The LAW of Moses Definitely set aside ?

[Shermana]

Why would I eat blood? I still, for the most part, eat Kosher.

Well that's good. Would you say that most Christians would refuse blood? What makes you decide to keep kosher?

Well how dare you call others lawless and breakers of Mosaic law, when you do not even follow it.

Is that supposed to be an answer to my question of how I'm supposed to make sacrifices without a Temple and Priesthood or how the Israelites in captivity made sacrifices? I'd be VIOLATING the Law if I did. Cost Saul his kingdom when he tried to do it on his own. I also added a question of why Jesus would give instructions to make up with your brother before presenting an offering on the altar. I firmly believe upon His earthly reign the Temple and sacrifices will be restored. Until then, it's a similar situation regarding the sacrifices with the Babylonian captivity. So, once again, how am I supposed to make sacrifices without a Temple or priesthood, and how did the Captivity generation do them?

All the Apostles were saying is the rituals are not needed. Even though Christ centred rituals and festivals replaced them

That's all your saying Acts 15 excludes?

Why don't you go see what I posted?

[/quote]

I did see what you posted, and there's a reason you'd rather avoid discussing the issue, because you know that's all you said and you're not being honest about what you said. Shall I repost what you said for you?

 

[JacobEzra.]

Well that's good. Would you say that most Christians would refuse blood? What makes you decide to keep kosher?

Why would I care what other Christians do? They can eat a big bowl of Blood with some dog crap.

I did see what you posted, and there's a reason you'd rather avoid discussing the issue, because you know that's all you said and you're not being honest about what you said. Shall I repost what you said for you?

You miss the point that, unlike Ruth who was a ger tzadik, the foreign women of Ezra's time weren't.

As to the law, I am saying Goyyim are not under contract to it, and if you accept Christ you do not need to follow the rituals.

 

[Shermana]

Why would I care what other Christians do? They can eat a big bowl of Blood with some dog crap.

Well considering their common interpretation of "What goes in the mouth doesn't defile you", they should all try a bowl of that to prove their faith.

But as a Catholic, why do you keep Kosher, do you do it out of Jewish culture or because you believe Jesus forbade you from eating non-kosher or at least never said you didn't have to? Last I heard, Catholics eat pork quite often, is there an official Catholic ruling that you should eat Kosher? If not, why do you keep kosher?

You miss the point that, unlike Ruth who was a ger tzadik, the foreign women of Ezra's time weren't.

How do we know that they weren't? How do we know that NONE of them, of the thousands, wanted to convert?

As to the law, I am saying Goyyim are not under contract to it, and if you accept Christ you do not need to follow the rituals.

And how do you derive this scripturally, even with Acts 15? Are you saying Acts 15 only makes Goyyim not have to obey the "Rituals'? Explain in detail.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Well considering their common interpretation of "What goes in the mouth doesn't defile you", they should all try a bowl of that to prove their faith.

But as a Catholic, why do you keep Kosher, do you do it out of Jewish culture or because you believe Jesus forbade you from eating non-kosher or at least never said you didn't have to?

I said, I keep Kosher for the most part. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy bacon once in a while. Mainly because Kosher diet feels better.

How do we know that they weren't? How do we know that NONE of them, of the thousands, wanted to convert?

We don't know. But their was to many and Ezra didn't seem like he wanted to even try.

And how do you derive this scripturally, even with Acts 15?

Its there

 

[dan p]

So you have no objection if I said that you're promoting the idea that gentiles are allowed to murder and steal and covet and worship idols under this belief If not, why not?

Are you aware what it says in Jeremiah about this "New Covenant"? Do you understand what a "New Covenant" means? Why didn't the other "New Covenants" involve abolishing the Law? Why did Jesus specifically say "I have not come to abolish the Law"?

Hi , did I say that I am promoting the idea that Gentiles are allowed to murder ?

I guess you have NEVER read Rom 13:8-10 and , here Paul is not advocating to the keeping Law , for the Holy Spirit only letts Paul quote part of it and that reason is because we are in Christ , just some SILLY LOGIC , dan p

 

[Shermana]

Hi , did I say that I am promoting the idea that Gentiles are allowed to murder ?

If you say the 10 commandments aren't binding, you're saying you're allowed to break them. As well as any other commandment besides "the 10". And Acts 15's four rules do not include murder, theft, and bearing false witness. Would you refuse a bloody steak?

I guess you have NEVER read Rom 13:8-10 and , here Paul is not advocating to the keeping Law , for the Holy Spirit only letts Paul quote part of it and that reason is because we are in Christ , just some SILLY LOGIC , dan p

You are presuming that Paul had the Spirit when he wrote his epistles, this is contested, and was contested by the 1st century Nazarenes and Ebionites as well. What do you make of Romans 2:13 and 3:31? What do you think it means to be "In Christ", are you saying this gives you allowance to break the commandments? Have you read 1 John 5:3?

 

[dan p]

If you say the 10 commandments aren't binding, you're saying you're allowed to break them. As well as any other commandment besides "the 10". And Acts 15's four rules do not include murder, theft, and bearing false witness. Would you refuse a bloody steak?

You are presuming that Paul had the Spirit when he wrote his epistles, this is contested, and was contested by the 1st century Nazarenes and Ebionites as well. What do you make of Romans 2:13 and 3:31? What do you think it means to be "In Christ", are you saying this gives you allowance to break the commandments? Have you read 1 John 5:3?

Hi , and are you persuming the Holy Spirit wrote Exodus , as 2 Peter 1:21 and Paul wrote in 2 Tim 3:16 wrote , just SILLY LOGIC , dan p:sorry1:

 

[Shermana]

Hi , and are you persuming the Holy Spirit wrote Exodus , as 2 Peter 1:21 and Paul wrote in 2 Tim 3:16 wrote , just SILLY LOGIC , dan p:sorry1:

Most, if not nearly all scholars do not accept the Pastorals (which includes the Timothies) as written by Paul, and there's good reason for believing it to be inauthentic. And as I've demonstrated on another thread, the Petrine epistles are nearly universally considered Pseudipigraphic. Did you know that even the Early Church mostly doubted 2 Peter until the later councils? It was part of the "Antilegemona". The Syriac Pe****ta discluded 2 Peter, and the Syriac Orthodox Church discluded 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus from their Canon.

If you're not prepared to discuss their authenticity in detail, stand down. Calling it "Silly logic" is not a substitute. However, the consensus for the authenticity for 1 John is far greater. But we don't have to just discuss the scholarly arguments, we can look at the details too. 1 John directly clashes with Paul's epistles.

As for Exodus, that's another story, considering its the basis of which the NT writers were using, as for its authenticity, that's another subject, but we're discussing the Pauline (and in this case Petrine) epistles.

 

[dan p]

Most, if not nearly all scholars do not accept the Pastorals (which includes the Timothies) as written by Paul, and there's good reason for believing it to be inauthentic. And as I've demonstrated on another thread, the Petrine epistles are nearly universally considered Pseudipigraphic. Did you know that even the Early Church mostly doubted 2 Peter until the later councils? It was part of the "Antilegemona". The Syriac Pe****ta discluded 2 Peter, and the Syriac Orthodox Church discluded 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus from their Canon.

If you're not prepared to discuss their authenticity in detail, stand down. Calling it "Silly logic" is not a substitute. However, the consensus for the authenticity for 1 John is far greater. But we don't have to just discuss the scholarly arguments, we can look at the details too. 1 John directly clashes with Paul's epistles.

As for Exodus, that's another story, considering its the basis of which the NT writers were using, as for its authenticity, that's another subject, but we're discussing the Pauline (and in this case Petrine) epistles.

Hi , and I am always amazed that God made the Universe and what the Holy Spirit wrote through man is just SILLY , WHAT SCHOLARS AND IDIOTS they are , as bad as the Snake in the Garden " Ye shall not surely die " , dan p

 

[Shermana]

Hi , and I am always amazed that God made the Universe and what the Holy Spirit wrote through man is just SILLY , WHAT SCHOLARS AND IDIOTS they are , as bad as the Snake in the Garden " Ye shall not surely die " , dan p

Well, if your only argument against these scholars (and the ancient Syriac church) and the specific arguments in question is to call them idiots and compare them to the Snake in the garden, you have furthered my point.

 

[dan p]

Well, if your only argument against these scholars (and the ancient Syriac church) and the specific arguments in question is to call them idiots and compare them to the Snake in the garden, you have furthered my point.

Hi , which scholar have you been reading that furthers your point of view ?

I have already quoted you 2 scriptures in 2 Peter and 2 tim 3:16 and Transaltions are not inspired for only the Original Autographs were inspired , dan p

 

[Shermana]

Hi , which scholar have you been reading that furthers your point of view ?

I have already quoted you 2 scriptures in 2 Peter and 2 tim 3:16 and Transaltions are not inspired for only the Original Autographs were inspired , dan p

Here's a major book that defines the position: Go to page 1273

"Most scholars today regard 2 Peter as pseudonymous"

Eerdmans commentary on the Bible - James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson - Google Books

As for 2 Tim 3:16, not only is it widely considered to be not by Paul, but you can't use a verse that says "All scripture is inspired" to say that all the NT is inspired, because there was no single Canon at the time of NT writings. Meanwhile, there were OTHER canons that considered their scripture Canonical. If we agree that only the Original Autographs are inspired....where are these original autographs? How do we know the later copies copied them perfectly? How do we know which writings they were referring to at the time when they wrote them? Why weren't they including the Apocrypha and Enoch like how Jude references Enoch and the Assumption of Moses?

 

[dan p]

Here's a major book that defines the position: Go to page 1273


Eerdmans commentary on the Bible - James D. G. Dunn, John William Rogerson - Google Books

As for 2 Tim 3:16, not only is it widely considered to be not by Paul, but you can't use a verse that says "All scripture is inspired" to say that all the NT is inspired, because there was no single Canon at the time of NT writings. Meanwhile, there were OTHER canons that considered their scripture Canonical. If we agree that only the Original Autographs are inspired....where are these original autographs? How do we know the later copies copied them perfectly? How do we know which writings they were referring to at the time when they wrote them? Why weren't they including the Apocrypha and Enoch like how Jude references Enoch and the Assumption of Moses?

Hi , and I believe that God who made creation trumps your unblief and you will believe what you wants , just SILLY LOGIC , DAN P

 

[Astounded]

So you have no objection if I said that you're promoting the idea that gentiles are allowed to murder and steal and covet and worship idols under this belief If not, why not?

Are you aware what it says in Jeremiah about this "New Covenant"? Do you understand what a "New Covenant" means? Why didn't the other "New Covenants" involve abolishing the Law? Why did Jesus specifically say "I have not come to abolish the Law"?

The 'fulfill' the law means to properly interpret the law. To 'abolish' the law means to improperly interpret/destroy it.

Jesus explained his interpretation or 'yoke' of the law when the lawyer asked him the question...you know what's amazing about the 'law?'...it can be ignored if you are going to suffer a financial loss....some law, huh???

 

[dan p]

Hi , and I believe that God who made creation trumps your unblief and you will believe what you wants , just SILLY LOGIC , DAN P

Hi , Shermana , and God said that the Old Covenant has passed away in Heb 8:7-9 and verse 10 says that the New Covenant is made with the House of Israel and it is the Holy Spirit that says the Law of Moses passed away !!

The first problem is that most believers refuse to believe that the Old Covenant was temporary in Gal 3:22-

Christ death paid for the sins COMMITTED under the Old Covenant ! Heb 9:15 !!

dan p

 

[james2ko]

Hi to all , and most believers refuse to believe that the Law of Moses was set aside !

I would have to say the complete opposite is true. Most Christians believe the Law of Moses was set aside.

#9 , This also means that the 10 commandments are also out ,

So I guess this means the first resurrection and eternal life are also out?

 

[Shermana]

Hi , Shermana , and God said that the Old Covenant has passed away in Heb 8:7-9 and verse 10 says that the New Covenant is made with the House of Israel and it is the Holy Spirit that says the Law of Moses passed away !!

The first problem is that most believers refuse to believe that the Old Covenant was temporary in Gal 3:22-

Christ death paid for the sins COMMITTED under the Old Covenant ! Heb 9:15 !!

dan p

Did I not ask you if you understood what the New Covenant meant as Jeremiah prophecied about it? Are you saying Christians are allowed to break all the commandments?

 

[dan p]

I would have to say the complete opposite is true. Most Christians believe the Law of Moses was set aside.



So I guess this means the first resurrection and eternal life are also out?

Hi , and the bible teachs a resurrection BEFORE the Tribulation in 1 Cor 15:51-57 !!

And then there is a resurrection as Israel enters the Kingdom of Heaven also called the Milleninal Kingdom , Matt 8:11 !

Then a resurrection at the White throne judgment in Rev 20:12-15 !!

So , where did I say that there are no Resurrection ??

dan p

 

[james2ko]

So , where did I say that there are no Resurrection ??

Read my reply again, I said FIRST resurrection, referred to in Mat 8:11 and 1 Cor 15:51-57. You said the 10 commandments are out. If that is the case then Jesus lied to the rich young ruler by telling him the only way He can inherit eternal life (first resurrection) is by keeping the 10 commandments.

 

[dan p]

Read my reply again, I said FIRST resurrection, referred to in Mat 8:11 and 1 Cor 15:51-57. You said the 10 commandments are out. If that is the case then Jesus lied to the rich young ruler by telling him the only way He can inherit eternal life (first resurrection) is by keeping the 10 commandments.

Hi , and there is a Difference between THE LAW of Moses and what is the Dispensation of the Mystery , which is the message that Paul preached in Acts 20:24 , the Gospel of the Grace of God , that was NEVER preached by Jesus or the 12 apostles , dan p