• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What do you think?

Ephesians 2:11-15 "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"


Okay. So did (J)esus abolish that enmity, break the middle wall of partition between 'us', so that there could be 'peace'?



Because if Y'srael was with the Law of God and not the law that is written of in Galatians 3:19 "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." - The law of the Gentiles in those 'lands', then did (J)esus Christ really 'break down' that 'middle wall of partition which was between us and did he abolish the enmity, that 'law' of commandments contained in ordinances?


Why do I ask this?

Because if there is neither Greek nor Jew Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." because of Christ (J)esus, could Christ (J)esus abolish the Law of God within Y'srael?

No, He cannot.


So which 'law' is being referred to here that was broken down?

The 'laws' that Govern over Gentile lands. Placed there by Gentiles, for Gentiles, by those Gentiles.


Remember that both Ephesians and Galatians were written to 'believers' outside of Y'srael. They could have been Gentiles, they could have been (J)ews living in Gentile lands, but most probably to Gentile believers. Gentile believers at that time did not know of the Laws which were contained in The Old Testaments to Y'srael. They, the Gentiles, were not handed those Laws. They were under their own set of 'laws' which 'governed' them.


Now an arguing person might say, 'If (J)esus could not abolish the Laws of God within Y'srael, that would mean that the animal and daily sacrifices would still be required'.

This is not true also.

(J)eremiah 31:31-34 "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."


To whom is this new covenant 'given'? To the Gentiles or to Y'srael? To Y'srael.

Yet Ephesians 2:12 "That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope,"

And Ephesians 2:13 "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ."



You are made 'nigh'/near.

So what does God seek for the Gentiles?

Acts 15:28-29 "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."



(J)eremiah 31:33 "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."


Could this mean that in those days, YHWH will place His 'torah' into the minds and hearts of Y'srael and YHWH will be [as] their God. Because remember that God, 'Elaha, is also God over every other Nation and Country. And He cannot enforce the 'torah' upon Gentiles.

So, it might become a 'Lawful' place on Earth, both for the (J)ew with YHWH and His 'torah' as Law within Y'srael and God and the 'laws' of each 'Land' for those Gentile places. And this (J)esus Christ will be the one which brings both the 'torah' speaking persons and Gentile language speakers in a form of 'oneness' acknowledging the LORD of Y'srael as The LORD.


Here is where it can get sticky. Since the desire/will of The LORD for all is to 'know/believe' upon His Son, (J)esus Christ, who might each Country say is (J)esus Christ after they have learned to worship The LORD of Y'srael in Truth and in Spirit? Would He be (J)esus Christ as they believe upon Him in England? Will He be Jesus Christus as they believe upon Him in Germany? Will He be Jesucristo as they believe upon Him in South and Central America or even in Spain? Who will the One whom The Father, The LORD desires for all to place their 'belief' upon, be?

And if ALL the Churches of the Gentile World came together to discuss this matter, by which Name will they ALL agree upon to call Him?


Acts 4:10-12 "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."


"Neka bude znano svima vama i svemu narodu Izraelovu: po imenu Isusa Krista Nazarećanina, kojega ste vi raspeli, a kojega Bog uskrisi od mrtvih! Po njemu ovaj stoji pred vama zdrav! 11On je onaj kamen koji vi graditelji odbaciste, ali koji postade kamen zaglavni. 12I nema ni u kome drugom spasenja. Nema uistinu pod nebom drugoga imena dana ljudima po kojemu se možemo spasiti."

-Croatian


"Kia mohio koutou katoa, me te iwi katoa o Iharaira, na te ingoa o Ihu Karaiti o Nahareta, i ripekatia na e koutou, i whakaarahia ra e te Atua i te hunga mate, nana tenei i tu ora ai i to koutou aroaro. 11Ko ia te kohatu i whakakahoretia na e koutou, e nga kaihanga, a kua meinga nei hei mo te kokonga. 12Kahore hoki he ora i tetahi atu: kahore hoki he ingoa ke atu i raro o te rangi kua homai ki nga tangata, e ora ai tatou."

-Maori


I mean, how many 'names' does He have?

'for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.'


'none other name under heaven' is Singular.


Maybe it will just be easier if He kept His original Name He was called by when He was being called by His Name by His family, friends and disciples.


And who would know better about this than the (J)ews?

(J)ohn 4:22 "...salvation is of the Jews."
 
Last edited:
Question:

Why do many citizens of ANY country NOT like illegal persons/residents?

Because the illegal persons/residents would not be 'rightful' neighbors living next to the rightful citizens.


But if for some reason a temporary 'stay' was needed, being unrightful to the Command to be hospitable to the 'refugees' would be as the 'wrong' than the right.

But this 'command' is not made by residents/citizens. It is made by Governments of each Jurisdictive District, or Jurisdiction(s). California, for instance, cannot 'command' Arkansas to be 'rightful' if Arkansas did not 'agree' to such entries. Arkansas needs to 'command' Arkansas and each Jurisdiction also needs to 'command' within each Jurisdictive District within Arkansas, if they are being effected, as well.


And this is why each State can either choose to 'legalize' marijuana or not. Federal has marijuana as still 'Illegal', for itself. But each State can choose for itself whether to have marijuana 'legal' or not in their own State Jurisdiction. I guess each State can be 'fined' to Federal Law then, it seems.


The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/lesley-daunt/state-vs-federal-law-who-_b_4676579.html
State vs. Federal Law: Who Really Holds the Trump Card? | HuffPost



logoWithTagline.png



Five things you should know about federal and state marijuana laws

Five things you should know about federal and state marijuana laws



America is a national weekly magazine published by the Jesuits of the United States and headquartered in midtown Manhattan. It contains news and opinion about Catholicism and how it relates to American politics and cultural life. It has been published continuously since 1909, and is also available online. With its Jesuit affiliation, America has been considered a liberal-leaning publication,[1][2][3] and has been described by The Washington Post as "a favourite of Catholic liberal intellectuals"

America (magazine) - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Earthling

David Henson
Okay. So did (J)esus abolish that enmity, break the middle wall of partition between 'us', so that there could be 'peace'?

Because if Y'srael was with the Law of God and not the law that is written of in Galatians 3:19 "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." - The law of the Gentiles in those 'lands', then did (J)esus Christ really 'break down' that 'middle wall of partition which was between us and did he abolish the enmity, that 'law' of commandments contained in ordinances?

Why do I ask this?

Many the argument has been formulated to render a certain tranſlation uſing the lexicon, by thoſe who are not familiar with the language in queſtion. Here I note the danger in doing ſo. Here iſ a quote from Biblical Hermeneutics:

Gen. 25:29 "ויזד יעקב נזיד"

NIV "Once when Jacob was cooking ſome ſtew"
KJV "And Jacob ſod pottage"

I hope this has been informative and has given you reaſon to be ware of any tranſlation you attempt to create on your own uſing a lexicon. A lexicon cannot replace learning a language.

I've taken a clip from two posts, or threads if you like, current on the RF forums.

What's wrong with you people? Are the English letters now somehow fashionably unfashionable? Or have your traditions become such that, they just aren't represented properly by the English?

Is it some translational phenomenon? Or is it just vanity? Religious nonsense?
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
I've taken a clip from two posts, or threads if you like, current on the RF forums.

What's wrong with you people? Are the English letters now somehow fashionably unfashionable? Or have your traditions become such that, they just aren't represented properly by the English?

Is it some translational phenomenon? Or is it just vanity? Religious nonsense?
You're doubly wrong. I assume you're referring to the other guy's J's, but if you look closely, you'll see he is actually using a J. He's just putting it in parenthesis for some reason. Meanwhile, I'm just using the long s. Go ahead and quote that post again, but before you post it, check how many red underlines you see for wrong words. There are none, because it's real English.

Also, you may want to purchase some of these.
 

Earthling

David Henson
You're doubly wrong. I assume you're referring to the other guy's J's, but if you look closely, you'll see he is actually using a J. He's just putting it in parenthesis for some reason. Meanwhile, I'm just using the long s. Go ahead and quote that post again, but before you post it, check how many red underlines you see for wrong words. There are none, because it's real English.

Also, you may want to purchase some of these.

So, I'm being pedantic? I don't have a problem with it I just wondered what the purpose or meaning of going out of your way to present your message that way was.

I mean, at least this, also on the forums at that same time, made sense. It's another language.
 

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
It's just a joke a made for that post.
Jokes? On RF? Don't be stupid; everything on RF is obviously completely serious. Don't you know that whenever a religious person talks it is always about religion and religion is no topic for jest. Tumah, I'm ashamed of you.
 
Top