Ordained by Angels?

[Georges]

How convenient for Paul to think that Angels gave the Torah to Moses....makes it easier for him to teach it as being fallible.


Gal 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.


Exd 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
Exd 20:2 I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exd 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Anyone what to give a shot at defending Gal 3:19?

 

[lovely]

Hi George,

What do angels have to do with the Law?

Deuteronomy 33:1-3
1 And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.
2 And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.
3 Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words.

Are the saints here angels? (Messengers?) (representatives of God?)

Acts 7:53
52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

Again, the law was given by some direction, or appointment, of the angels to Moses.

Hebrews 2:2-3
2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;
3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

I am unclear exactly what the role of the angels were at Mt Sinai, but they were there...Paul didn't make it up.

I think specifically in Galations 3 that Paul is making it clear that the Law is not at odds with the promises of God, but in harmony with it. The law reveals the sin, and the Seed is the fulfillment of that wonderful promise. If the law were enough there would be no need for Christ.

 

[mutzrein]

Ah - well that's a different angle . . . woops :-?

 

[TanNinety]

There is a point here that George is trying to make that is completely being missed.

Gal 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.

Georges tried to contrast from who the law was given based on scripture from OT and NT. So dear lovely, you cannot use Acts and Hebrews scripture to say angels had a play(or even a minor role) in ordaining the law. And your Deuteronomy scripture clearly shows that the law proceeded forth from Lord God and NOT His saints/angels.

We cannot deny that Gal 3:19 says the law was “ordained by angels†to a mediator (Moses). Now “ordained by angels†is not the same as “ordained by Godâ€Â. You may think George (and now myself) are being legalistic about mere semantics and that they both mean that the law was ordained by God but administered by the angels. Not so.

Can you find any instance in the bible that says “the ten commandments of Moses� The law of agency works in a way if someone acts in place of a higher authority the action is ALWAYS attributed to the higher authority but NOT the messenger. So even though the angels could have played a role in delivering the law, it was NEVER ordained by them and never could be attributed to them.

What paul is saying is the opposite. He instead of attributing the law to an infallible God, he attributes it to fallible angels, so he can downplay the law, so he can preach this “other†gospel under his sleeve i.e., the gospel of grace.

Paul indeed is the master of double speak, depending on the audience he has. Just consider it prayerfully lovely. I already know the Lord loves you.

 

[Georges]

Yep....on the nose again...Tan......

 

[D46]

"...and it was ordained by angels." The word ordained usually means to arrange; to dispose in order. The Old Testament makes no mention of the presence of angels at the giving of the law; but it was a common opinion among the Jews, that the law was given by the instrumentality of angels, and arranged by them; and Paul speaks in accordance with this opinion. The sentiment here is, that the law was prescribed, ordered, or arranged by the instrumentality of the angels-- an opinion, which none can prove not to be true. In itself considered, there is no more absurdity in the opinion that the law of God should be given by the agency of angels, than there is that it should be done by the instrumentality of man.

 

[Lewis]

Good points D' it is common in the OT for angels to be involved with giving the Word of God to man. So what's the problem up there dude.

 

[Solo]

"...and it was ordained by angels." The word ordained usually means to arrange; to dispose in order. The Old Testament makes no mention of the presence of angels at the giving of the law; but it was a common opinion among the Jews, that the law was given by the instrumentality of angels, and arranged by them; and Paul speaks in accordance with this opinion. The sentiment here is, that the law was prescribed, ordered, or arranged by the instrumentality of the angels-- an opinion, which none can prove not to be true. In itself considered, there is no more absurdity in the opinion that the law of God should be given by the agency of angels, than there is that it should be done by the instrumentality of man.

Another breath of fresh air!

 

[Georges]

Good points D' it is common in the OT for angels to be involved with giving the Word of God to man. So what's the problem up there dude.

Here is the problem.....I'll hold short of saying what D posted is a lie (and I hate suggesting that)...he may have been told that...but to simply say....the Jew's held a common belief that the Angels arranged the order of the Law is a fallacy especially without reference....I've dogged the subject from Jewish sources I haven't come across any references to what D had suggested....

Exd 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Which part of that order is arranged by angels?

Exd 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
Exd 20:2 I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exd 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Which part of that is arranged (ordained) by the angels?

You people crack me up.....you are so insensed to prove me wrong at every turn that you defy sheer overt logic.

 

[lovely]

George,

I do not want to prove you wrong about anything, and please do not think that is my motive. I want to speak the Truth. I am not Paul's disciple, nor do I desire to be your's, or anyone else's, other than God's. I want to take Scripture as a whole, and count on the Holy Spirit to teach me.

I gave you other verses, and I am unwilling to say what the true role of the angels were, because the Bible doesn't clarify. It is a given that God wrote those tablets...did the angels carry them? Did the angels merely stand as witnesses to all of this? Did they witness the ordination of God's Word being given to a mediator? It doesn't say their specific role. Moses' blessing in Deuteronomy also mentions the production of that day by God, and those with Him. (literal translation, Holy ones)

To me, instead of putting things forward to discredit Paul, perhaps you should consider putting things forward that are God's principals of Truth, and edifying the church in that manner. I actually do agree with you on some things, but I believe that you misunderstand Paul a great deal...maybe it is a response to some Christians distorting the message of grace to the point that they neglect the call to obedience. I do not believe that Paul did that, honestly, but that his words have been twisted by those who believe you can do anything you like in a willful manner, and still wear the name believer. However, that does not justify anyone in leaving out God's wonderful grace, either.

Back to the topic...

Let's consider Galatians as a whole...Scripture actually.

What was Paul saying to the Galatians? What were they doing that caused Paul to even write in the first place?

The Jerusalem Council in Acts came to the decision that the circumcision of new Gentile converts was not needed, and that the dietary laws (most) were not needed either.

Let's back up a second. Peter had a vision in Acts 10

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

The Gentiles were being given the gift of salvation, and it was not by their works, but by their faith. James, after hearing Peter's testimony of how the Gentiles were visited of God, said this...

Acts 15:13
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
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:
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.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Then after this they wrote the churches informing them of the Jerusalem Decree.

We know that Paul's letter was after this event, because he refers to it, and he refers to the fact that some false teachers...who were against the Gentiles being part of the church came claiming to be from James, and Peter refused to eat with Gentiles to please them...these false ones. Paul called him on it, rightly. Peter was the one who had the vision! He, and James, both were there at the Jerusalem Council!

The Galatians were listening to these Judaizer false teachers, who were undermining God's grace, and teaching all law...AND, ignoring the decree of the Jerusalem Council. They wanted all Gentiles to become Jewish first, submit to the Mosaic Law, and only then would they consider them believers, but the Spirit of God was already with the Gentiles. It was up to God, not men, who the Gospel reached. Paul was countering this with this epistle, and reminding them of Grace, and not to continue on in their flesh as the false ones were teaching, but in the Spirit. It's all right there. If they want only the law, then Paul warned them that they will also have the curse of the law, because they could never follow it completely...even if only one law is broken, all were.

George, I am going here because you made the accusation, and Tan as well, that Paul was trying to discredit the law because he was claiming it was from angels, rather than God...Paul was doing neither here. So the motive, that you made so key to your accusation, isn't evident in Paul's writings in the least.

Again, it is not my desire to prove you wrong about anything, nor Tan, but to defend the Gospel as I have been instructed to, and to not leave those things that I know are true...including obedience to Christ, but not excluding God's amazing grace...unspoken. Peace.

 

[Georges]

George,

I do not want to prove you wrong about anything, and please do not think that is my motive. I want to speak the Truth. I am not Paul's disciple, nor do I desire to be your's, or anyone else's, other than God's. I want to take Scripture as a whole, and count on the Holy Spirit to teach me.

My comment wasn't directed at you as much as the other's who would willingly jump off a cliff rather than agree to a point I would make...

I gave you other verses, and I am unwilling to say what the true role of the angels were, because the Bible doesn't clarify.

Of course angels were present....as praise givers. But, God is the one who spoke.....as the verse dictates. Paul would have you think that the angels spoke...

Who gives a rat's butt if the angels ordained it.....

God spoke it and the Angel's ordained it? Did God need the Angels to ratify it, or give their approval? I suggest not.

It is a given that God wrote those tablets...did the angels carry them? Did the angels merely stand as witnesses to all of this? Did they witness the ordination of God's Word being given to a mediator? It doesn't say their specific role. Moses' blessing in Deuteronomy also mentions the production of that day by God, and those with Him. (literal translation, Holy ones)

To me, instead of putting things forward to discredit Paul, perhaps you should consider putting things forward that are God's principals of Truth, and edifying the church in that manner.

And my point is...this is just another point that convicts Paul......how many points of conviction must Paul amass before people (like the Ephesians did) actually test Paul and find him guilty of false teaching?

I actually do agree with you on some things, but I believe that you misunderstand Paul a great deal...maybe it is a response to some Christians distorting the message of grace to the point that they neglect the call to obedience. I do not believe that Paul did that, honestly, but that his words have been twisted by those who believe you can do anything you like in a willful manner, and still wear the name believer. However, that does not justify anyone in leaving out God's wonderful grace, either.

Believe it or not....you don't need Paul epistles to teach God's grace....the OT is full of God's grace.... God's grace is given to those who obey his commandments....

Back to the topic...

Let's consider Galatians as a whole...Scripture actually.


Can't....this book has done the most damage to Christianity.....as it should have become.

What was Paul saying to the Galatians? What were they doing that caused Paul to even write in the first place?

The Jerusalem Council in Acts came to the decision that the circumcision of new Gentile converts was not needed, and that the dietary laws (most) were not needed either.

For Gentiles that is correct....but, the decision by James to announce that was with the intention of the Gentiles eventually becoming full proselytes. The four Laws he gave (Torah lite) were given to introduce the God fearer to the Torah...a little at a time.

Let's back up a second. Peter had a vision in Acts 10

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

The Gentiles were being given the gift of salvation, and it was not by their works, but by their faith. James, after hearing Peter's testimony of how the Gentiles were visited of God, said this...

That's not completely true....Peter's vision is to correct Rabbinical law (man made) concerning socializing with Gentiles. Cornelius was a God-Fearer...that mean's he attended synagogue and kept Torah. Cornelius however was not "yet" at full proselyte. Cornelius, being Torah observant God Fearer, would have prepared a "Kosher" meal for Peter. It is the Gentile/Jew social setting that was called into question. Fast forward to Antioch...Peter was reminded about Kosher by the Jerusalem emmisaries. In the case of Antioch "kosher" food was the problem, not eating with Gentiles.

Acts 15:13
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
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:
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.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.[/b]

The intent on the milk of the 4 laws to grow to the meat of the Torah...

Then after this they wrote the churches informing them of the Jerusalem Decree.

We know that Paul's letter was after this event, because he refers to it, and he refers to the fact that some false teachers...who were against the Gentiles being part of the church came claiming to be from James, and Peter refused to eat with Gentiles to please them...these false ones.

Not so.....Paul wrongly taught that eating non Kosher (even food sacrificed to idols) was ok....The Gentiles of Antioch were not eating Kosher (as Cornelius was). James (the "Leader" of the Church) sent men to find out just what Paul was teaching. They went to Antioch to check on Paul and found Peter eating non Kosher with the Gentiles...They reminded Peter of his place...even Barnabas realized his error and left Paul.

Paul called him on it, rightly. Peter was the one who had the vision! He, and James, both were there at the Jerusalem Council!

Paul taught wrongly...Peter succombed until he was reminded of his place.

The Galatians were listening to these Judaizer false teachers, who were undermining God's grace, and teaching all law...AND, ignoring the decree of the Jerusalem Council.

Got news for you....the Laws given by James "are" the Torah (albiet Torah lite).....Paul agreed to it......Paul taught against the food laws....after he agreed to give them to the Gentiles....

They wanted all Gentiles to become Jewish first, submit to the Mosaic Law, and only then would they consider them believers, but the Spirit of God was already with the Gentiles.

Not so....Yes they did want them to proselyte fully and submit to the Torah Law "they (James et all) were following.

It was up to God, not men, who the Gospel reached.

Always is......

Paul was countering this with this epistle, and reminding them of Grace, and not to continue on in their flesh as the false ones were teaching, but in the Spirit. It's all right there.

Yep, it's all right there.....if you can see it....

If they want only the law, then Paul warned them that they will also have the curse of the law, because they could never follow it completely...even if only one law is broken, all were.

That's just it....there is no curse of the Law....Eze 18 is very clear about that.

George, I am going here because you made the accusation, and Tan as well, that Paul was trying to discredit the law because he was claiming it was from angels, rather than God...Paul was doing neither here.

Ah.....yes he is......

So the motive, that you made so key to your accusation, isn't evident in Paul's writings in the least.

Ah...yes it is......

Again, it is not my desire to prove you wrong about anything, nor Tan, but to defend the Gospel as I have been instructed to, and to not leave those things that I know are true...including obedience to Christ, but not excluding God's amazing grace...unspoken. Peace.

Don't worry about proving me wrong....you haven't....yet....

me in red....

 

[Atonement]

So George, do you agree with any of the writings of Paul at all? 3/4 of the NT was written by him. And it must be noted that if you have a problem with Paul's wrightings then you have a problem with God. It's God's Word not Paul's, if you believe it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Like many here do!!!

 

[TanNinety]

but I believe that you misunderstand Paul a great deal...maybe it is a response to some Christians distorting the message of grace to the point that they neglect the call to obedience. I do not believe that Paul did that, honestly, but that his words have been twisted by those who believe you can do anything you like in a willful manner, and still wear the name believer.

Dear lovely, it really does not take no distortion on the readers part at all or twisting of Paul’s scripture to do what you have mentioned above. Paul’s scripture already comes pre-twisted for ease of use for the ones who want to live their life like the way they want.

Not one of the “I live like I want†believers quoted Paul’s scripture out of context that I have come across.

They wanted all Gentiles to become Jewish first, submit to the Mosaic Law, and only then would they consider them believers, but the Spirit of God was already with the Gentiles. It was up to God, not men, who the Gospel reached. Paul was countering this with this epistle, and reminding them of Grace, and not to continue on in their flesh as the false ones were teaching, but in the Spirit.

True to an extent. To preach faith and grace one does not in no manner have to downplay the law of God. You have read the 4 books about Jesus’ ministry. There was a beautiful balance in the way He sifted out the garbage of man made laws around God’s law. If “grace†was the gist that God wanted to reveal to us then Jesus failed in delivering that message when He was on earth. He was preaching repentance and obedience to the law instead.

If they want only the law, then Paul warned them that they will also have the curse of the law, because they could never follow it completely...even if only one law is broken, all were.

It is a scary thought that one can call God’s law to be carrying a curse. But somehow Paul gets away with it. To stereotype God’s law with that of the man made religious leaders law is definitely a no no.

Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them. 18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved. 19 So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
20 "But I warn you-unless you obey God better than the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees do, you can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven at all!

I know you will have your hands full with Georges response. So to make it easy just mull over the question that I am going to ask below and see if you can find a reconcilement.

1. According to Jesus everything will remain under the law until heaven and earth pass away. No doubt about it.
2. According to Paul being under the law is being under a curse. No doubt about it.
From 1 and 2, are we under a curse until heaven and earth pass away?

I pray that our heavenly Father guides us both in His understanding.

 

[lovely]

George, and Tan,

Here's the thing, I agree with you in a sense about James' "Torah Lite". As Christ taught, and as we can see in Scripture, Christ desire's obedience. I have told you before that I think He has called us to a higher standard, and I believe that Paul teaches that too. Is obedience, and denial of self, something that can happen quickly for the untrained, or does it come through sanctification of the Spirit through grace? Is it only done in the right motive once we have the Spirit, and is it self-righteousness apart from God? It must be, because Jesus taught us what our motive should be, and the source of it (God). He rebuked those against Him because they were teaching the law to the letter for others, while not following it themselves, and not believing the One who gave it to Moses in the first place. It was not tempered with the Spirit, and mercy, of God.

So, what is with the curse? Well, did you know that Paul was quoting the Scriptures? Let me get my Bible. Deuteronomy 27:26 "26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. " Leviticus 18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD." We can't keep all the law. I want to, but even if I missed the mark once, I am cursed with the consequences...Jesus bore those for me. Paul was not making this up either...it's the Gospel.

Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law, and in His teaching held us to a higher standard because the Spirit would write the law on our hearts, and circumcise us in our hearts. We obey more than the Torah, at least as it applies to us, because we are walking behind the One who obeyed in Spirit, and in Truth, all the law as it applied to Him, and even a greater law that is based on a willing submission in love...even unto death while I was yet His enemy. He is also the One who fulfilled it.

Paul was putting the law into perspective for the Galatians, who were being legalistic in that they were putting the law above God's work of grace in the hearts of the Gentiles, and above the love commandments on which they all hang, even after that had teaching otherwise, and the Spirit themselves.

What was his rebuke in chapter 3? Galatians 3:1-5

1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Remember what Jesus told Nicodemus, who followed the law, and taught it? You must be born again. Paul is telling these people that they are wrong for thinking that their perfection lies in their obedience to the law, it lies in Christ, and they should continue on in obedience through the Spirit, not in carnality. If they could have accomplished perfection on their own, then they could obey the whole law perfectly, and there would be no need for Christ to redeem them in the first place. The law was not enough, because men could not keep it due to their sinfulness...it is in harmony with the revealing of sin, and the need for a Saviour, and the promises of God that were established with Abraham. He was countering a false teaching of law only.

Anyway, I have said enough on this topic, and have given you context, and Scripture.

 

[TanNinety]

How long does the law stand according to Paul and according to Jesus?
Paul said:

Galatians 3:19 Well then, why was the law given? It was given to show people how guilty they are. But this system of law was to last only until the coming of the child to whom God's promise was made.

Jesus said:

Matthew 5:18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.

If one cannot see a contradiction in the above ..

Also for those who can try to figure the below out:
1. According to Jesus everything will remain under the law until heaven and earth pass away. No doubt about it.
2. According to Paul being under the law is being under a curse. No doubt about it.
From 1 and 2, are we under a curse until heaven and earth pass away?

 

[Georges]

So George, do you agree with any of the writings of Paul at all?


If what he writes agrees with the OT, Jesus, James, Peter, John and Jude...no problems...If he writes anything that supercedes the Torah, or what Jesus taught...big problem. I only have problems with what he writes in conflict with them....especially where Torah is concerned. Things like "love your neighbor" etc, you can't argue that this is good....and it jives with Torah. But items like "meat sacrificed to idols is ok to eat"...that doesn't jive with the Torah or Jesus.

3/4 of the NT was written by him.

Yeh...I know....you'd have a different Christianity today if it weren't for his writtings.

And it must be noted that if you have a problem with Paul's wrightings then you have a problem with God.

I have no problem with God....God has nothing to do with Paul's writing so I have no problem with him. If Paul's writings were inspired by God, he would have written like John, James, Peter, or Jude.

It's God's Word not Paul's, if you believe it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Like many here do!!!

Sure...I did at one time as well. Then I actually studied it from a serious perspective. I don't think Paul's epistles are inspired by God's Holy Spirit. It can't be with all of the Torah anomian passages he's presented.

Tell me Atonement...justify this for me.....

1. God condemns the Israelites for eating meat sacrificed to idols.
2. Paul says it's ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols because idols are nothing.
3. Jesus condemns those at Pergamos and Thyratira in Rev 2 (Post Paul) who eat meat sacrificed to idols.....

Did God go back on his commandment? Was he mistaken? Or, didn't Jesus get the memo?

Good luck with that one.....

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Hey Mods?
How much longer do Bible believing Christians have to endure the anti-Paul posts?

 

[D46]

Tell me Atonement...justify this for me.....

1. God condemns the Israelites for eating meat sacrificed to idols.
2. Paul says it's ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols because idols are nothing.
3. Jesus condemns those at Pergamos and Thyratira in Rev 2 (Post Paul) who eat meat sacrificed to idols.....

Did God go back on his commandment? Was he mistaken? Or, didn't Jesus get the memo?

My, my...aren't we witty :roll: Is that suppose to throw someone off course and cause them to lapse into a real nail bitting composure? The word of God should be studied for the edification and knowledge one seeks and for the general body of Christ. You, on the other hand, use it to spark argument as to the validity of God's word and his disciples. Did God not saythrough the Apostle Paul that..." All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Timothy 3:16. So, either you or the bible is a liar. Guess which I choose?

First of all, the bible doesn't declare in Revelation 2:14 or 2:20 anything about "meat" as you indicate. It says "things sacrificed to idols". Nevertheless, for the sake of comparison, I don't think a Big Mac is bad in and of itself but, if you brought it home and knelt down before some idol made from hands and used it in that fashion I'm sure God would not be pleased with you. Any sacrifice to an idol is an abomination to God be it meat, cakes or drink offerings as Jeremaiah described in Chapter 7 verse 18 and Chapter 44 verse 17 but, because, as Paul described in I Corinthians 8:4, an idol is "nothing" in that it is of no worth or value, has no power or virtue. It was mainly the depravity of the idolators mind that made the "meat" bad.

The question was, whether it was right for Christians to eat the meat of animals that had been slain in sacrifice to idols.

Paul seems fully to admit that they had all the knowledge which they claimed, 1 Corinthians 8:7. But his object was to show that even admitting that, it would not follow that it would be right to partake of that meat. It is well to bear in mind, that the object of their statement in regard to knowledge was to show that there could be no impropriety in partaking of the food. This argument the apostle answers in 1 Corinthians 8:7...

1 Corinthians 8:7 (KJV) Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

Paul never contradicts the Lord in Revelation nor anywhere else. If you hold to that Big Mac as being something offered to an idol in honor, then you defile you mind and spirit.

 

[Atonement]

Hey Mods?
How much longer do Bible believing Christians have to endure the anti-Paul posts?

Gabby I feel the same way..

Georges, you have come to a Christian forum preaching your belief(s) about Paul and enough is enough already. It is noted that you do not agree with Paul, but to many here (myself included) we see that you do not agree with the Bible. I ask that you read the TOS before you respond. If you respond with false teachings about Paul again. I will find it as an act against the Word of God in which I (we) trust and an act against this site, and you will be warned. Remember this is a Christian site your posting at and should be trusted as such. I think Paul's wrightings are great and have spiritual meanings to the Church. Please don't challange me on this.


-Mod

 

[TanNinety]

1 Corinthians 8:7 However, not all Christians realize this. Some are accustomed to thinking of idols as being real, so when they eat food that has been offered to idols, they think of it as the worship of real gods, and their weak consciences are violated. 8 It's true that we can't win God's approval by what we eat.

Sure,editis one of the some that are accustomed to thinking that idols are real for edit feels as if they are an abomination to edit. I hope edit got to read 1 corinthians and correct edit imaginary phobias of idols being real.

If your conscience is weak, you are violated. So as long as a person doesnt think about idol worship as he eats food offered to idols he is ok. Should that be the case with a homosexual who doesnt think about homosexuality while committing the act and he should be ok, since his conscience has NOT violated him?

We can't win God's approval by the things we eat but that doesn't stop us from winning His DISAPPROVAL for the things we eat.

edit

Why have apologetics and theology if the challenging ideas cannot be dealt with, are there no answers? If I am mistaken take my post apart to pieces, show the errors, without defying sheer logic and common sense.

All Edits made by Atonement 10/3/06 @ 9:50am PT