It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Jesus' Teachings Abolish the Old Testament Laws?

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by holywar

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by miriam0566
 


2 chr 34:[14] And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the LORD given by Moses.



The term "given by Moses" means "written by Moses" also. He is the author of the first five books of the Old Testament, known as the Law.


YES, Moses did write the first 5 books... BUT, The Israelites came into a covenant relationship with Jehovah God at Mount Sinai in 1513 B.C.E.

Through Moses, they received the statutes of that covenant. (Exodus 24:3-8)



It was a covenant.... an agreement between God and Israel. The covenant INCLUDED the Laws and Commandments and were codified in an attempt to create a sort of constitution for the Nation of Israel. The laws were not given as part of the covenant, but were already in existence and included in the covenant. The bible defines righteousness as someone who follows God's Commandments and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Unlike ancient Israel, who lacked the Holy Spirit, Chirstians of today are suppose to follow the Laws and Commandments in spirit since it is indeed a spiritual Law. A spiritual Law followed by a carnal mind is doomed to fail and that's exactly what happened to Israel and later the Jews. The Jews of Jesus' time had already added over 60 regulations to the Laws and Commandments which put a burden on the Laws. Jesus came to correct this abuse of God's Laws and to amplify the Laws by further defining what REALLY constitute breaking these commandments. Hatred is equal to murder..... Lust is equal to adultry..... etc. He is also the one who summarized the Ten Commandments into two categories.... Love God (the great command) and love your neighbor (the golden rule). But where does Jesus say He did "away" with the Commandments? He did say He came to "fulfill" but not "eliminate" the commandments. To fulfill in the context given is to "make whole" or to "fill to the full". Another way to put it is that He "magnified" the commandments and Laws. I just showed you exactly HOW the laws were magnified. Lust, hatred, pride, etc. In addition to this emphasis on the commandments we are to follow God's laws in spirit and truth through the Holy Spirit.... an ingredient not present in Ancient Israel with the exception of prophets and patriarchs.




posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
im not going to say you are right or wrong, but my guess is that most people in this thread simply disagree with you.

you've stated your beliefs time and again, but frankly i disagree. the book of exodus is very clear that moses went up the mountain several times and received "the law" , directly, from god.

i feel that you are assuming that anything other than the 10 commandments is simply "the law of men". but i have yet to see you bring anything solid to this discussion that would convince that what you are saying is truth, and that what moses was saying was lies.


Thanks for the response. I do not go by the bible, I can only go by the understandings given to me. When I look at the 10 commandments, I see the understanding in them. They make perfect sense to me. If you break the commandments, then you are doing bad things to people.

Jesus shows that same understanding when he tells of the 2 basic things which all good laws are based upon.

The same understanding just isn't present in the rest of it.

It's not just me you are disagreeing with. Jesus calls those people hypocrites. Do as they say (do not kill), but do not do as they do (kill). If you don't get that, then you just don't get that. Certainly not the first time.

So whatever, I get your little "hint" and won't reply anymore. If killing people who sinned was part of the law, then you can't say he fulfilled the law. He didn't. He taught against doing that. Can't have it both ways.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
God said about Abraham's obedience in Genesis 26:5, hundreds of years before God spoke to Moses and Israel at Mt. Sinai: "Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws" (NIV).

....As The Expositor's Bible Commentary explains regarding this verse: "The Lord then added a remarkable note: Abraham 'kept my requirements [mismarti], my commands [miswotay], my decrees [huqqotay] and my laws [wetorotay]' (v. 5).

"It is remarkable that this is precisely the way in which obedience to the Sinai Covenant is expressed in Deuteronomy 11:1: 'Love the Lord your God and keep his requirements [mismarto], his decrees [huqqotayw], his laws [mispatayw] and his commands [miswotayw]' . . .

"Thus Abraham is an example of one who shows the law written on his heart (Jeremiah 31:33). He is the writer's ultimate example of true obedience to the law, the one about whom the Lord could say, 'Abraham obeyed me' (v. 5). Thus, by showing Abraham to be an example of 'keeping the law,' the writer has shown the nature of the relationship between the law and faith. Abraham, a man who lived in faith, could be described as one who kept the law" (Vol. 2, 1990, pp. 186-187, emphasis added).


exactly, so what part of jeremiah says that abraham had a written law? you are trying basically to say that abraham had the mosaic law, but even you are posting scriptures that say otherwise.


Abraham obeyed the same foundational spiritual laws that were given later to Israel.


this is where you miss the point. this statement is correct. abraham followed the principles on which the law was based (love god, love neighbor). there was no FORMAL law here. this means, as you have correctly posted, that temple ceremonies and administrative laws were not practiced by abraham. this includes things like the sabbath, unclean meat, dealing with lepers.

how could abraham follow these things if he was not told?


God's Word defines sin as "the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4, KJV) or "lawlessness" (New King James Version, NIV). Therefore, "where there is no law there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). This is what the Bible clearly says! So do we find transgressions of the Ten Commandments described as sinful before Mt. Sinai? Clearly we do.


oh please...

by this reasoning, god had no reason to send jonah to ninevah! the ninevites werent under obligation of the law and were therefore not sinning correct? they were holier than the israelites because they didnt sin!!

by you logic also, the law was given to adam since "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

you are blatantly misapplying the spirit of romans 4:15 to make a point.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
The laws were not given as part of the covenant, but were already in existence and included in the covenant.


which is the only way you can make the whole "christians must observe the sabbath" theory work.

so let me ask something.

if the faithful people before isreal already followed the law and moses was basically just writing it down, why then did the law need clarifying? why did things like "resting" need to be explained?

-------------------------

here, let me review so that you can get a bigger picture of what you are implying.

you come from a church that practices the observance of the sabbath, in fact, you come from a church that emphasizes sabbath observance.

except now some presents passages where the apostles basically say "hey, we arent under law." (acts 15) this makes no sense to you and you assume that this implies that the law was somehow "bad". that christians are now lawless.

so first you try to discredit the apostles, but that doesnt work, the scriptures plainly say in black and white "the law" is finished, that christians are free from the obligations of the law.

then you switch gears, you try to cut up the mosaic law by say only certain parts were done away with like ceremonies and sacrifices. but again, that is not what the apostles are saying.

now your saying that the law existed BEFORE the covenant with is imply not true. it was given to moses, written down by moses, present to israel by moses.

answer me this. should i be killed for not observing the sabbath?

should i be killed for breaking any of the ten commandments?

executions are part of the law! if jesus' fulfilling the law simply meant that it was added too, then christians should be killing violators.

the anti religion folk use this argument all the time, they see that the church teaches that the law is still applicable, and yet they dont kill violators.

inevitably, the counter argument is that jesus died so that we dont have to. EXACTLY! jesus died so that the requirements of the law wouldnt HAVE to be carried out. how did he fulfill the law? by being obedient perfectly he showed that he was worthy of being the ransom(romans 13:8,10). that was the purpose of the law, they can tell who the messiah was by seeing that he was sinlees. he fulfilled the law. the law served its purpose (romans 10:4). the law NO LONGER applies

does this mean that christians are free from all law?

1 cor 9:[21] To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

you keep thinking that all law is the same, but it isnt.

are you under obligation not to eat from the tree? no, that was a law given to adam and eve.

are christians obligated to observe the sabbath? no, that was a law given to the jews which jesus fulfilled.

can you observe the sabbath? of course! there is nothing wrong with it. abstaining from pork? no problem. the point is, that christians are not BOUND to these laws



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
I do not go by the bible, I can only go by the understandings given to me.


given by whom? how can you be so sure that your source is a good one?


It's not just me you are disagreeing with. Jesus calls those people hypocrites. Do as they say (do not kill), but do not do as they do (kill). If you don't get that, then you just don't get that. Certainly not the first time.


no sorry, you cant say "i dont go by the bible" , and then try to use the bible to discredit me. thats hypocritical.


So whatever, I get your little "hint" and won't reply anymore.


there are no hints. you asked if you got it wrong. it seemed like you were frustrated at the fact that we just cant see things your way.

i simply pointed out to you that most people participating in this thread probably just disagree with you.


If killing people who sinned was part of the law, then you can't say he fulfilled the law. He didn't. He taught against doing that. Can't have it both ways.


but this is the problem, i showed you where in the law a person serves as executioner. unless jesus was in that position, he wouldnt have killed anyone.

your arguments most of the time are based on assumptions. you take the parts you like but throw away the parts you dont



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 


Jesus taught:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law* until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven**, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven***. (Matthew 5:17-20 NIV)

* Followers of Jesus shall observe, understand and follow the Law (of Moses)
** Paulus or Paul means "Small", see below.
*** Followers of Jesus must be better interpreters and followers of the Law (of Moses) than the Pharicees, to be accepted into heaven.

Paul taught:
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his (God's) sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin*. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ** to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished*** -- he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. (Romans 3:19-28 NIV)

* Followers of Paul must know that observants of the Law are sinners because the Law (of Moses) makes them concious of sin.
** To the pauline follower, believing that Jesus died is essencial, and with him the Law seased to rule. Such faith is rewarded with God's love and entrance to heaven. Atleast according to Paul.
*** According to Paul here, Jesus was a sinner. God killed Jesus as a blood sacrifice instead of punnishing him for his sins when they were committed during his life(!), to show his power and majesty.

--------------------- : : ---------------------



As you can see, Saul Paulus the Pharicee and persecuter and killer of the early Christians, with his Assyrian roots, differ miles from Jesus in his teachings. IMO Paul infiltrated early Christianity when the Pharicees saw that it was spreading. In order to stop these Christians from entering the Sanhedrin or the Temple and synagogues around the world, they had to be taught not to follow the Law, leaving out circumcision and food hygiene, and later his followers in the Church have made a system of breaking the 613 laws, regulations and commandments of Moses, which according to Jesus are essencial to obey in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Reality bites...

[edit on 14/6/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Paul infiltrated early Christianity when the Pharicees saw that it was spreading. In order to stop these Christians from entering the Sanhedrin or the Temple and synagogues around the world,


acts 5:[1] But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
[2] And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
[3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
[4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
[5] And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
[6] And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
[7] And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
[8] And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
[9] Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
[10] Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
[11] And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

so... ananias wasnt able to fool peter on something comparably smaller, yet paul tricked them all?

are you saying god is incompetent?



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 

IMO Paul infiltrated early Christianity when the Pharicees saw that it was spreading.

Paul was not a Pharisee, he was a Sadducee.
You are saying he secretly was an agent to keep Christians separate from the Jews? I do not think he had to go out of his way to carry out that goal because it was happening naturally.
A lot of the new Christians were not Jewish. A lot of people who were prone to want to follow the true God were attracted to the Jews. They would be on the peripheral of synagogues and the Temple but were not allowed into the structures proper. Paul would have been luring those people away from these places. Did the PTB want to get rid of those people and the money they contributed to the upkeep of those facilities? I doubt it.


[edit on 14-6-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
so... ananias wasnt able to fool peter on something comparably smaller, yet paul tricked them all?

are you saying god is incompetent?


Seems to me you are deliberately robbing Peter to pay Paul here. No kidding.

Are you saying Paul is God? And that Peter has the Allseeing Eye? Or that the words of Peter killed the two unfortunate people whose hearts were obviously old and too weak to handle Peter's revealing accusations, while judging them for having committed the gravest sin a child of God can do: To sin against the Holy Spirit? No these people judged themselves, may peace be uppon them.

I guess God will deal with Peter for his folly - and Paul for his conspiring - against the Holy Spirit, I have no doubt with that.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 

IMO Paul infiltrated early Christianity when the Pharicees saw that it was spreading.

Paul was not a Pharisee, he was a Sadducee.


Acts 23:6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead."

Unless he is a liar Paul seems to take advantage of him being a Pharisee.


You are saying he secretly was an agent to keep Christians separate from the Jews. I do not think he had to go out of his way to carry out that goal because it was happening naturally.


Happening naturally? As far as I can see most of the books in the NT are Pauline epistles. That would have given him certain advantages since the Word of God had become mostly his own. No other person, even Jesus Christ and John the Baptist included has shaped Christianity like the Pharisee Saul Paulus. And you say it was happening naturally?


A lot of the new Christians were not Jewish. A lot of people who were prone to want to follow the true God were attracted to the Jews. They would be on the peripheral of synagogues and the Temple but were not allowed into the structures proper. Paul would have been luring those people away from these places. Did the PTB want to get rid of those people and the money they contributed to the upkeep of those facilities? I doubt it.


All the income to the Temple and the priesthoods came from gifts of the rich and one tenth of all Jewish citicens' income, while true Christians were normally poor, workingclass people having sold all their belongings and given their money to the poor. They also rejected the Talmudian laws added to the Law of Moses after the Babylonian captivity, which the PTB ruled by and many other things that made the PTB feel threatened.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by badmedia
I do not go by the bible, I can only go by the understandings given to me.


given by whom? how can you be so sure that your source is a good one?


Given by the father. The father does not give as this world gives. This world gives in what can be accepted, or an expression of an understanding. The father gives understanding directly.

Which of the following statements are true, and which are false?

1+1=2
4+4=9
4+4=7
4+4=8
1+5=6
9+15=24

How did you know which are true, and which are false? Because on your understanding of math. Not because you accepted what people said and memorized it, but based on the understanding.

In this world, we can not give understanding directly. We can only express and give in terms of 1+1=2 and so forth. The father does not give as this world gives. He does not give you a bible and such. Instead, he gives you the understanding directly. And then when you understand, you can look at the bible and it is just like that list of math equations above. You know from your own understanding what is true and false. You can NOT do this if you have only accepted what the bible says is true. Doing that would be no different than accepting the above list as true because someone said so. There is no understanding in it that way.

Are you saying I asked for a fish and received a serpent?

www.biblegateway.com...



7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.


Do you really think a personal relationship with god means reading and accepting the bible?




It's not just me you are disagreeing with. Jesus calls those people hypocrites. Do as they say (do not kill), but do not do as they do (kill). If you don't get that, then you just don't get that. Certainly not the first time.


no sorry, you cant say "i dont go by the bible" , and then try to use the bible to discredit me. thats hypocritical.



Just because the bible is not my authority does not mean it doesn't say things that are true. Jesus gives the same understandings I received from the father. The bible isn't what makes something true or false.

Once again from Matthew 7



28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.


Scribes write scripture. So is Jesus also a hypocrite for mentioning scriptures and then saying that the scriptures aren't the authority?

As I said, it is not me you argue with.





there are no hints. you asked if you got it wrong. it seemed like you were frustrated at the fact that we just cant see things your way.

i simply pointed out to you that most people participating in this thread probably just disagree with you.


I asked a simple question, to which I have still not recieved an answer. What laws were written on the tablets moses brought down. I have always thought it was the 10 commandments, separated on 2 tablets for a reason.

I do not care if the entire world disagrees with me, that isn't what defines what is true or not. You pointed it out trying to get me to no continue on the subject, thus a hint.



but this is the problem, i showed you where in the law a person serves as executioner. unless jesus was in that position, he wouldnt have killed anyone.

your arguments most of the time are based on assumptions. you take the parts you like but throw away the parts you dont


And I showed you that he did not bring up people to be executed. Did he go around rounding up sinners to be executed? NO. He certainly knew their sins didn't he? Did he tell other people to do that? NO. Thus he did not fulfill those laws. He does however fulfill the 10 commandments, and the law Moses brought down from the mountain. Coincidence? NO.

Matthew 7 again.



1Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.


So, according to you Jesus is saying - do not judge people, unless you are an executioner?

It is not me you argue with.



[edit on 14-6-2009 by badmedia]



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 

Unless he is a liar Paul seems to take advantage of him being a Pharisee.
Oops I guess I forgot what side he was on. I thought he brought it up to cause the people to be distracted from why they brought him up, in the first place, by getting them into a dispute.
The case was that the Pharisees were not in power, it was the Sadducees who actually ran things. The Pharisees tryed to gain prominence by acting more law abiding than the others. In actuality they did it by lowering the standards to suite themselves.




[edit on 14-6-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


The main difference between the two political fractions the Sadducees and the Pharisees were their opposing views of the ressurrection of the dead. The Pharisees, like Jesus and John the Baptist, believed in the Ressurection, while the Sadducean fraction didn't. Some scholars mean Jesus was infact a Pharisee breakout, belonging to a conservative rabbinical branch who denounced the Talmudian laws, emphesising how the Law of Moses was clear enough and saw the Torah as the only Law, while the liberals or the great majority of the PTB interpreted the laws of the Torah in the light and context of the two other parts of the Tannakh: The Scriptures and the Prophets and traditions inherited from Babylon and rabbinical litterature. The laws had thus become quite complicated and many had lost their entire purposes, take the Sabbath laws for instance. While the Torah says to keep the Sabbath holy, the Talmudian tradition defined what was holy and unholy in relation to the Sabbath. For instance if you were a Jew living in Judea at the time of Jesus, you were not allowed to walk further than the distance between Jerusalem and the Olive Mound. In rebellion to this Jesus went to the Olive Mound every Sabbath when he stayed in Jerusalem. There are many other examples too on how Jesus rebelled against the Liberal Talmudian majority.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
I guess God will deal with Peter for his folly - and Paul for his conspiring - against the Holy Spirit, I have no doubt with that.


so now peter is apostate too? wow. anyone else i should know about?



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


The whole point being made about Abraham following the laws is the point Paul was trying to make to christians. Abraham had the laws and commandments written in his heart and mind. That's the goal of a christian. That's what following the law "spiritually" is all about. The laws are followed before even thinking about it. I explained it one time before as an active law such as the law of gravity. Newton didn't discover gravity, because it was already there. Instead, he created the written form of what that gravity was. Sort of the same for Moses. The law already existed but Moses was the one to define and regulate the law through the order of God. This written account of the Law was for the entire nation.... an ancient "constitution" that would tell the people of the nation how to act properly to God and their neighbors. It included how to carry out festivals, judgements, and so on. Let's see the ten commandments and weather or not they already existed.....

Love God? That was commanded by God from the beginning. There shouldn't be a question on this one.

Flee from Idolatry? From the beginning, God demanded no object or person be put before Him.

No Swearing? This ties in with Love God. You take His name in vain, you show just how much you love Him.

Sabbath? Well, He only sanctified it and made it Holy the day after Man was created. It may just be me but anything considered Holy by God and still considered Holy by Jesus might be an important thing to honor.

Honor mom and dad? You break this, you break the first commandment. God is our Father... the original Parent of mankind.

No killing? Cain was the first to kill. He was punished by God for it. If Cain didn't know better, why was he punished by God? The law was already in effect and Cain knew about it. The bible didn't need to say it, it should be common sense.

No immoral "boot-knocking"? Well, God defined marriage when He created Eve for Adam. The two shall be one flesh. To break that is to break the covenant of marriage which leads to many of the other commandments being broken.

No stealing? Eve stole when she took the forbidden fruit. It caused a lot of problems for mankind. God told her not to.

Don't lie? Well, Adam and Eve lied about the fruit and hid themselves. Cain lied about killing Abel. God didn't like it too much.

No "wishlist" (coveting)? This leads to adultry if the coveting is for another woman. This may lead to stealing if you're eyeballing that new XBox 360. This is already leading to idolatry because something you want is getting in the way of honoring God. Coveting is bad. Eve coveted the forbidden fruit as the serpent tempted her. Look where that got her.

All of these things were broken in the first few chapters of Genesis. God didn't like it too much. The Sabbath is the only thing not defined as being broken here.... probably because it was an easy thing to keep for the people of that time. If you recall, God told the Israelites to REMEMBER the Sabbath and to KEEP it holy. It was already holy and it was already in existence. How much proof do you need? If the biblical proof doesn't help, maybe I'll show you the history behind the CHRISTIANS keeping the Sabbath.

It seems like you are stuck on the ordinances of the laws too. Like that of killing people for breaking the law. I don't know what you want. I explained earlier in the thread how these things are not gone, but are also no longer in human hands. Judgement for law-breakers belongs to God and His Son. The levitical priesthood is the sole responsibility of Jesus now as our High Priest. We pray to God through the name of Jesus. He was the sacrifice for sin allowing us to no longer need a "sin sacrifice" as the Jews needed. Clean and Unclean meats are health laws, not ordinances. These laws on cleanness and uncleanness are PREVENTATIVE laws that really work if followed. Is it a sin to break these laws? Depending on how you look at it. If you are defiling or destroying the temple of God or body of Christ, then sin arises. If you are taking measures to stay healthy, it's on your own concience to take that chance. I choose preventative health, not corrective.

It's funny how you simply blow off reasonable assumtion where there is not definitive answer such as the law not being "written" before Moses. Let's maybe concentrate on the laws as explained in the New Testament, because there's much more speaking of KEEPING the commandments and laws, than not. The New Testament says to keep the comamndments. Not 9 out of 10 or excluding the Sabbath, but ALL OF THEM. There's no proof of any being done away with. They are simply written on the minds and hearts of christians.... not on tablets of stone.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
I guess God will deal with Peter for his folly - and Paul for his conspiring - against the Holy Spirit, I have no doubt with that.


so now peter is apostate too? wow. anyone else i should know about?


Being foolish constitutes to apostacy in your eyes? God nearly had his own son killed for his sins. Among them were the killing of two kids when he was a boy, one of them being the son of Annas the Scribe, who were among the people leading the legal process and torture of Jesus. Further he denied his own mother, saying she was not his true mother. He lied when he said it was as difficult for a rich man to enter heaven as it would be for a Kamel to pass through the eye of a needle. He refused to help a non-Jew in dispear, calling her a dog. Only when she proved herself with wit and retorical questions, did Jesus repent and at least sent her off with enough hope to see her daughter freed from her demons. I could go on for ages to show how forgiving and patient God was with Jesus. But in the end enough was enough and God left Jesus with the wolves. "Where the carcass is the vulchers gather..." And it was among these wolves and vulchers his salvation came, not from his own. A sharp spear and a steady hand, a clean wet sponge, a rich, influential man, a wife with knowledge of how to make healing spirits, salves and oils with her mortars herbs and distillery, a hidden tomb and guards falling asleep, and the greatest hero of them all, the unknown, innocent kitty who gave his life so Jesus could have his wound closed. That last hero is the only one that makes me cry. God knows I love those creatures more than men.....



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


Some scholars mean Jesus was infact a Pharisee breakout, belonging to a conservative rabbinical branch who denounced the Talmudian laws, emphesising how the Law of Moses was clear enough and saw the Torah as the only Law,. . .
So, you think Jesus was neither a pharisee or a Sadducee. That has to be true. I do not know if he belonged to a group so much, unless he started it. Is there a specific group that you are calling a break-out, that can be researched? The Essenes were around but I do not think he was one because they believed in war, if necessary.


[edit on 15-6-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
He does not give you a bible and such. Instead, he gives you the understanding directly. And then when you understand, you can look at the bible and it is just like that list of math equations above. You know from your own understanding what is true and false. You can NOT do this if you have only accepted what the bible says is true. Doing that would be no different than accepting the above list as true because someone said so. There is no understanding in it that way.

Are you saying I asked for a fish and received a serpent?


no, im suggesting that sometimes you cant always be sure who is on the other side of the telephone.

god does not lie, which is exactly why the bible is so important.

not all "inspired expressions" are from god.




7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.


Do you really think a personal relationship with god means reading and accepting the bible?


can you be close to a friend by ignoring his letters? ignoring his phone calls perhaps?

jesus was god's son correct? and yet he read scriptures, and he quoted from it extensively.

do i think a personal relationship with god means reading and accepting the bible? a whole souled yes.



no sorry, you cant say "i dont go by the bible" , and then try to use the bible to discredit me. thats hypocritical.


Just because the bible is not my authority does not mean it doesn't say things that are true. Jesus gives the same understandings I received from the father. The bible isn't what makes something true or false.

Once again from Matthew 7



28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.


Scribes write scripture. So is Jesus also a hypocrite for mentioning scriptures and then saying that the scriptures aren't the authority?

As I said, it is not me you argue with.


jesus accepted scriptures as being from god. makes claims to the contrary all you like, there are plenty of references. he didnt dismiss it as a novelty.




I asked a simple question, to which I have still not recieved an answer. What laws were written on the tablets moses brought down. I have always thought it was the 10 commandments, separated on 2 tablets for a reason.

I do not care if the entire world disagrees with me, that isn't what defines what is true or not. You pointed it out trying to get me to no continue on the subject, thus a hint.


on stone, the ten commandments.

dictated, the rest of the law.

in fact, moses went up the mountain many times for long periods of time. all the while writing the law down.

exodus 24:[1] And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the LORD, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off.
[2] And Moses alone shall come near the LORD: but they shall not come nigh; neither shall the people go up with him.
[3] And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.
[4] And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

this was even BEFORE the ten commandments was given.

the ten commandments or "tablets of testimony" were by no means the only law given by god.

im not sure if that answers your question.



And I showed you that he did not bring up people to be executed. Did he go around rounding up sinners to be executed? NO. He certainly knew their sins didn't he? Did he tell other people to do that? NO. Thus he did not fulfill those laws. He does however fulfill the 10 commandments, and the law Moses brought down from the mountain. Coincidence? NO.


your just ignoring what im saying.


Matthew 7 again.



1Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.


So, according to you Jesus is saying - do not judge people, unless you are an executioner?

It is not me you argue with.


the difference between us and jesus is that jesus was given the right to judge.

john 5:[30] I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

matt 7:1 wasnt talking about jesus....



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


There were many different Jewish religious and wordly political fractions around at the time of Jesus. Zelots, Essene, Sadduchees, Pharisees, a variety of Rabbinical schools, you name it. Several of the disciples of Jesus belonged to either of these fractions. But the Qumran enclave often refered to as the Essene? Not to my knowledge. Among the hundreds of manuscripts found at Qumran, known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, their laws are recorded in a scroll called the Community Rule. The laws and rules they observed and followed conflict with many of the basic values of Jesus. Jesus was an educated Rabbi, probably having belonged to a conservative rabbinical branch of the Pharisee party, but seems to have left his political ambitions at one stage, making powerful enemies, and rather focused on wisdom, medicine and law instead of persuing people's support at accord with his own understanding, faith and wisdom.

From this I guess the obvious answer to your question would be that Jesus probably had his own school.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 

God nearly had his own son killed for his sins.
Why would you call Jesus God's son? The rest of your post seems to be refuting that he was. So Jesus wandered off somewhere and lived as a hermit on a mountain, or something? Why would he go to all that trouble to pull off a hoax? Your view of Christianity being nothing more than a bad joke makes no sense to me. Why would you believe any of it?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join