Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-06-2012, 01:18   #41
brokenprism
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by FCoulter View Post
Paul never taught that any of God's abiding laws could be broken. He taught, "It is the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath" (Hebrews 4:9; Lamsa translation). Those who want to REFUSE to keep God's spiritual law, including the weekly and annual Sabbaths, twist certain Scriptures and invent arguments to justify their sinful conduct. They do this, however, "to their own destruction" (compare 2 Peter 3:14-16).
Whoa! I read your post with interest, and even some respect, until I hit the line from the 'Lamsa' translation. That couldn't be any farther in meaning from the historic translations -- which agree with each other except in insignificant, stylistic ways.

"So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God..." NASB

"There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;" NIV

"There remains therefore a rest to the people of God." NKJV

And the literal Greek:

"Then remains a sabbath rest to the people of God." (Nestle)

NONE of those translations, 'averaged' from historic manuscripts, have the force of "It is the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath." That's just embarrassingly fabricated.

Heb 4:9 follows an argument about how the Jews could not enter God's rest, but that a 'Sabbath' rest was yet to come (the Sabbath law had been around quite a while -- why was this rest described as yet to come if it's the weekly Sabbath?) for those who put their trust in Christ and cease from their works. The Sabbath was a type, like everything else -- even the Sabbath God kept in Creation was about ceasing from His works.

The NT flows like the Mississippi toward grace and rest from works, but you won't let them go. What's as disturbing as the Lamsa reference is the way you want to pile burdens of lawkeeping on people, under penalty of punishment based on our 'sinfulness' in daring to trust Christ for our salvation. We're always twisting the Bible (pot calling the kettle, huh?) and damned to hell if we don't agree with your position that the law is essential. If that's your thing, fine. Have at the law. But have at ALL of it, or none of it.

This Lamsa thing reminds me of the Watchtower Translation -- a rewrite of the Bible to de-emphasize the parts JWs don't like, like John 1:1 which, in their book, says Jesus was 'a' God.

I often wonder why people like Jehovah's Witnesses (Charles Taze Russell), Christian Scientists (Mary Baker Eddy's disciples), SDA (Ellen White), Mormons (Joseph Smith), and -- apparently -- whatever you are, can believe that the whole world has had it wrong for 4,000 years until their 'prophet' came along in the 19th/early 20th century with the true message, hidden so long, and revealed only to their group. Lamsa's 'manuscripts' were like Smith's golden plates. No one ever saw them.

Here's some Internet scoop on Lamsa.

"There are four fossils of Aramaic language left in the Gospel of Mark. Four remnants in Aramaic. To the little girl, “Talitha cumi” [Mar 5:41]. To the blind man, “ephphatha” [Mar 7:34]. In his prayer in Gethsemene, “Abba, Father” [Mar 14:36]. And on the cross, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani” [Mar 15:34]. Those four remnants are still preserved in Mark’s Gospel — of Aramaic, from the lips of Jesus.

We have no records in manuscript form of the gospels in Aramaic. There are no Aramaic documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John left. All we have are Greek documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So — except for these four fossils ^ that are left embedded in the text of Mark — the answer is no! There are no Aramaic texts. And people today that sell books and say, “Oh, here, I have translated the Aramaic documents of the gospels” — they are frauds. They’re out for our money. Don’t be taken in."
brokenprism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 05:58   #42
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 11,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokenprism View Post

"So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God..." NASB

"There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;" NIV

"There remains therefore a rest to the people of God." NKJV

And the literal Greek:

"Then remains a sabbath rest to the people of God." (Nestle)

NONE of those translations, 'averaged' from historic manuscripts, have the force of "It is the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath." That's just embarrassingly fabricated.

Heb 4:9 follows an argument about how the Jews could not enter God's rest, but that a 'Sabbath' rest was yet to come (the Sabbath law had been around quite a while -- why was this rest described as yet to come if it's the weekly Sabbath?) for those who put their trust in Christ and cease from their works. The Sabbath was a type, like everything else -- even the Sabbath God kept in Creation was about ceasing from His works.
What Fred is trying to do here is to blur the distinction between the law of Moses and the moral law of Ten Commandments to bolster his argument that the feast days are required to be kept by Christians.

Hebrews 4:9 is speaking of the faith and privilege it is for the people of God to rest on the day God designated as His Sabbath day. Rest is a blessing and a privilege not a work as Fred is trying to sell it. The context itself of Hebrews 4 is faith and as you noted, ceasing from works as God did.
__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Vic Hays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 07:38   #43
FCoulter
Senior Member
 
FCoulter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokenprism View Post
Whoa! I read your post with interest, and even some respect, until I hit the line from the 'Lamsa' translation. That couldn't be any farther in meaning from the historic translations -- which agree with each other except in insignificant, stylistic ways.

"So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God..." NASB

"There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;" NIV

"There remains therefore a rest to the people of God." NKJV

And the literal Greek:

"Then remains a sabbath rest to the people of God." (Nestle)

NONE of those translations, 'averaged' from historic manuscripts, have the force of "It is the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath." That's just embarrassingly fabricated.

Heb 4:9 follows an argument about how the Jews could not enter God's rest, but that a 'Sabbath' rest was yet to come (the Sabbath law had been around quite a while -- why was this rest described as yet to come if it's the weekly Sabbath?) for those who put their trust in Christ and cease from their works. The Sabbath was a type, like everything else -- even the Sabbath God kept in Creation was about ceasing from His works.

The NT flows like the Mississippi toward grace and rest from works, but you won't let them go. What's as disturbing as the Lamsa reference is the way you want to pile burdens of lawkeeping on people, under penalty of punishment based on our 'sinfulness' in daring to trust Christ for our salvation. We're always twisting the Bible (pot calling the kettle, huh?) and damned to hell if we don't agree with your position that the law is essential. If that's your thing, fine. Have at the law. But have at ALL of it, or none of it.

This Lamsa thing reminds me of the Watchtower Translation -- a rewrite of the Bible to de-emphasize the parts JWs don't like, like John 1:1 which, in their book, says Jesus was 'a' God.

I often wonder why people like Jehovah's Witnesses (Charles Taze Russell), Christian Scientists (Mary Baker Eddy's disciples), SDA (Ellen White), Mormons (Joseph Smith), and -- apparently -- whatever you are, can believe that the whole world has had it wrong for 4,000 years until their 'prophet' came along in the 19th/early 20th century with the true message, hidden so long, and revealed only to their group. Lamsa's 'manuscripts' were like Smith's golden plates. No one ever saw them.

Here's some Internet scoop on Lamsa.

"There are four fossils of Aramaic language left in the Gospel of Mark. Four remnants in Aramaic. To the little girl, “Talitha cumi” [Mar 5:41]. To the blind man, “ephphatha” [Mar 7:34]. In his prayer in Gethsemene, “Abba, Father” [Mar 14:36]. And on the cross, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani” [Mar 15:34]. Those four remnants are still preserved in Mark’s Gospel — of Aramaic, from the lips of Jesus.

We have no records in manuscript form of the gospels in Aramaic. There are no Aramaic documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John left. All we have are Greek documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So — except for these four fossils ^ that are left embedded in the text of Mark — the answer is no! There are no Aramaic texts. And people today that sell books and say, “Oh, here, I have translated the Aramaic documents of the gospels” — they are frauds. They’re out for our money. Don’t be taken in."
The whoever I am is a Christian, I hold the beliefs taught by Christ and the early Church of God.

I hope this can clear up any questions you may have, it addresses Paul's difficult to understand scriptures.


http://www.cbcg.org/franklin/Appendix_Z_Pauls_Difficult_Scriptures.pdf


Have a blessed Sabbath
FCoulter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 14:15   #44
Schabesbert
Senior Member
 
Schabesbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616


BTT
Quote:
Originally Posted by FCoulter View Post
What, then, did Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21?
I already quoted 9:20 above. Maybe you should review it.

1Co 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law--not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ--that I might win those outside the law.

Quote:
The New Testament makes clear that certain SACRIFICIAL laws are no longer binding today. Paul calls them "a tutor" in Galatians 3:24.
Can you point out support for this assertion?

Paul doesn't say "SACRIFICIAL laws" here. He says "the" law. Redefining terms whenever you want to is just special pleading.

Quote:
We see, then, that the Ten Commandments -- the "LAW" --
See? If you keep re-defining the term that Paul used just to suit your own beliefs, then you aren't following scripture at all; you're just following your own beliefs. Or Fred's.

Quote:
Therefore, when Paul was with Jews, he would not offend them by refusing to keep their customs. He would not keep those customs, of course, when he was with Gentiles, as these customs or ritualistic laws are no longer binding.
This shows explicitely that the dietary laws have been abrogated, since Paul ate with the gentiles.

Quote:
Paul DID make clear, however, that he DID teach and keep the spiritual LAW of God (Romans 7:14) that IS still binding, including ALL of the Ten Commandments (Matthew 19:17-19).
Yep, in their spiritual sense, as per Christ's commandments (i.e., the sermon on the mount, etc.)

Quote:
Notice how the "Nelson Study Bible" explains 1 Corinthians 9:19-23:


"Paul put his ministry of the gospel above his personal desires. He was willing to conform to the customs of other people, whether Jew or Gentile, in order to bring them to Christ. For example, in order to relate to the Jews in Jerusalem he made a Nazarite vow in the temple (Acts 21:23, 24). Around those who were under the Law -- the Jews -- Paul obeyed the Law. Around those who were outside the Law -- the Gentiles -- Paul did not observe JEWISH CUSTOM. Paul clarified this, however, lest anyone misunderstand his actions. He obeyed GOD'S LAW through obedience toward Christ."
Yep. Obedience toward Christ fulfills God's Law.

Quote:
The New Bible Commentary concurs, referring to the ritualistic sacrificial law as the "Mosaic" law:


"Paul has surrendered more than his right to personal subsistence. Though he is free from all men, i.e. in no sense bound by the standards or fashions of others, he is prepared to make himself a slave to all, and conform to their standards or fashions, providing no real principle is at stake, in order to win as many as possible... So when among Jews he acts as a Jew, conforming to their customs under the Mosaic law (Acts 16:3; 18:18; 21:26), though as a Christian he himself is no longer obliged to keep that law (cf. Gal. 2:11-21). Similarly he is ready to identify himself with those who are not bound by the Jewish law, i.e. Gentiles; though he adds an important proviso. Gentiles not only disregard the Mosaic law [our comment: that part of the law of Moses that is ritual and no longer binding], but may also refuse to recognize any divine commandments [our comment: the Ten Commandments with its statutes and judgments -- including the Sabbath, the annual Holy Days, and the dietary and tithing laws]."
Who is it that is adding the "our comment" part that has no support from scripture?

And, read it without the "our comment" parts -- it doesn't support your theory.

Quote:
Paul never taught others to sin, and he was careful that he did not sin, either. He would have never disobeyed God by breaking His law, only to "win" the Gentiles.
Question-begging.


Quote:
Finally, although he was not "under the law," he became as one "under the law," so that he might win those under the law. "And Lawlessness Will Abound..." the term "under the law" refers to its penalty.
Prove it.

When Paul says:
Ro 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

... by your twisted definition, then, we must be under the penalty of grace. Doesn't make sense? I agree.

Quote:
Paul never taught that any of God's abiding laws could be broken. He taught, "It is the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath" (Hebrews 4:9; Lamsa translation).
What a lousy translation.
Is this a purposeful distortion, or just done out of ignorance?
__________________
He is no fool who exchanges that which he cannot keep for that which he can never lose.

Ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou
Schabesbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 15:07   #45
FCoulter
Senior Member
 
FCoulter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schabesbert View Post
BTT

I already quoted 9:20 above. Maybe you should review it.

1Co 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law--not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ--that I might win those outside the law.


Can you point out support for this assertion?

Paul doesn't say "SACRIFICIAL laws" here. He says "the" law. Redefining terms whenever you want to is just special pleading.


See? If you keep re-defining the term that Paul used just to suit your own beliefs, then you aren't following scripture at all; you're just following your own beliefs. Or Fred's.


This shows explicitely that the dietary laws have been abrogated, since Paul ate with the gentiles.


Yep, in their spiritual sense, as per Christ's commandments (i.e., the sermon on the mount, etc.)


Yep. Obedience toward Christ fulfills God's Law.



Who is it that is adding the "our comment" part that has no support from scripture?

And, read it without the "our comment" parts -- it doesn't support your theory.


Question-begging.



Prove it.

When Paul says:
Ro 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

... by your twisted definition, then, we must be under the penalty of grace. Doesn't make sense? I agree.


What a lousy translation.
Is this a purposeful distortion, or just done out of ignorance?
I hope this can clear up any questions you may have, it addresses Paul's difficult to understand scriptures.


http://www.cbcg.org/franklin/Appendi...Scriptures.pdf
FCoulter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 15:43   #46
Schabesbert
Senior Member
 
Schabesbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616


Quote:
Originally Posted by FCoulter View Post
I hope this can clear up any questions you may have, it addresses Paul's difficult to understand scriptures.


http://www.cbcg.org/franklin/Appendi...Scriptures.pdf
I'm very sorry that you don't have any answers to the specific questions I had.
__________________
He is no fool who exchanges that which he cannot keep for that which he can never lose.

Ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou
Schabesbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 16:10   #47
FCoulter
Senior Member
 
FCoulter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schabesbert View Post
I'm very sorry that you don't have any answers to the specific questions I had.
Don't be sorry, what I posted answers everything you posted.
FCoulter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 17:40   #48
Schabesbert
Senior Member
 
Schabesbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616


Quote:
Originally Posted by FCoulter View Post
Don't be sorry, what I posted answers everything you posted.
No, it doesn't.

It's a commentary from a horrible translation of scripture. If they can't even get the text right, how much of a mess do you think they're going to make of its meaning?

It's a mess of confused "thought" which either doesn't address it, or gets it wrong.

Here's an example. They say:
“For circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision
is nothing; rather, the keeping of God’s commandments is essential” (I Cor. 7:19). He further explained
how he reached out to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike, in preaching the gospel. But never at any time
did he proclaim that the laws and commandments of God were no longer in effect for himself or the
believer
: “Now to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to those who are under law, as
under law, that I might gain those who are under law; to those who are without law, as without law (not
being without law to God, but within law to Christ
), that I might gain those who are without law” (I
Cor. 9:20-21).
Now, St. Paul clearly is describing a law that is separate and apart from the law of circumcision in the 1Cor 7:19 quote, since he is CONTRASTING circumcision, which he says is meaningless, from keeping "God's commandments." after all, wasn't circumcision one of God's commandments? No, he is saying that we need to live the Gospel commands.

Here's a hint: just highlighting PART of a passage in bold doesn't mean that you can ignore the part you didn't highlight.

Your leaders claim "But never at any time
did he proclaim that the laws and commandments of God were no longer in effect for himself or the
believer." This is quite demonstrably false, IF you read ALL of scripture, and believe all of scripture. For example:

Ro 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it,
Ro 3:28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Ro 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Ro 7:1 Do you not know, brethren--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only during his life?
Ro 7:2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband.
Ro 7:3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
Ro 7:4 Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.
Ro 7:5 While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.
Ro 7:6 But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.

Now, what does your quote from 1Co 9:21 mean?

1Co 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law--though not being myself under the law--that I might win those under the law.
1Co 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law--not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ--that I might win those outside the law.

Paul is simply saying that he's NOT under the OT law, but rather under Christ's Gospel law. He's not an anti-nomianist, but this is a NEW testament, as prophesied by Jeremiah.



Notice how Paul says that we WERE under the law? PAST TENSE!! Now, we are no longer slaves (under the Law), but adopted sons & daughters!!!

Ga 3:23 Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed.
24 So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian;
26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
Ga 4:1 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is the owner of all the estate;
2 but he is under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father.
3 So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe.
4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

This about sums it up (and shows that your quoted text is wrong):
Ga 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law.

Now, whether or not Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, this letter also testifies against your beliefs:
Heb 7:12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

Again, I'm sorry that you can't think for yourself.
__________________
He is no fool who exchanges that which he cannot keep for that which he can never lose.

Ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou
Schabesbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2012, 14:09   #49
Mushinto
Master Member
 
Mushinto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne, Florida, USA
Posts: 12,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by FCoulter View Post
... I don't for the life of me understand why the Adventist jump into a thread and try to explain how to keep a day they don't keep. ... Shows just how screwy they really are.
Kind of like some Christians posting in a thread about a Jewish Holiday, which I may add, they do not understand.
__________________
ML

Everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about. Be kind, always.
Mushinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 16:11   #50
FCoulter
Senior Member
 
FCoulter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mushinto View Post
Kind of like some Christians posting in a thread about a Jewish Holiday, which I may add, they do not understand.
Oh really? Last time I read lev. 23. God said they are "My Feasts". " Feasts of The Lord"

Now it's kinda crazy to say they are the Feasts of the Jews, when Lev. 23 states they are for the children of Israel, not just the Jews whom make up only 2 1/2 of the tribes of he children of Israel.
FCoulter is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:49.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 979
265 Members
714 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31