“No. Because it disagrees with the Torah.”
So the Torah says that if it’s only in one verse, it doesn’t count? Where?
“Nothing really. Just a sure knowledge that the Bible can say anything you want it to, especially if one is free to build it out of a verse here and a verse there.”
So again, you don’t believe you are called to follow scripture then in it’s entirety - only sometimes and in some places. Where do you draw the line? Where are we supposed to say, “thus far and no further”? What makes you different from the Arians per se?
“What locks it down into it’s meaning is the law and the prophets. And necessarily, if it destroys the law or the prophets, it cannot be true - ‘Every jot and tittle’, as it were.”
Which is contrary to what you are teaching here. Christ himself teaches that not the least jot will be struck from the Law - we are called to obey all of it, not just the parts we like.
This is also crucial to Romans, it’s the foundation of the distinction between Law and Grace.
“Work with that and see how far your tradition holds up.”
No, the burden is on you to show why your opinion on these matters should be taken into consideration. You’ve offered nothing except one word. “torah”.
“Nope.”
Yeah, it does. You’re taking a rule that you yourself have devised, which has no connection with scripture, and when challenged haven’t succeeded in citing a passage.
If this is all you’ve got, this matter is pretty much closed. :)
All over the place. "Out of the mouth of two witnesses" is mentioned literally in Deut 17:6 and Deut 19:15 in the law, and is practiced throughout the Torah and the prophets. Why do you think that everything is repeated at least twice?
And the same principle is amplified in the writings and the New Covenant. There is not a thing that YHWH has transmitted that He didn't give at least two ways, if for no other reason than the legal prerequisite of Deut... How can He justly convict a man without the same two witnesses that he requires of us?
So it is good, if one is defining a thing, that it is mentioned more than once. And foundational things (the principle things) are repeated over and over again, and differently, just exactly so they cannot be misinterpreted (IMO).
That does not mean that there are not things that are hidden, but foundations are made with very broad and apparent strokes.
So again, you don’t believe you are called to follow scripture then in it’s entirety - only sometimes and in some places. Where do you draw the line? Where are we supposed to say, “thus far and no further”? What makes you different from the Arians per se?
That is not true. I am not saying to ignore any part. I am saying that how one interprets any given thing must necessarily conform to that which has gone before. This is quintessentially the signature of YHWH, and is exactly why the law cannot be changed in one jot or tittle.
He is the only one claiming to be a god who has made what he has said in the beginning a sure and enduring thing. Every other 'god' has a mechanism in place which allows for changing the original thing (Islam's hadiths as an example). YHWH does not, because YHWH's Word is sure. He does not change.
More may be revealed, that is true - but that which is revealed cannot step upon that which is already defined, in both the law and the prophets. It cannot add to it, nor can it take away from it. What is said is said. And that, FRiend, is an unique and extraordinary thing.
Which is contrary to what you are teaching here. Christ himself teaches that not the least jot will be struck from the Law - we are called to obey all of it, not just the parts we like.
That should, in all honesty, give you pause, rather than me... How does one know that he loves YHWH? When he is walking in the commandments.
This is also crucial to Romans, it’s the foundation of the distinction between Law and Grace.
Indeed. But grace does not take away the law. Nor is it license. Sin is always sin - and sin is violation of the law, by definition. What grace has done is that it has taken away the curses of the law, because one who is innocent of your debt has taken on your debt.
We are not anymore caused to keep the law out of fear of reprisal, but rather because we love YHWH. We are bound to the law by love of YHWH which is a much stronger binding.
A child learns the law of his father in love, but that law is enforced ultimately in fear. A teen rebells, and goes his own way without any law. A young man, learning that law must be, makes his own law, in spite of his father, and learns the hard way what his father tried to teach. But a man understands, and keeps the law of his father in his own house, in fear no longer, but out of respect, love, and understanding. 'The Way' of his father has been learned.
No, the burden is on you to show why your opinion on these matters should be taken into consideration. You’ve offered nothing except one word. “torah”.
The burden is not on me - YHWH does not change. I am merely following (however poorly) His advice that the law of His house does not change, ever. The burden is upon YOU to show that the changes y'all have inflicted upon the Torah are ordained... And as the Torah cannot be changed, you will have little luck with that.
and THAT, FRiend, is the canary in the coal mine. Necessarily, the law cannot be changed. One may set up all the popes and magisteriums one can, but if their teaching is against that law, then they must needfully also be against Yeshua, or ultimately, one makes Yeshua a false prophet...
Yeah, it does. You’re taking a rule that you yourself have devised, which has no connection with scripture, and when challenged haven’t succeeded in citing a passage.
No, I have taken no liberty. And I need not cite the passage that says the law cannot be changed - you have cited it yourself.