For the Christians (Abrahamic only)

captainbryce · Oct 11, 2013

Shermana said:
Delusional at best.

I'm not interested in your opinion of me. I'm interested in whether or not you can answer questions and come up with a non-hypocritical argument that doesn't rely on picking and choosing.

Shermana said:
I accept all the passages of the gospels (except the obviously interpolated like John 8:1-11).

Translation: I DON'T accept ALL of the passages of the Gospels.

Shermana said:
Yours relies on some wacky interpretations like saying Matthew 10:1 defines how Jesus came for the Jews alone.

I'm not interested in your opinion of my interpretation. I'm interested in whether or not you can REFUTE IT using scripture. So far, the answer is NO. Therefore, my opinion remains scripturally justified, while yours does not.

Shermana said:
May God show you which of our reasoning is a failure.

Well since YOU certainly haven't....

Shermana said:
May God show you whether you've poked any holes.

He did. I refer you back to my previous post (and the subsequent scriptures that invalidate your point). :yes:

Shermana said:
Because they choose to be a graft to the Tree of Israel.

Wrong, because that's NOT what "grafted to the Tree of Israel" means. It means being accepted as a child of God (as I've already demonstrated citing scripture).

Shermana said:
Because Believe means to obey and follow.

It means to follow and obey HIM, (ie: his commandments) not the law of Moses or Abraham.

Shermana said:
Because becoming a disciple means obeying the same thing.

Except that it means following and obeying HIM, not laws of the Old Covenant. And there is NO biblical scripture saying otherwise! Not one thing you can cite from any book, chapter or verse that says that Gentile converts must obey the laws of Moses. So you lose on that basis alone! You can carry on the OPINION that this is so, but you have no facts that can back this up. And it is Paul himself (from which your theory is partially inspired) that disproves your claim.

Shermana said:
Righteousness as a definition obviously changed afterward to become the full version.

No, the definition of righteousness has NEVER changed. Again, there is no scripture that can support that OPINION. The bible in fact says that God NEVER changes, therefore neither does righteousness, because God always judges in rightesouness.

Shermana said:
May God show you directly which one of us has won the debate.

He already has! Although, my intention at this point is not to win (nor has it ever been), that was your intention. My intention is to continue getting you to make yourself look like a complete fool on this issue by exposing the fallacy (and hypocrisy) of your argument.

Shermana said:
I've been over Acts 10 over and over again, it's merely an invitation to allow gentiles into the church, it specifically says its a metaphor. Numerous groups, even many anti-nomian churches agree with this.

No, Acts 10 is not a metaphor. It's as true and literal a testament as any other. Regardless, even IF it was entirely metaphorical, the meaning of the metaphor is quite clear. Gentiles can receive the Holy Spirit and be saved WITHOUT THE LAW. That's the entire point of the Chapter (literal OR figurative). And that point invalidates yours!

Shermana said:
Matthew 10:1 says no such thing. Your tactic is to pull up any verse, interpret it in any way you want,

Um, actually, that's what YOU just did with your ridiculous "grafting" argument. You twisted the meaning of it to mean the OPPOSITE of what Paul preached. But unless you are blind, Matthew 10:1 clearly says exactly why Jesus sent the disciples: "to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness." And Matthew 10:5-8 reinforced that reason, adding that their mission is to "proclaim the message". That's why Jesus came! But that is NOT why he died. Sorry!

Shermana said:
I can't tell what's worse, your interpretation skills or your ability to irritate with refusal to debate.

I'm not interested in your opinion of my interpretation skills, only whether or not you can scripturally justify your own interpretations (which so far you have failed to do).

Shermana said:
Your verses don't indicate that all mankind doesn't have to "believe" in what he taught.

They weren't intended to. This is a straw man argument!

Shermana said:
And again, all disciples have to follow the same thing the original disciples followed.

Only if they are JEWISH, not if they are GENTILES. What part about that do you not understand?

Shermana said:
Again, believing in his name equates to believing in what he taught. What do you think "believe in one's name" means?

It means believing that he is the Son of God and the messiah (savior of mankind), and accepting him as your Lord and Savior for the remission of sin. In the narrowest sense of the term, that is what it means! In the broader sense, it means to obey the will of his father (Matthew 7:21). This is what Jesus teaches, yet you reject him as the messiah and in doing so are not doing the will of his father. Yet you criticize me (a Gentile) for not obeying the law of Moses when neither Jesus nor any of the disciples ever made such a claim? You claim that I should be held to the standard that you are (as a Jew), but reject the notion that you should be held to the standard that I am (as a Christian). RIDICULOUS and hypocritical!

Shermana said:
Your verses indicate no exception to what I said. To receive him, one must actually LISTEN TO HIS TEACHINGS.

I have listened to them. You are the one rejecting them! All foods have been declared clean! Gentiles were not given the old laws! He had his disciples go out to ALL NATIONS! Nowhere in his teachings did he tell them to convert to Judaism. His teachings conflicted with Judaism (which is one of the reasons they had him killed).

Shermana said:
Why do you keep refusing my offer to ask God to arbitrate for us?

Because I am not as vain or petty as you are apparently. God has more important things to do than get involved with this nonsense. This debate requires no arbitration from God. God gave you a brain, USE IT. I have nothing to gain by "winning" a religious debate. Why would you use God in a vain effort to prove a point on an internet thread? Is that what you think "righteousness" is? Taking the Lord's name in vain?

Shermana said:
I have absolutely no fear of invoking Him

Apparently you also have no humility either. I find it pitiful that you think God wants you to invoke his name for something like this. :no:

Shermana said:
Are you too scared? I think so.

I'm not interested in what you THINK, only whether or not you can justify your position with scripture (something you've failed to do so far).

captainbryce · Oct 11, 2013

Shermana said:
It's actually nowhere against the law to associate with or visit a gentile, that's a Rabbinical decree, the things Jesus stood against. Even today, the only thing a Jew may have Halakhically against a gentile is eating from his plate.

Uh-huh, sure

Ezra 9:12
10 But now, our God, what can we say after this? For we have forsaken the commands 11 you gave through your servants the prophets when you said: The land you are entering to possess is a land polluted by the corruption of its peoples. By their detestable practices they have filled it with their impurity from one end to the other. 12 Therefore, do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them at any time, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it to your children as an everlasting inheritance.

Ezra 10:2-3
2 Then Shekaniah son of Jehiel, one of the descendants of Elam, said to Ezra, We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the peoples around us. But in spite of this, there is still hope for Israel. 3 Now let us make a covenant before our God to send away all these women and their children, in accordance with the counsel of my lord and of those who fear the commands of our God. Let it be done according to the Law.

Ezra 10:10-11
10 Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, You have been unfaithful; you have married foreign women, adding to Israels guilt. 11 Now honor the Lord, the God of your ancestors, and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives.

Shermana said:
As you can see, purely a metaphor to allow Torah obedient gentiles into the church.

No, that's what YOU see. Everything magically becomes a "metaphor" when it directly contradicts your views.

Shermana said:
Who is to say the gentiles weren't Torah obedient converts at the time?

THE BIBLE! If they were already obedient converts, what was the point of the "metaphor" in Acts 10:28 (But God has shown me that I should not call ANYONE impure or unclean). If they were already converts, then there is no point for this alleged metaphor! Once again, your argument is self-defeating.

Shermana said:
Being circumcised yourself is not part of the Law. Circumcising your children is.

Are you just making this up as you go along or something? Guess what liar, being circumcised yourself WAS part of the law because EVERY male was to be circumcised, not just children. Abraham was commanded to become circumcised himself, along with every male in his household (that mean brothers, uncles, children, nephews, slaves, etc) EVERY MALE! Every infant that is born (ie: the generations to come) should be circumcised on the 8th day. That's what it says!

Genesis 17:10-14
10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreignerthose who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.

Exodus 12:44-45
44 Any slave you have bought may eat it after you have circumcised him, 45 but a temporary resident or a hired worker may not eat it.

Shermana said:
Paul can suck an egg, and that's assuming Paul wrote Galatians as I've shown in other threads,

Right, picking and choosing like I've shown here!

Shermana said:
You simply have a different interpretation of what it means to graft.

It's not just MY interpretation, it's also PAUL's interpretation! Your interpretation is meaningless since you reject arbitrarily decide when to evoke Paul, and when to reject him.

Shermana said:
I hope you understand what I bring Paul up for now.

Yes, because you're a hypocrite who picks and chooses! But ultimately bringing up Paul was foolish on your part because the hypocrisy is easily exposed.

Shermana said:
No Bryce, you simply are reading into it what it doesn't actually say

No Shermana, that's what YOU DID when you said: "To become a branch of the House of Israel is what it means." and then further extrapolated that this entails following the laws of Moses (in contradiction to the rest of what Paul says on that issue).

Shermana said:
Sorry it has to come down to this Bryce, but one of my flaws is patience in dealing with obstinate people who simply double down on their initial claims and refuse to actually discuss my points.

You have MANY flaws Shermana, more than a few having been exposed in this discussion. At the risk of offending the admins, I suggest we go our separate ways on the issue since it appears we've reached an impasse. I'm prepared to rest my case and let the thread speak for itself to other readers. You on the other hand can go ahead and get the last word (since clearly you need to).

Shermana · Oct 11, 2013

Well Bryce, you are free to tell me you think I have many flaws, but for some reason you don't want to ask God to arbitrate for us to get past this impasse, you think it's "Vain and petty" to ask such, as if "God has better things to do" (as if God has limits) and you've clearly taken the gloves off, so it's quite clear that you're not actually confident enough to put yourself at such a risk. Tell me, what better thing to do does God have exactly? It's clear that you simply are in a rabbit hole of your own interpretations, so there's nothing I can really do except point out that there are other methods of achieving a consistent Pro-Jewish view that don't involve such blatant contradictions and false ideas as yours. You are a great example of one of the problems of debate without an objective moderator. In fact, I'd like to see how would you do in a moderated debate.

I find it quite amusing that you confuse the prohibition of marriage as an outlawing against all contact with gentiles altogether. That is a fine example of your basic reasoning skills. This is what I'm dealing with. Someone who says "No 2 + 2 = 7!!!! YOU ARE WRONG I AM RIGHT!!!" That is all you are capable of doing. Declaring a non-sequitur to be a standard example and then kicking over the pieces.

Your entire argument is essentially one big "Nuh uh" and doubling down and brushing aside other views and declaring victory. You're not really debating, you're simply preaching in one way or another. And preaching pitifully. I don't see any actual argument in the above that isn't "Nuh uh" or "yes huh" or simply asserting your belief as its matter of fact. You have demonstrated clearly the ultimate extent of the Antinomian argument, which is nothing but jumping up and down stamping and screaming and knocking over the pieces and declaring victory. You have no argument. You have nothing but a pathetic attempt to say I'm wrong and to repeat your assertions without addressing what others have said, as if my position isn't well supported by many others, even among several Antinomians themselves!

You call me a liar, but I'm guessing you haven't actually read the Torah, which is why you failed to show a verse against what I said from it.

In my eyes, you're simply too afraid. The ONLY way to deal with people like you is to ask God to intervene. Besides, if you're concerned for my soul and want others to not be subject to lies and blasphemy, shouldn't you want me to be proven wrong in a way that is clear to me who is wrong? Don't you want God to show me the error of my ways if I'm wrong? What I'm asking to be done could be the greatest favor for either one of us. Perhaps it's vanity and pride to refuse such a possibility instead, perhaps?

Until then, may God bring you to humility and willingness to see outside of your own self-created box, for your own sake. I'm sure that's well within his schedule to bring stubborn heretics who insult those who speak what He wants spoken to a humbling. He does it quite often.

Sleeppy · Oct 11, 2013

dantech said:
Well this varies with opinions. But basically, we're in Galut because of Tikkunim that need to take place all around the world.

Same reason

Please give me a few examples. Many of the laws that we don't apply today either depend on a Sanhedrin, or a Temple which we don't have.

Actually our prayers really started only once the Temple was destroyed. Before that, sacrifices took place.
Hosea prophecized that we will replace our sacrifices with our prayers.

Isn't it better to build more than one temple, that may stand? Or to have a congregation of tabernacles? Why do we strive for the least?

Praise God for Hosea!

One last question. Is it by the will of God, man, or both- that Tikkunim have been delayed, and prevented? Surely there have been many who have come, suffered, and died, even because of their tikkunim.

Surely, unless God and the Messiah have time to build the final kingdom of Earth- tikkunim will come and go.

I'd say that time is approaching. Overpopulation and pollution are already forcing hands.

roger1440 · Oct 11, 2013

dantech said:
This point that you suggest Acts is making has existed since the time of the Temple. There was a court in the Holy Temple for people of all nations who wished to worship God. He has always been accepting of anyone who accepted Him.

Yeah, what he said. I kwow that. There isn't anything new in the New Testament.. It's just the Old Testament repackaged

Walkntune · Oct 11, 2013

Shermana said:
Also, I'd like to say my usual spiel on this verse.

The word "Pisteuon" does not necessarily mean "Anyone who believes in the sense of "believing in ghosts" or "believing his sacrifice atones", it more likely means "Anyone who accepts what he teaches and obeys and puts into practice".

Hence, the reason why all antinomian Christians are going to get a very nasty surprise when they are called out as "Doers of Lawlessness". As sure as God lives they preach utter blasphemy.

What laws did the thief on the cross walk out?

Pegg · Oct 11, 2013

CMike said:
The directions were from G-D.

And God can change the directions if he sees fit.

He directed Noah to build an ark... he didnt require that of your or I.

And he directed christians to put faith in the Messiah Jesus.... 'faith' ... not works of mosaic law.

captainbryce · Oct 11, 2013

Shermana said:
I find it quite amusing that you confuse the prohibition of marriage as an outlawing against all contact with gentiles altogether.

Here, let me help you:

Shermana: But God was ONLY talking about marriage. Associating with Gentiles in every other way besides marriage is totally kosher. [paraphrase]
The Bible: "Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them at any time...Separate yourselves from the peoples around you AND from your foreign wives" [Ezra 9:12; Ezra 10:11]

Shermana said:
You call me a liar, but I'm guessing you haven't actually read the Torah, which is why you failed to show a verse against what I said from it.

Here, let me help you:

Shermana: "Being circumcised yourself is not part of the Law. Circumcising your children is"
The Bible: "Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you." - Genesis 17:10-14

roger1440 · Oct 12, 2013

Sleeppy said:
Why? What reason did God have, to allow His house of prayer, and His throne, to be destroyed? And why has he not allowed it to be rebuilt?

Also.. Why has He allowed the Ark to be lost? And the promised land to be circumcised?

Why is it that many of the Scriptures- even the very words of God according to the prophets- have been made void? Or incomplete? Or impossible?

In what house should the nations be praying? Are they accepted irrespective of the Temple, and the Laws governing in it? Or does God's presence extend beyond it?

One tradition is because James was stoned. It was a punishment. I can't quote my source at the moment. My computer is down.

Shermana · Oct 12, 2013

captainbryce said:
Here, let me help you:

Shermana: But God was ONLY talking about marriage. Associating with Gentiles in every other way besides marriage is totally kosher. [paraphrase]
The Bible: "Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them at any time...Separate yourselves from the peoples around you AND from your foreign wives" [Ezra 9:12; Ezra 10:11]

Here, let me help you:

Shermana: "Being circumcised yourself is not part of the Law. Circumcising your children is"
The Bible: "Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you." - Genesis 17:10-14

The Law given to Abraham about circumcision is not necessarily the same thing as that given to Moses. As for separating from the people among you, I believe that may refer solely to the forbidden races, as Josephus implies, but Ezra would be quoting a law that does not exist. The individual Law given to Abraham about circumcising his entire household and all his servants is completely separate from the one given to the Jews that they shall circumcise their children, and we see that when the Law was given, apparently the Jews did not circumcise themselves in the second generation since the Exodus, even after being with Moses all that time, they had to be reminded to do it in order to celebrate Passover. As you can see, the commandment is to circumcise your offspring. "Every male (offspring) of you is to be circumcised". Keep reading,

12: For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner--those who are not your offspring.

And every male who doesn't have it done will be cut off. But that's not a commandment to undergo it. Were the generations of Israel who had to circumcise themselves before they could obey Passover instantly cut off because they had not had it done? Let me also add, since I should have been more clear, I was referring to converts and those who weren't of the literal seed of Israel.

A "treaty of friendship" is much different than going in to eat at their house. Besides, if Jews believed in the whole "Separate yourselves from people around you" as you are interpreting it here, even Orthodox Jews wouldn't even do business with gentiles. They wouldn't even live in the same city, even in isolated neighborhoods. New York would be verboten! Besides, Israel is breaking the Torah by even having foreign relations by your interpretation.

As you can see, neither of those come from the Law given by Moses. The specific command given to Abraham may or may not be directly applicable as well, otherwise, why would Leviticus 12:3 even be given? Moses was nearly put to death for not circumcising his son, so this law was apparently known to him at his time.

http://biblehub.com/leviticus/12-3.htm

So the commandment to be circumcised is not an official commandment in the Mosaic Law, technically speaking, at the very least for Foreigners, who were allowed to be converts but simply weren't allowed to eat at the Passover. Why even include a ruling that only the circumcised can eat of the Passover?

Even then, if the circumcision law was to be for all generations, anyone who teaches to break it is thus a false prophet. Where does that put Paul?

So one way or another, you are left with two conclusions:

1) Even if you go by Pre-Mosaic Law, circumcision was absolutely necessary to perform on your offspring, and its for all generations, so anyone who speaks otherwise is a condemnable false teacher.

2. If you believe this law has changed because some prophet came along and said otherwise, than you somehow have to prove that he's a real prophet.

Shermana · Oct 12, 2013

Walkntune said:
What laws did the thief on the cross walk out?

The "Thief" on the cross is an interesting subject, we don't know much about him except that he was being EXECUTED by the Romans, something petty theft never warranted, so he was more likely an "Insurrectionist", which is not against Jewish Law. He could have very well been a perfectly Torah obedient Jew, but among the Zealots for example.

Other than that, why do you suppose he accepted Jesus as Msesiah while the others didn't? Perhaps he had a more righteous standing than them and recognized him as such.

Shermana · Oct 12, 2013

Pegg said:
And God can change the directions if he sees fit.

He directed Noah to build an ark... he didnt require that of your or I.

And he directed christians to put faith in the Messiah Jesus.... 'faith' ... not works of mosaic law.

"Faith" means obedience to what he taught, which means compliance with the Law as he taught.

All too often it seems Christians have tried to reinvent what "Faith" means into something that's so abstract that it has no solid ground.

Meanwhile, these same people have a severe problem with the idea of "faith" in what he actually taught. Go figure.

Pegg · Oct 13, 2013

Shermana said:
"Faith" means obedience to what he taught, which means compliance with the Law as he taught.

All too often it seems Christians have tried to reinvent what "Faith" means into something that's so abstract that it has no solid ground.

Meanwhile, these same people have a severe problem with the idea of "faith" in what he actually taught. Go figure.

but here is the issue, Jesus didnt spell out the 613 mosaic laws as part of his teachings.

When he said that we should obey all the laws, how do you know he meant the 613 mosaic laws? He may not have!

His teachings included laws which were vastly different to the mosaic law. The law on divorce for example...Jesus said NOT to divorce ones wife. His followers understood his teaching to mean that polygamy was no longer acceptable. So for a christian, Jesus teachings are above the mosiac law and we cannot assume to think that Jesus was encouraging the keeping of that law which was opposed to his instructions about marriage & divorce.

dantech · Oct 13, 2013

Sleeppy said:
Isn't it better to build more than one temple, that may stand? Or to have a congregation of tabernacles? Why do we strive for the least?

What's the need for multiple temples? When we will have our temple built, we will all be out of exile and back to our homeland where God's house stands. No need for more than one temple...

One last question. Is it by the will of God, man, or both- that Tikkunim have been delayed, and prevented? Surely there have been many who have come, suffered, and died, even because of their tikkunim.

It is no one's will. If we actually knew the real repercussions to our sins, then we simple wouldn't do it anymore. Who says they have been delayed or prevented? Prevented by whom?

Surely, unless God and the Messiah have time to build the final kingdom of Earth- tikkunim will come and go.

I believe they will build the final kingdom when we are done with the tikkunim.

I'd say that time is approaching. Overpopulation and pollution are already forcing hands.

um.. okay...
I'm sorry, I mean no disrespect but I just don't see what you are trying to accomplish with these questions. What do they have to do with the OP. Can you get to the point please?

Shermana · Oct 13, 2013

Pegg said:
Pegg said:

but here is the issue, Jesus didnt spell out the 613 mosaic laws as part of his teachings.

Click to expand...

So? Jesus didn't spell out everything else needed for life either. Did Jesus say not to marry your brother and sister? Did Jesus need to? Oh, well if he didn't, that means you're now allowed to commit incest, right? That's where your logic leads to, get used to it.

When he said that we should obey all the laws, how do you know he meant the 613 mosaic laws? He may not have!

Click to expand...

This is getting really desparate. I can spin it back at you and ask you how you know he wasn't. If he didn't, he would be a false prophet and liable to stoning. The Torah says not to add or subtract to the Law.

His teachings included laws which were vastly different to the mosaic law.

Click to expand...

Wrong. I've been over this with you so many times. He was against Pharisaic interpretation.

The law on divorce for example...Jesus said NOT to divorce ones wife

Click to expand...

.

He was siding with Shammai on this issue.

His followers understood his teaching to mean that polygamy was no longer acceptable.

Click to expand...

Absolute claptrap. This is a fine example of how anyone can read anything they want into the writings, so it's rather difficult to have objective debate. And plus, there's manuscript issues with the divorce issue to begin with.

So for a christian, Jesus teachings are above the mosiac law and we cannot assume to think that Jesus was encouraging the keeping of that law which was opposed to his instructions about marriage & divorce.

Click to expand...

Well then Jesus couldn't have possibly been the Jewish Messiah by your interpretation.

Now in the meantime I suggest you read about Rabbi Shammai who Jesus was siding with on the Divorce issue. Hillel was saying you could divorce your wife over burnt toast.

Pegg · Oct 13, 2013

a person who was righteous at heart and adhered to Gods righteousness from the heart, would not need a law telling them that it would be wrong to divorce your wife or marry multiple wives.

Jesus was above the mosaic law because what he taught were 'principles' which are far more superior to 'laws'. Laws are given for certain circumstances, but principles are eternal truths.

when you live by eternal truths, you dont need ANY laws.

Pegg · Oct 13, 2013

Shermana said:
"Faith" means obedience to what he taught, which means compliance with the Law as he taught.

no, that is not what faith means according to the christian view.

Faith is an assured expectation that Gods promises will be fulfilled.

Obedience to Christs teachings is to express ones love for God.

Shermana said:
All too often it seems Christians have tried to reinvent what "Faith" means into something that's so abstract that it has no solid ground.

Jesus taught his apostles and his apostles taught Jesus teachings.

1John 5:3*For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for

Shermana · Oct 13, 2013

So having Faith in Jesus has nothing to do with believing that you have to actually obey what he teaches, thank you for revealing this. I can totally see why "The Christian view" wants to try to not have to actually have obedience to Jesus as part of their faith, indeed.

1 John 5:3 is one of my favorite verses, thank you for quoting it.

*For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments;

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for

Hmmm, I wonder if that might entail having faith in receiving word for obeying what he taught.

Feel free to chime on on my new thread about Acts 25:8.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...155187-acts-25-8-i-have-done.html#post3529402

Hopefully we may see someone actually comment on Acts 21 as well without brushing it off as a "red herring".

Shermana · Oct 13, 2013

Pegg said:
a person who was righteous at heart and adhered to Gods righteousness from the heart, would not need a law telling them that it would be wrong to divorce your wife or marry multiple wives.

Jesus was above the mosaic law because what he taught were 'principles' which are far more superior to 'laws'. Laws are given for certain circumstances, but principles are eternal truths.

when you live by eternal truths, you dont need ANY laws.

Basically your argument boils down to "No one really needs the law to begin with".

You have no argument.

You must think James and the Jerusalem Church were a bunch of stubborn rebels.

You are a doer of lawlessness and you are preaching to break even the least of the commandments. Jesus was clear about people like you. As sure as God lives, you violate what Jesus actually taught.

Shermana · Oct 13, 2013

Well Brother Dantech, I hope you have had a chance to see examples of the utter blasphmeous lies and demonic untruths self-claimed Christians proclaim in their attempt to pry Yeshu and his message away from the Law that completely violate what he actually taught and are able to recognize what Jesus meant in Matthew 7:22-23.

I sincerely hope that you do not let them do the representing of Yeshu, may their influence come to a staggering and humiliating halt in the near future.

For the Christians (Abrahamic only)

Active Member

Active Member

Heretic

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.

I do stuff

Well-Known Member

Jehovah our God is One

Active Member

I do stuff

Heretic

Heretic

Heretic

Jehovah our God is One

Well-Known Member

Heretic

Jehovah our God is One

Jehovah our God is One

Heretic

Heretic

Heretic