Why there is no clear mention of trinity in the old testament?

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You don't even know who the authors of bible were. The history of Muhammad and his companions is well documented but compared to bible you have no idea who the authors were
I don’t know whether to laugh at this statement or cry. Virtually all Hadiths were collected hundreds of years after Mohammed and since we have no copies of the Hadith before their collection under their respective collectors such as Bukhari and Muslim. So that’s we have about two hundred to three hundred years of the unknown in which the Hadiths could have been easily tampered with, there’s literally no way to verify the chains of isnad considering we can’t tell how they looked like pre-collection. The earliest biography of Mohammed dates more then a century after after he lived and died, biographies of his companions date even later based on contemporary sources. Virtually every book of the Bible can be traced back to the lifetime of its authors and we can confirm that each book was written around the lifetime of its authors. As for the Gospels or Anajil we have early attestationby the Church around just a few decades after Christ and we have internal evidence that they were written before 70 AD and we do have chains of transmission that are more reliable then any isnads the Khilafat could have produced.


 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So Jesus lied when he said he did not know everything?
So when you ask your teacher a question during an exam an he tells you I don’t know the answer, does it mean he doesn’t know the answer, no of course not, does it mean he’s being deceptive, no of course not. He’s just not revealing the answer to you because your not fit to hear it.
 
Upvote 0

Godistruth1

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 9, 2018
1,781
183
32
Somewhere
✟97,167.00
Country
India
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
I don’t know whether to laugh at this statement or cry. Virtually all Hadiths were collected hundreds of years after Mohammed and since we have no copies of the Hadith before their collection under their respective collectors such as Bukhari and Muslim. So that’s we have about two hundred to three hundred years of the unknown in which the Hadiths could have been easily tampered with, there’s literally no way to verify the chains of isnad considering we can’t tell how they looked like pre-collection. The earliest biography of Mohammed dates more then a century after after he lived and died, biographies of his companions date even later based on contemporary sources. Virtually every book of the Bible can be traced back to the lifetime of its authors and we can confirm that each book was written around the lifetime of its authors. As for the Gospels or Anajil we have early attestationby the Church around just a few decades after Christ and we have internal evidence that they were written before 70 AD and we do have chains of transmission that are more reliable then any isnads the Khilafat could have produced.


You can laugh in front of the mirror. The hadith were well documented and written and also memorised by trustworthy people. Now tell me what do you know of the authors of bible except what's told in the bible. Give me a source which has documented their life
 
Upvote 0

Godistruth1

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 9, 2018
1,781
183
32
Somewhere
✟97,167.00
Country
India
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
So when you ask your teacher a question during an exam an he tells you I don’t know the answer, does it mean he doesn’t know the answer, no of course not, does it mean he’s being deceptive, no of course not. He’s just not revealing the answer to you because your not fit to hear it.
Hahaaa. You are not serious. No teacher does that. They will just through the person out for asking such question in the examination hall expect for students that are in kindergarten they might say so. When Jesus said he did not know the final hour nor the holy ghost nor anyone in the universe, he meant that.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hahaaa. You are not serious. No teacher does that. They will just through the person out for asking such question in the examination hall expect for students that are in kindergarten they might say so. When Jesus said he did not know the final hour nor the holy ghost nor anyone in the universe, he meant that.
Actually our teachers did that to us in first grade. Jesus was gifted with the power to know things normal people couldn't know and be in multiple places at one time, as he saw Nathanael under the fig tree and he was able to know the backstory of the Samaritan women, if Jesus could do all this, but somehow not know judgement day is un-plausible. Since Jesus never gives his reason for not knowing judgment day we can safely assume he didn't want to reveal it to man. According to John 21:17 Jesus knows everything and according to John 17:1 he knows the hour.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You can laugh in front of the mirror. The hadith were well documented and written and also memorised by trustworthy people. Now tell me what do you know of the authors of bible except what's told in the bible. Give me a source which has documented their life
Did you watch any of the videos I posted, because if you did you'd see the names of the people the Apostles of Christ appointed in their stead, they wrote biographies of the Apostles. If the Hadith were well documented and memorised then present me a manuscript of parchment of Hadith pre-collection so that I may verify nothing was edited or changed or if the sanad wasn't tampered with.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So the Jews invented the words to justify their abolishment of the law?
I will address post#199 when I have more time. I got home late last night.

I did not say the Jews invented the words to justify their abolishment of the law. The Jews know that the law cannot be abolished, unlike many Christians who could care less about it. It is Christians who use the phrase "ceremonial law" to justify their abolishment of the law.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I will address post#199 when I have more time. I got home late last night.

I did not say the Jews invented the words to justify their abolishment of the law. The Jews know that the law cannot be abolished, unlike many Christians who could care less about it. It is Christians who use the phrase "ceremonial law" to justify their abolishment of the law.
Jews use the phrase ceremonial law, and Jesus taught the fulfillment of the ceremonial law and so did Paul.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The following was taken from the catholic Encyclopedia:
My comments are in blue.

"The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matt., xxviii, 20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step. First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God [Assumption - reference?]. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person [Assumption], the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally, after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them go and teach all nations, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt., xxviii, 19). The force of this passage is decisive. That “the Father” and “the Son” are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions “and … and”, is evidence that we have here a Third Person [Assumption] coordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures. The phrase “in the name” (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons [Reading into the text. The text says nothing about the Son being part of a "Godhead"] and their unity of nature [Reading into the text. The text says nothing about the Son having the same nature as the Father]. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God."

If you truly want an honest, thorough treatment of Matthew 28:19, then I offer the following;
Bishop's Epistle: MATTHEW 28:19 AND 1 JOHN 5:7, SPURIOUS TEXTS?
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Jews use the phrase ceremonial law, and Jesus taught the fulfillment of the ceremonial law and so did Paul.
How could they both teach that if the word "ceremonial" is not even found in Scripture?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
My comments are in blue.

"The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matt., xxviii, 20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step. First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God [Assumption - reference?]. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person [Assumption], the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally, after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them go and teach all nations, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt., xxviii, 19). The force of this passage is decisive. That “the Father” and “the Son” are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions “and … and”, is evidence that we have here a Third Person [Assumption] coordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures. The phrase “in the name” (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons [Reading into the text. The text says nothing about the Son being part of a "Godhead"] and their unity of nature [Reading into the text. The text says nothing about the Son having the same nature as the Father]. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God."

If you truly want an honest, thorough treatment of Matthew 28:19, then I offer the following;
Bishop's Epistle: MATTHEW 28:19 AND 1 JOHN 5:7, SPURIOUS TEXTS?
John 20:31 says that the the Gospel was written so that people may believe that Jesus is the Son of God. He promised that his Father would send the Comforter which s the eternal spirit. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Also give me a statement from the early Church that said the divine name was merely a representation of a God and nothing more. Eis to onomo means done in the authority of and since we’re taught to baptize in both the Father and Sons name then there’s a shared divinity between the two. There’s absolutely no proof Matthew 28:19 is a later addition, this is literally only held among Unitarians. All early manuscripts have the verse in them and the Didache am early Christian writings also has the Trinitarian baptismal formula which means it couldn’t have been a later addition, pretty much every authority from the early Church includes this baptismal formula. The phrase in the Name of Jesus is not a baptismal formula, it’s a designation of the authority to baptize in the name of Jesus according to what Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Jews didn’t operate under Sola Scriptura I already explained this about a hundred times.
Your comment is no longer a matter of Sola Scriptura. You said "Jesus" and Paul taught the fulfillment of the "ceremonial" law. We learn about what Yeshua and Paul taught from Scripture. So where in Scripture did they teach that? If you are not getting it from Scripture, then cite your extra-Biblical source. If you don't have one, then your teaching is false.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
John 20:31 says that the the Gospel was written so that people may believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
Yes, the true Gospel teaches Yeshua is the SON of God. The false Gospel teaches Jesus IS the only true God.

He promised that his Father would send the Comforter which s the eternal spirit.
Yes, the Spirit is eternal because the Father is eternal and the Spirit is the Father's power, mind, essence, influence, etc. The Son is NOT eternal. If he is, please cite a reference.

Also give me a statement from the early Church that said the divine name was merely a representation of a God and nothing more.
Where did I teach that?

Eis to onomo means done in the authority of and since we’re taught to baptize in both the Father and Sons name then there’s a shared divinity between the two.
Authority, yes. Divinity, no. You are reading "shared divinity" into the text to support your trinity doctrine. The Son commanded baptism. Therefore, we baptize in his authority. Not because he is God, but because he was given all authority and appointed Lord of all by the only true God.

There’s absolutely no proof Matthew 28:19 is a later addition, this is literally only held among Unitarians. All early manuscripts have the verse in them and the Didache am early Christian writings also has the Trinitarian baptismal formula which means it couldn’t have been a later addition, pretty much every authority from the early Church includes this baptismal formula. The phrase in the Name of Jesus is not a baptismal formula, it’s a designation of the authority to baptize in the name of Jesus according to what Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19.
Even if is not a later addition, it doesn't prove the trinity doctrine which states the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate persons that comprise the one God and are co-eternal and co-equal. You choose to read all of that into Matthew 28:19. I refuse to manipulate Scripture in that way in order to justify my beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, the true Gospel teaches Yeshua is the SON of God. The false Gospel teaches Jesus IS the only true God.


Yes, the Spirit is eternal because the Father is eternal and the Spirit is the Father's power, mind, essence, influence, etc. The Son is NOT eternal. If he is, please cite a reference.


Where did I teach that?


Authority, yes. Divinity, no. You are reading "shared divinity" into the text to support your trinity doctrine. The Son commanded baptism. Therefore, we baptize in his authority. Not because he is God, but because he was given all authority and appointed Lord of all by the only true God.


Even if is not a later addition, it doesn't prove the trinity doctrine which states the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate persons that comprise the one God and are co-eternal and co-equal. You choose to read all of that into Matthew 28:19. I refuse to manipulate Scripture in that way in order to justify my beliefs.
Jesus is the only true God who was manifest in the flesh. If the Spirit is simply the essence and and mind of the Father The it wouldn’t be referred to as distinct from the Father and the command of baptism would just be in the name of the Father and Son. I mistook your words and the articles words. I’m not reading it into the text this is how the early Church understood it, to be baptized is to die in our sins and be born again, how can we be wiped clean of sins in the name of a man? So yes in the authority means a reference to divine authority. If the Son was given all authority by God then he’s also God, a mere man can’t possess the full glory and authority of God on heaven and on earth. As I said the Greek phrase eis to onoma indicates the divinity of the persons. If I’m manipulating scripture, then you need to prove how I’m manipulating scripture to support the trinity and what did I get wrong?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Your comment is no longer a matter of Sola Scriptura. You said "Jesus" and Paul taught the fulfillment of the "ceremonial" law. We learn about what Yeshua and Paul taught from Scripture. So where in Scripture did they teach that? If you are not getting it from Scripture, then cite your extra-Biblical source. If you don't have one, then your teaching is false.
Laws such as the law of circumcision as a means of salvation was fulfilled in the New Testament replaced by baptism for both Jews and Gentiles that’s one Biblical example. Jesus also did work on the Sabbath and completed it’s fulfillment, you can also read more here:

The Difference Between Ceremonial, Judicial, and Moral Law - The Great Adventure Catholic Bible Study
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Jesus is the only true God who was manifest in the flesh.
Not one verse in Scripture says Yeshua is the only true God. His Father is (John 17:3; Exodus 3:6; Acts 3:13). If you are not going to quote Scripture to support your beliefs, then there is no reason to continue. I will NEVER submit to the traditions of the so called Catholic church. I left that despicable organization a long time ago and do not plan on returning.

If the Spirit is simply the essence and and mind of the Father The it wouldn’t be referred to as distinct from the Father and the command of baptism would just be in the name of the Father and Son.
Please answer these questions for me.

1) If the Father is separate from the Son, and the Holy Spirit is a separate person from them, then who is Messiah's father?

Matthew 1:18-20 reads, "Now the birth of Yeshua Messiah was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of YHWH appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."
Is the Holy Spirit Yeshua's Father and not YHWH? The only way to understand this is through Luke 1:35, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of Elohim." The Holy Spirit is the power by which YHWH caused the conception.

2) Why doesn't the Apostle Paul invoke the Holy Spirit in the introduction to his epistles as he does the Father and the Son? This would seem rather offensive to the Holy Spirit if he were a co-equal person.

3) Why is the Holy Spirit never depicted as sitting on or standing near the throne as are the Father and the Son? (Acts 7:55,56; Colossians 3:1; and Revelation 5:1-9; 7:10). We do not even see an empty throne for him.

4) 1 Corinthians 11:3 gives a hierarchy in which women, men, and Messiah each have a head with God (YHWH the Father) being the uppermost in authority. Where is the Holy Spirit?

5) Ephesians 5:5 tells us the "kingdom" that believers shall inherit is "of Messiah" and "of Elohim." Why is the Kingdom not of the Holy Spirit as well?

6) The Father and the Son converse with each other, but why don't they converse with the Holy Spirit?

I mistook your words and the articles words. I’m not reading it into the text this is how the early Church understood it, to be baptized is to die in our sins and be born again, how can we be wiped clean of sins in the name of a man?
Unbelievers die in their sins. Believers die to sin. Yeshua was not just a man. He is the only begotten Son of YHWH who has no earthly father and who was GIVEN all authority to forgive sin and whose sinless blood is efficacious to cleanse sin.

So yes in the authority means a reference to divine authority. If the Son was given all authority by God then he’s also God, a mere man can’t possess the full glory and authority of God on heaven and on earth.
Any man on earth can possess the full authority of God IF YHWH GIVES it to him. You teach assumptions based on whatever you feel like reading into a text.

As I said the Greek phrase eis to onoma indicates the divinity of the persons. If I’m manipulating scripture, then you need to prove how I’m manipulating scripture to support the trinity and what did I get wrong?
You words alone prove you are manipulating Scripture by reading your beliefs into the text. Eis to onoma says absolutely nothing about divinity.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Laws such as the law of circumcision as a means of salvation was fulfilled in the New Testament replaced by baptism for both Jews and Gentiles that’s one Biblical example.
What gives you the right to categorize circumcision as a "ceremonial law"? If we are all free to do that, then it would be up to the whim of each individual to classify a law wherever they want. See below.

Jesus also did work on the Sabbath and completed it’s fulfillment, you can also read more here:
So here you seem to include the Sabbath as a ceremonial law whereas I would classify it as a moral law. It is totally immoral for someone to cause someone else to work on the Sabbath (the 7th day) when YHWH commanded that person to rest on the Sabbath.

The fact is, their is no distinction in the law or Scripture between moral laws and ceremonial laws. There are distinctions in types of laws such as statutes, commandments, judgments, etc.

This article sates;

But the moral laws, such as those found in the Ten Commandments, have not been done away with. ...
It’s not only those things revealed to us in the Decalogue that pertain to the moral law, but to its corollaries as well.​
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Not one verse in Scripture says Yeshua is the only true God. His Father is (John 17:3; Exodus 3:6; Acts 3:13). If you are not going to quote Scripture to support your beliefs, then there is no reason to continue. I will NEVER submit to the traditions of the so called Catholic church. I left that despicable organization a long time ago and do not plan on returning.


Please answer these questions for me.

1) If the Father is separate from the Son, and the Holy Spirit is a separate person from them, then who is Messiah's father?

Matthew 1:18-20 reads, "Now the birth of Yeshua Messiah was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of YHWH appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."
Is the Holy Spirit Yeshua's Father and not YHWH? The only way to understand this is through Luke 1:35, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of Elohim." The Holy Spirit is the power by which YHWH caused the conception.

2) Why doesn't the Apostle Paul invoke the Holy Spirit in the introduction to his epistles as he does the Father and the Son? This would seem rather offensive to the Holy Spirit if he were a co-equal person.

3) Why is the Holy Spirit never depicted as sitting on or standing near the throne as are the Father and the Son? (Acts 7:55,56; Colossians 3:1; and Revelation 5:1-9; 7:10). We do not even see an empty throne for him.

4) 1 Corinthians 11:3 gives a hierarchy in which women, men, and Messiah each have a head with God (YHWH the Father) being the uppermost in authority. Where is the Holy Spirit?

5) Ephesians 5:5 tells us the "kingdom" that believers shall inherit is "of Messiah" and "of Elohim." Why is the Kingdom not of the Holy Spirit as well?

6) The Father and the Son converse with each other, but why don't they converse with the Holy Spirit?


Unbelievers die in their sins. Believers die to sin. Yeshua was not just a man. He is the only begotten Son of YHWH who has no earthly father and who was GIVEN all authority to forgive sin and whose sinless blood is efficacious to cleanse sin.


Any man on earth can possess the full authority of God IF YHWH GIVES it to him. You teach assumptions based on whatever you feel like reading into a text.


You words alone prove you are manipulating Scripture by reading your beliefs into the text. Eis to onoma says absolutely nothing about divinity.
John 1:1 describes Jesus as God and no verse you quoted technically violates the trinitarian concept of Jesus being God. The despicable organization called Catholic Church practically gave you the scripture in your hands.

The Holy Spirit was already with the disciples so Paul didn’t need to mention the Holy Spirit, so your basically making an argument based on silence. If the Holy Spirit is not mentioned it means he must not exist as a person, we know that the Father through Jesus sent the comforter to abide with the disciples, it was the Holy Spirit that was abiding with them and allowing them to see those things, so that’s why they didn’t see it because it was already with them revealing those things to them and giving them prophecy. Also we know the Holy Spirit spoke to the Apostles of Christ in Acts 8:29, if it was just the force of the Father then it would have said the Father spoke to them not the Holy Spirit which is always referred to as distinct from the Father. The Holy Spirit inserted Jesus into Mary he didn’t create Jesus, so he’s not the Father of Jesus, and we know that the Father begot The Son So he’s his Father.

Your basically telling me that Jesus is somehow a man and also somehow the Son of God who has godlike powers. It sounds a lot like Greco/Roman demi gods. Can you show me someone who had full authority on heaven and earth naturally besides Jesus? Eis to Onoma means in the divine authority of something also indicating divinity.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What gives you the right to categorize circumcision as a "ceremonial law"? If we are all free to do that, then it would be up to the whim of each individual to classify a law wherever they want. See below.


So here you seem to include the Sabbath as a ceremonial law whereas I would classify it as a moral law. It is totally immoral for someone to cause someone else to work on the Sabbath (the 7th day) when YHWH commanded that person to rest on the Sabbath.

The fact is, their is no distinction in the law or Scripture between moral laws and ceremonial laws. There are distinctions in types of laws such as statutes, commandments, judgments, etc.


This article sates;

But the moral laws, such as those found in the Ten Commandments, have not been done away with. ...
It’s not only those things revealed to us in the Decalogue that pertain to the moral law, but to its corollaries as well.​
The early Church classified circumcision as a ceremonial law this dispute is recorded in Acts of the Apostles. Yahweh commanded one day for worship that was chosen as the Sabbath, the ceremonial obligation is to set aside a day for worship, the ceremonial one makes it on Saturday. There is a distinction between the ceremonial and nature, law that can even be seen in the way the text of sfi other presents them. The moral laws remain their ceremonial obligations have been done away with with the fulfillment of Christ’s atonement in the cross.
 
Upvote 0