Ordained by Angels?

[Atonement]

Why have apologetics and theology if the challenging ideas cannot be dealt with, are there no answers?

We can challenge each other in debate and refute one another as long as it's according to the Bible and follows the TOS on this site. If someone can not follow that which I just stated, they should think about posting else where..

God is one of the some that are accustomed to thinking that idols are real for He feels as if they are an abomination to Him. I hope God got to read 1 corinthians and correct His imaginary phobias of idols being real.

Enough already... TanNinety check your PM

 

[Georges]

My, my...aren't we witty :roll:

Thanks for recognition... :-D

Is that suppose to throw someone off course and cause them to lapse into a real nail bitting composure?

No...it's supposed to prove a point....

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?\


Don't really care which one you choose....Which Scripture was in exsistence when the 2 Tim verse came out...? Beuller? Beuller? of course...it was the Tanach....not Paul's work....


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".

Surely you must be joking....? LOL.....

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.


Surely you must be joking.....not worth debating about....Lol

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

That is correct.....

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.

Come on D....Paul infers it 3 different times in his epistles....Paul is suggesting that it is ok to eat food sacrifice to idols, because idols don't mean anything....can't get around it......


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.

Paul plainly does.....and you are correct..it does defile your mind and spirit....whether you believe in the idol or not....If someone else sacrifices to an idol and you eat the food (even though you don't believe in the idol), that is still taboo...that is what Jesus spoke about in Revelation and that is because Paul condoned it....or thought it of no consequence.

Sorry D....no soup for you..... :-D

 

[Georges]

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

Until Bible believing Christians get the picture.... :-D


Come on Gabby....answer the question I put to Atonement....

D46 made rather a poor attempt at it....why don't you give it a try....

 

[Georges]

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

I won't.....but answer the question I posted you....

 

[D46]

Sorry D....no soup for you.....

Well, I guess I'll have to settle for that Big Mac then. No answer will suit your taste buds, I fear. Perhaps I should answer a fool according to his folly but, I'll pass it up...this time.

 

[Lewis]

Dude I want you to lay off the anti Paul comments. Because you are going against what we believe. And you are upsetting people.

 

[Atonement]

Georges or Dude whatever you wanna be called. I layed out my plan to you and you insist to have us answer this question. I told you not to challange me on this..

Check your PM.
I'm a man of my word
-Mod

 

[cyberjosh]

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?

Wait a minute, you're limiting the scope to just the Ten Commandments. Paul's statement included the entire law. You cannot disqualify the agent of Angels for a singular instance among many points of the law.

 

[cyberjosh]

The Message Bible, which isn't even really a Bible but a major paraphrase, has an interesting summary of what they think Paul meant:

"What is the point, then, of the law, the attached addendum? It was a thoughtful addition to the original covenant promises made to Abraham. The purpose of the law was to keep a sinful people in the way of salvation until Christ (the descendant) came, inheriting the promises and distributing them to us. Obviously this law was not a firsthand encounter with God. It was arranged by angelic messengers through a middleman, Moses. But if there is a middleman as there was at Sinai, then the people are not dealing directly with God, are they? But the original promise is the direct blessing of God, received by faith. " (Galatians 3:18-20)


Does this explain the context of why Paul even mentioned Angels?

 

[Georges]

Wait a minute, you're limiting the scope to just the Ten Commandments. Paul's statement included the entire law. You cannot disqualify the agent of Angels for a singular instance among many points of the law.

Cyber, consider this....

Exd 24:12 ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.

Moses was on the mount for 40 days.....

Exd 34:27 ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
Exd 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

If you want to believe angel's gave the Law to Moses.....go ahead, it's a free country....I mean forum...oops...no it isn't..... sorry couldn't resist..

 

[destiny]

This section is titled:

Apologetics and Theology
Discuss topics related to defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines and theology.


Currently it seems 'defending' and 'proving' needs to be changed to something that wouldn't invite diverse doctrines.
That way nobody is mislead and ends up breaking a rule. :-?

 

[Lewis]

This section is titled:

Apologetics and Theology
Discuss topics related to defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines and theology.


Currently it seems 'defending' and 'proving' needs to be changed to something that wouldn't invite diverse doctrines.
That way nobody is mislead and ends up breaking a rule. :-?

Thank you.

 

[cyberjosh]

Georges, what did you think of the Message Bible's interpretation of the passage's context?

 

[Georges]

The Message Bible, which isn't even really a Bible but a major paraphrase, has an interesting summary of what they think Paul meant:

"What is the point, then, of the law, the attached addendum? It was a thoughtful addition to the original covenant promises made to Abraham.

Yes and no.....it is a refinement of the Noahide law, which preceded Abe...and actually according to Jewish tradition, the Torah law preceded the creation of the world. Check out http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com's article on Torah for it's history..


The purpose of the law was to keep a sinful people in the way of salvation until Christ (the descendant) came, inheriting the promises and distributing them to us.

Yes and no.....it is a guideline for a chosen people on how to live righteously....not designed to point out sin.

Obviously this law was not a firsthand encounter with God.

The bible says otherwise...I proivide the verses where God spoke to Mo first hand.

It was arranged by angelic messengers through a middleman, Moses.

Again, that is not what the OT states....It's not found in any of the Jewish tradition books that I've read.

But if there is a middleman as there was at Sinai, then the people are not dealing directly with God, are they?

But the OT verse says otherwise....

But the original promise is the direct blessing of God, received by faith.

But if Torah predates Mo and Abe, then God's blessing by faith due to Torah observence is the promise delievered.
" (Galatians 3:18-20)


Does this explain the context of why Paul even mentioned Angels?

Here is the only possible intent on Paul's verse that can make him less than blasphemous...and that being maybe Pau's intent to suggest that Moses as an angel in the classical sense of being a messenger.....In that case Moses (acting as an angel (messenger) of God) is the middle man. That is the only way Paul can be interpreted without being proven false.