Posted on 09/17/2013 8:25:21 PM PDT by jodyel
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
>> “why do you keep calling Jesus Yeshua?” <<
.
Because that is his given name, the name by which he wishes to be called.
He was never once called “Jesus” when he walked the Earth. and for at least a century and a half after.
Jesus means absolutely nothing, it is just a third or fourth hand transliteration arising from sloth and ignorance. Yeshua is full of the meaning of his birth and purpose, it means Yehova Saves.
It is fitting of course that catholics would call him something other than his name, since they have no relationship whatsoever with him or his Father.
>> “Yes; to all three.
But in doing so; Jesus CLEARLY showed that He was ABOVE the LAW: that He CREATED the LAW.” <<
You surprise me LC!
You are categorically wrong.
Nothing that they did was contrary to Torah, or a ‘sin,’ and Yeshua humbled himself to Torah, and declared that Torah was to remain unchanged until all things are completed. So he was not above the law, but came in fulfillment of Torah and of the Spring Feasts.
He presented the law, but the law was not “created,” but naturally existed eternally, as the only stream of personal truth and integrity (the three commandments upon which all of the law hung).
Sorry about that. Posting at 3 in the morning isn’t my best thinking time.
“Totally stand by my first post to this person.”
How sad.
God gave us our reason for us to use. If faith without works is dead, then what is faith without reason?
“I thought you were talking about catholicism.”
You can post childish barbs; you can’t provide any substantiation of your accusations.
What’s childish is your constant stalking in denial of reality.
>> “ If faith without works is dead, then what is faith without reason?” <<
.
Reason is the pagan humanist’s favorite cry, to excape the word of Yehova.
One cannot reason their way to salvation.
Dang!
I fogot my...
--Catholic_wannabe_Dude(sorry!)
Catholics are so sad when they admit that a group of faceless men determine INFALLIBLE doctrine for them.
I knew that as soon as I pressed
| Post |
Won't go here, other than to say that 'the law' needs to be defined a bit more before I will get into a discussion about it.
The Law from the perspective of anyone but those practicing “Pharisaical Judaism” can only be the written Torah, but even that breaks down into the parts that affect everyone, and those that affect the various sub groups of Hebrews, and then there are also the covenant issues like circuncision.
The “oral Torah” is no more valid than the catholic “traditions.”
Your saying the College of Cardinals have no faces! That is crazy, all the ones I have met have faces.
“I agree that both were the man and woman were both guilty, but she was still subject o the penalty.”
So was the man. Why didn’t they drag him out to Jesus?
Jesus didn’t break the Law of Moses, they did. First, they failed to drag the man out to face judgment. Second, when He told them to stone her if they had not sinned, they failed to do so.
The story highlights the hypocrisy of those who were trying to trap Jesus on a point of the Law while missing the bigger point.
whiule there is certainly no comparison between the revolutionaries (you REFORM FROM WITHIN)and the muslims in their belief systems, they were, in fact, both attacking the only protectors of Christianity that existed at the time.....it doesn't matter who attacks your home, a muslim or a christian....you defend it with everything that you have.
it was said here that we were still under mosiac law....circumcision was required...Christians changed that....under mosiac law pork was a no-no, Christians changed that too....during the life of Christ....we were not under mosiac law.
"they" were the early Christians known shortly thereafter as Catholics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.