- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,657
- 7,903
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
So you believe you have to offer animal sacrifices?
If so, then why was the temple veil torn from top to bottom?
Upvote
0
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.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
Yes, but mistranslating that , and misinterpreting that, gets no one anywhere.
What changed ? The high priest did. Instead of fallible men who need to make sacrifices for themselves for their sin first,
we have a high priest who gave Himself once for all time, never to be sacrificed again.
That is the change.
Please feel free to provide that harmony. Also please provide credible, verifiable, historical etc, evidence that refutes anything I posted. Badmouthing the ECF without providing any supporting evidence does nothing to refute the.How about a thorough , complete, harmony of all Scripture related to this ?
(not the ecf who I don't think would be a good testimony nor reliable witness.)
The complete file, with I think Genesis thru Revelation, is available free online. I'll pm it to you now if you want. (the link) pm me.Please feel free to provide that harmony. Also please provide credible, verifiable, historical etc, evidence that refutes anything I posted. Badmouthing the ECF without providing any supporting evidence does nothing to refute the.
Of course it's a parable---He was talking to the Pharisees--
Luk 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
and He went on to say a few other things and then He told the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
Mat_13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
OH, not just them, but ANY source - do not trust any source, until PROVEN, by TESTING , truth in line with all Scripture, and in harmony with all Scripture, God's Plan and GOd's Purpose.Please feel free to provide that harmony. Also please provide credible, verifiable, historical etc, evidence that refutes anything I posted. Badmouthing the ECF without providing any supporting evidence does nothing to refute the.
If this point itself is missed in error, then there's not much hope to understand the rest, is there ?No Jesus was NOT talking to the pharisees etc.
The word parable is from the Greek word parabolos which means to place or throw beside, to clarify/explain something unknown by comparing it to something known.I find it funny how people will say Lazarus and the Rich Man isn't a parable, yet it starts out, 'there was a certain rich man'. The parable before it starts out, 'there was a certain rich man'. And, the parable before that one starts out. 'there was a certain man'. I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
Jesus repeated to the false religious leaders where they thought and wrongly believed Abraham to be, just as they falsely and wrongly thought and claimed Abraham was their father.If Abraham was not in the place Jesus said and did not say the words Jesus quoted, then Jesus lied.
In Luke Jesus says nothing that could be construed to mean the religious leaders wrongly thought anything about where Abraham was nor that Abraham was or was not their father. When the rich man addressed Abraham as father neither Abraham nor Jesus objected.Jesus repeated to the false religious leaders where they thought and wrongly believed Abraham to be, just as they falsely and wrongly thought and claimed Abraham was their father.
Nonsense there was no exposure of errors with their own words and their own beliefs. I will repeat what I said earlier whatever the type of narrative the account of Lazarus and the rich man is, it is not a parable. Parable is from the Greek word parabolos, which literally means to throw or lay beside.The exposure of their errors with their own words, their own beliefs, was the whole point of the story.
It never could happen, and never did.
The rich man was not real. Abraham was not there. Jesus was the one telling the story. (as Jesus' Father had directed Him to do)When the rich man addressed Abraham as father neither Abraham nor Jesus objected.
Since Jesus did not identify the Lazarus/rich man account as a parable, if Abraham was not where Jesus said He was and did not say the words Jesus quoted then Jesus was lying. If Jesus had any problem with a rich man addressing Abraham as father He would have indicated that. He didn't.The rich man was not real. Abraham was not there. Jesus was the one telling the story. (as Jesus' Father had directed Him to do)
It is not mistranslating it. Hebrews 7:12 says, "there is made a necessity a change also of the Law." Do you not believe those words? If you think they say something different, then please explain what they really mean using the context.
Also, please carefully re-read again post #1634. It is clear that Jesus was making new changes to the Old Testament Law of Moses. Instead of an eye, for an eye, He said turn the other cheek. Instead of being allowed to make oaths, Jesus says do not make any oaths at all.
Since Jesus did not identify the Lazarus/rich man account as a parable, if Abraham was not where Jesus said He was and did not say the words Jesus quoted then Jesus was lying. If Jesus had any problem with a rich man addressing Abraham as father He would have indicated that. He didn't.
Do you even read my posts or do you just ignore everything I say and data dump your proof texts?Mar 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
Mat 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
Mar 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Why do you refuse to believe the scriptures? Jesus spoke only in parables to the multitudes and esp. with the Pharisee.
No Jesus was NOT talking to the pharisees etc. He was talking top His disciples and the Pharisees hapened to overhear Him.I wonder how the ECF, who were native Greek speakers got it wrong but people 2000 years later somehow got it right.
Luk 16:1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
Luk 16:14
(14) And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
Luk 17:1
(1) Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
Amen.... and still a good example today of how religious leaders opposed to Jesus don't like the truth of His Word - instead for centuries preferring the traditions of men, opposed to His Word... so much so that it is commonly taught as truth, just as Jesus exposed the Pharisees of doing, so it still is.That is exactly why He said a parable. And why He used the name Lazarus, for He had indeed raised a Lazarus from the dead, and still they did not believe. Nope---no question about it, as long as there were Pharisees hearing---it was a parable.
The new changes are obvious----Jesus is now our High Priest, there are no longer animal sacrifices for He also is the Sacrificial Lamb and it is His own blood that is offered up now for sins. That is the change in the law---the Priesthood and method of forgiveness---no more animals or other sacrifices needed---He alone is both High Priest and sacrifice. Nothing is omitted from the Law of God---the 10 commandments. It is only the ceremonial, sacrificial laws that have changed. That is why the 10 commandments, written by the hand of God Himself, were stored inside the Holy Ark, while the law of Moses, the Levitical laws, where kept outside the Ark.
Nonsense, there is no indication that the Pharisees etc. were still listening. Immediately after the Lazarus story Jesus was still talking to His disciples, "Then said He unto His disciples..." The Lazarus in Luke 16 was not the Lazarus Jesus resurrected. If the Pharisees could still hear Jesus they may not even have known about the resurrected Lazarus Pharisees, they did not follow Jesus around and monitor all of His activities.That is exactly why He said a parable. And why He used the name Lazarus, for He had indeed raised a Lazarus from the dead, and still they did not believe. Nope---no question about it, as long as there were Pharisees hearing---it was a parable.
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?