?
Again, are you able to explain how the ten commandments are the ministry of death? Also, can you explain your claim that Peter refers to the ten commandments as a yoke that they couldn't bear? and can you please include why Peter would say that about the ten commandments?
Can you explain how the "love commands" tell me what to do?
There is no anything in the two, as far as I can tell, without the law; wherefore, I've asked for you to explain what the two tell me to do, thanks.
From what I remember, the Lord's body was resting on the Sabbath, and He 'got up' on the first day of the week ('Sunday')... --How do those facts equate to the Sabbath no longer being the prescribed day of rest?
The scripture you cited doesn't say that: why are you saying that the scriptures say that the church gathered every week on the first day of the week?
How, in your reasoning, was it possible for them to keep the Sabbath by offering a burnt offering, seeing that they were forbidden, according to you, from having fires on the Sabbath?
Imagine not contradicting yourself when espousing your own beliefs.
Who told you that the seventh day is a ceremonial day of rest?
Who are you to tell others what to tell you? --here you are telling others what you believe.
Perhaps it's time to reevaluate your reasoning about what you believe others believe.
Often, partial citations of simple passages like this cause me to doubt about the motivations of the poster, viz:
Following is how the passage actually reads:
"Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: from which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust." --1 Timothy 1:5-11
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?