GlockTalk.com
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 09-29-2012, 17:15   #26
Kingarthurhk
Isaiah 53:4-9
 
Kingarthurhk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by FCoulter View Post
I know this is a foreign concept to you, but I am A Christian.

Sorry you are so blinded to not know what that is.
Prove it.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 20SF, 21C, 22, 26, 27, Glock E-Tool, Glock knife
Quod ego haereticus appellari sequere Jesum.
Kingarthurhk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 18:14   #27
rgregoryb
Sapere aude
 
rgregoryb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Republic of Alabama
Posts: 12,703


Quote:
Originally Posted by FCoulter View Post
I know this is a foreign concept to you, but I am A Christian.

Sorry you are so blinded to not know what that is.
Now that's funny

cause you sure aren't the example of a Christ like
attitude in this forum, matter of fact you're quite the opposite you would make a good Pharisee. Actually you helped me realize that this whole tale you're telling about christianity is a myth. Because if there was a god, he sure wouldn't call the likes of you.
__________________
"I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves."
Ludwig Wittgenstein

"demography is destiny"
rgregoryb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2012, 18:53   #28
brokenprism
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk View Post
Actually, I am an SDA member. To put our doctrine in a nutshell, you can't earn your way to heaven by works. The works that you generate are a litmus test to your relationship with Jesus Christ. It is only by His atoning sacrifice are we saved, and by His power can we do anything at all. The ten commandments written on two tablets by the hand of God are the moral law spoken of by Christ when He said not one jot or title would pass away.

However, it is not the law that saves us, it is Jesus Christ that does. John 3 makes that pretty clear. I think you may have me confused with the other two fellows on this thread.
Then I had you, and the SDA, wrong. I apologize. Shot my big mouth off without doing the homework.
brokenprism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 14:27   #29
Brasso
Senior Member
 
Brasso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Stranger in a strange land.
Posts: 8,631
Quote:
12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Yes, please go learn what that means.

Mercy, not sacrifice refers to the idea that you are not sinning on purpose, thus requiring a sacrifice for your atonement. But rather, you live a life of obedience, relying on His grace to cover you on the points you misss.

You are so far off in what you believe that it's really not evenworth the effort anymore to try and convince you with plain, black and white scripture. If you don't believe Moses, why would you believe Christ. It's you who are the Pharisee. Relying on your own works, or lack thereof, to save you. You live a faithless life. You rely completely on grace, which is wrong. It's grace that He died for you so you could be in covenant with Him. The rest is up to you live a life in accordance with His instructions. When you throw those instructions out, despite Him having said they were forever, it's the definition of FAITH-LESS. The justified shall live by believing every word that comes form the mouth of God. Not picking and choosing.

When you can explain why God was wrong and didn't know what He was talking about when He called the Feast an everlasting statute, then we can talk. Of course you won't. Because you can't. But you call me a pharisee anyway and go about your business as if half the Bible doesn't exist, because it's easier to live by your own reasoning than Gods. But the day is coming. And you will finally understand. I look forward to that day when we can worship Him in Spirit and in Truth together.

You are in good company though. There even seem to be some atheists that agree with your faithless faith.
__________________
Yeshayahu 9:7 Of the increase of His rule and peace there is no end, upon the throne of David and over His reign, to establish it and sustain it with justice and with righteousness from now on, even forever. The ardour of יהוה of hosts does this.

Last edited by Brasso; 10-04-2012 at 14:33..
Brasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 17:20   #30
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 10,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasso View Post

When you can explain why God was wrong and didn't know what He was talking about when He called the Feast an everlasting statute, then we can talk.

God is not wrong. You are wrong and making false accusations because of your flawed understanding.

God made an everlasting statute. The piece you refuse to understand is that it was for the nation of Israel and not the Gentiles.

The old nation of Israel is gone. It was destroyed along with the temple.

You are going to argue that the nation of Israel is forever even though it rejected Christ. Paul speaks of the earthly Jerusalem as being in bondage for the same philosophy you are expounding.


Galatians 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Galatians 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Galatians 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Galatians 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
__________________
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 10-04-2012, 17:44   #31
brokenprism
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasso View Post
You are so far off in what you believe that it's really not evenworth the effort anymore to try and convince you with plain, black and white scripture. If you don't believe Moses, why would you believe Christ. It's you who are the Pharisee.

You are in good company though. There even seem to be some atheists that agree with your faithless faith.
If you (and I allow for this possibility, however remote it appears) are a regenerated believer, why are you so damn hostile? That is NOT Christian. Muscogee called me proud and arrogant because I asserted historically orthodox positions, but I didn't attack people. This ^ is personal.

Tabernacles will be kept eternally, and Jesus is the eternal 'Firstfruits' from the dead. None of this means we should be keeping the feasts as an expression of our redemption. There is no need to keep/observe Passover -- or Atonement -- ever again. The True blood that cleanses has been spilled, and accepted. If you want to be literal, and go back to goat's blood for Atonement, good luck with your salvation. The Bible couldn't be any more clear about the temporary nature of the Feasts as teaching moments. You seem to be advocating a legalist position, much like the Judaizers whose clock Paul cleaned in book after book.

I'm all for free expression of religion, but I do take exception to corruptions of Christianity. So far, your attitude isn't commending your doctrine in a way that would make me believe you got your hands on the last piece of truth.
brokenprism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 18:03   #32
FCoulter
Senior Member
 
FCoulter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokenprism View Post
If you (and I allow for this possibility, however remote it appears) are a regenerated believer, why are you so damn hostile? That is NOT Christian. Muscogee called me proud and arrogant because I asserted historically orthodox positions, but I didn't attack people. This ^ is personal.

Tabernacles will be kept eternally, and Jesus is the eternal 'Firstfruits' from the dead. None of this means we should be keeping the feasts as an expression of our redemption. There is no need to keep/observe Passover -- or Atonement -- ever again. The True blood that cleanses has been spilled, and accepted. If you want to be literal, and go back to goat's blood for Atonement, good luck with your salvation. The Bible couldn't be any more clear about the temporary nature of the Feasts as teaching moments. You seem to be advocating a legalist position, much like the Judaizers whose clock Paul cleaned in book after book.

I'm all for free expression of religion, but I do take exception to corruptions of Christianity. So far, your attitude isn't commending your doctrine in a way that would make me believe you got your hands on the last piece of truth.
Before I go any further, may I ask you one thing? Are you saying Paul didn't continue to keep Gods Feasts after Christ died?


I'll wait on you to answer before I continue.
FCoulter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 18:06   #33
Brasso
Senior Member
 
Brasso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Stranger in a strange land.
Posts: 8,631
Quote:
God made an everlasting statute. The piece you refuse to understand is that it was for the nation of Israel and not the Gentiles.
Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once gentiles1 in the flesh, who are called ‘the uncircumcision’ by what is called ‘the circumcision’ made in the flesh by hands, Footnote: 11 Cor. 12:2.
Eph 2:12 that at that time you were without Messiah, excluded from the citizenship of Yisra’ĕl and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no expectation and without Elohim in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Messiah יהושע you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of the Messiah.

Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the set-apart ones and members of the household of Elohim,1 Footnote: 1Rom. 11:17-24, Isa. 14:1.

Gal 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.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

I doubt any of that will make a dent in your theology, but there it is, in black and white. You are Israel. Grafted in. Not a new Israel. Part of what has already existed.

Amo 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:

Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.


Quote:
You are going to argue that the nation of Israel is forever even though it rejected Christ. Paul speaks of the earthly Jerusalem as being in bondage for the same philosophy you are expounding.
And I've showed you that the interpretation you insist on is wrong, several times.

We will be keeping the Feasts during His reign. This is also in black and white. Even the new moons.

Why would we not keep a Feast that He has NOT fulfilled yet? He tells us to keep Passover. Messiah Himself does this. Yet, you reject it. He tells us that not a single jot or tittle will pass from the Torah till heaven and earth pass away. You reject it.


But who am I to judge another man's servant. Please forgive me. From now on I will try and refrain from posting here.
__________________
Yeshayahu 9:7 Of the increase of His rule and peace there is no end, upon the throne of David and over His reign, to establish it and sustain it with justice and with righteousness from now on, even forever. The ardour of יהוה of hosts does this.

Last edited by Brasso; 10-04-2012 at 20:16..
Brasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 21:30   #34
brokenprism
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by FCoulter View Post
Before I go any further, may I ask you one thing? Are you saying Paul didn't continue to keep Gods Feasts after Christ died?


I'll wait on you to answer before I continue.
I believe he had Timothy circumcised, and moved to dedicate him in the Temple. (This maneuver earned him a visit with Ceasar.) I'm not aware of any feast he kept beyond that, but if he did, it was because he was moving between Jewish and Gentile worlds, being "all things to all men, that [he] might save some." How could he write Galatians with such force, repudiating the ceremonial law (though not the moral law) as of any worth in the transaction of salvation?

I'm open to this Theologicasl debate, but I chimed in here at all because the tone was off the charts. I won't accuse you of anything, so maybe we can be civil to each other.
brokenprism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 21:49   #35
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 10,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by FCoulter View Post
Before I go any further, may I ask you one thing? Are you saying Paul didn't continue to keep Gods Feasts after Christ died?


I'll wait on you to answer before I continue.
Paul sure did keep the feasts being as he was a circumcised Jew. This was a lifetime vow.
He specifically says that the Gentiles are not to seek such a thing in several places.

1 Corinthians 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Same question to you. Why do you wish the Gentile believers to live as do the Jews?
__________________
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 10-05-2012, 06:08   #36
FCoulter
Senior Member
 
FCoulter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
Paul sure did keep the feasts being as he was a circumcised Jew. This was a lifetime vow.
He specifically says that the Gentiles are not to seek such a thing in several places.

1 Corinthians 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Same question to you. Why do you wish the Gentile believers to live as do the Jews?
Vic, you are not able to see the difference between a "Jew" and the whole house of Israel.


Once you do it will become clear.
FCoulter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:03   #37
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 10,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by FCoulter View Post
Vic, you are not able to see the difference between a "Jew" and the whole house of Israel.


Once you do it will become clear.
It could be you who has a misunderstanding of the whole house of Israel.
The whole house of Israel consists of believing persons descended from Abraham and persons of faith not descended by flesh and blood from Abraham since Jesus died for them all. As Ephesians says, Christ's blood abolished the partition wall of commandments for the Gentiles.

Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Ephesians 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Ephesians 2:15 Having 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;
__________________
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 10-05-2012, 13:10   #38
Schabesbert
Senior Member
 
Schabesbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616


Quote:
Originally Posted by FCoulter View Post
Before I go any further, may I ask you one thing? Are you saying Paul didn't continue to keep Gods Feasts after Christ died?
At least some of the time, yes.

But he did it solely for the reason of evangelizing the Jews.

He explains this quite precisely:

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.
__________________
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 10-05-2012, 13:36   #39
FCoulter
Senior Member
 
FCoulter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schabesbert View Post
At least some of the time, yes.

But he did it solely for the reason of evangelizing the Jews.

He explains this quite precisely:

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.

What, then, did Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21?


The New Testament makes clear that certain SACRIFICIAL laws are no longer binding today. Paul calls them "a tutor" in Galatians 3:24. This ritual law, which is referred to as a "LAW," "was added because of transgression" (Galatians 3:19). Sin is the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4), the Ten Commandments (James 2:8-12). We see, then, that the Ten Commandments -- the "LAW" -- had to be in effect BEFORE the sacrificial law system was added -- as it was added BECAUSE OF transgression. The sacrificial system with its ritualistic rules is no longer necessary to be kept -- at the same time, it would NOT be SINFUL to keep it, while in the presence of Jews. 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. 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).




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."


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]."


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. He was NOT without God's law, although he did no longer preach as binding and mandatory physical circumcision or other sacrificial rituals, as those -- temporary -- laws had been abolished by God in the New Testament. At the same time, he did not offend his Jewish audience by violating their customs and traditions, as long as he could keep them without sinning against God.


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. When we sin, the penalty of sin -- death -- is hanging over us like the sword of Damocles. Through the sacrifice of Christ, our repentance and our belief in and acceptance of His sacrifice, we can have forgiveness of our sins, that is, we won't have to die anymore. The death penalty is no longer hanging over our heads. In order to win those who had not yet accepted Christ's sacrifice, Paul became as one of them. He showed them compassion and sympathy, rather than condemning and offending them. He became as one under the penalty of the law, as he understood what it was like to live in sin, being cut off and separated from God.


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).

Last edited by FCoulter; 10-05-2012 at 13:38..
FCoulter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 14:46   #40
Schabesbert
Senior Member
 
Schabesbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616


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 10-06-2012, 01:18   #41
brokenprism
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 263
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: 10,658
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: 952
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: 952
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: 952
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: 12,050
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: 952
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 09:10.



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


Users Currently Online: 1,078
358 Members
720 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42