|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/10/2008 4:51:28 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2241
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
And how was that a hypothetical situation?
The scenario you drew is definitely possible (a parent not circumcising their child), but you gave no names to show you were talking about a specific case. That makes it hypothetical.
But then again God is no respecter of persons, so the hype could have been whosoever; there wasn’t any need to name.... for all things come from the Father.
quote:
That makes it hypothetical.
But that was not the Spiritual side of what was offered,
The circumcision represented "Gods covenant" which He said "he has broken MY covenant ...which that covenant was later to come “in the name” of Jesus Christ, in whom Abraham saw a far off in part ; ....which is prophetic of the 8th day; which is at the end of the book of Revelation; which the Jew is to keep until the fullness of the Gentiles. .........God calls Israel (the male child) his first born; not the Church, the Church is likened be a Root of Jesse; were inheritance wise the last born was first = David, which goes into more detail in Romans 15
....therefore a parent (a Father) not circumcising their Male child (Israel) would be like God breaking His own covenant… so in reiteration a parent (a Father) not circumcising their Male child would have been like God not giving them the commandants at Mt Sinai, and on the Spiritual side that has nothing to do with a literal circumcision.
Loyal Gypsy
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/10/2008 5:12:58 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 750
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Lapidoth I notice in one of those quotes you put up had Tim LaHaye name in there. The man who believes that when the Lord returns it will be a silent thing. Where scripture says with a loud voice and trumpet call of the archangel. 1Thessalonians 4:16, which proves my point Tim hasn't read the library very good and throws stuff which isn't related together. So again where in the world is the scripture that states that the temple in which the prophet Ezekiel spoke of?
On your second quote you gave a statement of that Moses was law and Joshua lead them to heaven. If heaven is like the promised land, the first thing is you going to have to do is have a war like Jericho. Again a wrong metophor to what happen in the Bible. When Moses died he entered into rest or sabbath because he didn't have to deal with inmature adults. Who did nothing but complain and tested his humbleness.
Yes they could have lived in peace in the land that flowed with milk and honey. Yet they could not give up following their wants and desires. Treating people like garbage, worshipping other gods just being typical humans.
[edited by moderator]
< Message edited by Ps103 -- 6/13/2008 11:23:55 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/10/2008 6:17:57 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2241
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
Lapidoth I notice in one of those quotes you put up had Tim LaHaye name in there. The man who believes that when the Lord returns it will be a silent thing.
So again where in the world is the scripture that states that the temple in which the prophet Ezekiel spoke of?
On your second quote you gave a statement of that Moses was law and Joshua lead them to heaven.
Greetings,
They are called types and shadows.
quote:
Where scripture says with a loud voice and trumpet call of the archangel. 1Thessalonians 4:16, which proves my point Tim hasn't read the library very good and throws stuff which isn't related together.
That is for those who hear His voice ...which is not a type and a shadow
When the trumpet blows what makes you think that those who never listened before will all of a sudden hear that???
The scriptures say that those will see those things which are coming on the earth, first of all because it’s too late..... And second; the scriptures says that their hearts failed them for fear “and” looking after the things of the earth, which means they did not store up treasure in Heaven.....therefore they will see those things coming on the earth…. and Heaven will be silent.
It’s a simple rendition of an eye for an eye according to the law and the prophets; which is Moses (Law) and Elijah (Prophets)…. I believe who will have the staring roles in the last events.
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/10/2008 7:40:40 PM
|
|
|
bjay0801
Posts: 113
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
But that's the whole point. God's instructions have changed. I've proven it to you all by the example of animal sacrifice for sin, circumcision, etc... The idea is to now move on from there and see how it applies or doesn't apply to the things you defend, but nobody seems to want to. I'm not baiting anybody. I've made it clear that I want to break the ground out from under the basic beliefs you all hold on to in order to show you how little of a foundation you have for defending the literal observances that you do. I'm showing you this is nothing more than personal conviction and denominational preference. Which you are most certainly entitled to have. But to make it the foundation of a relationship with Christ and separate yourselves into your various factions is where you are going dead wrong.
If you taught and emphasized what really counts you wouldn't have people getting offended by what you think and separating themselves from you into their own little camps. And you'd be building the foundation for what really unifies the Church--the calling we all share alike without exception or difference--godly character as seen in the fruit of the Spirit, not what day of the week we should be going to church on (or whether baptism is immersion or sprinkling, or...you get my point).
You missed what I said in my previous point. I'm not totaly disagreeing with you , My Brother; In Acts 2 those devout men had the law and were practicing the law to the fullest extent, but what they did not have was the testimony of Jesus Christ as it is said in Revelation 12:17 that the dragon made war with the remnant of the woman's seed who kept the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. We need the blood for our salvation and we need the word for how to live. You cannot have one with out the other. And please show me where God said I have changed my mind. Because I read in Malachi where He says I am the Lord and I change NOT.... For God to change would mean that He made a mistake and he hasn't. If our theology does not fit scripture then we are the one's at fault not God. The only reason noone else is chiming in anymore concerning circumcision is because we already have. I understand we probably wont see eye to eye on it and that's ok. It is a debate after all and noone realy wins in a debate.  And I have shown you scripture on what Paul said he did and believed. It may not be popular, but it is true. heck the message of the prophets was not the popular thing either but it was the truth. (I'm not comparing myself or anyone else to the prophets btw). Oh, and I have posted what the term "under the law" means. You may have missed it. But if you like I'll post it again. I may not always have the time to post on the forums but I do try to answer questions, challenges, ect when I can. And none of us should attack any one. Just because we disagree on some theological things does not give us the right to judge or attack anyone. Lets continue to play nice. *stomps foot and pouts* 
_____________________________
O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/11/2008 9:06:54 AM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 842
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bjay0801
We need the blood for our salvation and we need the word for how to live. You cannot have one with out the other.
We have that Word for daily living detailed for us post resurrection in the NT. Daily living now centers around qualities of character, and not so much lists of do's and don'ts. OT emphasis was on 'do'--'do not do this, do not do that'. NT emphasis is on 'be'--'be this, be that'.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bjay0801
And please show me where God said I have changed my mind. Because I read in Malachi where He says I am the Lord and I change NOT.... For God to change would mean that He made a mistake and he hasn't. If our theology does not fit scripture then we are the one's at fault not God.
1 Samuel 2:30-31...
"... 'I promised that your house and your father's house would minister before me forever.' But now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained. The time is coming when I will cut short your strength and the strength of your father's house, so that there will not be an old man in your family line..."
You know the story of Eli and the end of the Levitical priesthood. How can this not be understood as nothing short of a change of mind? We both know nothing surprises God. He knew when he made the covenant with the house of Levi that He would have to revoke it because of their disobedience.
I've said it before, I'll say it again...it's God's purpose and oath that never changes. He's had to change the way he fulfills that purpose, and He never violates His own holy character (by lying, for instance) to fulfill that purpose.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bjay0801
The only reason noone else is chiming in anymore concerning circumcision is because we already have.
This is simply not true. I'm posting the scriptures again about circumcision. Will you answer my direct questions about them with a direct answer?
What 'written code' is Paul tallking about here?
"A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God." (Romans 2:28-29)
quote:
ORIGINAL: bjay0801
I understand we probably wont see eye to eye on it and that's ok. It is a debate after all and noone realy wins in a debate.
I've been wanting to say this for some time now. I liken it to presenting evidence in a court of law. But it seems the defense doesn't want to carry through.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bjay0801
Oh, and I have posted what the term "under the law" means. You may have missed it. But if you like I'll post it again. I may not always have the time to post on the forums but I do try to answer questions, challenges, ect when I can.
I know your initial argument. But you did not address my argument that the laws of uncleanness do not conform to your narrow defintion of what it means to be under the law. You say removal of the sin nature removes us from being under the penalty of the law. Very true. But bodily discharges are not sin. So according to your narrow definition of what it means to be under the law, you and I are still unclean and unable to approach God during those times. We are in effect still 'under' the laws of uncleanness, unless we really have been released from those laws. So which is it? Are we still 'under' those laws, or have we been released from them even though they are not a matter of sin? Let's talk about the implications of both answers after you tell me which is true.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/11/2008 9:17:53 AM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 842
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
And how was that a hypothetical situation?
The scenario you drew is definitely possible (a parent not circumcising their child), but you gave no names to show you were talking about a specific case. That makes it hypothetical.
But then again God is no respecter of persons, so the hype could have been whosoever; there wasn’t any need to name.... for all things come from the Father.
quote:
That makes it hypothetical.
But that was not the Spiritual side of what was offered,
The circumcision represented "Gods covenant" which He said "he has broken MY covenant ...which that covenant was later to come “in the name” of Jesus Christ, in whom Abraham saw a far off in part ; ....which is prophetic of the 8th day; which is at the end of the book of Revelation; which the Jew is to keep until the fullness of the Gentiles. .........God calls Israel (the male child) his first born; not the Church, the Church is likened be a Root of Jesse; were inheritance wise the last born was first = David, which goes into more detail in Romans 15
....therefore a parent (a Father) not circumcising their Male child (Israel) would be like God breaking His own covenant… so in reiteration a parent (a Father) not circumcising their Male child would have been like God not giving them the commandants at Mt Sinai, and on the Spiritual side that has nothing to do with a literal circumcision.
Loyal Gypsy
Kind of hard to follow. How does all you just said explain that circumcision in the following passage is not the Mosaic circumcision of the law as you and others contend?
" A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God." {Romans 2:28-29)
Passages like these make it hard to accept that Paul was talking about Rabbinical circumcision in his teaching that circumcision is a big zero and is not necessary anymore.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/11/2008 9:35:40 AM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 842
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
Mcleod,
Ezekiel's vision for the Temple the Israelites were to build for themselves after their exile is just another heap on the trash pile of their 'what it's'. They obviously did not follow the regulations and commands Ezekiel gave them to usher in the Prince that would dwell with them and minister on their behalf forever.
The fact that the sacrifices made in this Temple and during that time are for actual atonement and acceptance of the Israelites (not fellowship or peace, or freewill offerings), the time table of this Temple is (or would have been) pre-resurrection. And since the Israelites were not obedient to build it, it never happened.
But, it is true, the Israelites have been busying themselves preparing to rebuild a Temple. Will they build it in obedience to Ezekiel's vision the way they were supposed to the first time? I really don't know. And even if they did, it will only be a place for atoning for sin through animal sacrifice until they see Messiah with their own eyes. Even as limited as the animal sacrifices for sin were, they were still sacrifices for the removal of sin guilt. Sin guilt that is now totally removed in Christ. But they don't know this yet.
People see their desire to rebuild the Temple as confirmation of God's desire to continue the system of sacrifice (the first covenant)--the sacrificial system Hebrews says has been made obsolete by the work of Christ. I see it as them coming to the place where they left off and being prepared to enter into the New Covenant they should have entered into 2000 years ago.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/11/2008 10:09:22 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 750
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
The thing I see with the temple ideal is that. Paul wrote and said that we were the temple of God in which he resides in a believer. Also God even told David that he didn't occupies inside of buildings. So I don't think that a temple needs to be built in Jerusalem in order for the second return of the Messiah.
If you notice John when writing about the vision he had on the island was basical all of it he say took place in the view from heaven. Not from earth to heaven as some in their minds have put it.
By the way LoyalGypsy did you not just read more into that scripture then what it said. WITH A LOUD NOISE HE SHALL RETURN.Not with a quiet whisper does it say. This for the whole world to hear it. For he is coming to establish his kingdom. Sorry but as always someone reads more than is nesscary into it. So that they can make great movie.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/11/2008 11:50:51 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 3107
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
good points, Spongie! There are millions reasons why ..but even after we all turn into dust our great-grandchildren will be still leisurely talking on online chats ab. possible temple rebuilding….
quote:
But, it is true; the Israelites have been busying themselves preparing to rebuild a Temple. In a similar fashion my aunt Efrat have been busy trying to lose 30 pounds. It will never happen.
quote:
..animal sacrifies
yeap,that also is highly unlikely. Israelis aren’t stuck in the year 8 AD. Granted it’s trying to pass for liberal democracy it is not; but animal sacrifices are just as impossible as stores in US coming back with “No Negros Allowed” signs and smoking cigarettes being back in the offices of corporate America and on airplanes. Animal cruelty org-s  will put the poor wannabe Levite on the skewer and roast him up if he even tries to! Even in presumably restored temple
Lapie, I appreciate the article. It is tempting, and i am a weak woman :)))
probably would not be wise to continue here, for the debate will – inevitably! - involve politics and Future and prophesy threads, debates on why some active dispen(sen)sationalists org-s are really a terrible menace for Israel. Speaking of which,btw, they cant even agree on where the Temple should be exactly located :))
It would make it hard for me to stay within "Law?" thread…
< Message edited by Odeliya -- 6/11/2008 11:58:07 AM >
_____________________________
Don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you were you should go.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/11/2008 12:17:18 PM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 5740
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
quote:
Lapie, I appreciate the article. It is tempting, and i am a weak woman :)))
probably would not be wise to continue here, for the debate will – inevitably! - involve politics and Future and prophesy threads, debates on why some active dispen(sen)sationalists org-s are really a terrible menace for Israel. Speaking of which,btw, they cant even agree on where the Temple should be exactly located :))
It would make it hard for me to stay within "Law?" thread…
It's true it's just as impossible to stay on task within any given thread. lol.
Which was evidenced by a couple we visited about the "sabbath" i.e., Heb. 4:9.
They read the one verse in their Romanian Bible. We had them read the whole
chapter to be in context. They read it and were still a bit confused. So we had
them read chapter three as well. Then their response was (after reading it) We
will have to read the whole Bible as it's all connected. lol.
They realized there is a "whole picture" to the whole thing.
Just like this thread and others. Especially the others, you discuss one topic,
and to truly discuss it other things come to the surface, and wham, you get
thrown into the "Law Abyss." lol.
So, you are correct, the trail is leading us to End Times.
But all things are connected, "End from Beginning." LOL.
quote:
Animal cruelty org-s will put the poor wannabe Levite on the skewer and roast him up if he even tries to! Even in presumably restored temple
I'm always imaging how these groups are going to react.
Since we are really surrounded by these freakos it's not hard to imagine.
But the rod of iron will straighten them and us out in short course.
We will all bend our knees and make confession whether we believe it or not.
< Message edited by Lapidoth -- 6/11/2008 12:23:39 PM >
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/11/2008 5:57:15 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2943
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
And I in no way shape or form wish to make a judicial judgement on your life either. Trust me on that, please. That's not my point in the least.
Good, then let's presume for the sake of argument that we live in accordance with our beliefs. If you wish to inquire how one would keep a particular commandment, then that would be more in line with proper discussion.
quote:
The point I do want to make is about the laws of uncleanness. Do you follow the clear and undebatable instructions of what to do when made unclean by the various discharges of the body? That is of course up to the point where you have to go see the Priest and make an offering.
These laws are another example of how we can understand how literal laws get fulfilled (not abolished!!), even though the fulfillment gives the appearance of having abolished the law. And that fulfillment releases us from their literal observance and declares us to be in full and complete compliance with them.
And just to save time, I anticipate your answer to the laws of uncleanness to be 'we don't have to do those anymore because the Temple is gone'.
Your anticipation is incorrect, so the remainder of this portion of your response either does not apply or is beyond the scope of this point. Remember we are trying to stay focused.
Even though cleanliness in this context does refer to being prepared for temple worship, I do my best to follow the cleanliness commandments. Remember, the parable of the bridesmaids? Even if there is no temple, it behooves us to do the best we can. Thus we add the temple tithe to the tithe to the poor, not to "the church", since that would violate the command to recognize only the temple in Jerusalem as the appointed place of sacrifice.
quote:
I'm glad my position is peculiar. And I hope it's peculiar because I represent a more rational, level-headed, middle ground in all this. I'm not polarized or defensive about this, just logical, realistic and practical.
I hope so to.
quote:
I love the OT. It's very valuable to illustrate NT truth. And because NT truth can be supported and defended from the illustrations and precedants of the OT, it lends validity and legitimacy to that truth.
I submit that it is that truth. Remember, "The Word(Ha Torah) became flesh and dwelt among us . . ." Just as the written Torah is an incomplete representation of the true Torah, so the Apistolic Writings(new testiment) are an incomplete representation of Ha Torah made flesh. As Yochanan tells us, (Joh 21:25) "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Even then a record of His actions would fall short of His full identity.
quote:
Just last night I explained to our bass player after music practice (because he asked) how Abraham's story . . .
Ya, ya, ya, and some of my best friends are new testiment believers to. Let's stay focused on the point at hand.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
For now, how are we supposed to determine which part of the law is in effect and which is not?
We determine what's literal and what is not by gleaning guidance and discernment from the precedants already laid down for us in the Bible of how 'fulfillment' of the law has released us from literal observance of those laws, yet meets the requirement of those laws as well. Animal sacrifice for sin is the most obvious example to learn from.
One step at a time my young padawan. Patience it is you must first learn, yes. The bold portion of your answer was sufficient for the moment. We will get to your indisputable proofs in due course. Let's not get bogged down with details on randomly selected commandments, because, as I have observed in this tread that just leads to a merry-go-round of argumentation. As Yeshayahu tells us, Isa 28:10"For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line;". And even then we must be careful that we proceed properly, lest we be led astray as we were in verse 13 of that same chapter.
quote:
And we can go back to the scripture where Jesus introduces the concept of 'in Spirit and in Truth' and see what's right there in the passage to help us logically understand what that means.
That would be fine for starters, but if we begin to wander I propose we start at the beginning. Now, where is this passage located.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/11/2008 6:39:23 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2241
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
If you notice John when writing about the vision he had on the island was basically all of it he say took place in the view from heaven. Not from earth to heaven as some in their minds have put it.
….By the way LoyalGypsy did you not just read more into that scripture then what it said. WITH A LOUD NOISE HE SHALL RETURN.Not with a quiet whisper does it say.
This (is) for the whole world to hear it. For he is coming to establish his kingdom.
Sorry but as always someone reads more than is necessary into it.
So that they can make great movie.
Greetings,
quote:
By the way LoyalGypsy did you not just read more into that scripture then what it said.
LOL!
Not exactly, the hearing came from what you just mentioned above; as John writing about the vision from heaven.
….Not from earth to heaven as some in their own minds has put it.
The scriptures say that those will see those things which are coming on the earth, first of all because it’s too late..... And second; the scriptures says that their hearts failed them for fear “and” looking after the things of the earth, which means they did not store up treasure in Heaven.....therefore they will see those things coming on the earth…. and Heaven will be silent.
Post #: 3553
Was based in Lu 21:26 – and Matt 24 …. KJV
Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
Let me further reiterate....
Men's hearts failing them…. “for fear”… the word “for fear” is like a trade off ….meaning, Men's hearts failing them means... no Love…. and the trading off is for fear or a type of terrorism ....(as the days of Noah were)… its like a sick attraction of the worship for fear
The word and is an addition to ...and for looking “after those things”…
When you “look after”; for example; as when we look after our garden; means in the verse above that because they are looking after or tending those things which are coming on the earth:
quote:
WITH A LOUD NOISE HE SHALL RETURN.Not with a quiet whisper does it say.
This (IS) for the whole world to hear it.
For he is coming to establish his kingdom.
I am not sure what that has to do with the above but I see what you are saying and I couldn’t come up with a passage with those keywords
So as we look in a book of history it is written
Jos 10:25 - Show Context
And Joshua said unto them, Fear not, nor be dismayed, be strong and of good courage: for thus shall the LORD do to all your enemies against whom ye fight.
SO to reiterate Lu 21:26 against a history book we see Jesus saying that because they are looking after or tending those things, such as fear…
as we see in Jos 10 is what God will do to all our enemies against whom ye fight
So as the Gospel goes around the world; fear or terrorism will increase
Mark 13:28-37
28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:
That is simple enough concerning seasons
29 So ye “in like manner”,
……….when ye “shall” (shall is prophetic) ...see these things come to pass”, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.
Well if we listen to the news they are coming to pass (in season)…but when we toss out the words in the Books of the Law and the Prophets that were back up by the books of history ...because they do not apply to us…. then we are NOT looking after , or tending the things of Heaven.
quote:
Sorry, but as always someone reads more than is necessary into it.
So that they can make (A) great movie.
…….Where?
…. Am I wearing a breastplate, or something?? 
Example…..
quote:
WITH A LOUD NOISE HE SHALL RETURN.Not with a quiet whisper does it say.
This (IS) for the whole world to hear it.
For he is coming to establish his kingdom.
You seem to confusing the principal, if we read from a book of wisdom, and I will add into it that which pertains to it….reads
2 Chronicles 7 12 And the LORD appeared to Solomon by night, and said unto him, I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to myself for an house of sacrifice.
In the NT “this place”…. is our body…. or the Temple of the HS
Stipulations…
13 If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people;
BUT….
14 If “my people”, which are called by …my name, (Jesus in the NT who was named) shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
15 Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attent unto the prayer that is made in this place.
Much hasn’t changed here IMO…
Now that principal is what happens in the spirit of a man in answer to the utterance of the sinner’s prayer; by the acceptances of Jesus as the Christ which is
15 Now mine (GODS) eyes shall be open, and mine (GODS) “ears” attent unto the prayer that is made…. in this place.
(Which means He will hear you)…..…….then will I hear from heaven
Hey…I hope the whole world will be saved also
….but saying
That WITH A LOUD NOISE HE SHALL RETURN… and this (IS) for the whole world to hear ....is just not Biblically correct!
Now….in like manner it would be Biblically correct if the whole world has done this...
and ........God has attended unto that prayer that was made in that place and then as the Bible says in the information above... the world should hear from heaven, because God has heard from the world
But….....thinking the whole world will hear it in the passage you gave…. is not reading enough into the scriptures...so to speak!.
Loyal Gypsy
< Message edited by LoyalGypsy -- 6/11/2008 6:50:18 PM >
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/12/2008 8:53:09 AM
|
|
|
bjay0801
Posts: 113
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: bjay0801
The only reason noone else is chiming in anymore concerning circumcision is because we already have.
This is simply not true. I'm posting the scriptures again about circumcision. Will you answer my direct questions about them with a direct answer?
What 'written code' is Paul tallking about here?
"A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God." (Romans 2:28-29)
How about reading the preceding scriptures in Romans for your answer?
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
2:14
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
2:15
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another *;)
And how about Galations 2:3
But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Titus who walked with Paul was already saved but felt compelled to be cicumcised. Paul never told him not to do it. He just did an outward sign of something that was already done on the inside; his heart had been circumcised. And what is sin? According to 1John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth * also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
So the question now is who determines what sin is? Ro 7:7
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid *. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
If you know the context of why God put in HIS commandments the instruction concerning bodily discharges which was for the spread of disease, then you have the answer to your own question. Do you have relations with your spouse during her time of the month? And during that time, does she use the paraphanelia that helps keep her blood flow from hitting the sheets of your bed, chair, or anything else she may sit on? Did the people in the camps of Israel have those same things to use? I can only speak for myself but my wife and I do have our seperate places to sit and sleep during that time and we study, fast and pray and when her time is over, then we come together. You say that I'm living "under the law", well if that's the case, whose law is it in the first place? Am I being saved or made righteous by doing these things? Not according to the scriptures because righteousness comes by faith in Yeshua. So I once again must quote Paul in Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid *: yea, we establish the law. (establish to cause or make to stand, to place, put, set
to bid to stand by, [set up]
to make firm, fix establish
Again I'm not saying that you are wrong, the only thing I'm saying is that God is the one who said His commandments are forever. There are reasons why we do or do not do certain things. hebrew words are action words. You actualy do something rather than sit there. Be doers of the word, not just hearers only.
Ec 12:13
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
_____________________________
O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/12/2008 9:32:47 AM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 842
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
...then let's presume for the sake of argument that we live in accordance with our beliefs. If you wish to inquire how one would keep a particular commandment, then that would be more in line with proper discussion.
Leviticus 15:4-12 would make life in one's home pretty miserable if one tried to follow it to the letter. Are these commands to be kept to the letter? Why or why not?
I'm not trying to trick anyone. And as proof I'll just tell you where I'm going. You cannot tell people they must observes Sabbaths and Festivals, etc., and use the reason that Torah is as complete and binding as it was in Moses or Jesus's day, and say laws can only be fulfilled literally, not spiritually, and then turn right around and not have a legitimate reason for not literally keeping other laws that you could most definately keep. I want to make you see that you do in fact believe in the concept of a 'spiritual' fulfillment of a law (as I've defined that in this thread) whether you recognize it as such or not.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
...Even if there is no temple, it behooves us to do the best we can. Thus we add the temple tithe to the tithe to the poor, not to "the church", since that would violate the command to recognize only the temple in Jerusalem as the appointed place of sacrifice.
We can visit tithing, too, in time (I'm curious how you consume your own tithe). And, as we'll see coming up, we are no longer bound to the literal 'one true place of worship' commanded in the law.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
Just last night I explained to our bass player after music practice (because he asked) how Abraham's story . . .
Ya, ya, ya, and some of my best friends are new testiment believers to. Let's stay focused on the point at hand.
It's ridiculous, (if not arrogant) to think that only literal law keepers know about and use the OT. I prove to you how false of an assumption that is to make about my camp and you just blow it off. My study and use of the OT has not brought me to the conclusion that I need to obey it to the letter. That's what your camp should be saying about my camp.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
One step at a time my young padawan.
Uh...I'm older than you think.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
And we can go back to the scripture where Jesus introduces the concept of 'in Spirit and in Truth' and see what's right there in the passage to help us logically understand what that means.
That would be fine for starters, but if we begin to wander I propose we start at the beginning. Now, where is this passage located.
John 4:20-24. And just so no one thinks I'm setting a trap, I'm going to Philippians 3:2-3 next to further demonstrate right from the scriptures how a 'in Spirit and in Truth' observance replaces the literal observance.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/12/2008 9:42:19 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 750
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Loyal Gypsy not to be rude to you. Or you think I'm thinking bad thoughts. As the saying goes you need to come out left field on some of your thoughts.
Such as, quote:
I am not sure what that has to do with the above but I see what you are saying and I couldn’t come up with a passage with those keywords
I quoted from 1 Thes. 4:16 before did you not read that? Then you go off on writing something about Joshua. Which my Lord you are as they say on this form sometimes pulling straws.
I know this is not about the law, but please try to understand what I'm trying to get at. In Revelation the first chapter in the book John writes; To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve God the Father- to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
Look he is coming with the clouds and every eye will see him, Even those who pierced him; and all the people of the earth will mourn because of him.So shall it be! Amen.
This follows the same story that Paul told to the Thessalonians in chapter 4. So like I wrote I don't know where you come up with your ideas but again. Tim Lahye and a few others are talking like it's a pie in the sky illogical thinking to.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/12/2008 2:22:55 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2943
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
And we can go back to the scripture where Jesus introduces the concept of 'in Spirit and in Truth' and see what's right there in the passage to help us logically understand what that means.
John 4:20-24. And just so no one thinks I'm setting a trap, I'm going to Philippians 3:2-3 next to further demonstrate right from the scriptures how a 'in Spirit and in Truth' observance replaces the literal observance.
I hope don't mind my editing to provide the context of your statements. Also, I will go to the point of our discussion first and clear up the side issues afterwards.
The woman in John 4:20-24 refers to the controversy between the Samaritans and the Jews regarding altars set up by Jeroboam in Bethel and Dan to keep them from going to Jerusalem at the appointed times. Jeroboam did this for political purposes. This sin of Jeroboam had been a long standing beef between the Jews and the "ten tribes" ever since. I say this not because I question your knowledge but for context.
I believe, the woman was obsessed with this issue. She is surprised that Yeshua, a jew, would talk to her, a samaritan, given this bad blood. When Yeshua tries to get her to focus on her relationship with Adonai, she does not understand the living water analogy. So, He asks her to get her husband. I believe, there are two reasons for this. One, it is a bit unseemly for a man and a woman to be alone together for an extended period of time and it was apparent that it was going to take some time to explain the analogy properly. Two, the proper order of things, as reaffirmed by Paul, is for a woman to recieve theological instruction for her husband. He then tries again to get her to focus on her relationship with Adonai, but she insists on returning to the contentious issue. So, to get her to focus a third time and knowing the temple in Jerusalem would soon be destroyed, he tells her that the issue is mute for that reason, but also points out the Jewish interpretation of the Scriptures is the preferred one.
So, in my opinion, the point of this passage is that it is more important to worship Adonai in spirit and in truth that to obsess over where to take ones sacrifices. This does not mean that it is not important to sacrifice in the proper place, if that were possible, but that ones personal relationship with Adonai is more important, especially since sacrifices are not possible at this time.
Regarding Philippians 3:2-3, there may be a connection in your mind, but we need to set some ground work to get there. Therefore, I suggest we finish discussing John 4:20-24 first.
quote:
Leviticus 15:4-12 would make life in one's home pretty miserable if one tried to follow it to the letter. Are these commands to be kept to the letter? Why or why not?
I don't see how how washing ones clothing and bedding, and taking a shower on a timely basis makes one's home pretty miserable, in fact I know of people who do not follow Torah who are more maticulus than that. But, as I said before, lets stay focused and finish discussing John 4:20-24 before moving on to specific commandments and then in an orderly fashion to lessen confusion.
quote:
I'm not trying to trick anyone. And as proof I'll just tell you where I'm going.
I'm not concerned about being tricked, my primary concern is getting derailed by side issues that do not advance the discussion.
quote:
You cannot tell people they must observes Sabbaths and Festivals, etc., and use the reason that Torah is as complete and binding as it was in Moses or Jesus's day, and say laws can only be fulfilled literally, not spiritually, and then turn right around and not have a legitimate reason for not literally keeping other laws that you could most definately keep.
I agree and by the same token one can not say that one need not follow the commandments Adonai gave to Moshe(Moses) or that Yeshua(Jesus) followed, and say that the laws should be fullfilled spiritually, and then turn around and not have a legitimate justification for ones actions or ones questioning of the actions of another.
quote:
I want to make you see that you do in fact believe in the concept of a 'spiritual' fulfillment of a law (as I've defined that in this thread) whether you recognize it as such or not.
My only desire is to please Adonai and if you are correct in you assessment B'ruch Ha Shem(blessed be The Name).
quote:
It's ridiculous, (if not arrogant) to think that only literal law keepers know about and use the OT. I prove to you how false of an assumption that is to make about my camp and you just blow it off. My study and use of the OT has not brought me to the conclusion that I need to obey it to the letter. That's what your camp should be saying about my camp.
And it is a bit presumptious to think of me as a camp and not an individual. I took the time and effort to differentiate your beliefs from those of others and am seeking to understand what you as an individual believe regarding Ha Torah(The Word) and what Adonai expects of us. If it makes life easier for you to group people in camps, that is fine, but i do not find that useful in serious discussion.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
One step at a time my young padawan.
Uh...I'm older than you think.
I was not refering to your chronological age, I was refering to the apparent impatience with methodical discussion. Since, you have mixed statements that you consider humorous in with your arguments, I presumed that a little levity on my part was acceptable. Sorry, my mistake.
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 6/12/2008 2:29:50 PM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/12/2008 11:11:52 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 3107
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
And during that time, does she use the paraphanelia that helps keep her blood flow from hitting the sheets of your bed, chair, or anything else she may sit on? Did the people in the camps of Israel have those same things to use? I can only speak for myself but my wife and I do have our seperate places to sit and sleep during that time and we study, fast and pray and when her time is over, then we come together.
Brother, you mean you don’t physically touch Mrs BJ for at least 5 days every month? If Mrs. were to get sick like have a flu or something you wouldn’t touch her, comfort her or help her fix her bed? all those things make you unclean acc. to Leviticus. Dear BJ and Blue, I am confident we all know here that women in ancient israel weren’t sitting on the furniture naked during their period, etc. same with people with discharges. And touch dosnt mean "have sex"
So we are not talking” unclean” meaning about stained furniture, we are talking about the rule of "uncleanness" … That is what makes me sort of chuckle about many messianic rules – they obey the comfortable laws of their choosing that dont interfere with their lifestyle much but still help to create the feeling.. and pretend not to see the other rules... But they feel perfectly comfortable to raise hell when discussing those pagans Christians that don’t obey the rules( the ones we messianics chose for ourselves that is, not all of them ) !
_____________________________
Don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you were you should go.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/12/2008 11:47:13 PM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 842
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bjay0801
quote:
What 'written code' is Paul tallking about here?
"A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God." (Romans 2:28-29)
How about reading the preceding scriptures in Romans for your answer?
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
2:14
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
2:15
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another *;)
Okay, so we agree the 'circumcision' that Paul is talking about in Romans 2 is the Mosaic requirement for circumcision, not some Rabbinical requirement.
Paul says repeatedly in the NT that this once required and binding Mosaic law now amounts to 'nothing', and that spiritual circumcision by the Holy Spirit is what it's all about now. He teaches that the supposedly eternal and never changing literal Torah that is defended in this forum has in fact changed. The requirement for circumcision is no longer literal by the letter of the law, but is now 'fulfilled' (kept, upheld, etc.) in the new way of the Spirit.
Now that we agree the circumcision spoken of in Romans 2 is Mosaic circumcision (not Rabbinical), those of you who insist that 'keeping God's commands' in the NT means keeping the entire Torah must concede that the OT requirement for literal circumcision is not included in Paul's definition of what it means to keep God's commands in this passage:
"If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. (Romans 2:26-27)
This is clear evidence that 'keeping God's commands' in the NT does not mean every literal command of the OT. You cannot use that argument to defend the continuation of literal OT laws of worship.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bjay0801
And how about Galations 2:3
But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Titus who walked with Paul was already saved but felt compelled to be cicumcised. Paul never told him not to do it. He just did an outward sign of something that was already done on the inside; his heart had been circumcised.
No. The passage says Titus was not compelled to be circumcised.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bjay0801
And what is sin? According to 1John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth * also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
What we know to be sin today does in fact violate some aspect of Torah. But the logic you are using is false. You are trying to say, 'since sin is transgression of the law, transgression of the law must be sin!' It sounds logical, but it's not true. Not everything that used to be a sin according to the law is still sin. I just proved it with this matter of literal circumcision. It is no longer a sin to not be literally circumcised according to the law. You are wrong to say that any transgression of the law is sin. That argument cannot be used to defend keeping all of literal Torah today. Circumcision is only one example that proves your statement false.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bjay0801
So the question now is who determines what sin is? Ro 7:7
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid *. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Of course we learn much about what sin is from the commands of the law (we learn even more from Paul and Jesus!). But it's dead wrong to say that every violation of literal Torah is sin. It simply isn't true anymore. We get the complete picture of what sin is from the teachings of the NT. Sin no longer includes not keeping the laws of external worship of the old covanant, the epitome of which was literal circumcision.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bjay0801
...the only thing I'm saying is that God is the one who said His commandments are forever.
What Paul taught about literal circumcision shows us God did not mean 'forever' means their literal fulfillment. Animal sacrifice for sin is the other big proof that 'forever' does not mean all old covenant laws continue literally forever. An eternal literal Torah is not a valid defense for continuing the laws of worship of the old covenant because Torah is not eternally literal. Spiritual fulfillment of a literal law is a valid means of establishing or upholding a literal law.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/13/2008 12:00:28 AM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 842
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
And during that time, does she use the paraphanelia that helps keep her blood flow from hitting the sheets of your bed, chair, or anything else she may sit on? Did the people in the camps of Israel have those same things to use? I can only speak for myself but my wife and I do have our seperate places to sit and sleep during that time and we study, fast and pray and when her time is over, then we come together.
Brother, you mean you don’t physically touch Mrs BJ for at least 5 days every month? If Mrs. were to get sick like have a flu or something you wouldn’t touch her, comfort her or help her fix her bed? all those things make you unclean acc. to Leviticus. Dear BJ and Blue, I am confident we all know here that women in ancient israel weren’t sitting on the furniture naked during their period, etc. same with people with discharges. And touch dosnt mean "have sex"
So we are not talking” unclean” meaning about stained furniture, we are talking about the rule of "uncleanness" … That is what makes me sort of chuckle about many messianic rules – they obey the comfortable laws of their choosing that dont interfere with their lifestyle much but still help to create the feeling.. and pretend not to see the other rules... But they feel perfectly comfortable to raise hell when discussing those pagans Christians that don’t obey the rules( the ones we messianics chose for ourselves that is, not all of them ) !
Yes. The rules of uncleanness are much more stringent and binding than they've been made out to be by Messianics in this thread. You'll have a hard time convincing people that these are guidelines for simple outward cleanliness. If you touch something that was under an unclean person (as defined by Lev. discharges) and then that person washes their clothes and takes a bath as required by the law (eternally literal and binding as you say it is) and then proceeds to touch it again must do it all over again!!!
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/13/2008 9:33:47 AM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 842
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
And we can go back to the scripture where Jesus introduces the concept of 'in Spirit and in Truth' and see what's right there in the passage to help us logically understand what that means.
John 4:20-24. And just so no one thinks I'm setting a trap, I'm going to Philippians 3:2-3 next to further demonstrate right from the scriptures how a 'in Spirit and in Truth' observance replaces the literal observance.
...I believe, the woman was obsessed with this issue. She is surprised that Yeshua, a jew, would talk to her, a samaritan, given this bad blood. When Yeshua tries to get her to focus on her relationship with Adonai, she does not understand the living water analogy. So, He asks her to get her husband. I believe, there are two reasons for this. One, it is a bit unseemly for a man and a woman to be alone together for an extended period of time and it was apparent that it was going to take some time to explain the analogy properly. Two, the proper order of things, as reaffirmed by Paul, is for a woman to recieve theological instruction for her husband.
I think he is seizing the opportunity to show Himself to be a prophet. Afterall, it is this foreknowledge about her marital situation that prompted her to testify to her whole community that He was a prophet. He already knew she was not married so I don't think He was making an appeal to fetch a husband He knew she did not have in order to teach her properly. And I find it hard to think Jesus cared much about what others thought about his association with loose women considering what kind of a woman He allowed to wash His head and feet in front of the Pharisees.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
He then tries again to get her to focus on her relationship with Adonai, but she insists on returning to the contentious issue.
I feel His frustration.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
So, to get her to focus a third time and knowing the temple in Jerusalem would soon be destroyed, he tells her that the issue is mute for that reason, but also points out the Jewish interpretation of the Scriptures is the preferred one.
It's much more than just knowing the Temple would disappear in a few decades. The implication is that He Himself makes literal Temple worship old and obsolete. This is indicated by this statement:
"23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth..."
He is indicating that He is the reason they will neither worship on this mountain nor that mountain. Obviously, at this moment in time, nothing at all has changed, or has even begun to change literally, yet He says the time is now here. To me it's a clear reference to Himself being the agent of change, not the destruction of the Temple.
This is another example of how Jesus is the embodiment of a 'time'. A time that the law speaks about through it's stringent commands and regulations for appointed days, weeks, months, and years. They foreshadow the absoulutely crucial and essential need to 'keep' the time table of Christ's coming. A time that we 'keep' by believing in His work and ministry. No deviation is allowed whatsoever. You deviate from the time of Christ's appearing at the peril of your life. That's the message of the laws of times and seasons of the OT.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
So, in my opinion, the point of this passage is that it is more important to worship Adonai in spirit and in truth that to obsess over where to take ones sacrifices. This does not mean that it is not important to sacrifice in the proper place, if that were possible, but that ones personal relationship with Adonai is more important, especially since sacrifices are not possible at this time.
My opinion of the passage is that the once literal and binding command to only sacrifice in Jerusalem will be replaced by the new way which is 'in Spirit and in Truth' which is neither in Jerusalem nor Samaria.
The Temple was the appointed place where God came down to meet man (above the mercy seat over the ark). Jesus has now become the place where God comes down to meet man and where mercy is given for the forgiveness of sins. And the dwelling place of this new ark of the covenant (Jesus) is by the Holy Spirit in the New Temple--the hearts of those who believe--thereby making the literal place of worship, and the command to only sacrifice there, old and obsolete. People who worship in this way are the kind of worshipers God desires:
"...true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
I believe worshiping in the new way is in direct contrast to the old way, not in addition to the old way. And not just because the old Temple is gone. The potentially deceitful external worship prescribed in the law has been replaced with the intended way that God desires by the Spirit, and in sincerity of heart according to the truth of what real worship is. This is what it means to worship 'in Spirit and in Truth'.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
One step at a time my young padawan.
Uh...I'm older than you think.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
I was not refering to your chronological age, I was refering to the apparent impatience with methodical discussion. Since, you have mixed statements that you consider humorous in with your arguments, I presumed that a little levity on my part was acceptable. Sorry, my mistake.
I really got the impression you thought I was a young pup. At least you didn't call me grasshopper.
You did seem to be beating around the bush when we started this discussion. I've been in this thread for months now. I decided about a month ago to just get right to the point with this present group of participants (and future one's for that matter).
It turns out it's of little value to talk to people here unless you get right to the point right away and not care too much about being insensitive (Of course I don't mean insensitive in an impolite or sinful way). So my goal is to just get right to the meat as quickly as possible, but one point at a time as you suggest.
< Message edited by SpongeBlog -- 6/13/2008 11:06:09 AM >
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/13/2008 11:50:19 AM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 5740
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
quote:
It turns out it's of little value to talk to people here unless you get right to the point right away and not care too much about being insensitive (Of course I don't mean insensitive in an impolite or sinful way). So my goal is to just get right to the meat as quickly as possible, but one point at a time as you suggest.
To the point:
Some of the misunderstanding also comes from lack of proper historical data.
The woman at the well's opinions go all the way back to the "sins of Jeroboam."
ultimately the samaritans had/have a Torah that has been changed; i.e. in the
addition of another commandment: "Thou shalt worship on Mount Gerizim."
That is what the woman was questioning.
Another not so well known fact: The Ark of the Covenant hadn't been in the Temple
500 years prior to Yeshua. Jeremiah had hidden the Ark at another assult on Jerusalem.
It's the study and acceptance of the OT as it should be that brings those historical facts
to light. For me personally, that is. I argued for decades against sabbath-keeping like
everyone else out of the traditions handed down to me by denominationalisms.
Like everyone else, I knew this and that wasn't kosher, many things out right wrong, but
still participated in them until it became "revelation knowledge."
Yes, I can make the claim that everyone else is making. lol.
And I still hold to the assumption that when Yeshua returns, we will find we were ALL wrong!
We just all think we are closer than anyone else. lol.
Okay, continue.
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/13/2008 11:55:46 AM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2241
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
It's much more than just knowing the Temple would disappear in a few decades. The implication is that He Himself makes literal Temple worship old and obsolete. This is indicated by this statement:
"23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth..."
He is indicating that He is the reason they will neither worship on this mountain nor that mountain. Obviously, at this moment in time, nothing at all has changed, or has even begun to change literally, yet He says the time is now here. To me it's a clear reference to Himself being the agent of change, not the destruction of the Temple.
Greetings,
quote:
Obviously, at this moment in time, nothing at all has changed, or has even begun to change literally, yet He says the time is now here.
And nothing changed afterwards, and if you finish the rest of the passage it says "[bfor "the Father" seeks such to worship Him.
And if one would have taken time and have learned the things in Hebrew before you seek to enlighten those of us who know better.... so as to become one flesh with your opinions…so to speak……
Then you would know that the Spirit of the Law is the masculine side of the Father; and the HS is the feminine side,
Therefore as it is written ....on the prophetic side >which is the side of worship or the side that the Father seeks for us to worship Him in by Faith<> (and with that understanding!)…. is …..
....that when one leaves their father and their mother and is joined to his wife; is a picture of Christ and the Church,
The seed of the man comes forth from "the husband" and is the same as the Fathers seed, ....and so on and so on .....etc....etc....etc
That redundency in the OT is what was the keeping of the Law ...and that same redundency is that by which we have obtained grace ....nothing!!! else!.
John 14:4-11
4 And where I go you know, and the way you know."
5 Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?"
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. 7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him." =(SEED)
8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us."
9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip?
quote:
He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me
To worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth is through Jesus Christ ….by which we do not by pass (The Law) as was pictured in the Temple worship.
quote:
This is another example of how Jesus is the embodiment of a 'time'.
A time that the law speaks about through its stringent commands and regulations for appointed days, weeks, months, and years.
They foreshadow the absolutely crucial and essential need to 'keep' the time table of Christ's coming.
A time that we 'keep' by believing in His work and ministry.
No deviation is allowed whatsoever. You deviate from the time of Christ's appearing at the peril of your life. That's the message of the laws of times and seasons of the OT.
...come on Sponge, we all know a leg pull when we see one!! 
Where are scriptures to support that?
And where is that misconception (hogwash) mentioned?
......Sorry, but I guess that is the type revelation one receives when still in the outer courts where the sun worshippers are, as you mentioned way back 
…. but
The Bible from the inner courts speaks of the patterns being the same!!!
Matthew 7:7-11
7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
SO....
If that which you gave as the message of the laws of times and seasons of the OT; where as you say.....No deviation is allowed!
Then Why in Rev 3 is Jesus still on the same pattern of the same timetable??
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door,
I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.That pattern is the same as in Matthew 7:7
21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
That pattern is the same as in Matthew 7:7
22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." ' "
quote:
You deviate from the time of Christ's appearing at the peril of your life.
It looks like the same patterns IMO
Any thoughts?
Try not to distort a reply to suit your underlying personal viewpoints…if you give one,
If you don’t understand what was just offered, then ask! ….and in like manner….the door will be opened.
Loyal Gypsy
< Message edited by LoyalGypsy -- 6/13/2008 12:03:15 PM >
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 6/13/2008 12:30:24 PM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 5740
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
quote:
...according to the order of Melchizedek.
LOL. I've been on this subject at church for a month now, maybe longer.
quote:
so as to become one flesh with your opinions
ROFL. Can I use that? Or, is it copyrighted? lol.
And I like that on the "spirit and truth" I'll have to flesh that out.
We're fleshing "rest" and "sabbath" out this week in our morning dailys
and my partner now recognizes how we come with a preconceived notion
and always render the meanings of words according to those notions.
We just discussed things for two hours this morning. Didn't get around
to our Psalms reading. But that's okay. lol.
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
