How Paul wrote the old testament.

[Simplelogic]

But the ''prince'' was the lord and saviour Yahshuah. It is HE who provides all these things. He is the LAST sacrifice and the aeons one also, always.
The Mosaic law is about him. He is the true law and the true sacrifice

Thats not what Ezekiel says about Yeshua. It says he will offer animal sacrifices, so will the levites.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The Torah is Genesis through Deut. If you want to debate this then we can on another thread.

I don't mind. Though I don't know what else I have to offer other than that. This is your thread. Bolt on what you like.. haha

 

[Simplelogic]

But the ''prince'' was the lord and saviour Yahshuah. It is HE who provides all these things. He is the LAST sacrifice and the aeons one also, always.
The Mosaic law is about him. He is the true law and the true sacrifice

Just because the sacrifices pointed to Yeshua does not mean he ended the need for them. This is the logic of the writer of Hebrews only, either Paul or Barnabus. Yeshua never said anything like this.

 

[Simplelogic]

I don't mind. Though I don't know what else I have to offer other than that. This is your thread. Bolt on what you like.. haha

This is like the 15th rabbit trail we have gone down. I am fully prepared to defend the written Torah.

 

[outhouse]

Yes he did. Acts tells you that.

And if you had studied this, you would know Acts contradicts what Paul states himself. The road to Damascus has no historicity.

Acts reliability has always been questioned by the most learned on these topics.

What has no historicity? .

Many thing stated in the NT, are incomplete, inaccurate, rhetorical and outright fiction and mythology.

One has to study these thing to understand the implications.

The Bible itself is history

Not accurate history, and in many places, pseudo history.

You need to understand history was not the primary motive, the theology was.

It was also not written in history the way you understand todays history. They is not the prose they wrote in.


Maybe you have a good explanation why the most popular book in its day, did not have 12 apostles?

 

[outhouse]

I am fully prepared to defend the written Torah.

Does that include a global flood, and the Exodus tales?

 

[Robert.Evans]

This is not accurate. The Torah teaches both heart circumcision and flesh circumcision. It is not one or the other.

I have already mentioned that of Deut. It is not given at Sinai though, nor in Exodus. It is a later thinking.

Thats not what Ezekiel says about Yeshua. It says he will offer animal sacrifices, so will the levites.

Off the quote you gave that is not what it means. Yahshauh's offering now is in the Spirit and above not below. The Levites are those that are saved through the spiritual line, and perhaps even DNA line, who knows. All the OT are shadows and types of what is to come.

 

[Robert.Evans]

And if you had studied this, you would know Acts contradicts what Paul states himself. The road to Damascus has no historicity.

Acts reliability has always been questioned by the most learned on these topics.

It is not a literal Damascus. The most learned are not necessarily the right ones for the job . The NT tells you that.

Many thing stated in the NT, are incomplete, inaccurate, rhetorical and outright fiction and mythology.

One has to study these thing to understand the implications.

they are not fiction.

Not accurate history, and in many places, pseudo history.

You need to understand history was not the primary motive, the theology was.

It was also not written in history the way you understand todays history. They is not the prose they wrote in.

it is history when you understand what it means, but not as we understand it. It is not meant to be understood easily. It is Scripture.

Maybe you have a good explanation why the most popular book in its day, did not have 12 apostles?

if you name it may be

 

[Simplelogic]

I have already mentioned that of Deut. It is not given at Sinai though, nor in Exodus. It is a later thinking.


Off the quote you gave that is not what it means. Yahshauh's offering now is in the Spirit and above not below. The Levites are those that are saved through the spiritual line, and perhaps even DNA line, who knows. All the OT are shadows and types of what is to come.

Continue to read Ezekiel's prophecies. It will become abundantly clear.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Does that include a global flood, and the Exodus tales?

Where does it say it was a global flood? Mistranslated i think

 

[Robert.Evans]

Continue to read Ezekiel's prophecies. It will become abundantly clear.

We understand it differently then.
Most people try to make it work here on earth. It won't. It was never about here. It was always about the higher aspect of Consciousness, and that is above not below

 

[Robert.Evans]

Anyway, to go back to your OP. What difference does it make? I don't think the difference will be that great.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I don't by the logic that whatever is included in scripture must be correct. This is circular logic in my view. I believe that scripture must make sense and not contradict. So the Torah is my foundation. Everything else deemed scripture imho must be in line with the original commands which YHVH says a perfect and good.

I don't believe that Peter wrote 2 Peter. Here is the argument if you want to see why many scholars admit 2 Peter was a forgery.

Second Peter: Reference to Paul

I don't know why, but sometimes posts just get missed. Sometimes they are ahead of me and sometimes behind. I cannot fathom it sometimes.

I agree that it should not contradict. But to me, the Mosaic law is the child that leads to the adult. Circumcision and sacrifice are a good example, as is also the Temple which was us and also above. The circumcision was spiritual and the sacrifice was Yahshuah.

It follows that line of thought though because it is a fractal action of thought within the logos.

 

[outhouse]

The NT tells you that.

Circular thinking. Not credible.

The most learned are not necessarily the right ones for the job .

So we should look for those with low intellect and ignorance to determine what happened?

 

[outhouse]

Where does it say it was a global flood? Mistranslated i think

Of so now you are making your own opinion of an error based bible, based on what exactly?


No, covering the highest mountains pretty much explains the authors intent, in context. You know killing ALL the animals and bad people.


But I am happy that you do not run with a global flood, but what kind of a flood do you think happened and what exact date would tat be?

 

[outhouse]

they are not fiction.

Do you have evidence the bible is 100% fiction free?

 

[outhouse]

It is not meant to be understood easily. It is Scripture.

But some of it was not spoken in parables and perfectly clear in intent. It is understood perfectly by historians and scholars in many places.

There is less mystery here then you think, when one actually takes classes and learns from professors, instead of just reading oneself with no direction.

 

[Kolibri]

"It shall be the prince's part to provide the burnt offerings, the grain offerings and the drink offerings, at the feasts, on the new moons and on the sabbaths, at all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel; he shall provide the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering and the peace offerings, to make atonement for the house of Israel." Ezekiel 45:17

This temple vision in it's entirety spans Ezekiel 40-47.
Have you measured it? If it is to be taken non-symbolically then it should be feasible to build a temple with these dimensions on Mount Moriah. (Entire temple area was apparently 500 cubits or 850 ft per side)

No this entire portion of scripture provides a prophetic pattern.
Comparing Eze 40:2 and Micah 4:1(or Isaiah 2:2) links it to "the final part of the days" and to a symbolic mountain.
If one did not discount the writings of Paul then Hebrews 8:2 and 9:23,24 would also add meaning.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Circular thinking. Not credible.





So we should look for those with low intellect and ignorance to determine what happened?

the NT is the word of God. That just shows how wrong your thinking is. You argue from something that you then go on and ignore just because you don't find it in a normal history book or some learned person does not ascribe to it. Scripture is not like that Oathouse.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Of so now you are making your own opinion of an error based bible, based on what exactly?

Something you will never accept, not in this world, but perhaps in another.

No, covering the highest mountains pretty much explains the authors intent, in context. You know killing ALL the animals and bad people.

But I am happy that you do not run with a global flood, but what kind of a flood do you think happened and what exact date would tat be?

It was not mountains. Not all the animals. You can't kill fish in water. It spoke of a land. It always speak of that in literal terms, only when you go into it deeper does it mean more, hence the reason it is sometimes translated that way.

The historical flood date is not important to me. Dates and times, I have found, are hard to pinpoint. It is also not important. A flood on a land happens many times over in many lands. So there are there then MANY floods.

Do you have evidence the bible is 100% fiction free?

It is spiritually discerned. You seem to not understand what kind of book you read.

But some of it was not spoken in parables and perfectly clear in intent. It is understood perfectly by historians and scholars in many places.

There is less mystery here then you think, when one actually takes classes and learns from professors, instead of just reading oneself with no direction.

It is all a parable in one sense as there is always the esoteric meaning to understand. It is very involved. It becomes so big that you just begin to accept it as to understand it all would be to understand the mind of God.

Professors and historians have their place. But they are not going to understand it all. I have told you this many times over.

You see, you cannot argue, as you do, about a Book that you do not believe in, in the first place! If you going to accept it sufficiently to argue it, then you must accept it all. Then you will have to accept that it is spiritually discerened and that you are deluded (2thess2). You would also have to accept that the theologians will not know either (Cor)

Accept this or not. But I think I know what your answer will be, even if not your motives.

Have a good new year!