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.
Some people accept that mankind is falling and they choose to look away because they're
a) scared
b) don't understand
c) understand but love immaterial
Originally posted by adjensen
Why would someone curse God because of the actions of people?
Thanks for the great example of an emotional and irrational argument!
Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by HamrHeed
Some people accept that mankind is falling and they choose to look away because they're
a) scared
b) don't understand
c) understand but love immaterial
I would say the inability to want to assist. Many feel if it does not directly affect them, they do not want to get involved. But, they do not understand it does affect them, even if they do not see it on the surface.
But we have to remember that life has many Facets. Some won't discover spirituality ever.
Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by HamrHeed
Some people accept that mankind is falling and they choose to look away because they're
a) scared
b) don't understand
c) understand but love immaterial
I would say the inability to want to assist. Many feel if it does not directly affect them, they do not want to get involved. But, they do not understand it does affect them, even if they do not see it on the surface.
There is no such process as what this statement implies, that there is a priesthood that is made better, or that there is a tabernacle that is somehow made better. There was already the "better" tabernacle, in heaven, that the man-made one was a copy of.
The New Covenant in Christ perfected the priesthood of Levites to the Priesthood of Melchizedek, making an imperfect tabernacle made by men and mere men now One who is perfect with a perfect tabernacle.
"His", in this case would mean Jesus'.
. . . it is said by the Messiah, and the Apostle John that loving Him is keeping His commandments.
Christ is not the Word, or Logos, rather, which you seem to be deriving somehow from John 1.
Since Christ is The Word of God, and The Word is God, He is the perfect example to emulate in the keeping of the law.
The New Covenant in Christ perfected the priesthood of Levites to the Priesthood of Melchizedek, making an imperfect tabernacle made by men and mere men now One who is perfect with a perfect tabernacle.
I realize this is a popular notion among some circles, that Jesus died to satisfy the demands of the Law, but it is just a philosophy of religionists, and not a biblical teaching.
Jesus never came to put an end to the law, but to put an end to the debt we owe of death to it. Our sins are blotted out and forgiven by His perfect sacrifice and intercession on our behalf being the perfect High Priest, but the Law is still to define sin
Originally posted by yahushuasaves
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Deuteronomy 29:15 "But with him that standeth here with us this day before the LORD our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day:"
Remember that this is a covenant on top of the one at Sinai.
Leviticus 24:22 "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God."
Numbers 15:15 "One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD."
It is clear that the Torah was for everyone that desired the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Even if they were not a blood-Israelite, they could still come to Him. Just as it is today. There is One God and One faith. No denominations or divisions. All who come to Him are Israel, just as the ones there.
It doesn't actually say that anywhere. Jesus was the I Am, specifically in the Gospel of John. "Yahweh" is something taken from the conversation in Sinai between Moses and an angel, where the angel answered Moses' question of what he should tell the people who sent him. The reply was something that meant I Am, or the existent one, which got slightly modified and turned into a name that we find in the Hebrew version of the Old Testament. The New Testament is in Greek, so you don't find the word, Yahweh, but EGO EIMI, which means, I Am. So there is a correspondence between the two titles, the one in the OT of the angel of Sinai, and the one in the NT of Jesus, who was the Son of God. Jesus said no one had seen the Father, so obviously the angel was not God, but was in fact an angel who served as the representative of God. Jesus does the same sort of thing but on a higher level, where he is actually on the god level, higher than an angel. The NT tells us that the old covenant was administered by angels, and the new covenant is superior in that it is administered by God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. As the administration of and the covenant itself is superior, so the law attached to it is superior in that it is not something written in stone but is written on our hearts.
Since He is Yahweh in the flesh, His commandments also include the Law of Moses.
No, I don't think it really says that. You may have some sort of chain of logic that gets you to that conclusion, but is not something spelled out like that. Isaiah was dealing with things that were more immediate and had to do with the recovery of Judea after the return from the Babylonian exile.
Which were of yesterday, today, and even the Millennium. The Scriptures are clear that the Law of God will be part of the Millennium. What word of the Lord do they refer to in the Old Testament, if there was no New Testament to begin with at that point? The Torah.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Or Christ saying the two greatest commands fulfils the entire "law and the prophets"? Who are you trying to bewitch? If you want to keep the law you're free to do so, but you will have fallen from grace.