Posted on 12/01/2002 2:33:40 PM PST by fishtank
I wasn't avoiding. I'm at work and could only get in so much at my break. Besides Romans 14 is a big chapter. Is there anything in specific you would like to discuss?
Sorry, this came from no tradition or teaching that I’ve ever heard of from anyone else, God answered me when I asked him to explain what Peter meant when he used the term, “common or unclean,” and that’s what He showed me.
No Jim, it really is the body of Christ who will be there. I have no idea who is or who will be in the body of Christ. I only know that my salvation is secured. Christ said:
If it weren’t for all your other post showing the opposite, that God only loves those who keep the works of the law, I’d love to believe it.
It's not Christ "goodness" that saves us, it's Christ himself fullfilling the righteous requirements of the law by living through us.
Please show me this in the scripture, you may be right, but I don’t ever remember reading it.
1 Tim 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
I did however run onto this above. How long would you say a man remains lawless, disobedient, ungodly, unholy, profane, a murderer of fathers and mothers?
If a righteous man is none of these things, is he still in need of the law? Is it possible the laws weren’t made for him as it clearly states. The law was our teacher, do we need the teacher to follow us around our whole life, or just until we have been taught?
Let me try an analogy. There are laws against speeding. Every day for 10 years a man sped every chance he got. Sometimes he did it willfully, sometimes unknowingly, sometimes there were speed traps. But he never got caught. One day he got caught and went before the judge. The judge said "We've been watching you. We know that you've been speeding for the last 10 years and we're prepared to put a hefty fine on you for doing so. You're guilty. But you know what? You're free to go because that gentlemen over there has offered to pay all your fines for you. Not only that, he has offered to drive you anywhere you want to go for the rest of your life so that you won't speed anymore."
The man is a sinner, Christ is the man who paid the fine. Now tell me: Should the man accept the whole offer from Christ? Or should he let Christ pay the fine and then keep driving himself, knowing that he's going to keep acting the same way? And if he did let Christ drive and you saw the mans car go by always obeying the speed limit would you be calling the man legalistic, or Christ?
Since Christ paid the fine and then offered to drive me anywhere I wanted to go, the question should be, should I take Him up on this, and then run around telling everyone how lawless they are because they don’t have Christ driving them around.
Or should I decide to have another try at it myself, with Christ working in me, and if I fail a few more times, will Jesus then refuse to pay my fine and let me rot in jail? Or has He paid the fine once and for all, with such an abundance of his wealth, (His life) that the fine is paid automatically forever, as long as His Spirit is in me, since only God has that kind of love for us.
We certainly see the difference here in our Christian belief. While you believe Christ paid our sin debt once, then we’re on our own, and dare never sin again, I believe he has no limits on how many times he will pay it as long as His Spirit is in us, and we are going in the right direction no matter how slow, just so we never turn away from him.
Legalist are those who constantly remind others of the law, and have no problem pointing out all the laws they believe we are breaking, but they never grow to the point the law is a way of life for them, so they have to talk about it constantly for fear they themselves might forget it.
Anyone who has no need of being constantly reminded of what sin is, it’s because they live within the law of love, still you consider them as being a lawless person, where God considers us a law unto ourselves.
Did Jesus keep the law by constantly reading it and reciting it to Himself, or did He keep it in the fact He loved mankind? Which law could a man break if he truly loved his fellow man?
JH
A general exposition of the entire chapter would be nice. Take your time and think it through.
Just a reminder of your own words: It was only by not relying on myself or others ideas that these truths became evident.
I expect we won't see any of Herbie's words, right?
Thanks for the correction, I wrote it down this time, Temple NO! Synagogue YES! Temple NO! Synagogue YES!
I'm sorry you had to correct me twice on this matter, I'll try not to appear disingenuous again.
JH
Well. Not like its a small matter. Gentiles can learn along with the jews. Had they not been allowed in both the temple and synagogues you would have a point. But now that you know they're allowed in synagogues you don't have your point anymore. So quit trying to make it.
Well Jim your entire argument hinges on your assertation that the sabbath wasn't meant for "gentiles". Here's a verse from God that contradicts you. Old covenent or new it doesn't matter.
And why is this about the sons of the stranger, and not the stranger himself?
You're reading too much into it. That same words, Strongs 1121 and 5236, are used in various passages and translated "stranger".
Here are how some other translations translate it:
Also the foreigners that join themselves to Jehovah (ASV)
And as for those from a strange country, who are joined to the Lord,(Bible in Basic English)
And I will give it to the strangers that attach themselves to the Lord,(Brentons)
Foreigners will follow me.(Contemporary English Version)
And the LORD says to those foreigners who become part of his people,(Good News Bible)
And I will remember the foreigners who have joined the LORD to worship him(God's Word)
Isa 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
Unless the the New Testament church was offering sacrifices and burnt offerings on the alter, then this certainly isn't taslking about the New Covenant era now was it, so then it has nothing to do with the New Testament times.
I happen to think this verse is prophecy pertaining to the reward of following God. But even if it's not then your theory that gentiles weren't meant to observe the sabbath is still refuted.
Let me refute it some more:
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He had rested from all His work which God created to make.
Created in the beginning, long before Israel.
Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
Jesus uses the word "anthropos" which in greek is man in general. If it was just Israel it was meant for he could have said Israel. If it was just Jews he could have said jews. Here is Luke he uses both terms, gentiles the thy people Israel: Luk 2:32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. He said "mankind" because he created it. He should know who he created it for. This is plain greek language Jim. You can deny what Christ said, but I'm not going to.
Let's see...what else:
Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
Paul didn't tell these poor misguided gentiles that there was no longer any sabbath. Instead he preached to them, on multiple sabbaths.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. I can listen to the clear teaching of the bible that has Isiaiah saying that gentiles will be blessed for keeping God's sabbath. I can listen to Christ saying that the sabbath was created for mankind. I can read the history of the early church and see that the sabbath was kept by gentiles. And I can read prophecies that say the sabbath will be kept in the future.
Or I can listen to you and your tradition telling me that we don't have keep the sabbath anymore.
Because they already were. Are you laboring under some fantasy that they grabbed pagan worshippers off the street and dragged them in to be taught? It's not like today where we instant access to any information we want. Any gentile that was there was motivated. The ten commandments were an elementary principle, much like they used to be in Christianty until fairly recent times.
V-21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
And you know that Steven has already answered on this...twice. But tell me why else this verse would be included if not to indicate that they (gentiles) were already learning about God?
As it was codified in the the Council at Constantinople in the year 381 AD, no.
(2) The deity of Jesus Christ?
Of course. He was God in the flesh.
(3) That you can become a god?
Not a god, but part of the Godhead. According to scripture our ultimate fate as sons of God is to be like God and see him as he is. We are to be joint heirs with Christ. We will one day manifest in glory as spiritual creations, members of God's family with Christ as our older brother and God as our father. We will one day participate in the divine nature.
A simple yes or no is OK. These should be straightforward questions to answer.
Did the best I could guy. Would you return the favor? 1. Do you believe in that there is a person called the holy spirit in heaven? 2. Do you believe that we should emulate Christ? 3. Do you believe we can become partakers of the divine nature?
By the way if you would like to read about my beliefs more deeply you can go to:
Fundemental Beliefs and read more than you'd ever want to know.
Sorry Jim, but there was no reason for Peter to call the animals koinos and akathartos unless there are really koinos and akathartos animals.
If it weren’t for all your other post showing the opposite, that God only loves those who keep the works of the law, I’d love to believe it.
My posts show no such thing. God loves everyone. He loved me when I was a hopeless sinner. He loves me now when I'm a sinner with hope. He loves you no matter what you do. He loves everyone. One of our goals is to develop the kind of love he has. I love you more and more every day Jim. :-)
Please show me this in the scripture, you may be right, but I don’t ever remember reading it.
Chiefly:
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Mat 19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible
I did however run onto this above. How long would you say a man remains lawless, disobedient, ungodly, unholy, profane, a murderer of fathers and mothers?
Until God shows him that his life falls far short of the letter and spiritual intent of his law and grants repenentence.
If a righteous man is none of these things, is he still in need of the law? Is it possible the laws weren’t made for him as it clearly states. The law was our teacher, do we need the teacher to follow us around our whole life, or just until we have been taught?
We need it to turn around our whole life. We then need Christ in us to keep it and be our advocate when we don't let him keep it because the penalty for it's violation is still there.
Since Christ paid the fine and then offered to drive me anywhere I wanted to go, the question should be, should I take Him up on this, and then run around telling everyone how lawless they are because they don’t have Christ driving them around.
What are you some Jesus hog? Let your light shine, let others know that Jesus will do the driving.
Or should I decide to have another try at it myself, with Christ working in me, and if I fail a few more times, will Jesus then refuse to pay my fine and let me rot in jail?
No, we're in the passenger seat going where Jesus drives us. Sometimes we may get scared or anxious as to where he's leading us and we might grab the wheel, or we might argue with him, or we might pull the emergency brake. Or God forbid even get out of the car. But as long as we stay in the car Jesus radios up to God the father and says "Breaker breaker big guy, we're still on our way but I'm still in charge. We're having a little problem with the passenger but I'm working on him..."
lol...I love this analogy.
Anyone who has no need of being constantly reminded of what sin is, it’s because they live within the law of love, still you consider them as being a lawless person, where God considers us a law unto ourselves.
You're mistranslating the verse you're thinking of here...
Did Jesus keep the law by constantly reading it and reciting it to Himself, or did He keep it in the fact He loved mankind? Which law could a man break if he truly loved his fellow man?
Love for mankind IS the law. The written law is the definition of that love. That being said he was certainly well read on scripture:
Luk 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
There's about a dozen other scriptures where Christ says "have you not read..."
Please dont' respond back to this tonight. My fingers are very tired.
Man, you don't ask for much do you?
Tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to give you links to a few websites. I know your position, but you're only guessing at mine. Read the material and if you find anything you disagree with bring it up and we'll talk about it.
Does the bible abolish meat distinctions?
Romans 14: Who is the weak brother?
Just a reminder of your own words: It was only by not relying on myself or others ideas that these truths became evident.
Exactly. Prove it from the bible.
I expect we won't see any of Herbie's words, right?
Armstrong was correct about this issue. Truth is truth in scripture.
Somehow I don’t think its just your fingers that need a rest. You're so off subject and vague tonight, that I can’t make any sense out of your post.
Please read it again when your rested, and see if even you can understand them.
You did this same thing the last time we debated, and I couldn’t understand what you were responding to then either.
If you care to ask a direct question I'd be more then happy to answer it, but no more of this game playing.
If you think it’s just me, find someone who’s impartial, and let them see if they can make heads or tails out of your post.
Your first post today, # 46, you started out by saying, “Here’s a verse from God that contradicts you. Old covenant or new it doesn’t matter.”
But then you didn’t give it??
Then I asked you, “And why is this about the sons of the stranger, and not the stranger himself?”
You then launched into a the subject of what the word stranger meant, and even quoted from Strong’s Greek, which had nothing to do with the sons, then gave me 6 translations dealing again with the word stranger, which had nothing to do with my question about their sons.
You never once dealt with the subject I asked you about, which was why does the scripture say? Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, Why is this about the sons?
All your post seemed equally as confusing.
JH
I'm going to treat this as a serious question.
My whole post was dealing with Acts 15:21, and the statement that I made, that Gentiles were not allowed in the Synagogue, was wrong because I was remembering reading where there was an outer Gentile court for them to be in.
It was only one small point I was making, out of 10 or 15 others on the same subject, so to please you, I struck that one comment out, and I still blew your pet scripture out of the water, Acts 15:21 which you seem to think means that James was saying the Gentiles would be taught the Law in the Synagogues every Sabbath.
If you would like to do something constructive, why don’t you deal with these questions head on your self instead of playing the sniper?
All of my questions and thoughts here are clear and concise, so let’s hear more from you then just your one liner barbs.
Acts 15:19. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
V-20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
V-21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Since the Gentiles were not allowed in the temple to hear Moses being taught, then James certainly wasn’t referring to the Gentiles learning the rest of law from them.
So why didn’t James simply tell them to observe the ten commandments? Which ones would have devastated them to find out they must keep it?
Please tell me why, at such a perfect opportunity, the Gentiles weren’t given the law? Why did they give them the 2nd and the 7th Commandment and leave out the other eight?
Why did they give them 2 of the Levitical laws, but not the other hundreds?
Let me tell you why, because they knew the Jewish laws were not to be given to the new Testament Gentile Church, but they weren’t sure how the Holy Spirit was going to handle it, so they made it as simplistic as possible.
While they didn’t want to burden them with all the laws they were struggling with, they were afraid the Pharisees and the other hard line Jews would accuse them of teaching against the laws of Moses. They used two of each groups of the laws, which were pure common sense, but still cleared them of possibly being accused of throwing out Moses law.
It had nothing to do with Gentiles going to the temple later, and hearing all the rest of the law, as taught by Moses.
Instead, this decision by the council in Jerusalem made it clear that it was a new day for the Gentiles, and all the hassling they had been receiving from the Jews, who had been telling them how they must become as a Jew, and keep all the laws of Moses, and this was settled once and for all.
Acts 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
V-31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
Read that again,
CONSOLATION, = "exhortation," RV, "comfort"; Why did this news comfort them? Why did they rejoice? What was there about this news that was so great to hear?
Let me tell you again, It showed them and everyone there including the apostles, that the Jewish laws were not going to be forced on them, as this had been their concern.
Somehow the Holy Spirit was able to teach them with out the law which was written in stone, and later John had observed how well it had worked, and was able to assure them it had been the right way. <
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
The anointing abides in us, and teaches us all things, of truth and cannot lie. The anointing replaced the written law by placing it in our hearts.
II, Please deal with each of my points, and i'll do the same with yours.
JH
Hey Doug,
can't you see that your just mimicing Herbie's ideas?
Was Herbie wrong about anything in the Bible?
Are we done with Romans 14 now?
You tell me. I was looking for your exposition and you just provided some links to a bunch of Herbie's ideas. Read the chapter without referencing any of Herbie's material and tell me what it is saying.
John 14 15 "If you love Me, keep[1] My commandments. 16And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- 17the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. 19 "A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. 20At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." 22Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" 23Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me. 25 "These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. 27Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28You have heard Me say to you, "I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said,[2] "I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I. 29"And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe. 30I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me. 31But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do. Arise, let us go from here.
Hi. After re-reading this passage, there's just too many pronouns that describe in detail the relation between three persons for me to negate the idea of the Trinity.
That really puts it all together, doesn't it?
When I was in the WWCG, our district minister taught that the Holy Spirit was comparable to a power steering unit in a car.
It was always there, but it didn't do anything until the driver started to turn the steering wheel, then it took over and assisted, but man had to make use of it before it responded.
While there are bits of truth in this analogy, it's impossible to think of the Holy Spirit in this way with out eventually considering the Spirit as a mechanical device that bolts on to our body with running belts and hoses attached to us. :-) Lol
JH
Blew it out of the water? In your own mind perhaps. And it wasn't only "one small point". In light of the material being discussed ie whether or not gentiles could learn in a synagogue is rather large.
If you would like to do something constructive, why don’t you deal with these questions head on your self instead of playing the sniper?
Doug was doin a fine job. There was no need to chime in until it was needed to be pointed out that you were trying to make your point with false information again. Which tells me you're not really interested in listening much because you too interested in trying to keep your own theology in a box by whatever means including stuff you know not to be true.
All of my questions and thoughts here are clear and concise, so let’s hear more from you then just your one liner barbs.
At this point those "one liner barbs" seem to be all you seem to understand.
Acts 15:19. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: V-20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. V-21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Easy. Jews were looking for ways to have fellowship with the new believers. As it stood, the believing jews couldn't break bread and fellowship with gentiles without becoming unclean for temple worship. So if the gentiles at least abstained from the pollutions of idols, from fornication, and from things stangled, and from blood the believing jews could remain clean and still be able to worship in the temple on the sabbaths. They imposed these minimum requirements upon the gentiles cuz they figured since, "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day" the gentiles would learn as they went along.
Since the Gentiles were not allowed in the temple to hear Moses being taught, then James certainly wasn’t referring to the Gentiles learning the rest of law from them.
Oh I see. You must think the temple was the only place gentiles could learn of the Old Testament. Nevermind, the hundreds of synagogues in the area. /sarcasm.
So why didn’t James simply tell them to observe the ten commandments? Which ones would have devastated them to find out they must keep it?
He didn't have to. He figured most of them would have heard the words of our savior when he said "if you love me you will keep my commands".
Please tell me why, at such a perfect opportunity, the Gentiles weren’t given the law? Why did they give them the 2nd and the 7th Commandment and leave out the other eight?
You'll have to tell me what the situation is you're talking about here. I'm lost.
Why did they give them 2 of the Levitical laws, but not the other hundreds?
Oh ok. I think I know what you're talking about now. I addressed that earlier. For the believing jews to have fellowship in the Temple they had to remain clean which is why James (whose name is really "Ya'acov") imposed those minimum requirements so that they could have fellowiship in the temple and break bread with the gentiles.
Let me tell you why, because they knew the Jewish laws were not to be given to the new Testament Gentile Church, but they weren’t sure how the Holy Spirit was going to handle it, so they made it as simplistic as possible.
Again, as Doug would say, this is spoken from tradition and not from scripture. The same thing has been spoken often for centuries. If you say it enough, it seems to be scripture.
While they didn’t want to burden them with all the laws they were struggling with, they were afraid the Pharisees and the other hard line Jews would accuse them of teaching against the laws of Moses. They used two of each groups of the laws, which were pure common sense, but still cleared them of possibly being accused of throwing out Moses law.
Perhaps. Paul was concerned with being accused of teaching against the law of Moses as well, so much so that he fullfilled a nazarite vow upon his return to Jerusalem and before his arrest.
It had nothing to do with Gentiles going to the temple later, and hearing all the rest of the law, as taught by Moses.
There ya go again. Why would Gentiles go to the temple? I think you know better.
Instead, this decision by the council in Jerusalem made it clear that it was a new day for the Gentiles, and all the hassling they had been receiving from the Jews, who had been telling them how they must become as a Jew, and keep all the laws of Moses, and this was settled once and for all.
Only in your mind of tradition. Why don't you go all the way with tradition Jim? Become a catholic.
II, Please deal with each of my points, and i'll do the same with yours.
Ok. I did. JH
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.