Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
I will not ask the SAME question thrice.
From your evasive answers above it is clear that you are creating non-standard views of Scripture.
For example when you are quoiting from the Sermon on the Mount, you are taking a hyper literalistic approach. You need to take the CONTEXT and the words into consideration. Who was the audience? Jews steepedi n the 10 Commandments and who were bullied by the self-righteous Pharisees.
What you exclude from the quotes is significant because that gives a context for Jesus saying as He did. The reason context is so vital is that any verse ripped from its context becomes a pretext. Your cherry picking is not an exception to that rule.
There are two major significances to the entire passage. The most obvious one is the "you have heard it said... (referring to the 10 commandments) but I say unto you..." passages. Jesus is asserting His authority above the 10 C as well as the onerous rules of the Pharisees. In doing so, He is skewering the Pharisees who tithed on the spices, but neglected the intent of the Law-- a schoolmaster unto righteousness. The intent of the Pharisees was to come as close to breaking the 10 Cs as possible without actually breaking them. Jesus was addressing the exceptions based on the 10Cs. So while He did not quote exactly any particular Commandment directly, He was addressing the fallacies of the Pharisees circumvention of the Commandments by making clarifications of them.
The second purpose for the passage is where you may not fully understand it: He was upholding the 10Cs, not replacing them.
From where did this stuff come, mate? I ask because the stuff is certainly a cult-like and unorthodox view of Scriptures. I do NOT think that it is a result of you spending too much time in the hot outback this time of year without a hat
Shalom
where did you get the idea of Jesus quoting 10 commandments?
All through the gospels and even referring to requirements for Eternal life He refers only 9. Which Jesus are you talking about? (emphasis added)
What you seem not to understand is the fact that Jesus was NOT eliminating any of the 10 C, (or else He would say so directly); He was expanding the meaning behind them, which the religious leaders failed to understand.
In every statement that Jesus made concerning Scripture, He UPHELD Scripture.
And when you write "Which Jesus are you talking about?" you really confuse me, it is as if you believe in another, different Jesus than is found in Scripture alone. Please explain.
If Jesus is not eliminating, why is He giving a NEW commandment in a NEW covenant ? Paul also teaches in this way:
(Heb 8:13) [ In that He says,] [ "A new] [covenant,] [ "] [ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.]
Is Jesus expanding an obsolete covenant and the commandments in it ? Absolutely not!
This is why I said, the Christ who was crucified in the cross and mentioned in the Gospels, created a New Covenant using His own blood, and gave us a New Commandment for us to follow.
From this, am I correct to extrapolate that your belief is that Jesus Christ was not mentioned, prefigured, prophetisied, and did not appear as a theophany in the OT?
What made you think that new convent means Jesus is not mentioned in OT ?
Originally Posted by felix
If Jesus is not eliminating, why is He giving a NEW commandment in a NEW covenant ? Paul also teaches in this way:
(Heb 8:13) [ In that He says,] [ "A new] [covenant,] [ "] [ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.]
Is Jesus expanding an obsolete covenant and the commandments in it ? Absolutely not!
This is why I said, the Christ who was crucified in the cross and mentioned in the Gospels, created a New Covenant using His own blood, and gave us a New Commandment for us to follow.
This, what you wrote below:
If that, especially what I made large and bold is an inaccurate reflection of what you believe, then your correction is requested.
We are not under the old covenant (Heb 8:13) but new covenant with better promise (Heb 8:6). God married Israel (Isa 54:5) but divorced because of Israel didn’t keep the old covenant and involved in adultery (Jer 3:8). Now, God cannot take Israel or His people back (Jer 3:1). So, God sent His Son as an atonement (Eze 16:62-63) to wash the sins of His people (1 Jn 2:2) and make them as a bride (Rev 21:2) to marry them (Mark 2:19-20) through a new covenant (Heb 9:15).
If you follow any of the old covenant, you go to the Father as a divorced wife which is an abomination (Deu 24:1-4). So, you must go to the Father through Jesus Christ (John 14:6) who is the only way using the new covenant as a bride (Rev 21:9).
The 10 commandments (Exod 20) which are the words of the old covenant (Exod 34:28). The law of commandments are abolished by Jesus Christ (Eph 2:15) and we are not under this law but under grace (Rom 6:14).
So, Do you follow 10 commandments? do you give tithe? do you follow Sabbath? It’s abomination to God.
- Christ did not gave us 10 commandments in new covenant, but 1 new commandment (John 13:34), that is, to love one another.
- There is no tithe in new covenant but only freewill offering (Luke 21:3), i.e, give to God whatever your heart desires and nothing is demanded out of you. (note: do you know that tithe is only for Jews to give to Levites because they did not have inheritance (Num 18:20-21) in the land of Israel and God is their inheritance? Giving tithe to church or pastors is unbiblical).
- According to new covenant, we have a future rest (Heb 4) with Christ. Sabbath is about ‘rest’ and not ‘worship’ (Exod 31:15). Following Sabbath, simply means working out the law to be justified by law which scripture calls ‘estranged from Christ’ and ‘fallen from grace’ (Gal 5:4).
The reason I do not want to peruse it here on another thread is that the threads are easily derailed, and some interlopers can become nasty. On that site, the posts are limited to only the two participants. I think that we can engage ina deep lelvel discussion without any rancor coming between us, especially since I read your web site. let me know of your decision, OK?Following the old covenant after the new covenant had arrived is like going to the Father as a divorced wife rather than a bride of Christ. Scripture says, a divorced wife going back to her former husband is an abomination. Hence, tithing, sabbath, circumcision, etc, are all abomination as they are of old covenant. In the new covenant, we only have freewill offering, a future rest with Christ and circumcision of heart.
Thank you for that link. It gave me a much greater understanding of who you are, and why you believe as you do. In a nutshell it is because you do not consult the Hebrew or Greek relying on the English translations. As a result, I offer you the oppoetunity to go to the one-on-one debate section, and discuss (but do not debate) some things that I found on your website. For instance, what you state below is at odds with every hermeneutic principle in Christianity:
The reason I do not want to peruse it here on another thread is that the threads are easily derailed, and some interlopers can become nasty. On that site, the posts are limited to only the two participants. I think that we can engage ina deep lelvel discussion without any rancor coming between us, especially since I read your web site. let me know of your decision, OK?
I have no idea of what you are doing in establishing a hierarchy of Bible verses or sections. Paul the Apostle stated in 2 Timothy 3:16 that ALL Scripture is inspired by God..." As a Rabbi, who earned the equivalent of a Ph.D. sitting under Gamaliel, He was referring BACK to the entire OT, as well as his writings, and the writings of the other Apostles which were to come. So I assert that the red letters (signifying the words of Jesus) are no more nor less important than the other lettes of the OT and NT comprising the 66 canonical books we call the Bible. To create such a hierarchy is to butcher Scripture, is arbitrary (albeit well-intentioned), and is not supported anywhere in Scripture.
I still have no idea of what exactly you mean by "deutrocannonical ".I haven't read below but I have to ask you questions before I can proceed further.
[*]Scripture in Paul's days includes deutrocannonical books, as Paul and all apostles quote a lot of verses from LXX which includes deutrocannonical and in no way LXX disregards them - nor considered as secondary canon. So, what made you think Paul did not accept deutrocannonical books when he quoted the woman and his sons from Maccabees., i.e, Hebrews 11:35 is a reference to 2 Maccabees 7.
You missed the words, "the equivalent of" in the statement. I stated that to refer back to the credentials of Paul which he listed. To state that he did earn a PhD is an anachronistic error, but it is not a mistake to state that he was one of the most educated men in the area, and a master of several languages.[*]What PhD did Jesus earn from which rabbi? Also list the PhD of all disciples. I know for certain Peter has a PhD in fishing because of his trade.
NT Canon was codified c.220. That a book of the OT was not referred to in the NT as a criteria to be OT canon is a false standard.[*]66 canonical books are not the cannon for the 1st 3 centuries. Neither the authors of NT referred from all 39 OT. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon was NEVER quoted in NT.
To do that beyond stating that the 66 books comprising the OT and NT are indeed, Scripture, requires a study of the transmission of Scripture, both OT and NT. For that, I recommend R. Laird Harris's book Inspiration and Canonicity of Scripture and E J Young's Thy Word is Truth These are the best in that field, and for me to post more on that may become pedantic[*]Define Scripture? I need reference and the authority of who defined it. I mentioned the definition of Scripture as in Luke 24:44-45, with the authority of Christ. Who is your authority?
[/LIST]
I still have no idea of what exactly you mean by "deutrocannonical ".
However, to answer this statement, the Septuagint (LXX) is a translation of the OT scrolls into common Greek, done in 300 BC. Therefore, they do not differ in purpose from the OT being translated in any other language.
You missed the words, "the equivalent of" in the statement. I stated that to refer back to the credentials of Paul which he listed. To state that he did earn a PhD is an anachronistic error, but it is not a mistake to state that he was one of the most educated men in the area, and a master of several languages.
As to the Peter PhD remark, I assume that you are make a humorous comment. He had only a rudimentary education, to which Scripture attests.
NT Canon was codified c.220. That a book of the OT was not referred to in the NT as a criteria to be OT canon is a false standard.
To do that beyond stating that the 66 books comprising the OT and NT are indeed, Scripture, requires a study of the transmission of Scripture, both OT and NT.
I may be walking in blind faith, but I believe my God is Powerful enough to ensure that His Message to humanity was not only exactly what He wanted to say to them at the time, but also powerful enough to preserve the integrity of His Word for those to come later. I am completely certain His Word is inerrant and perfectly preserved for us by Him in spite of human limitations.
Wrong answer.... I suggest to verify and learn yourself.
Here is 45 year-old me, and I have a note to write for my neighbor with life-saving instructions. A 5 year-old has to write it and deliver it. If she writes the wrong instructions, it could have a devastating result. I could:
To add to the story, say decades and centuries go by, and I'm still 45, unable to write those instructions for new neighbors who moved in the house next door. I have different 5 year-olds who must write these same instructions... in different languages. Do I:
- Tell her what to write and send her off to my neighbor's house, knowing it made little sense. (or)
- Guide her letter by letter so that the end result was exactly what I want to tell my neighbor. Speak to her through the entire process so that an "h" looks like an "h", and not like an "r".
I may be walking in blind faith, but I believe my God is Powerful enough to ensure that His Message to humanity was not only exactly what He wanted to say to them at the time, but also powerful enough to preserve the integrity of His Word for those to come later. I am completely certain His Word is inerrant and perfectly preserved for us by Him in spite of human limitations.
- Let them re-write it any way they'd like. (or)
- Use my influence to ensure that, though the words are different, the new neighbors get the same instructions the first neighbors got.