Did the Apostle Paul Teach A Righteousness Without Law-Keeping? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Did the Apostle Paul Teach A Righteousness Without Law-Keeping?


Pages : [1] 2

FCoulter
07-08-2012, 07:49
Can a Christian be justified apart from obedience to God’s commandments?

http://cbcg.org/franklin/SA/SA_withoutlaw.pdf

Tilley
07-08-2012, 23:35
Can a Christian be justified apart from obedience to God’s Commandments?

Only by faith in Jesus Christ.

FCoulter
07-09-2012, 06:25
Only by faith in Jesus Christ.
So what you are saying is, if a christian has faith he doesnt has to obey Gods laws. Correct?

Brasso
07-09-2012, 06:58
Faith without works is dead.

Now, since Scripture CANNOT be broken, what do you do with that?

Roering
07-09-2012, 10:33
Colossians 2:16-19

Therefore do not let anyone (FCoulter, Brasso) judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone (FCoulter, Brasso) who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person (FCoulter, Brasso) also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they (FCoulter, Brasso) are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. They (FCoulter, Brasso) have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

FCoulter
07-09-2012, 12:45
Colossians 2:16-19

Therefore do not let anyone (FCoulter, Brasso) judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone (FCoulter, Brasso) who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person (FCoulter, Brasso) also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they (FCoulter, Brasso) are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. They (FCoulter, Brasso) have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.. I expect no less from someone whom worships the whore of Rev.

Roering
07-09-2012, 13:15
. I expect no less from someone whom worships the whore of Rev.

Matthew 5:11
Blessed are you when people (FCoulter) insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.

Schabesbert
07-09-2012, 14:18
Can a Christian be justified apart from obedience to God’s commandments?

http://cbcg.org/franklin/SA/SA_withoutlaw.pdf

THE WORKS OF THE LAW
James Akin (http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/WORK-LAW.HTM)

FCoulter
07-09-2012, 14:56
Matthew 5:11
Blessed are you when people (FCoulter) insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
I didnt mean it as an insult. I was metely stating what I along with millions see, and unfortunately you and other catholics dont see it.

Schabesbert
07-09-2012, 15:08
I didnt mean it as an insult. I was metely stating what I along with millions see, and unfortunately you and other catholics dont see it.
Yes, there are millions that are deceived.

Ro 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.
18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.

Tit 1:10 For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party;

High-Gear
07-09-2012, 15:11
. I expect no less from someone whom worships the whore of Rev.

Where can I find this whore of which you speak. She sounds cool!

Actually I find it funny when Christians can't agree about how their imaginary friend wants them to worship him and result to name calling. Classy!

One would think an all powerful, all knowing being would have made his word crystal clear, rather than speaking in riddle and alegory causing thousands of interpretations. Those interpretations conveniently serving the interests of those who interpreted them.

FCoulter
07-09-2012, 15:36
Where can I find this whore of which you speak. She sounds cool!

Actually I find it funny when Christians can't agree about how their imaginary friend wants them to worship him and result to name calling. Classy!

One would think an all powerful, all knowing being would have made his word crystal clear, rather than speaking in riddle and alegory causing thousands of interpretations. Those interpretations conveniently serving the interests of those who interpreted them.
Its not name calling, its the title Jesus gave to them. If you want to know their location, look up vatican city.



God did make it clear... Satan through man (pope) has decieved and made it unclear to many.

Brasso
07-09-2012, 15:49
Therefore do not let anyone (FCoulter, Brasso) judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

...these are a shadow of things TO come, but the body of Messiah.

Blasphemy, blasphemy....changing the Word of God like that.

Col 2:16 Let no one therefore judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths –
Col 2:17 which are a shadow of what is to come – but the Body of the Messiah.
Col 2:18 Let no one deprive you of the prize, one who takes delight in false humility and worship of messengers, taking his stand on what he has not seen, puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Col 2:19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the Body – nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments – grows with the growth of Elohim.


So you provided false passages, and then accused us of something that doesn't exist. I have no idea what the last part has to do with anything as we have never told anyone to worship angels. The 7th Day Adventists however do believe that "Jesus" is the arch angel Michael. Does that count?

I can't help if I don't believe God lied and flip flopped on His Word. You can believe whatever you like.

Let's see how the Aramaic, the oldest NT texts in existence read:

Col 2:16

Let no one therefore judge you about food and drink, or about the distinctions of festivals and new moons and Shabbats which were shadows of the things then future, but the body of the Mashiyach.

And let's not forget that the Collosians weren't Jews. They were pagans. Unless you believe that pagans were keeping God's Holy Days? You do know that they had their own pagan "holy" days right? So it's the pagans that they aren't supposed to be judged by in keeping God's days. Only the body of Messiah, the assembly, is to judge them in these things. Why would anyone care what a pagan thought anyway?

Schabesbert
07-09-2012, 16:29
One would think an all powerful, all knowing being would have made his word crystal clear, rather than speaking in riddle and alegory causing thousands of interpretations. Those interpretations conveniently serving the interests of those who interpreted them.
He never intended for His written word to stand alone, knowing that any writing could be misinterpreted, purposefully or otherwise. Look at our CONUS as a prime example.

That's why our country's founders were wise enough to have an authoritative institution to determine the application of the Constitution.

God, as one would expect, is wiser yet: He instituted His Church for that purpose, and also granted it the aid of His Holy Spirit to ensure that it wouldn't teach error.

Schabesbert
07-09-2012, 16:32
...these are a shadow of things TO come, but the body of Messiah.
Yes.
It's one of the tasks of the Body of Christ (i.e., the Church) to determine things like which day should be set apart for worship.

Thanks for the clarification! :wavey:

G26S239
07-09-2012, 16:42
...these are a shadow of things TO come, but the body of Messiah.

Blasphemy, blasphemy....changing the Word of God like that.

Col 2:16 Let no one therefore judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths –
Col 2:17 which are a shadow of what is to come – but the Body of the Messiah.
Col 2:18 Let no one deprive you of the prize, one who takes delight in false humility and worship of messengers, taking his stand on what he has not seen, puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Col 2:19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the Body – nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments – grows with the growth of Elohim.


So you provided false passages, and then accused us of something that doesn't exist. I have no idea what the last part has to do with anything as we have never told anyone to worship angels. The 7th Day Adventists however do believe that "Jesus" is the arch angel Michael. Does that count?

I can't help if I don't believe God lied and flip flopped on His Word. You can believe whatever you like.

Let's see how the Aramaic, the oldest NT texts in existence read:

Col 2:16

Let no one therefore judge you about food and drink, or about the distinctions of festivals and new moons and Shabbats which were shadows of the things then future, but the body of the Mashiyach.

And let's not forget that the Collosians weren't Jews. They were pagans. Unless you believe that pagans were keeping God's Holy Days? You do know that they had their own pagan "holy" days right? So it's the pagans that they aren't supposed to be judged by in keeping God's days. Only the body of Messiah, the assembly, is to judge them in these things. Why would anyone care what a pagan thought anyway?
Brasso are you Jewish or Christian?

Roering
07-09-2012, 17:19
I didnt mean it as an insult.

Sure you did.


I was metely stating what I along with millions see,

I love how people who come up with such crazy conspiracy theories always think there is this multitude of people who think the way they do.



and unfortunately you and other catholics dont see it.

The day I believe that Christ was either kidding or lying about sticking with and guiding the Church he set up I'll let you know. Till then we will just have to disagree on this one.

hotrodcummins12v
07-09-2012, 17:48
Its amazing that the people who always think that the bible is a book of contradictions, are the people who never read it. You take single texts and pair them with other single texts and don't take in to account the whole book written around it. You hear what others tell you and believe it because you have no true knowledge of the facts. Unbelievers say well what about the "turn the other cheak" vs. the "eye for and eye"? There is a time for price and a time for war. It is so hard for unbelievers to shun the idea of a god but go crazy prepping for a ridiculous zombie apocalypse... silly. I've personally seen demons cast out of people and have felt the presence of God. The existence is real to me because I allow myself to see it rather than ignore it. I'm not saying that there isn't any Hippocrate Christians. Of course there is. Its never easy to walk a straight and narrow path when you lose sight of what truely matters. I don't understand why some people just insist on starting drama because they are simply misinformed, or God didn't answer a prayer for them when quite frankly, they aren't following the guidelines to have their prayers answered. To those that think, God is a god of love and he will forgive me no matter what since I'm a good person. I urge you to read Jeremiah. You will learn the true God. The God that spares numeruos times his loyal servant and brought vengeance and destruction to his enemies. Before you bash Christians for their beliefs, make sure you study the manual on Christianity first before you pick a battle on a subject in which you know nothing about. That is all.

Sub Club 828
1911 Club 828
Outdoor Hub Mobile

High-Gear
07-09-2012, 19:01
. I've personally seen demons cast out of people and have felt the presence of God. The existence is real to me because I allow myself to see it rather than ignore it.

Really? Did you video tape it? Please tell me how you tell the difference between someone possessed by a deamon or who speaks to god from a person suffering from mental illness?

Vic Hays
07-09-2012, 19:56
Can a Christian be justified apart from obedience to God’s commandments?

http://cbcg.org/franklin/SA/SA_withoutlaw.pdf

If you could be justified by keeping the law God would owe you justification. No one can be justified by keeping the law.

Romans 4:4 Now to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
4:5 But to him that works not, but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Brasso
07-09-2012, 20:58
Well, let's keep our terms defined for what they are.

We are JUSTIFIED by the blood of the lamb. And the just will live by faith. Faith without works is dead. The justified will live by obeying God.

This doesn't mean you are saved by works, but that you do works because you are saved. The Torah AND the Testimony.

And I'm neither Jew nor Christian. I'm Messianic. I believe both halves of the book.

Animal Mother
07-09-2012, 21:42
God, as one would expect, is wiser yet: He instituted His Church for that purpose, and also granted it the aid of His Holy Spirit to ensure that it wouldn't teach error.No teaching of the Roman Catholic Church has ever been an error?

Vic Hays
07-09-2012, 23:01
No teaching of the Roman Catholic Church has ever been an error?

It must be true because they say so so it must be true.

Just a little circular.

Vic Hays
07-09-2012, 23:06
Well, let's keep our terms defined for what they are.

We are JUSTIFIED by the blood of the lamb. And the just will live by faith. Faith without works is dead. The justified will live by obeying God.

This doesn't mean you are saved by works, but that you do works because you are saved. The Torah AND the Testimony.

And I'm neither Jew nor Christian. I'm Messianic. I believe both halves of the book.

It is basic Christianity that all are sinners and therefore unjustifiable. Jesus is worthy and therefore He can justify us by His sacrifice for us.

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live to God.
2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Tilley
07-10-2012, 01:11
So what you are saying is, if a christian has faith he doesnt has to obey Gods laws. Correct?

No, I am answering your question. I am justified by faith in Jesus. There is nothing I can ever do to earn salvation.

Let me repeat that...there is nothing I can ever do that will justify me before God.

Tilley
07-10-2012, 01:18
. I expect no less from someone whom worships the whore of Rev.

That is incredibly rude. A tree is known by the fruit it gives. The blackness of your lost soul is showing through the insults you use against God's children.

Seriously, examine your conduct. You sound full of hatred.

Tilley
07-10-2012, 01:21
I didnt mean it as an insult. I was metely stating what I along with millions see, and unfortunately you and other catholics dont see it.

A person IS NOT saved by where he spends his Sunday afternoons, but by his relationship with Christ.

hotrodcummins12v
07-10-2012, 05:47
Really? Did you video tape it? Please tell me how you tell the difference between someone possessed by a deamon or who speaks to god from a person suffering from mental illness?

It didn't happen unless you have video proof of it! Yeah I don't need to try to persuade you. This happened summer of 1997, sorry I didn't have a camera phone back then and I was too busy praying to worry about film. I know the person personally, his name is Isaac. He is not mentally ill. Actually since that instance he's been a totally different person. Lets say it was mental illness, it still left his body through heavy prayer and hasn't returned. It isn't something that can be explained by science. It was real. He had no control over it. It had control over him. Or maybe, just maybe he was having a flashback of his preincarnated body being eaten by wolves :rollingeyes: your turn, fire away.

Sub Club 828
1911 Club 828
Outdoor Hub Mobile

Schabesbert
07-10-2012, 06:54
No teaching of the Roman Catholic Church has ever been an error?
No teaching that has been declared to be infallible, using the Church's definition (i.e. proclaimed by a definitive act of the Magisterium to be binding on all the Church for all time) has been in error.

Schabesbert
07-10-2012, 06:56
It must be true because they say so so it must be true.

Just a little circular.
Must you present a dishonest strawman as your "proof?"
Are you THAT hate-filled that you think you glorify God by lying for Him?

FCoulter
07-10-2012, 07:32
A person IS NOT saved by where he spends his Sunday afternoons, but by his relationship with Christ.
TrUst me no person will ever be saved worshiping God on sunday.

FCoulter
07-10-2012, 07:35
That is incredibly rude. A tree is known by the fruit it gives. The blackness of your lost soul is showing through the insults you use against God's children.

Seriously, examine your conduct. You sound full of hatred.
So you are calling Jesus own words in describing the Harlot church rude? That is what is rude dear sir.

Vic Hays
07-10-2012, 08:38
Faith without works is dead.

Now, since Scripture CANNOT be broken, what do you do with that?

A study of what faith is reveals that it is not inherently within us to do either truly good works or have faith. That is the work of the Holy Spirit within us. We can do nothing to be credited with our salvation or justification. On the other hand, the Holy Spirit can work within us to be conformed to Jesus Christ and do acceptable works.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.

Schabesbert
07-10-2012, 08:38
TrUst me no person will ever be saved worshiping God on sunday.
Sorry, but I don't put my trust in YOU or any other mere man.

Jesus established a Church and endowed it with some of His own Authority and commanded that we trust the Church:

Mt 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Vic Hays
07-10-2012, 08:49
Must you present a dishonest strawman as your "proof?"
Are you THAT hate-filled that you think you glorify God by lying for Him?

Bert, it is not fair for you to characterize me as dishonest. You know that our faiths are stridently opposed on the subject of inspiration.

I believe that the Bible is a much more reliable guide than a sect that continually must tell itself and its members and the world that it is the only infallible guide and that it is the only entity that God can communicate through.

The Bible itself prophesies that such a sect would arise and even have control over the saints for a time.

Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Schabesbert
07-10-2012, 09:00
Bert, it is not fair for you to characterize me as dishonest. You know that our faiths are stridently opposed on the subject of inspiration.
Actually, I don't think it's fair for you to present our beliefs dishonestly.

I believe that the Bible is a much more reliable guide than a sect that continually must tell itself and its members and the world that it is the only infallible guide and that it is the only entity that God can communicate through.
We don't believe this.
We CERTAINLY don't believe in pitting the Bible against the Church, since BOTH are agents of God's Truth.
The Church preached the Gospel long before the the NT was written. The Church is, according to scripture itself, the pillar and bulwark of the Truth (1Ti 3:15).

The Bible itself prophesies that such a sect would arise and even have control over the saints for a time.

Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
This is the very same group that denounced Jesus and had Him crucified.
Re 11:8 and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.

Not "such a sect" if you're going to compare it with Catholicism.

It's very offensive to take the words of OUR Scripture and twist them to make it sound like it's denouncing the Bride of Christ.

Tilley
07-10-2012, 09:37
Jeremiah 31:33-34 New Living Translation (NLT)


“But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the Lord. “I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to teach their relatives, saying, ‘You should know the Lord.’ For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know me already,” says the Lord. “And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins.”

Roering
07-10-2012, 10:02
TrUst me no person will ever be saved worshiping God on sunday.

Citation???

High-Gear
07-10-2012, 11:52
It didn't happen unless you have video proof of it! Yeah I don't need to try to persuade you. This happened summer of 1997, sorry I didn't have a camera phone back then and I was too busy praying to worry about film. I know the person personally, his name is Isaac. He is not mentally ill. Actually since that instance he's been a totally different person. Lets say it was mental illness, it still left his body through heavy prayer and hasn't returned. It isn't something that can be explained by science. It was real. He had no control over it. It had control over him. Or maybe, just maybe he was having a flashback of his preincarnated body being eaten by wolves :rollingeyes: your turn, fire away.

Sub Club 828
1911 Club 828
Outdoor Hub Mobile

I just wanted to see the video! So did you actually see the deamon, or did you just see a guy convulsing and speaking with a low grumbly voice? Ive seen videos of exercisms and was not moved. Seemed to me like a person seeking attention and acceptance.


However you are convinced of such things. I wonder if you were on a jury and a person who was charged with a horrible crime defended himself by claiming to be possessed, and showed a video of his exorcism, would you set him free as he obviously was not responsible for his actions?

Brasso
07-10-2012, 11:56
“But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the Lord. “I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to teach their relatives, saying, ‘You should know the Lord.’ For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know me already,” says the Lord. “And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins.”

All of this hasn't happened yet has it?

Makes you wonder. Perhaps you should read the last couple lines of the last chapter of the last book of the "Old Testament".

Read my sig line. Unless you have a different definition of "forever", you're in serious trouble of becoming "least in the kingdom".

Schabesbert
07-10-2012, 12:17
Interesting that this is in the future tense isn't it? Since Messiah had already long died and risen at the time it was written.
Really? MY Messiah lived as a man long AFTER Jeremiah.
Who is YOUR Messiah?

You'll notice that the whole section is written in the future tense, since all these things happen in the future, from the prophet's point of view.

Makes you wonder. Perhaps you should read the last couple lines of the last chapter of the last book of the "Old Testament".
2nd Maccabees?

Tilley
07-10-2012, 12:40
All of this hasn't happened yet has it?
Yes it has. Christ died and was resurrected by the power of God's Holy Spirit. After that God has deposited His Spirit into his children as a seal of his salvation.

It is this spirit that instructs as well as convicts us. This is the process known as sanctification.

Vic Hays
07-10-2012, 13:35
TrUst me no person will ever be saved worshiping God on sunday.

I trust the Bible. You are not God so I don't trust you.

I seriously doubt that God will judge according to works unless the motives and intents of the heart are evil. Ignorance is not evil unless it is willful.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
10:35 But in every nation he that fears him, and works righteousness, is accepted with him.

Vic Hays
07-10-2012, 13:41
All of this hasn't happened yet has it?

Makes you wonder. Perhaps you should read the last couple lines of the last chapter of the last book of the "Old Testament".

Read my sig line. Unless you have a different definition of "forever", you're in serious trouble of becoming "least in the kingdom".

Some of it has happened and yes, Tilley is correct about the Holy Spirit in the hearts of God's children.


Ephesians 1:13 In whom you also trusted, after that you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that you believed, you were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Ephesians 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of his glory.

This is the genuine born again experience.

Brasso
07-10-2012, 14:07
Some of it has. But it hasn't been fulfilled in it's entirety yet. That happens during the Millenial Kingdom, when the knoledge of Him will fill the earth as the waters cover the sea, and Jerusalem will be called a praise in all the earth.

Brasso
07-10-2012, 14:08
already long died and risen at the time it was written.

Really? MY Messiah lived as a man long AFTER Jeremiah.
Who is YOUR Messiah?

Sorry Bert,

I was thinking of a passage in Hebrews that deals with that passage. I went back and edited it.

Vic Hays
07-10-2012, 14:17
Actually, I don't think it's fair for you to present our beliefs dishonestly.


We don't believe this.
We CERTAINLY don't believe in pitting the Bible against the Church, since BOTH are agents of God's Truth.
The Church preached the Gospel long before the the NT was written. The Church is, according to scripture itself, the pillar and bulwark of the Truth (1Ti 3:15).


This is the very same group that denounced Jesus and had Him crucified.
Re 11:8 and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.

Not "such a sect" if you're going to compare it with Catholicism.

It's very offensive to take the words of OUR Scripture and twist them to make it sound like it's denouncing the Bride of Christ.

I certainly wouldn't want to denounce the Bride of Christ I just don't believe it is your sect.

As far as pitting the Bible against philosophy of religious organizations and those who tout themselves as apostles and experts, this is what the Bible teaches that we should do.

No sect or church or leader is above scripture.


II Corinthians 11:12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

hotrodcummins12v
07-10-2012, 14:34
I just wanted to see the video! So did you actually see the deamon, or did you just see a guy convulsing and speaking with a low grumbly voice? Ive seen videos of exercisms and was not moved. Seemed to me like a person seeking attention and acceptance.


However you are convinced of such things. I wonder if you were on a jury and a person who was charged with a horrible crime defended himself by claiming to be possessed, and showed a video of his exorcism, would you set him free as he obviously was not responsible for his actions?

Ok, maybe I should rephrase that. At the time that the demon was being cast out, he had no control. Under normal circumstances he was under his own control but influenced. I hope that helps clear the confusion. As far as how he acted during, there was no grumbling. It was top of lungs screaming of pain as if someone was tearing out his stomach. He got profane and spoke curses. He literally self mutilated himself by scratching at his face and his upper body, and ripped his shirt. I did not see the demon. Kinda glad I couldn't.

Sub Club 828
1911 Club 828
Outdoor Hub Mobile

Schabesbert
07-10-2012, 15:25
I certainly wouldn't want to denounce the Bride of Christ I just don't believe it is your sect.

As far as pitting the Bible against philosophy of religious organizations and those who tout themselves as apostles and experts, this is what the Bible teaches that we should do.
No, we are to listen to the Church, and NOT to those who want to usurp the Authority that Jesus gave the Church.

It's plainly written in scripture. Note that scripture doesn't bestow this Authority on the Church; that is what Christ did. But it is one witness to that fact.

No sect or church or leader is above scripture.
You keep wanting to make it an either/or, when in fact it is a both/and. Was St. Peter "above scripture" when he made his decisive proclaimations in Acts 15, or when he wrote his epistles, or when he preached what was recorded by St. Mark?

Was St. Luke "above scripture" when he wrote his two books? Etc., etc.

Your false dichotomies are what has you confused. And your false dichotomies are one thing that makes you deride the Church that Jesus commissioned, and to which He proclaimed we must listen, and which St. Paul declared was the pillar & bulwark of the truth.

II Corinthians 11:12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
Hmmm ... sounds like EG White to me!

High-Gear
07-10-2012, 15:28
Ok, maybe I should rephrase that. At the time that the demon was being cast out, he had no control. Under normal circumstances he was under his own control but influenced. I hope that helps clear the confusion. As far as how he acted during, there was no grumbling. It was top of lungs screaming of pain as if someone was tearing out his stomach. He got profane and spoke curses. He literally self mutilated himself by scratching at his face and his upper body, and ripped his shirt. I did not see the demon. Kinda glad I couldn't.

Sub Club 828
1911 Club 828
Outdoor Hub Mobile

And what did you see that was not possible for a person suffering from emotional distress?

Also, please answer the second part of my question.

Norske
07-10-2012, 15:53
I believe that every single word in the Bible, in ANY so-called "religious text" for that matter, is one of three things:

1 - Written by Men for their own benefit.

2- Written by deluded Men who only think they are writing the "Words of God".

3- Written by Men who are truly writing the Words of God. But there is no proof of this. It must be taken on faith.

Of the three, I believe 1 and 2 are far, far, far more likely to be the actual case than 3.

And therefore, to live our lives in accordance with the words of MEN, written for their own benefit in their own day and time, is downright silly.

For instance, I believe the practical effect of the first 4 of the 10 Commandments were specifically written by Moses, not by God, to provide secular authority, that of a King in all but name, to Moses personnally.

And as such, we can take them or leave them as we see fit.

I believe it is the last 6 of the 10 Commandments that form the basis of universal morality that is wise for all to follow.

Schabesbert
07-10-2012, 15:59
I believe that every single word in the Bible, in ANY so-called "religious text" for that matter, is one of three things:
:upeyes:
We all know what you think. Problem is, you keep spouting the product of your imagination.
And only that.

Brasso
07-10-2012, 16:15
You keep wanting to make it an either/or, when in fact it is a both/and. Was St. Peter "above scripture" when he made his decisive proclaimations in Acts 15, or when he wrote his epistles, or when he preached what was recorded by St. Mark?

Was St. Luke "above scripture" when he wrote his two books? Etc., etc.

Your false dichotomies are what has you confused. And your false dichotomies are one thing that makes you deride the Church that Jesus commissioned, and to which He proclaimed we must listen, and which St. Paul declared was the pillar & bulwark of the truth.

This is the problem. You honestly believe that they changed the commandments. Error number 1. Then you believe He gave the Church the authority to change the commandments. Error number 2. Then you believe that the RCC is the Church. Error number 3.

Three strikes and you're out.

Then you put a cherry on top by inferring that God lied and flip flopped on commandments that He already said were forever. You're theology and church is a grand slam failure.

Schabesbert
07-10-2012, 16:38
This is the problem. You honestly believe that they changed the commandments. Error number 1. Then you believe He gave the Church the authority to change the commandments. Error number 2. Then you believe that the RCC is the Church. Error number 3.

Three strikes and you're out.

Then you put a cherry on top by inferring that God lied and flip flopped on commandments that He already said were forever. You're theology and church is a grand slam failure.
Calling something an error doesn't make it so.

Let's start with what you term error number 3.

My evidence for this fact (and it is a historical fact, even though you don't allow yourself to face it) is that:
a) Christ instituted a Church (I don't care if you say He "re-built" it or not, the fact is He left behind a Church).
b) Christ promised that this Church would endure forever
c) There can logically be ONLY ONE such Church, since we are commanded to listen to that Church. If there is more than one, then any conflicts would negate that command, and Christ would not command something that would be negated.
c) Therefore, there must exist somewhere a Church that existed since the time of Christ and claims to be that Church

There are precisely two that could possibly meet this definition: The Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox. Now, without getting into why I find one more plausible than the other, I can safely say that one of these must be the Church Christ spoke about.

Oh, and your's ain't it. Sorry.

Brasso
07-10-2012, 16:59
Oh. Error number 5. You seem to have forgotten that the "Church" has existed since the days of Moses. Error number 6. The first "new testament church" was in Jerusalem and was headed by James, not Peter. They were all Jews and they kept the Torah. Your sect does not. In fact, your sect teaches against the commandments. Your's is most definately not the Church. Your church murdered the real church. At least came very close to it. If you want to know about your church, read the Book of Daniel.

NMG26
07-10-2012, 17:19
Of course Paul taught righteousness by faith.

A right standing with God takes faith only.

If you believe that you are not worthy then you will never be worthy. If you know that you are just as worthy as anyone else to keep a good relationship with God, there is nothing standing in the way except what you believe.

"God is in us, both to will and to do of His good pleasure".

God never turns His back on us. If God was to turn His back for any reason, then we could not trust that God would help us in our time of need. God is always there with us. That is omnipresence.

Norske
07-10-2012, 17:21
:upeyes:
We all know what you think. Problem is, you keep spouting the product of your imagination.
And only that.

OK, given that what I said is a "product of (my) imagination".

I will stipulate that that is true.

Now, please prove to us all that the entire Bible, as well as all other so-called "Religious Texts", were, are, and always will be, NOT the "products of the imaginations of the MEN who set ink to parchment" in the first place?

:dunno:

And if you cannot, then admit that any and all arguments over what "God" did or did not say, is of little relevence to any of us?

:upeyes:

Vic Hays
07-10-2012, 17:46
No, we are to listen to the Church, and NOT to those who want to usurp the Authority that Jesus gave the Church.

It's plainly written in scripture. Note that scripture doesn't bestow this Authority on the Church; that is what Christ did. But it is one witness to that fact.


You keep wanting to make it an either/or, when in fact it is a both/and. Was St. Peter "above scripture" when he made his decisive proclaimations in Acts 15, or when he wrote his epistles, or when he preached what was recorded by St. Mark?


So you think that when a sect claims the authority of Christ I am supposed to obey them based upon their word without checking it out from the Bible?

That doesn't sound very wise to me. Trusting him is what Coulter is asking for.

Schabesbert
07-10-2012, 17:48
Oh. Error number 5. You seem to have forgotten that the "Church" has existed since the days of Moses.
Didn't forget it at all. It's just that Christ needed to re-build it from the ground up, since it had been taken away from them for repeatedly rejecting the prophets, and ultimately rejecting God's Son. See Matthew 21.

Yes, their "Church" still exists among Judaism and apparently within your beliefs; it's just that their's (and your's) is not Christ's Church.

Error number 6. The first "new testament church" was in Jerusalem and was headed by James, not Peter.
Oops, I guess you aren't too familiar with the New Testament. Yes, Peter was the head of the Church when it was located ONLY in Jerusalem, so in a sense you're half-right. That's better than you usually do by 50%.

Your's is most definately not the Church. Your church murdered the real church. At least came very close to it.
OK, then tell me WHEN? Precisely when did Jesus break His promise?

I can point to historical evidence that shows a continuity of succession and a continuity of beliefs going back to the very Apostles themselves. You can only show falsehoods and anger.

If you want to know about your church, read the Book of Daniel.
Yes, the Church is depicted in there. For instance, the Rock not build by human hands which ultimately causes the 4th kingdom to crumble.

Schabesbert
07-10-2012, 17:50
OK, given that what I said is a "product of (my) imagination".

I will stipulate that that is true.

Now, please prove to us all that the entire Bible, as well as all other so-called "Religious Texts", were, are, and always will be, NOT the "products of the imaginations of the MEN who set ink to parchment" in the first place?

:dunno:

And if you cannot, then admit that any and all arguments over what "God" did or did not say, is of little relevence to any of us?

:upeyes:
That's a downright silly request. It's like trying to pay for a purchase with cash, and the silly cashier saying "OK, prove to me that your money, and all money whether conterfeit or not, is true US legal tender."

Schabesbert
07-10-2012, 17:51
Oh. Error number 5. You seem to have forgotten that the "Church" has existed since the days of Moses. Error number 6. The first "new testament church" was in Jerusalem and was headed by James, not Peter. They were all Jews and they kept the Torah. Your sect does not. In fact, your sect teaches against the commandments. Your's is most definately not the Church. Your church murdered the real church. At least came very close to it. If you want to know about your church, read the Book of Daniel.
Oh, and it hasn't escaped my notice that you couldn't address my post above.

Schabesbert
07-10-2012, 17:53
So you think that when a sect claims the authority of Christ I am supposed to obey them based upon their word without checking it out from the Bible?
No, I'm asking that you follow actual history, as well as the Bible.

Vic Hays
07-10-2012, 21:23
No, I'm asking that you follow actual history, as well as the Bible.

Actual history shows that the RCC was brutal.

NMG26
07-11-2012, 04:31
So you think that when a sect claims the authority of Christ I am supposed to obey them based upon their word without checking it out from the Bible?

That doesn't sound very wise to me. Trusting him is what Coulter is asking for.

Problem is that the Bible is sectarian.

We are talking about Paul's gospel.

Why even mention Paul if it is not his view point?

If you are going to rely on Bible interpretation you will always be sectarian and separate the church into this and that group.

Same with CONUS interpretation.

The "self evident", in the moment, is more to be trusted then any book interpretation, sect, or creed. Roll with the living word. That way you don't have to lose your mind.

Brasso
07-11-2012, 06:14
I can point to historical evidence that shows a continuity of succession and a continuity of beliefs going back to the very Apostles themselves. You can only show falsehoods and anger.

What you have is ancedotal evidence that one assembly was started in Rome by someone called Peter. There is no proof it was the Apostle Peter, and probably wasn't. Further, James was head of the Beit Din in Jerusalem, not Peter. They taught nothing of what the RCC teaches. There were many other assemblies started elsewhere by the other Apostles that were nothing like Rome. They just didn't have the authority of the Pontificus Maximus to back up their enforced mixture of sun worhship on the rest of the known world by the power of the sword. Again, read about it in Daniel. The "Eastern Church" kept the Passover long after Rome, as well as the 7th Day Sabbath into the 600's ad, all on the authority of the Apostle John. The RCC then spent the next 1000 years holding Inquisitions and murdering anyone who disagreed with them. Very "Christ-like".

Fact is, that my beliefs are FAR more in line with what the Apostles taught and lived than the RCC could in their dreams

FCoulter
07-11-2012, 06:16
I trust the Bible. You are not God so I don't trust you.

I seriously doubt that God will judge according to works unless the motives and intents of the heart are evil. Ignorance is not evil unless it is willful.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
10:35 But in every nation he that fears him, and works righteousness, is accepted with him.
Vic, you dont trust the Bible. The Bible is clear if someone breaks Gods commands they will not be save. Sunday worship is breaking one of Gods commands.

You are good at breaking Gods commands and calling them a delight.


Do a side by side comparison withe the Bible in what the N T church kept compared to what the adventist keep today and you will see you have more in common with your mother church the RCC than Christ True church.


I challenge you Vic post a side by side caparison. You want a pat on the back because you keep the weekly SAbbath, ok adda boy, theres your reward just like the publicans.


You go on and reject Gods other commands and Sabbaths , yet embrace pagan, teachings like the trinity, xmas, the worship of angels, ects. just like the harolt mother church taught and your confused false prophet mixed up and claimed as her own.




Its sad how you stand here and bash the RCC when infact she gave birth to your sect.

hotrodcummins12v
07-11-2012, 09:05
And what did you see that was not possible for a person suffering from emotional distress?

Also, please answer the second part of my question.

That was an answer to your question. He was in control of his actions in normal everyday living, so yes in that scenario, guilty. As far as seeing something that would distinguish it from mental illness, I just know what I saw and what I felt, there was a powerful presence there. Chilling feeling. And as I stated before, I know this person and I know that it wasn't the case. Wasn't then, isn't now.

Sub Club 828
1911 Club 828
Outdoor Hub Mobile

Schabesbert
07-11-2012, 09:12
Actual history shows that the RCC was brutal.
Not so much as protestants like to make people believe, but yes, there were some people in the Church who sinned greatly.

But so what? This facile argument just proves that Christ was right when He said that His Kingdom would contain both wheat and tares until the end. And yet, it would STILL be His Kingdom. You are denying His Kingdom because it contains tares. It's wrong.

But the history I'm talking about is the continuous line of succession of both leadership (by laying on of hands, and breathing the Holy Spirit, all the way back to the Apostles and to Jesus) AND of teaching, neither of which can be reasonably denied.

By bringing up the argument you just did, you're doing nothing but obfuscating.

Schabesbert
07-11-2012, 09:26
What you have is ancedotal evidence that one assembly was started in Rome by someone called Peter.
I guess I was assuming that you might be aware of the myriad of other witnesses throughout history. I guess you're not. It's a shame, though, that you assume that you know things when you don't in reality.

There is no proof it was the Apostle Peter, and probably wasn't.
And George Washington probably wasn't the leader of the Continental Army.

Further, James was head of the Beit Din in Jerusalem, not Peter.
Funny, I always thought Jesus was the head of the Church, everywhere (i.e., Catholic).

But your argument reveals that you know even less about the structure of the Church, both modern and early, than you do about scripture.

In my local diocese, Bishop Edward Kmiec (soon to be Bishop Richard Malone), is the "head." However, Pope Benedict is STILL the earthly "head" of the Church. And Jesus is, of course, the Universal "head" of the Universal Church.

They taught nothing of what the RCC teaches.
They taught exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. And none of the distinctives of your "church."

There were many other assemblies started elsewhere by the other Apostles that were nothing like Rome.
An absolutely ignorant statement.

You should really read the earliest writing from the earliest Christians. For instance, St. Ignatius of Antioch, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch):

was among the Apostolic Fathers, was the third Bishop of Antioch, and was a student of John the Apostle.[2][3] En route to his martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote a series of letters which have been preserved as an example of very early Christian theology. Important topics addressed in these letters include ecclesiology, the sacraments, and the role of bishops.


His writings put the lie to your beliefs.

And he's but one example. I could recommend some really good books on the subject, but you'll studiously ignore their teachings as it shows just how wrong your beliefs are.


They just didn't have the authority of the Pontificus Maximus to back up their enforced mixture of sun worhship on the rest of the known world by the power of the sword.
Sorry, Mr. Goebbels, but you're wrong. And, while repeating lies might convince some people (it might have been what convinced you), it won't work on me. I know the truth.

FCoulter
07-11-2012, 10:59
In my local diocese, Bishop Edward Kmiec (soon to be Bishop Richard Malone), is the "head."
This explains alot.


Bishop Edward Kmiec


He has been accused in a lawsuit of failing to act after learning in the mid- to late 1990s that a suspended pedophile priest was continuing to socialize with boys at a church and a Catholic school. Therapists had warned the diocese in writing that the Rev. Edward McKeown should be kept away from adolescents. Father McKeown gained temporary custody of a troubled teen in the late 1990s, then later was charged with raping him and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Bishop Kmiec has acknowledged giving parishioners a "misleading" statement about how many times his predecessor was warned about the priest before suspending him. The bishop's spokesman has also insisted that, over the years, the diocese has done its best to deal with Father McKeown.

Brasso
07-11-2012, 11:42
Bert,

I'd take the time to prove you wrong, for the 10 thousandth time, but why?

You live in La La Land. No matter what the Bible says, you got some guy somewhere that wrote a letter to contradict it, and you believe it ove the Bible. So we're at an impass of belief.

We both know that the entire foundation of the RCC is a single Bible passage taken out of context. But such is the way of political power. It takes what it wants. In the RCC's case it taken for itself a title that belongs to another.

But that's OK. We will both know the Truth in our lifetime.

Schabesbert
07-11-2012, 11:48
This explains alot.[/FONT]
What does that have to do with the point at hand?

Oh, yeah -- you can't address the doctrinal issues (since yours are so screwed up), so you need to sling mud.

Yeah, any church that has tares in it must not be Christ's Church, since He promised that there would be no tares in His Kingdom ever. Not.

Schabesbert
07-11-2012, 12:19
Bert,

I'd take the time to prove you wrong, for the 10 thousandth time, but why?
Well, I'll prove YOU wrong umteen billion to the billionth power times! Nah-nah-nah. :tongueout:

You make these silly, childish claims constantly despite the fact that they are 180 deg out of phase with reality!

You live in La La Land. No matter what the Bible says, you got some guy somewhere that wrote a letter to contradict it, and you believe it ove the Bible. So we're at an impass of belief.
Nope. You don't seem to understand. This guy, St. Ignatius of Antioch, was a successor of and probably ordained by St. Peter in the place where St. Peter served as bishop. Where Christians were first called Christian (in Acts 11). He lived during the time of the Apostles, and was discipled personally by St. John the Apostle.

He was the man that was entrusted by at least two Apostles to carry on the Faith. He was taught by them, so he CERTAINLY understood the fullness of Christ's teachings. Unlike men that you learn from, if he had any doubt about what the Lord taught, he could just ask St. John, the disciple who leaned on Christ's breast at the Last Supper.

You slander him as a collaborator with pagans, when in fact he died a martyr, not willing to give even a little to paganism. If he wanted to compromise at all, he would have saved himself a horrible death being eaten by wild animals in Rome.

His bona fides are impeccable, whereas your slanders belie ignorance and malice.


We both know that the entire foundation of the RCC is a single Bible passage taken out of context.
I don't know what you think you know, but I know that this is patently untrue. And since I've told you that before, I have to assume that you're being untruthful on purpose.

But such is the way of political power. It takes what it wants. In the RCC's case it taken for itself a title that belongs to another.
Sorry, but I'll take Christ's word over yours on this.

Schabesbert
07-11-2012, 12:21
Bert,

I'd take the time to prove you wrong, for the 10 thousandth time, but why?
And, BTW, it hasn't escaped my notice, nor hopefully the notice of those reading here, that you still have no reasoned response to those arguments.

Saying you do doesn't mean you do, especially when you've been shown to be wrong about even saying you do.

Roering
07-11-2012, 13:03
TrUst me no person will ever be saved worshiping God on sunday.

Citation???

Vic Hays
07-11-2012, 13:22
Not so much as protestants like to make people believe, but yes, there were some people in the Church who sinned greatly.

But so what? This facile argument just proves that Christ was right when He said that His Kingdom would contain both wheat and tares until the end. And yet, it would STILL be His Kingdom. You are denying His Kingdom because it contains tares. It's wrong.


Here is what. Some of these people who sinned greatly were and are some of the top administrators. These are the very people that claim to lead infallibly. No thank you.

FCoulter
07-11-2012, 13:40
Citation???
Seriously,

How about a citation where God said to any day other than His Sabbath is Holy, and is a SIGN between Him and His people.

Roering
07-11-2012, 14:04
Seriously,

How about a citation where God said to any day other than His Sabbath is Holy, and is a SIGN between Him and His people.


Originally Posted by FCoulter
TrUst me no person will ever be saved worshiping God on sunday.

Yes, seriously. Show me what passage in scripture states this.

Can you?

Schabesbert
07-11-2012, 14:04
Here is what. Some of these people who sinned greatly were and are some of the top administrators. These are the very people that claim to lead infallibly. No thank you.
You seem to be misunderstanding infallibility on purpose.

First, even among Jesus' "top administrators" there was Judas, who I certainly hope you can agree was someone who "sinned greatly."

Second, even when there were sinners as "top administrators," they never pronounce infallibly anything which was in error.

Infallibility does NOT prevent one from sinning. It only prevents the Magisterium from teaching error about faith and morals when there is a definitive act which shows that it was intended to be a binding pronouncement on the entire Church for all time.

Now, you know that, but chose to blind yourself to that fact. Is it an escape mechanism so that you can hold on to your erroneous beliefs? Are you lying to yourself, Vic? Or are you just being deceitful out of pure malice and hatred of Christ's Bride?

Schabesbert
07-11-2012, 14:05
Originally Posted by FCoulter
TrUst me no person will ever be saved worshiping God on sunday.

Yes, seriously. Show me what passage in scripture states this.

Can you?
He provided his citation in the original post. :whistling:
I highlighted it. It's the only one he really cares about.

Roering
07-11-2012, 14:17
He provided his citation in the original post. :whistling:
I highlighted it. It's the only one he really cares about.

I'm giving him a chance to prove himself credible.

Vic Hays
07-11-2012, 14:45
You seem to be misunderstanding infallibility on purpose.

First, even among Jesus' "top administrators" there was Judas, who I certainly hope you can agree was someone who "sinned greatly."

Second, even when there were sinners as "top administrators," they never pronounce infallibly anything which was in error.

Infallibility does NOT prevent one from sinning. It only prevents the Magisterium from teaching error about faith and morals when there is a definitive act which shows that it was intended to be a binding pronouncement on the entire Church for all time.

Now, you know that, but chose to blind yourself to that fact. Is it an escape mechanism so that you can hold on to your erroneous beliefs? Are you lying to yourself, Vic? Or are you just being deceitful out of pure malice and hatred of Christ's Bride?

Not deceitful and certainly not of hatred for Christ's Bride.

The assumption you are making is that Christ's Bride is the Roman Catholic Church.

According to the Bible anyone catholic sect or not that fears God and works righteousness is Chris't Bride.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

FCoulter
07-11-2012, 14:50
Originally Posted by FCoulter
TrUst me no person will ever be saved worshiping God on sunday.

Yes, seriously. Show me what passage in scripture states this.

Can you?
IT has been shown to you many times. The Bible is clear what the fate is for sun worshipers.

Now continue to dance around the truth, that what the RCC does all the time.


Do you believe the Bible or tradition?

Schabesbert
07-11-2012, 14:52
Not deceitful and certainly not of hatred for Christ's Bride.

The assumption you are making is that Christ's Bride is the Roman Catholic Church.

According to the Bible anyone catholic sect or not that fears God and works righteousness is Chris't Bride.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
You're misapplying scripture.

Acts 10 is referring to the fact that ethnicity isn't important; gentiles as well as Jews are acceptable to Him.

You still need to follow Him. You still need to "abide in Him."

Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.
5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
6 If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

You still need to listen to the Church:
Mt 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

So you see, being a Gentile won't prevent you from belonging to Christ; not heeding the Church is a different story.

Norske
07-11-2012, 15:16
You still need to listen to the Church:
Mt 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.



So.

You are a Priest of the Inquisition, and told that it is your Church/God-directed religious duty to torture Jews to death and forcibly convert them to Christianity. Because saving their souls is more important to God than to maintain their mortal bodies on this earth. :wow:

So.

You are a Jihadi, and told that it is your Church/Allah-directed duty to take over a passenger airliner and slam it, and it's screaming passengers, into a skyscraper filled with several thousand more screaming victims. Because bringing all of mankind under Sharia is more importantant to Allah than maintaining their mortal bodies on this earth. :wow:

If that makes me a gentile and tax collector, I will revel in those titles. :dunno:

At least I will not have my (lack of) religious fanaticism be used by deluded "Holy Men" to commit mass murder against my fellow man. :upeyes:

Roering
07-11-2012, 15:26
IT has been shown to you many times. The Bible is clear what the fate is for sun worshipers.

Now continue to dance around the truth, that what the RCC does all the time.


Do you believe the Bible or tradition?

Show the passage that says "no person will ever be saved worshiping God on sunday."

I consider myself pretty well read when it comes to scripture and have yet to see this. To the best of my knowledge it is just fine to worship every day of the week.

So where is this passage of yours?

NMG26
07-11-2012, 17:34
Show the passage that says "no person will ever be saved worshiping God on sunday."

I consider myself pretty well read when it comes to scripture and have yet to see this. To the best of my knowledge it is just fine to worship every day of the week.

So where is this passage of yours?

Guys a nut Roering. His sect must be just as nutty.

Squirrels like nuts.

FCoulter
07-11-2012, 19:13
Show the passage that says "no person will ever be saved worshiping God on sunday."

I consider myself pretty well read when it comes to scripture and have yet to see this. To the best of my knowledge it is just fine to worship every day of the week.

So where is this passage of yours?
What I said was trust me no one will be saved who worships God on sunday. If someone rejects Gods Sabbaths and commands scripture is clear they will not be saved.

Now please show me where in scripture its ok to worship God on sunday and reject the ONLY day He made Holy and santified?

Brasso
07-11-2012, 19:15
And, BTW, it hasn't escaped my notice, nor hopefully the notice of those reading here, that you still have no reasoned response to those arguments.


What arguments?


Waste of time. Absolute waste of time.

When your house of cards starts to collapse around you, and it will, just try and remember what the Bible says.

Vic Hays
07-11-2012, 19:26
You're misapplying scripture.

Acts 10 is referring to the fact that ethnicity isn't important; gentiles as well as Jews are acceptable to Him.

You still need to follow Him. You still need to "abide in Him."

Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.
5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
6 If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.


You are still confusing abide in Jesus with abiding in the "Church"

Even those who are cast out of the church are acceptable to Christ if they are of faith.

Tilley
07-11-2012, 20:29
Guys a nut Roering. His sect must be just as nutty.

Squirrels like nuts.

...the one thing we agree on...:rofl:

Brasso
07-11-2012, 21:21
http://nazarenespace.com/page/the-ignatuious-conspiracy

Roering
07-11-2012, 22:02
Guys a nut Roering. His sect must be just as nutty.

Squirrels like nuts.

Not the ones that are cracked!

Roering
07-11-2012, 22:11
What I said was trust me no one will be saved who worships God on sunday. If someone rejects Gods Sabbaths and commands scripture is clear they will not be saved.

Now please show me where in scripture its ok to worship God on sunday and reject the ONLY day He made Holy and santified?

In FCoulter we trust eh? I thought you had biblical support for such an assertion. So much for the CBCOG.

Roering
07-11-2012, 22:23
You are still confusing abide in Jesus with abiding in the "Church"

Even those who are cast out of the church are acceptable to Christ if they are of faith.

So long as they don't worship the Lord on Sunday though right?

Vic Hays
07-11-2012, 22:46
So long as they don't worship the Lord on Sunday though right?

Don't confuse me with Coulter.

The Lord knows them that are His. Those that are willingly disobeying God are not His, but the Lord is just.

I was actually hoping that you would ask for a citation that the Lord can accept those who are cast out of the church if they are of faith. Here is a good text.

John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said to him, Do you believe on the Son of God?
9:36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
9:37 And Jesus said to him, You have both seen him, and it is he that talks with you.
9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

FCoulter
07-12-2012, 05:50
In FCoulter we trust eh? I thought you had biblical support for such an assertion. So much for the CBCOG.
No, you are assuming again. The Bible is clear if you do not obey Gods commands you will not be saved. Sunday worship is not obeying Gods commands.

If you think it is please stop ignoring the question I Asked several times and show me one verse where God said to worship, any other day other than the Sabbath, or any other day He made Holy or Santified?


This is what you and several others on here do when asked for something to back up your doctrine you switch the focus and try to discredit someone. Too bad you dont have a leg to stand on.

Vic Hays
07-12-2012, 07:53
No, you are assuming again. The Bible is clear if you do not obey Gods commands you will not be saved. Sunday worship is not obeying Gods commands.

If you think it is please stop ignoring the question I Asked several times and show me one verse where God said to worship, any other day other than the Sabbath, or any other day He made Holy or Santified?


This is what you and several others on here do when asked for something to back up your doctrine you switch the focus and try to discredit someone. Too bad you dont have a leg to stand on.

The Bible is clear that unless you know Jesus as your Savior and allow the Holy Spirit to work in your life you will be lost. We are all sinners.

You, Coulter, stand in judgment on the very things that you are guilty of. Personally I need mercy. If you think that you have not sinned you are indeed deluded.

Matthew 12:31 Why I say to you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven to men.
12:32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

FCoulter
07-12-2012, 08:07
The Bible is clear that unless you know Jesus as your Savior and allow the Holy Spirit to work in your life . you will be lostWe are all sinners.

You, Coulter, stand in judgment on the very things that you are guilty of. Personally I need mercy. If you think that you have not sinned you are indeed deluded.

Matthew 12:31 Why I say to you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven to men.
12:32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
What in the world are you talking about?

Are you hearing voices?


I have never once said I have not sinned, I sin daily, I also repent daily.


I dont break Gods command to follow some half baked false prophet from the 1800's.


Sin is he transgression of Gods laws.


You picked and choose which of Gods laws you want to keep.


God is clear that we are to keep His commands forever, you ignore this statement from God.


God says He never changes, yet you claim He does.


You make God a lair to suit your religion.


There are alot of things one must do to be saved just knowing Jesus as your savior is only a small part in the process.


You teach a false doctrine that all you do is accept Jesus and your saved, sorry the Bible doesnt teach that.


You first need to know who Jesus is to accept Him, He was never an angel, and you break Gods commands by worshiping an angel.


You need to understand whom the God family actually is (read john 1) to start the process of accepting Them. Also the Holy Spirit is NOT a person.


Even EW knew this.

NMG26
07-12-2012, 09:02
The Bible is clear if you do not obey Gods commands you will not be saved.

It is interesting that your version of salvation is always in the future.

Paul taught a rightiousness in the now. A salvation in the now. A relationship(walk) with God in the now.

If you know that you have a relationship with God in the now, you are always in worship. The day does not matter. There is no fear of a future salvation because you are secure that the same God that saved you in the past, and the present, will save in the future.

No spell checker here at work.
Feel free to fix.
Break over.

FCoulter
07-12-2012, 09:07
It is interesting that your version of salvation is always in the future.

Paul taught a rightiousness in the now. A salvation in the now. A relationship(walk) with God in the now.

If you know that you have a relationship with God in the now, you are always in worship. The day does not matter. There is no fear of a future salvation because you are secure that the same God that saved you in the past, and the present, will save in the future.

No spell checker here at work.
Feel free to fix.
Break over.
You make up your religion as you go along.

Prove to me with scripture that anyone is saved now?


The Bible is clear that those that ENDURE till the END shall be saved!

Brasso
07-12-2012, 09:12
Salvation requires repentance. Repentance is turning back to the ways of YHWH. If you reject those ways, on purpose, how can you have repented? And what does that say about your salvation? Will He say, "I never knew you?" I don't know. But it should be your concern, instead of what your pastor thinks.


When God says something is forever, and then you deny those words, you have a BIG problem. When someone tells you He didn't really miean it, you need to question. It should have you shaking in your boots.

There is sinning in ignorance. There is sinning on purpose due to temptation. These are covered by the blood.

Then there is open rebellion, such as knowing He said the 7th Day Sabbath was forever, a few hundred times, and rejecting, knowing full well that Sunday is only a tradition man. Actively doing and teaching what you know to be wrong. This is not forgiven. You will be cut off.

He does not hold you guilty for questioning the Truth. The Truth has no fear of questions. You need to study to show yourself approved. You need to be convinced in your own heart. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

Roering
07-12-2012, 10:00
No, you are assuming again. The Bible is clear if you do not obey Gods commands you will not be saved. Sunday worship is not obeying Gods commands.

If you think it is please stop ignoring the question I Asked several times and show me one verse where God said to worship, any other day other than the Sabbath, or any other day He made Holy or Santified?


This is what you and several others on here do when asked for something to back up your doctrine you switch the focus and try to discredit someone. Too bad you dont have a leg to stand on.

Not true. I was the first to ask for a citation regarding your claim (post#38). You responded with a dodge. I am still waiting for a citation .......Shall I quote you again FC?

Furthermore I have not stated any doctrine in this thread yet so your accusation is false. Perhaps your statement about those who worship on Sunday is also false.

Does your "church" make it a point NOT to pray, sing, or engage in any type of worship on Sunday?

Roering
07-12-2012, 10:06
It is interesting that your version of salvation is always in the future.

Paul taught a rightiousness in the now. A salvation in the now. A relationship(walk) with God in the now.

If you know that you have a relationship with God in the now, you are always in worship. The day does not matter. There is no fear of a future salvation because you are secure that the same God that saved you in the past, and the present, will save in the future.

No spell checker here at work.
Feel free to fix.
Break over.

Now that you mention it, I recall Paul had many times used the word saved in the past tense.

Roering
07-12-2012, 10:45
You make up your religion as you go along.


This from Mr. "Trust me"

FCoulter
07-12-2012, 10:57
This from Mr. "Trust me"
Go ahead keep ignoring what the Bible teaches on sunday(pagN) worship.

Your sect rewrote the 10 commandments to suit their doctrine so it explains why you are acting as you are.

Roering
07-12-2012, 11:40
Go ahead keep ignoring what the Bible teaches on sunday(pagN) worship.

Your sect rewrote the 10 commandments to suit their doctrine so it explains why you are acting as you are.

Not really. Original text did not break out the commandments as we see today. Ask a knowledgeable Jew.

But this is a tangent we need not go down on this thread.

I'll re-phrase.

What do you define as "worship" ?

Vic Hays
07-12-2012, 13:26
You seem to be misunderstanding infallibility on purpose.

First, even among Jesus' "top administrators" there was Judas, who I certainly hope you can agree was someone who "sinned greatly."

Second, even when there were sinners as "top administrators," they never pronounce infallibly anything which was in error.

Infallibility does NOT prevent one from sinning. It only prevents the Magisterium from teaching error about faith and morals when there is a definitive act which shows that it was intended to be a binding pronouncement on the entire Church for all time.

Now, you know that, but chose to blind yourself to that fact. Is it an escape mechanism so that you can hold on to your erroneous beliefs? Are you lying to yourself, Vic? Or are you just being deceitful out of pure malice and hatred of Christ's Bride?

Your sect did not even make the doctrine that it was infallible until recent times.

You will have to cite the Bible text that says infallibility was granted to anyone at all and then the text that says this infallibility could be passed down.

Brasso
07-12-2012, 15:29
Exo 31:16 ‘And the children of Yisra’ĕl shall guard the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant.


This single passage proves the RCC is not the pillar and bulwark of Truth. There is nothing you can say, type, add, quote, or otherwise. End of game. He does NOT change.

Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of turning.

Psa_89:34 “I shall not profane My covenant, Neither would I change what has gone out from My lips.

Mal_3:6 “For I am יהוה, I shall not change, and you, O sons of Yaʽaqoḇ, shall not come to an end.

Psa 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.


Are there any more questions? Would you all like to repent now?

In actuality, I could post hundreds of similar passages that prove most Christian theology wrong, but you get the point. I hope you do.

Roering
07-12-2012, 15:45
This single passage proves the RCC is not the pillar and bulwark of Truth. There is nothing you can say, type, add, quote, or otherwise. End of game. He does NOT change.

Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of turning.

Psa_89:34 “I shall not profane My covenant, Neither would I change what has gone out from My lips.

Mal_3:6 “For I am יהוה, I shall not change, and you, O sons of Yaʽaqoḇ, shall not come to an end.


Are there any more questions? Would you all like to repent now?

In actuality, I could post hundreds of similar passages that prove most Christian theology wrong, but you get the point. I hope you do.

Psssst.... Hey Brasso, I guess you missed the memo that the Catholic Church is not Jewish but Christian. You see, there is salvation to non Jews as well through Christ. He set up our Church. He is with us. And yes, God does not change. This was His plan from the beginning to bring Gentiles into his fold under the New Covenant.

FCoulter
07-12-2012, 16:20
Psssst.... Hey Brasso, I guess you missed the memo that the Catholic Church is not Jewish but Christian. You see, there is salvation to non Jews as well through Christ. He set up our Church. He is with us. And yes, God does not change. This was His plan from the beginning to bring Gentiles into his fold under the New Covenant.
GUess your sect never sent out the memo there is neither jew nor greek. Gods commands are for His people.

Brasso
07-12-2012, 16:38
Psssst.... Hey Brasso, I guess you missed the memo that the Catholic Church is not Jewish but Christian.

Pssssst......where in that passage does it mention Jews?

So you're calling God a liar now? There is no other option. He said the Sabbath was forever. You say othewise. Hmmmm. Who am I going to believe?

Like I said. End game. The only acceptable answer is, "God is right, and we're liars."

Roering
07-12-2012, 16:56
Pssssst......where in that passage does it mention Jews?

So you're calling God a liar now? There is no other option. He said the Sabbath was forever. You say othewise. Hmmmm. Who am I going to believe?

Like I said. End game. Nothing you say other than you are right, we are wrong is correct.

"Children of Israel". Those are descendants of Israel. He is not one of my ancestors as I am a Gentile (not Jewish).

And yes, there remains a Sabbath. A rest. Last I checked those of the Jewish faith, the Old Covenant maintain it.

So what God says is true.

FCoulter
07-12-2012, 16:57
Psssst.... Hey Brasso, I guess you missed the memo that the Catholic Church is not Jewish but Christian. You see, there is salvation to non Jews as well through Christ. He set up our Church. He is with us. And yes, God does not change. This was His plan from the beginning to bring Gentiles into his fold under the New Covenant.
Do you have a clue who Gods people are?

When is the first time "jew" is mentioned in the Bible?


I bet you avoid these questions as well.

FCoulter
07-12-2012, 16:59
"Children of Israel". Those are descendants of Israel. He is not one of my ancestors as I am a Gentile (not Jewish).

And yes, there remains a Sabbath. A rest. Last I checked those of the Jewish faith, the Old Covenant maintain it.

So what God says is true.
Look up "jew" in the Bible you will see they were only a smart part of the children of Israel.

Also why do you keep drawing a line between gentiles and Israel?




I guess neither jew nor greek was a lie as well.

Roering
07-12-2012, 16:59
GUess your sect never sent out the memo there is neither jew nor greek. Gods commands are for His people.

In Christ yes. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free. This quote is from the New Testament right?

I should have been clearer. When I said Jewish I imply the Old Covenant. Or if you prefer, people of the law.

So have you found that citation yet?

Roering
07-12-2012, 17:01
Look up "jew" in the Bible you will see they were only a smart part of the children of Israel.

I use it as a general term at times. Israel is still not one of my ancestors. I'm not breaking it down by tribe.

Brasso
07-12-2012, 17:02
"Children of Israel". Those are descendants of Israel. He is not one of my ancestors as I am a Gentile (not Jewish).

Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘the uncircumcision’ by what is called ‘the circumcision’ made in the flesh by hands,
Eph 2:12 that at that time you were without Messiah, excluded from the citizenship of Yisra’ĕl and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no expectation and without Elohim in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Messiah יהושע you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of the Messiah.

1Co 10:1 For I do not wish you to be ignorant, brothers, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
1Co 10:2 and all were immersed into Mosheh in the cloud and in the sea,
1Co 10:3 and all ate the same spiritual food,
1Co 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed, and the Rock was Messiah.


Wrong again. Dude, quite calling God a liar.

Exo 12:49 “There is one Torah for the native-born and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”

Roering
07-12-2012, 17:41
Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘the uncircumcision’ by what is called ‘the circumcision’ made in the flesh by hands,
Eph 2:12 that at that time you were without Messiah, excluded from the citizenship of Yisra’ĕl and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no expectation and without Elohim in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Messiah יהושע you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of the Messiah.

1Co 10:1 For I do not wish you to be ignorant, brothers, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
1Co 10:2 and all were immersed into Mosheh in the cloud and in the sea,
1Co 10:3 and all ate the same spiritual food,
1Co 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed, and the Rock was Messiah.


Wrong again. Dude, quite calling God a liar.

Exo 12:49 “There is one Torah for the native-born and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”

Again, New Covenant. Not Old. Paul's letters impart teaching under the New. The Law has been fulfilled through Christ.

Brasso
07-12-2012, 18:04
Again, New Covenant. Not Old. Paul's letters impart teaching under the New. The Law has been fulfilled through Christ.

Forever? Quit calling God a liar.

NMG26
07-13-2012, 03:55
You make up your religion as you go along.

Thank you for noticing. I do try to remain free from sectarian party-line thinking in my religion. That way it may change as we go along. I learned through Bible study that the Spirit of God is within and is always with me. Omnipresent. I guess a lot of Christians don't know that they are saved now.

Salvation now, has to do with relationship to God in the present. Saved is the Greek word SOZO. It has to do with wholeness.

You are correct that the bible does talk about a future salvation. Many only read the Bible with the future salivation mind. There were past salivations. These are to be remembered as well. God saved Israel from Egypt. Past. God saved Danial from the lions den. Past. God saved Paul from death of stoning. past.

When a spirit filled Christian talks about being saved, he is often referring to a time when he first believed and was saved. This teaching is in many sects, including the Independent Fundamental Baptist sect that I grew up in.

Another Bible based group that I was in, taught that when you first believed you were fill with the Spirit as part of the salvation experience. They taught a class called "Power for Abundant Living". The proof of salvation, and the filling of the Spirit, was the manifestation of speaking of tongues.

All of these groups teach that salvation is an every day walk with the Lord in the present moment. We "walk in the light as he is in the light and have fellowship one with another". Fellowship with God. A walk with God. It is quite a powerful belief.


Prove to me with scripture that anyone is saved now?


I can interpret some scripture for you from the "saved now" perspective. Might take that opportunity some time. It has been years since I have done any Bible lawyering.


The Bible is clear that those that ENDURE till the END shall be saved!

You are correct. The Bible does teach a future salvation. Don't neglect the past salvation. And by all means don't neglect the present salvation which is your fellowship and walk with God on a daily biases.

This thread is about the righteousness that Paul teaches. Would you agree that righteousness is part of your relationship to/with Christ, and your daily fellowship with God?

Roering
07-13-2012, 09:58
Forever? Quit calling God a liar.

Well, Christ is not a temporary fulfillment of the Law now is He.

As Paul says:
"For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace."

You may cling to the Law if you so desire, I'll stick with Grace.

Peace

Brasso
07-13-2012, 10:39
As Paul says:
"For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace."

You may cling to the Law if you so desire, I'll stick with Grace.

I have plenty of grace, because I cling to the Torah made flesh.

And He said, "...not one jot or tittle..."

Vic Hays
07-13-2012, 13:35
I have plenty of grace, because I cling to the Torah made flesh.

And He said, "...not one jot or tittle..."

Jesus said a lot of things. The idea is to correctly interpret them according to what Jesus meant and not necessarily what you think it should mean.

Moses allowed divorce, but this was not the original intent of the Torah. It was an accommodation because the people were not able to bear with the original principle of becoming one through marriage.

If by one jot or one title you mean the laws Moses gave to the nation of Israel when they went into the promised land, then you are making Jesus to be a liar because Jesus Himself is contradicting it.

Matthew 19:8 He said to them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoever marries her which is put away does commit adultery.

The Bible says;

Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

This is a higher standard than the Law of Moses.

Brasso
07-13-2012, 16:14
Jesus said a lot of things. The idea is to correctly interpret them according to what Jesus meant and not necessarily what you think it should mean.

Well then I guess one of is calling Him a liar. He said not one jot or tittle. I don't think that's up to interpretation.

I think that if you study the problem you will see that He is speaking of the commandment verse what they allowed. Two different things.

Also, the terms are not translated correctly. A man has to give his wife a get, or divorce papers, to make it legal. The custom then was for a man to put his wife away without giving her a get. This left her technically married and an adulterer if she married another. With a proper get, as the law prescribed, this was not a problem.

When you stop trying to justify lawlessness, things tend to come into focus.

Vic Hays
07-13-2012, 18:08
Well then I guess one of is calling Him a liar. He said not one jot or tittle. I don't think that's up to interpretation.

I think that if you study the problem you will see that He is speaking of the commandment verse what they allowed. Two different things.

Also, the terms are not translated correctly. A man has to give his wife a get, or divorce papers, to make it legal. The custom then was for a man to put his wife away without giving her a get. This left her technically married and an adulterer if she married another. With a proper get, as the law prescribed, this was not a problem.

When you stop trying to justify lawlessness, things tend to come into focus.

Fact was Jesus was talking about this paper of divorce. So your explanation is meaningless.

Matthew 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

The New Covenant calls us to a higher standard and the Spirit of the Law, not the letter.

Vic Hays
07-13-2012, 23:15
Paul teaches this higher standard also.

II Corinthians 3:6 Who also has made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.
3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraved in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more does the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

FCoulter
07-14-2012, 06:25
Fact was Jesus was talking about this paper of divorce. So your explanation is meaningless.

Matthew 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

The New Covenant calls us to a higher standard and the Spirit of the Law, not the letter.

The spiritual office of Jesus Christ far overshadows the
physical office of Moses. Jesus Christ was God manifested in the flesh. He was the Lord God of the Old Testament Who had established the Old Covenant with the children of Israel. He came to earth to deliver them from the curses that the covenant had imposed for their sins and to redeem all mankind from the death penalty for their transgressions of God’s holy and righteous laws (Rom. 7:14; 3:9-19). His death ended the Old Covenant with the administration of death and established the New Covenant, which offers the gift of eternal life.

Unlike the Old Covenant, which required obedience to the letter of the law, the New Covenant is based on obedience from the heart—fulfilling the laws of God not only in the letter, but also in their complete spiritual intent. For this reason, Jesus Christ came as the spiritual Lawgiver to amplify and magnify the commandments and laws of God, as prophesied by Isaiah: “The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness sake; He will magnify the law and make it glorious” (Isa. 42:21).

Vic Hays
07-14-2012, 09:33
The spiritual office of Jesus Christ far overshadows the
physical office of Moses. Jesus Christ was God manifested in the flesh. He was the Lord God of the Old Testament Who had established the Old Covenant with the children of Israel. He came to earth to deliver them from the curses that the covenant had imposed for their sins and to redeem all mankind from the death penalty for their transgressions of God’s holy and righteous laws (Rom. 7:14; 3:9-19). His death ended the Old Covenant with the administration of death and established the New Covenant, which offers the gift of eternal life.

Unlike the Old Covenant, which required obedience to the letter of the law, the New Covenant is based on obedience from the heart—fulfilling the laws of God not only in the letter, but also in their complete spiritual intent. For this reason, Jesus Christ came as the spiritual Lawgiver to amplify and magnify the commandments and laws of God, as prophesied by Isaiah: “The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness sake; He will magnify the law and make it glorious” (Isa. 42:21).

This is correct. Jesus ministry overshadowed Moses which was temporary.

II Corinthians 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraved in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

FCoulter
07-14-2012, 10:11
This is correct. Jesus ministry overshadowed Moses which was temporary.

II Corinthians 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraved in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
Read it all vic,

<table id="post19194868" class="tborder" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%" align="center" style="background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; "><tbody><tr valign="top"><td class="alt1" id="td_post_19194868" style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 255); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; "> For this reason, Jesus Christ came as the spiritual Lawgiver to amplify and magnify the commandments and laws of God, as prophesied by Isaiah: “The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness sake; He will magnify the law and make it glorious” (Isa. 42:21).
</td></tr></tbody></table>

Brasso
07-14-2012, 17:08
Wasting your time. All they have to do is recite a creed and all is well. They're under grace. Yada, yada, yada.

NMG26
07-14-2012, 17:13
Wasting your time. All they have to do is recite a creed and all is well. They're under grace. Yada, yada, yada.

You think we can blame the whole grace thing on that Paul fellow?



Edit in:
Can you tell me what this verse means?
Jhn 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

FCoulter
07-14-2012, 17:19
You think we can blame the whole grace thing on that Paul fellow?
YoU cant have grace without law....its nuts

NMG26
07-14-2012, 17:25
YoU cant have grace without law....its nuts

Grace is favor, right? You are saying that God has favor only on those that earn it by keeping the law. Yes?

Vic Hays
07-14-2012, 20:30
Read it all vic,

<table id="post19194868" class="tborder" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%" align="center" style="background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; "><tbody><tr valign="top"><td class="alt1" id="td_post_19194868" style="font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 255); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; border-right-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; "> For this reason, Jesus Christ came as the spiritual Lawgiver to amplify and magnify the commandments and laws of God, as prophesied by Isaiah: “The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness sake; He will magnify the law and make it glorious” (Isa. 42:21).
</td></tr></tbody></table>

Read it all Fred

The Commandments of God (morality) are from the beginning. Certain observances and offerings etc. as well as some accommodations made to the moral law were temporary. Jesus came to show what true righteousness is. It is not legalism where we keep the law to be saved. It is a relationship where we as sons of God glorify him through our lives as a living sacrifice.

Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

FCoulter
07-15-2012, 06:16
Read it all Fred

The Commandments of God (morality) are from the beginning. Certain observances and offerings etc. as well as some accommodations made to the moral law were temporary. Jesus came to show what true righteousness is. It is not legalism where we keep the law to be saved. It is a relationship where we as sons of God glorify him through our lives as a living sacrifice.

Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Ok Vic, I get it Isa, and the true prophets of the Bible as well as Jesus, lied....

Only EW speaks the truth.

Vic Hays
07-15-2012, 09:30
Ok Vic, I get it Isa, and the true prophets of the Bible as well as Jesus, lied....

Only EW speaks the truth.

I don't think I have quoted anyone other than Jesus and Paul in this thread.
Please show where I quoted Ellen White. Otherwise you are just spreading malicious slander.

What are your fruits? Will you repent?

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’ clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Why by their fruits you shall know them.

FCoulter
07-15-2012, 12:05
I don't think I have quoted anyone other than Jesus and Paul in this thread.
Please show where I quoted Ellen White. Otherwise you are just spreading malicious slander.

What are your fruits? Will you repent?

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’ clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Why by their fruits you shall know them.
ViC, you dont pay attention to anything other than what you spew out. I already have said that I repent daily,

You,however, keep holding on to EW teachings and not the teachings of Jesus.




Jesus was the lawgiver of the OT. he said to keep all His Sabbaths,statues, and commands, yet you hold onto what your false prophet taught to a T.




Now look in the mirror and see if you in all your holiness needs true repentance.

Vic Hays
07-15-2012, 13:19
ViC, you dont pay attention to anything other than what you spew out. I already have said that I repent daily,

You,however, keep holding on to EW teachings and not the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus was the lawgiver of the OT. he said to keep all His Sabbaths,statues, and commands, yet you hold onto what your false prophet taught to a T.



Fred

Jesus did not say that. You are putting your own words in His mouth.

Lets review one of the things Jesus said about Moses.

Matthew 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

In other words, Jesus was bringing a better understanding of morality and Moses teaching was temporary for that time.

Brasso
07-15-2012, 13:51
Temporary?

Until heaven and earth pass away...not one jot or tittle...

You have lost all respect Vic. You tote the party line and care about nothing else.

You ignore anything and everything that contradicts what you want to believe. You are no different than Bert. Like every other Christian out there you think that just because you have grace you are free to sin. You go to great lengths and pull as much out of context as you need to justify your sin.

Messiah gave all the commandments. He's the one who said to keep them forever. He's the one who reiterated that in the N.T. He's the one who expanded the meaning of the commandments. And He's the one who told YOU not to think He came to do away with them. Messiah also said that to hate your brother is the same as murder. By your logic it's now OK to murder him, as long as you don't hate him.

But like all Christians, you don't believe Him. You'd rather believe a twisted religion based on the twisted, out of context passages of Paul. You violate commandment #1. A twisted version of Paul is your god.

Was John a liar too:

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Or maybe he was just as confused as Messiah was. Better get a medium and consult Ellen so we can tell God what He really meant.

NMG26
07-15-2012, 14:43
But like all Christians, you don't believe Him. You'd rather believe a twisted religion based on the twisted, out of context passages of Paul. You violate commandment #1. A twisted version of Paul is your god.



Is it hard to understand Paul or was he just a heretic?

Vic Hays
07-15-2012, 17:23
Temporary?

Until heaven and earth pass away...not one jot or tittle...

You have lost all respect Vic. You tote the party line and care about nothing else.


Not the party line, but the Gospel and the Bible.

Do you think that nothing has been fulfilled? What does " till the seed should come" mean? Is that a fulfillment? Does it indicate a change when Jesus came?

Galatians 3:19 Why then serves the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

I am a Seventh-day Adventist. We believe most emphatically that the Covenant Law of the Ten Commandments is eternal because it reflects the morality of God which does not change.

Even in the quotation you provided Jesus did not say that every jot and tittle were eternal. They are temporary until they are fulfilled. Jesus came to fulfill them. You left those jots and tittles out of your quotation. Why?

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

5:18 For truly I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one stroke or one pronunciation mark shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

FCoulter
07-16-2012, 05:46
Not the party line, but the Gospel and the Bible.

Do you think that nothing has been fulfilled? What does " till the seed should come" mean? Is that a fulfillment? Does it indicate a change when Jesus came?

Galatians 3:19 Why then serves the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

I am a Seventh-day Adventist. We believe most emphatically that the Covenant Law of the Ten Commandments is eternal because it reflects the morality of God which does not change.

Even in the quotation you provided Jesus did not say that every jot and tittle were eternal. They are temporary until they are fulfilled. Jesus came to fulfill them. You left those jots and tittles out of your quotation. Why?

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

5:18 For truly I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one stroke or one pronunciation mark shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Now Vic, please explain what the greek word for fulfilled means?

It is not what you are implying.

Brasso
07-16-2012, 08:44
OK Vic,

I was being harsh. I apologize.

But how many ways and how many times in both the "Old" and "New" Testament does He have to say nothing in the Torah or Prophets has passed away till heaven and earth pass away? I've done it before, but I can go back and list pages of passages that say just that.

It has been stated in no uncertain terms. It can't be stated any more plainly. What is not understood?

Fulfill means exactly what it says. To fill to the full. It doesn't mean ended. It doesn't mean done away with. It doesn't mean anything similar. My gosh, the first half of that sentence is, "Don't think I've come to do away with the Law or the Prophets..." Look it in Strongs. It means to fill to the full. And that is exactly what He proceeded to do with the Sermon on the Mount. He brought out the spiritual meanings of the Law. He didn't do away with it. To think that all that matters is the "spiritual" meaning is missing the entire point. It's as I stated earlier, by that logic it's OK to murder someone just as long as you don't hate them. It's OK to steal from someone as long as it's something you don't really covet. It's OK to commit adultery as long as you still love your wife. It's ludicrous.

Vic Hays
07-16-2012, 11:01
Now Vic, please explain what the greek word for fulfilled means?

It is not what you are implying.

Brasso has summed up pretty well what the word "fulfilled" means. Now would you explain what the word "till" means.

The New Testament emphasis is not on rituals and ceremonies. It is about loving in deed and in truth.

Man in his fallen state is all too willing to try to purchase his salvation by performing religious observances without truly giving from the heart.

Jesus cut through the false religion of the letter of the law without the spirit. Man is always ready with following "technically" while actually evading the spirit of the law.

As an example the commandment says to honor your parents. The Jews of Jesus day had figured out a way to do that by dedicating their things to God (Corban) so they wouldn't have to support their parents.

Mark 7:11 But you say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatever you might be profited by me; he shall be free.
7:12 And you suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which you have delivered: and many such like things do you.

You can see this emphasis in the New Testament in James. "Pure religion"

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Vic Hays
07-16-2012, 11:13
OK Vic,

I was being harsh. I apologize.

But how many ways and how many times in both the "Old" and "New" Testament does He have to say nothing in the Torah or Prophets has passed away till heaven and earth pass away? I've done it before, but I can go back and list pages of passages that say just that.

It has been stated in no uncertain terms. It can't be stated any more plainly. What is not understood?

Fulfill means exactly what it says. To fill to the full. It doesn't mean ended. It doesn't mean done away with. It doesn't mean anything similar. My gosh, the first half of that sentence is, "Don't think I've come to do away with the Law or the Prophets..." Look it in Strongs. It means to fill to the full. And that is exactly what He proceeded to do with the Sermon on the Mount. He brought out the spiritual meanings of the Law. He didn't do away with it. To think that all that matters is the "spiritual" meaning is missing the entire point. It's as I stated earlier, by that logic it's OK to murder someone just as long as you don't hate them. It's OK to steal from someone as long as it's something you don't really covet. It's OK to commit adultery as long as you still love your wife. It's ludicrous.

Thank you for the apology. I struggle with being harsh also.

Jesus did not say "nothing in the Torah or Prophets has passed away till heaven and earth pass away."

You put that spin on it. I would interpret that more as ;nothing in the Torah or Prophets will pass away until it has been fulfilled and I have come to fulfill it.

Galatians 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differs nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
4:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
4:7 Why you are no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

And Jesus has given us power to become the sons of God.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

FCoulter
07-16-2012, 11:43
I would interpret that more as ;nothing in the Torah or Prophets will pass away until it has been fulfilled and I have come to fulfill it.

This is the whole root of the problem. It doesnt matter how you interpet it Vic, what matters is how the Bible actually states it.

You also try to interpet scripture to suit your beliefs, and the Bible addresses this type of behavior.


The way the seems right to man, in the end is death.


Scriptire is the only thing that can interpet scripture, not you ,ellen and all the adventist in he whole world.



Also I loved in another post how you made your claim that you were a Seventh Day Adventist...sorry you took a vow at baptism that makes you state that, but brother its totally unbiblical to make that claim.

Vic Hays
07-16-2012, 12:57
This is the whole root of the problem. It doesnt matter how you interpet it Vic, what matters is how the Bible actually states it.

You also try to interpet scripture to suit your beliefs, and the Bible addresses this type of behavior.


The way the seems right to man, in the end is death.


Scriptire is the only thing that can interpet scripture, not you ,ellen and all the adventist in he whole world.



Also I loved in another post how you made your claim that you were a Seventh Day Adventist...sorry you took a vow at baptism that makes you state that, but brother its totally unbiblical to make that claim.

Yes, and I have constantly quoted Jesus and Paul to show how the Bible states it.

You cannot even tell me what the word "till" means.

Jesus was a Seventh-day Adventist, Paul was a Seventh-day Adventist. They were both Sabbath keepers and looked forward to the second coming of Jesus.

What are you?

FCoulter
07-16-2012, 15:24
Yes, and I have constantly quoted Jesus and Paul to show how the Bible states it.

You cannot even tell me what the word "till" means.

Jesus was a Seventh-day Adventist, Paul was a Seventh-day Adventist. They were both Sabbath keepers and looked forward to the second coming of Jesus.

What are you?
They kept ALL the Sabbaths of God, not just he 7th day Sabbath.

So please show me with scripture where anyone in the BIble kept just 7th day Sabbath or were Seventh Day Adventist.

Roering
07-16-2012, 17:18
Yes, and I have constantly quoted Jesus and Paul to show how the Bible states it.

You cannot even tell me what the word "till" means.

Jesus was a Seventh-day Adventist, Paul was a Seventh-day Adventist. They were both Sabbath keepers and looked forward to the second coming of Jesus.

What are you?

Did Jesus and Paul take an oath not to drink alcohol upon their baptism?

If I recall correctly, that is required among SDA's right?

Vic Hays
07-16-2012, 20:12
Did Jesus and Paul take an oath not to drink alcohol upon their baptism?

If I recall correctly, that is required among SDA's right?

Do you mock us for temperance?

Matthew 1:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a devil.

John the Baptist was a messenger to prepare the way of the Lord. Seventh-day Adventists have that same message for the second coming.

I Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

FCoulter
07-17-2012, 06:33
Do you mock us for temperance?

Matthew 1:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a devil.

John the Baptist was a messenger to prepare the way of the Lord. Seventh-day Adventists have that same message for the second coming.

I Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
So, do you live your life as a hermit in the Desert of Judea? Do you eat a diet of locust and wild honey?



Or, do you do as you usually do pick and choose what you want to do and reject the rest?

Roering
07-17-2012, 10:18
Do you mock us for temperance?


Valid question Vic. To be an SDA you must upon Baptism swear an oath to refrain from alcoholic beverages right? Since you claim Jesus and Paul to be SDA, you must also assume they made such an oath.

Simple logic.

By the way, you can have a glass of wine and still be sober.

Vic Hays
07-17-2012, 10:58
So, do you live your life as a hermit in the Desert of Judea? Do you eat a diet of locust and wild honey?

Or, do you do as you usually do pick and choose what you want to do and reject the rest?

I certainly reject your heartless legalistic selfish religion.

Vic Hays
07-17-2012, 11:04
Valid question Vic. To be an SDA you must upon Baptism swear an oath to refrain from alcoholic beverages right? Since you claim Jesus and Paul to be SDA, you must also assume they made such an oath.

Simple logic.

By the way, you can have a glass of wine and still be sober.

Jesus gained the victory over appetite when He was tempted at the beginning of His ministry. We also have that hope to be like Jesus. Temperance must be absolute or it may cause someone else to stumble.

Do you have any examples of Jesus being under the influence of alcohol or any other substance such as the opiate they offered Him?

Matthew27:34 They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.

FCoulter
07-17-2012, 11:24
Jesus gained the victory over appetite when He was tempted at the beginning of His ministry. We also have that hope to be like Jesus. Temperance must be absolute or it may cause someone else to stumble.

Do you have any examples of Jesus being under the influence of alcohol or any other substance such as the opiate they offered Him?

Matthew27:34 They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.
Jesus drank wine not grape juice at Passover.

The passover feast occurred 6-7 months after the grape harvest. By then the grape juice was surely a nice shiraz, or a pinot (ok…I’m not sure how nice it was). So it would have been impossible to not have alcoholic wine for the passover and really for any occasion during the large part of any year.



There are many examples of drinking alcohol by the apostles and never one word saying it was sin.but you will reject it cos you took a oath to a denomination..


Btw is it a sin to take an oath to a denomination?


Think about it before you answer.

Vic Hays
07-17-2012, 11:55
Jesus drank wine not grape juice at Passover.

The passover feast occurred 6-7 months after the grape harvest. By then the grape juice was surely a nice shiraz, or a pinot (ok…I’m not sure how nice it was). So it would have been impossible to not have alcoholic wine for the passover and really for any occasion during the large part of any year.



There are many examples of drinking alcohol by the apostles and never one word saying it was sin.but you will reject it cos you took a oath to a denomination..


Btw is it a sin to take an oath to a denomination?


Think about it before you answer.

You are so wise and yet unable to explain what the word "till" means. I don't want to have anything to do with your denial religion.

BTW speed reader, I wrote about the opiate offered Jesus and asked for an example of being under the influence. Jesus is not recorded as being under the influence of any substance.

FCoulter
07-17-2012, 12:59
You are so wise and yet unable to explain what the word "till" means. I don't want to have anything to do with your denial religion.

BTW speed reader, I wrote about the opiate offered Jesus and asked for an example of being under the influence. Jesus is not recorded as being under the influence of any substance.
Vic, you really need to get a grip on scripture and quit holding onto a denomination.

Here ya go boy,


The Greek phrase used here is achris (word #891) and means, "even unto a point." It is used of things that actually occurred and up to the beginning of which something continued." It is a point of reference and not a point of cessation.

Roering
07-17-2012, 13:38
Jesus gained the victory over appetite when He was tempted at the beginning of His ministry. We also have that hope to be like Jesus. Temperance must be absolute or it may cause someone else to stumble.

Do you have any examples of Jesus being under the influence of alcohol or any other substance such as the opiate they offered Him?

Matthew27:34 They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.

You mean like drinking wine at the wedding feast in Cana?
Or how about Jesus turning the water into wine for the guests at the wedding feast?

He drank wine for sure. Doesn't mean he got drunk Vic.

FCoulter
07-17-2012, 13:39
BTW speed reader, I wrote about the opiate offered Jesus and asked for an example of being under the influence. Jesus is not recorded as being under the influence of any substance.
Vic, did you take an oath at baptism into your denomination that you would not take a drink of alcohol, OR be under the influence of alcohol?

I would love for an Biblical example of anyone taking oaths into denominations at baptism.


Surely you can provide Biblical proof, you always make claim you follow what the Bible teaches and not what EW taught...lol

Vic Hays
07-17-2012, 14:01
You mean like drinking wine at the wedding feast in Cana?
Or how about Jesus turning the water into wine for the guests at the wedding feast?

He drank wine for sure. Doesn't mean he got drunk Vic.

I am not denying that Jesus might have drank some weakly alcoholic beverage. What I asked was if He was every under the influence.

BTW just because Jesus provided wine does not mean that it had alcohol in it. It would have been a rare treat to drink new wine fresh without any fermentation. Perhaps this is what is meant by the best.

I have provided citations of some of the great men off faith who were entirely temperate. Seems to me it might be a sign of piety and loyalty to God. Drink as much as you want. God is your judge not me.

Mark 14:25 Truly I say to you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Vic Hays
07-17-2012, 14:06
Vic, you really need to get a grip on scripture and quit holding onto a denomination.

Here ya go boy,


The Greek phrase used here is achris (word #891) and means, "even unto a point." It is used of things that actually occurred and up to the beginning of which something continued." It is a point of reference and not a point of cessation.

So the point Scripture is pointing out is the arrival of the Messiah right?

Galatians 3:19 Why then serves the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Roering
07-17-2012, 16:49
I am not denying that Jesus might have drank some weakly alcoholic beverage. What I asked was if He was every under the influence.

So it's "OK" for SDA's to have a glass of wine then?

I thought that was considered a sin.

Vic Hays
07-17-2012, 20:21
So it's "OK" for SDA's to have a glass of wine then?

I thought that was considered a sin.

Getting back to the subject, any time one makes a vow to God and breaks it it is a sin.

Is it that way in the RCC or not?

That is why if you are circumcised you have vowed to keep the whole law of Moses.

Galatians 5:2 Behold, I, Paul, say to you, that if ye are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
5:3 And I witness again to every man [who is] circumcised, that he is debtor to do the whole law.

Keeping the whole law of Moses is not a vow that the Gentiles were asked to keep by the early church.

I Corinthians 7:17 But as God has distributed to every man, as the Lord has called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

FCoulter
07-18-2012, 03:18
Getting back to the subject, any time one makes a vow to God and breaks it it is a sin.

Is it that way in the RCC or not?

That is why if you are circumcised you have vowed to keep the whole law of Moses.

Galatians 5:2 Behold, I, Paul, say to you, that if ye are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
5:3 And I witness again to every man [who is] circumcised, that he is debtor to do the whole law.

Keeping the whole law of Moses is not a vow that the Gentiles were asked to keep by the early church.

I Corinthians 7:17 But as God has distributed to every man, as the Lord has called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

You say it is sin to break a vow to God correct?


In your baptismal vows number 10 states you are to abstain from all unclean food coorect?




I believe that my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and I will honor God by caring for it, avoiding the use of that which is harmful, abstaining from all unclean foods, from the use, manufacture, or sale of alcoholic beverages, the use, manufacture, or sale of tobacco in any of its forms for human consumption, and from the misuse of or trafficking in, narcotics or other drugs.

Why have I read on here many times tha king A talked about eating foods that the Bible declares unclean?


Do you Vic, practice the laws of unclean foods provided in the Bible and to which you took a vow to?

You must adhere to the Bibles unclean food laws since your baptismal vow number 5 holds you to it.


I believe that the Bible is God's inspired Word, and that it constitutes the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian.

Vic Hays
07-18-2012, 09:33
You say it is sin to break a vow to God correct?

In your baptismal vows number 10 states you are to abstain from all unclean food coorect?


I believe that my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and I will honor God by caring for it, avoiding the use of that which is harmful, abstaining from all unclean foods, from the use, manufacture, or sale of alcoholic beverages, the use, manufacture, or sale of tobacco in any of its forms for human consumption, and from the misuse of or trafficking in, narcotics or other drugs.

Why have I read on here many times tha king A talked about eating foods that the Bible declares unclean?


Do you Vic, practice the laws of unclean foods provided in the Bible and to which you took a vow to?

You must adhere to the Bibles unclean food laws since your baptismal vow number 5 holds you to it.


I believe that the Bible is God's inspired Word, and that it constitutes the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian.

Certainly the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice.

Read the vow for what it is, abstaining from unhealthful and injurious substances and food that would have a negative effect on health. " avoiding the use of that which is harmful

The reason for the list of unclean animals in the Bible is health. In order to maintain health I have stopped eating meat altogether. Even the clean animals have become unhealthy because of increasing sin in the world.

The original diet for man in the Bible can be found in the first chapters of Genesis, Fruits nuts grains and vegetables.

This is in keeping with the Bible.

I Corinthians 3:16 Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

'Food Inc.' Challenges the Monsanto Industry 2010... MUST SEE! - YouTube

Here is engineered clean food:

What Are Chicken Nuggets Made Of? - YouTube

Roering
07-18-2012, 10:43
Getting back to the subject, any time one makes a vow to God and breaks it it is a sin.

Is it that way in the RCC or not?

That is why if you are circumcised you have vowed to keep the whole law of Moses.

Galatians 5:2 Behold, I, Paul, say to you, that if ye are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
5:3 And I witness again to every man [who is] circumcised, that he is debtor to do the whole law.

Keeping the whole law of Moses is not a vow that the Gentiles were asked to keep by the early church.

I Corinthians 7:17 But as God has distributed to every man, as the Lord has called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

Good question. As I recall we don't make promises to God in that way. There are certain questions asked during the Sacrament of Baptism, Marriage, etc.
Example:
Question: Do you reject Satan, and all of his promises and lies?

Answer: I/we do

More along those lines. We don't make any promises not to drink/smoke a certain substance or not to sin.

Swearing not to sin is a promise humans just can't keep.

Now, I was circumcised at birth. As are many Americans. Do you think that it means we must keep the laws of Moses?

Roering
07-18-2012, 10:44
Certainly the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice.

Read the vow for what it is, abstaining from unhealthful and injurious substances and food that would have a negative effect on health. " avoiding the use of that which is harmful

The reason for the list of unclean animals in the Bible is health. In order to maintain health I have stopped eating meat altogether. Even the clean animals have become unhealthy because of increasing sin in the world.

The original diet for man in the Bible can be found in the first chapters of Genesis, Fruits nuts grains and vegetables.

This is in keeping with the Bible.

I Corinthians 3:16 Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

'Food Inc.' Challenges the Monsanto Industry 2010... MUST SEE! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYcn8KOJMuM)

Here is engineered clean food:

What Are Chicken Nuggets Made Of? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T67DvoH2H3E&feature=fvwrel)

Stop it, you're making me hungry.

Vic Hays
07-18-2012, 14:48
Good question. As I recall we don't make promises to God in that way. There are certain questions asked during the Sacrament of Baptism, Marriage, etc.
Example:
Question: Do you reject Satan, and all of his promises and lies?

Answer: I/we do

More along those lines. We don't make any promises not to drink/smoke a certain substance or not to sin.

Swearing not to sin is a promise humans just can't keep.

Now, I was circumcised at birth. As are many Americans. Do you think that it means we must keep the laws of Moses?

I think if you were preparing someone to join your sect they might become acquainted with those things for which they could be excommunicated right? While not exactly a vow it is certainly informed decision isn't it?

Don't the Jesuits make a vow to advance the church by any means and catholics in general pledge their allegiance above any allegiance to the state?

As far as your circumcision at birth it is obvious that an infant is not able or accountable to make decisions for eternity. It was not a religious vow anyway.

That is also why we do not baptize until a child is able to make those decisions for themselves.

The Wizard
07-18-2012, 15:08
As a Catholic I render unto God that which is God's and unto ceasar that which is ceasar's.

Vic Hays
07-19-2012, 23:19
Christ is our righteousness. All that we do is contaminated with our sinful nature.

Pure motives are necessary for anything we do to be acceptable to God.

The Bible speaks of the prayers of the saints being mingled with the incense. The incense is representative of Christ's righteousness.

Revelation 8:4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel’ hand.

A parable is told by Jesus about those who think their works are good enough to be acceptable to God. Here is the punch line:

Matthew 22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
22:12 And he said to him, Friend, how came you in here not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

The wedding garment is the righteousness of Christ. The man was foolish enough to think his own clothes were acceptable even though the wedding garment was provided free of charge.

Brasso
07-20-2012, 06:28
Pure motives are all that count? (In my best Jim Carey voice.....) Really?


Tell that to Dr. Kevorkian.

That's nothing more than feel good brain diahreah. He gave us commandments that He said were forever for a reason. If your motives are pure, you'll try your best to keep them, not come up with reasons not to.

Vic Hays
07-20-2012, 08:53
Pure motives are all that count? (In my best Jim Carey voice.....) Really?


Tell that to Dr. Kevorkian.

That's nothing more than feel good brain diahreah. He gave us commandments that He said were forever for a reason. If your motives are pure, you'll try your best to keep them, not come up with reasons not to.

Try?

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

You are much less capable of being righteous than you think. I am not saying that you should not try to do good, but as Jesus said:

Luke 18:19 And Jesus said to him, Why call you me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

There is a reason that a wedding garment is provided for the feast.

Matthew 22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
22:12 And he said to him, Friend, how came you in here not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

Brasso
07-20-2012, 11:41
Whoosh. Right over your head. Again.

You insist on shoving words into my mouth and ignoring everything that doesn't line up with what you already believe. Why?

I've never disputed what you posted. I've never said we earn our salvation. I've never said we could be righteous on our own.

But you can pray over a ham sandwich all day long. It's still unclean. It's still a sin to eat it. Get the point?

If you want to be righteous, don't eat the ham. That makes Him pleased with you because you are doing what He asked you to do. You can't make up your own commandments regardless of whether you think it's good. He already has a list made up and that's the one He wants us to keep. It's the only one He is pleased with.

Vic Hays
07-20-2012, 12:11
Just because I haven't presented every aspect of righteousness by faith does not mean I am disputing doing what is right.

The Original Post asked the question "Did the Apostle Paul Teach a Righteousness Without Law-Keeping?

There is an ambiguity in the question as it can be taken two ways plus a third question thrown in to create even more confusion.

1. Can we be righteous and be breaking the law at the same time.

2. Does keeping the law make us righteous?

You can add a third.

3. What does Paul mean when he writes about the "Law".

A failure to communicate and define these terms is where your frustration is coming from.

It is obvious that the answer to the OP is that, yes there is a righteousness without law keeping. That is obvious from this Bible text:

Phillipians 3:9 And be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Brasso
07-20-2012, 16:44
So why do what is unrighteous and call it righteous because you meant well? It doesn't work that way. Paul absolutely taught to keep the Torah. He never said anything different. And if you think he did, you're wrong. Not him. And not Him.

There is a huge difference between being righteous because Messiah died for you, and doing what is righteous. One is by grace. The other is your choice.


And there is no ambiguity as to the definition of Law. It's the Torah. The whole Torah. Messiah didn't say He came to fulfill the 10 commandments. He came to fulfill the Torah and the Prophets. That's the Tanach. All of it.

Kingarthurhk
07-20-2012, 19:34
No, we are to listen to the Church, and NOT to those who want to usurp the Authority that Jesus gave the Church.

God didn't give men the ability to cut, paste, and erase what he ordained. In fact he has determined a curse on anyone that does.

Deuteronomy 4:2, "Do not add <sup class="crossreference" value='(D (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-5007D))'></sup> to what I command you and do not subtract <sup class="crossreference" value='(E (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-5007E))'></sup> from it, but keep <sup class="crossreference" value='(F (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-5007F))'></sup> the commands <sup class="crossreference" value='(G (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-5007G))'></sup> of the Lord your God that I give you."

Revelation 22:18-19, "<sup> </sup>I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: <sup class="crossreference" value='(AX (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-31099AX))'></sup> If anyone adds anything to them, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AY (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-31099AY))'></sup> God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. <sup class="crossreference" value='(AZ (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-31099AZ))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">19 </sup>And if anyone takes words away <sup class="crossreference" value='(BA (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-31100BA))'></sup> from this scroll of prophecy, <sup class="crossreference" value='(BB (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-31100BB))'></sup> God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life <sup class="crossreference" value='(BC (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-31100BC))'></sup> and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll."

Vic Hays
07-20-2012, 21:38
So why do what is unrighteous and call it righteous because you meant well? It doesn't work that way. Paul absolutely taught to keep the Torah. He never said anything different. And if you think he did, you're wrong. Not him. And not Him.

There is a huge difference between being righteous because Messiah died for you, and doing what is righteous. One is by grace. The other is your choice.


And there is no ambiguity as to the definition of Law. It's the Torah. The whole Torah. Messiah didn't say He came to fulfill the 10 commandments. He came to fulfill the Torah and the Prophets. That's the Tanach. All of it.

Obviously Christ fulfilled much of the Old Testament and prophets.

Luke 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Besides this Paul did say something different, but you are in denial of it.

Galatians 3:19 Why then serves the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

I believe from the context that Paul is speaking of the Book of the Law not the Covenant Law of Ten Commandments which is the standard of morality.

Galatians 4:9 But now, after that you have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn you again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto you desire again to be in bondage?
4:10 You observe days, and months, and times, and years.

They wanted to keep the feast days.

Brasso
07-21-2012, 09:30
Galatians 3:19 Why then serves the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.


I don't believe he's speaking of either. He's speaking of the Levitical Priesthood. Moses recieved the covenant which Israel agreed to and which was sprinkled with blood. He then went back up the mountain ans spent 40 days learning about the Tabernacle and Levitical Priesthood. That is what Messiah replaced.

Vic Hays
07-21-2012, 21:07
I don't believe he's speaking of either. He's speaking of the Levitical Priesthood. Moses recieved the covenant which Israel agreed to and which was sprinkled with blood. He then went back up the mountain ans spent 40 days learning about the Tabernacle and Levitical Priesthood. That is what Messiah replaced.

You really have to add a lot to scripture to come up with that philosophy. Paul said "the Law".

Brasso
07-22-2012, 08:08
Paul speaks of many laws. The Greek always uses "nomos", regardless of context.

Vic Hays
07-22-2012, 08:57
Paul speaks of many laws. The Greek always uses "nomos", regardless of context.

Previously you claimed the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses were not divided and now you are claiming many divisions. You seem to be struggling to maintain your philosophy.

Perhaps you have some scripture to back up your philosophy. Where in the context of Galatians does Paul talk about the priesthood?

rgregoryb
07-22-2012, 13:19
. I expect no less from someone whom worships the whore of Rev.

you really are a turd.

rgregoryb
07-22-2012, 13:23
this is friggin hilarious.........

Brasso
07-22-2012, 13:41
Previously you claimed the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses were not divided and now you are claiming many divisions. You seem to be struggling to maintain your philosophy.

You misunderstand. There aren't any divisions of The Torah. There are many laws. There is the law of sin and death. The law of the Tabernacle. The law of the priesthood. The law of sowing and reaping. It just means instructions.

There were many works of law that weren't sin either. Laws about clean and unclean. What to do if you touch a dead person. There were a lot of things you could do to make yourself unclean, that weren't a sin. Woman are unclean once a month. It doesn't mean they have sinned. It's just something that had to be dealt with by the priesthood and washings, etc. Things that Yeshua's blood put an end to.

To reason that the Law of Moses was added to deal with transgression till Messiah came really doesn't make any sense. What you're saying is that God gave Moses all these laws to make the people sin. Then sent His Son to forgive them for those sins and do away with the laws. ??? Why give them in the first place? See how crazy that is?


Also, God told Israel that if they didn't keep His instructions they would be cursed and removed from the Land. Yet the Promise to Abraham was that his seed would inherit the Land forever. The sinning of the people against the Torah can't annul this promise. It has nothing to do with the Torah disappearing. Otherwise you once again make God and Yeshua liars.

Vic Hays
07-22-2012, 22:53
You misunderstand. There aren't any divisions of The Torah. There are many laws. There is the law of sin and death. The law of the Tabernacle. The law of the priesthood. The law of sowing and reaping. It just means instructions.

There were many works of law that weren't sin either. Laws about clean and unclean. What to do if you touch a dead person. There were a lot of things you could do to make yourself unclean, that weren't a sin. Woman are unclean once a month. It doesn't mean they have sinned. It's just something that had to be dealt with by the priesthood and washings, etc. Things that Yeshua's blood put an end to.

To reason that the Law of Moses was added to deal with transgression till Messiah came really doesn't make any sense. What you're saying is that God gave Moses all these laws to make the people sin. Then sent His Son to forgive them for those sins and do away with the laws. ??? Why give them in the first place? See how crazy that is?


Also, God told Israel that if they didn't keep His instructions they would be cursed and removed from the Land. Yet the Promise to Abraham was that his seed would inherit the Land forever. The sinning of the people against the Torah can't annul this promise. It has nothing to do with the Torah disappearing. Otherwise you once again make God and Yeshua liars.

Which law deals with the things in the context of what Paul meant when he said law?

Here is the context:

Galatians 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

Which law deals with holy days and feasts? The law of the priesthood?

If I am wrong here please show me from scripture the context of this.

FCoulter
07-23-2012, 05:25
Which law deals with the things in the context of what Paul meant when he said law?

Here is the context:

Galatians 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

Which law deals with holy days and feasts? The law of the priesthood?

If I am wrong here please show me from scripture the context of this.
Vic, why do you keep making a distinction between Gods weekly Sabbath and His annual Sabbaths?

The Bible never makes this distinction, infact the Bible list them together and even says to keep them forever.


You want to play god and seperate what He put together.


So to answer your silly question which law deals with Holy Days and Feasts, the same law the deals with His weekly Sabbath.


Vic, stop picking and choosing, it makes your sect seems worse than those that totally reject Gods laws, atleast they are playing god.

FCoulter
07-23-2012, 05:31
Galations 4:10 explained

Interestingly, the question of Sabbath and holy day observance was not the real issue in Galatians Four. After their conversion, the Spirit of God led the Galatians to worship God in spirit and in truth— which included keeping the Sabbath and holy days. Paul wrote that they had become the children of God: “And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, ‘Abba, Father.’ So then, you are no longer a servant, but a son. And if a son, you are also an heir of God through Christ” (Gal. 4:6-7).
Next, Paul reminds them of their pagan past and their former occult worship of demons. Notice the comparison: “Now on the one hand, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to those who are not gods by nature [the pagan deities and demons]” (Gal. 4:8). Their former pagan worship had nothing to do with the biblical Sabbath and holy days—or any other commandment or law of God!
In a severe admonition Paul warns them that they were in dire spiritual danger, because instead of obeying God, they were reverting back to their former pagan ways and blending their former pagan observances with their newly learned Christian way of life. In so doing, they were beginning to turn their backs on God the Father and Jesus Christ. Paul strongly rebukes them: “But on the other hand, after having known God—rather, after having been known by God—how is it that you are turning again to the weak and impotent elements [demon spirits of pagan religion], to which you again desire to be in bondage [to Satan the devil as in the past]? You are of your own selves observing days, and months, and times and years. I am afraid for you, lest somehow I have labored among you in vain” (verses 9-11). It is readily apparent that the problem was not that the Galatians were forsaking Sunday and holiday- keeping and reverting back to keeping the Sabbath and holy days, as Orthodox theologians and ministers claim. In fact, quite the opposite was happening, as we will see in the following analysis.


An Analysis of What Paul Wrote in Galatians 4:8-10
1) Paul speaks of the time before the Galatians were converted: “Now on the one hand, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to those who are not gods by nature [the pagan deities and demons]” (verse 8). Before they were converted they knew nothing about the true God—the Father and Jesus Christ. Therefore, we can conclude that before they were converted, they did not observe God’s Sabbath, feasts or holy days—only after their conversion.
2) Next, Paul speaks of their conversion and having come to know God: “...after having known God—rather, after having been known by God...” (Gal. 4:9). After they were converted, Paul taught them God’s way of life in the grace of God, including the keeping of the Sabbath, feasts and holy days. Paul taught the observance of God’s Sabbaths in all the churches.
3) Later—because they were beginning to accept a false gospel—the Galatians began leaving the true Christ and the true Gospel, and were returning to their former pagan religious practices and demon worship: “How is it that you are turning again to the weak and impotent elements [demon spirits of pagan religion]...” (verse 9).
4) In so doing, they were returning to the spiritual bondage of false, pagan gods and the accompanying religious days of worship: “...to which YOU AGAIN DESIRE TO BE IN BONDAGE [to Satan the devil as in the past]?” (verse 9).
5) Paul notes that rather than following the teachings of Jesus Christ, what they were doing was of their own choice and determination: “You are of your own selves....” Paul uses a special middle voice verb, paratereithe, which shows that they were acting of their own volition in making such decisions—and were not doing so because of Paul’s teachings.
6) What were they reverting to? They were going back to “observing [for themselves] days, and months, and times and years” (verse 10). Again, before conversion they knew nothing of God, Jesus Christ or Christianity—or of the laws and commandments of God. Therefore it is not possible to take this phrase to mean that they were returning to the observance of God’s Sabbath, feasts and holy days—or that they were following traditional Judaism. The phrase can only refer to pagan days, months, times and years, which they had formerly observed before they were converted.


Notice carefully that Paul did not use the words Sabbath, feasts or holy days in describing how the Galatians were reverting back to their former ways. If Paul was actually writing to them about the Sabbath, feasts or holy days of God, he would have used those terms instead of “days, months, times and years.” Therefore, there is no real question that such “days, months, times and years” can only refer to pagan times of worship, not to the biblically commanded days of worship. This is why Paul finished his admonition to the Galatians with this warning: “I am afraid for you, lest somehow I have labored among you in vain” (Gal. 4:11).
As we have seen, Orthodox Christendom’s interpretation and explanation of this complicated passage is entirely incorrect, and is only founded on bias against the Sabbath, feasts and holy days of God. Orthodoxy rejects the truth of God so that they may continue in their observance of a “Christianized” Sunday and the various occult holidays of this world.

Brasso
07-23-2012, 07:01
Paul asks them why they are turning back to their pagan sabbaths and days. Not Gods.

8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain


He's clearly contrasting these day, months, times, and years as different than those of God.

Schabesbert
07-23-2012, 08:31
So.

You are a Priest of the Inquisition, and told that it is your Church/God-directed religious duty to torture Jews to death and forcibly convert them to Christianity. Because saving their souls is more important to God than to maintain their mortal bodies on this earth. :wow:
You can propose an infinite number of things which didn't ever happen. Your imagination isn't connected to the real world.

Schabesbert
07-23-2012, 08:46
Your sect did not even make the doctrine that it was infallible until recent times.

You will have to cite the Bible text that says infallibility was granted to anyone at all and then the text that says this infallibility could be passed down.
Every person who believes in the Bible accepts the fact that, under certain conditions, sinful humans can profess not only infallible, but inerrant truths. The writings of Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude, etc. are considered inerrant (which is a step beyond infallible).

Cite the Bible text? First, you need to cite the Bible text that says all doctrines need to come directly from Bible texts. Since you can't, your first inherent premise fails.

But we can demonstrate that this belief is supported from scripture. As you well know.

Schabesbert
07-23-2012, 09:01
God didn't give men the ability to cut, paste, and erase what he ordained. In fact he has determined a curse on anyone that does.
Exactly. Which is why we have maintained the full Bible, consisting of 73 books, and have not removed books as have protestants.

Vic Hays
07-23-2012, 09:46
Vic, why do you keep making a distinction between Gods weekly Sabbath and His annual Sabbaths?

The Bible never makes this distinction, infact the Bible list them together and even says to keep them forever.



More of your philosophy to support your bankrupt doctrines?

How many of the Sabbaths are listed here:

Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

How many Sabbaths are there in the Ten Commandments which is the covenant?

Deuteronomy 9:9 When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I stayed in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:
9:10 And the LORD delivered to me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spoke with you in the mount out of the middle of the fire in the day of the assembly.
9:11 And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant.

Vic Hays
07-23-2012, 09:55
Paul asks them why they are turning back to their pagan sabbaths and days. Not Gods.

8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain


He's clearly contrasting these day, months, times, and years as different than those of God.

Paul is berating them for wanting to follow the Law of Moses which was not required of them as they were Gentiles.

You need to realize that nearly the entire book of Galatians is about the Judaizers who wanted the Galatians to add the works of the Law to their means of salvation by faith.

This is an insult to the sacrifice which Jesus made as if it were insufficient for salvation.

There is nothing that we can do to buy our salvation. Jesus has bought our salvation for us and offers it to us as a free gift. There are not a bunch of hurdles to jump through like observing sacrifices and feasts days. There never were. These sacrifices and feast days were shadows that pointed to the salvation in Christ and no longer are relevant.

Galatians 3:19 Why then serves the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Vic Hays
07-23-2012, 10:00
Every person who believes in the Bible accepts the fact that, under certain conditions, sinful humans can profess not only infallible, but inerrant truths. The writings of Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude, etc. are considered inerrant (which is a step beyond infallible).

Cite the Bible text? First, you need to cite the Bible text that says all doctrines need to come directly from Bible texts. Since you can't, your first inherent premise fails.

But we can demonstrate that this belief is supported from scripture. As you well know.

Yes, by the Holy Spirit, people can profess Truth. This Truth is unchanging so we can differentiate between real Truth and philosophy by comparing the profession with the Truth already professed. It is not passed down. It is proprietary to the Holy Spirit.

Jesus used this method to overcome the philosophy of satan even when satan used scripture to promote a false philosophy.

Luke 4:10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
4:11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
4:13 And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.

Schabesbert
07-23-2012, 11:13
Yes, by the Holy Spirit, people can profess Truth.
Exactly. And that is exactly the basis for the Church's belief, especially since Jesus promised this. See, for example, John 14:16 and Matt 28:19-20.


This Truth is unchanging so we can differentiate between real Truth and philosophy by comparing the profession with the Truth already professed.
Yes.

It is not passed down. It is proprietary to the Holy Spirit.
It's not? Then why would scripture say it is?
I guess, by the rules you set up above, your belief is untrue.

Jesus used this method to overcome the philosophy of satan even when satan used scripture to promote a false philosophy.
Ahh, there's the rub. Scripture CAN be twisted and misinterpreted by false teachers. [2Pe 3:16] Which is precisely why God, in His Wisdom, set up a Church which, under the protection of the Holy Spirit, would always be the pillar and bulwark of the Truth. [1Ti 3:15]

Vic Hays
07-23-2012, 14:26
Exactly. And that is exactly the basis for the Church's belief, especially since Jesus promised this. See, for example, John 14:16 and Matt 28:19-20.



Yes.


It's not? Then why would scripture say it is?
I guess, by the rules you set up above, your belief is untrue.


Ahh, there's the rub. Scripture CAN be twisted and misinterpreted by false teachers. [2Pe 3:16] Which is precisely why God, in His Wisdom, set up a Church which, under the protection of the Holy Spirit, would always be the pillar and bulwark of the Truth. [1Ti 3:15]

Scripture does not say that the Holy Spirit is passed down by the will of man.

The problem with Truth is that someone will tell you the Truth and claim it is the Truth while another will tell you a lie and claim it is the Truth. Even among God's church this is true. But, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.

Jesus used the scripture to tell the difference between Truth and error.

Every man will be held accountable for believing the Truth or a lie. Those that do not love the Truth will follow the lies that are nore appealing to their perverted desire.

We know where Truth can be found because Jesus told us.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Schabesbert
07-23-2012, 15:02
Scripture does not say that the Holy Spirit is passed down by the will of man.
That's a perjorative way of putting it (as usual).
The Holy Spirit guides those to whom He is imparted.

Here is how the gifts were passed in Apostolic times:

Ac 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied

1Ti 5:22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man's sins; keep yourself pure.


2Ti 1:6 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands;
7 for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control.

This is the same way that the Catholic Church does it today.

The problem with Truth is that someone will tell you the Truth and claim it is the Truth while another will tell you a lie and claim it is the Truth.
Yes, I've noticed this to be the case.

Even among God's church this is true. But, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.
... something which your belief system, of necessity, denies.

Jesus used the scripture to tell the difference between Truth and error.
I see it quite differently. He IS the Truth, and used His Authority to tell the difference between Truth and error.

In order to explain this, though, He resorted to the least common denominator of belief. For the Pharisees, He used all of scripture. For the Sadducees, He stuck to the Pentateuch only.

Every man will be held accountable for believing the Truth or a lie. Those that do not love the Truth will follow the lies that are nore appealing to their perverted desire.
Yes. YOUR desire is that the Church that Jesus started, because of some of the tares which had grown therein, not be followed, contrary to Our Lord's commands.

You even deny that the Truth can be passed down. How sad is that?

Hint: look up the word paradosis as it is applied to the paradosis of the Apostles!


We know where Truth can be found because Jesus told us.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
I don't know how many times I'll have to repeat it before this sinks in (if it ever will, since it seems to be part of your penchant for following the lies that are more appealing to you, to use your words), but scripture is not idental to "Jesus' Words." Scripture is a SUBSET of "Jesus' Words."

And yet, as we can see, it is the Catholic Church that follows Jesus' Words most fully and completely.

Vic Hays
07-23-2012, 16:13
Yes. YOUR desire is that the Church that Jesus started, because of some of the tares which had grown therein, not be followed, contrary to Our Lord's commands.

You even deny that the Truth can be passed down. How sad is that?

And yet, as we can see, it is the Catholic Church that follows Jesus' Words most fully and completely.

Thank you for judging what you think my desires are.

Luke 6:22 Blessed are you, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’ sake.
6:23 Rejoice you in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers to the prophets.

Schabesbert
07-23-2012, 16:59
Thank you for judging what you think my desires are.
Oh, I don't think it's a stretch at all to reach that conclusion.

Are you somehow denying that it's your desire that the Catholic Church not be followed?


But can't you address anything in the post with a substantive answer?
(I won't hold my breath)

Vic Hays
07-23-2012, 21:42
And yet, as we can see, it is the Catholic Church that follows Jesus' Words most fully and completely.

Perhaps as you see it. I and many others do not see it that way.

Too many extra Biblical doctrines, too much veneration of the saints instead of the one who alone is worthy, too many thorny fruits. Too many claims of authority.

Jesus said we could know them by their fruits. Your sect flunked that test centuries ago.

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, You are worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for you were slain, and have redeemed us to God by your blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Jesus is the one who is worthy. Jesus is the one who is the leader of His Church. No man may usurp that authority no matter how lofty the claims.

Schabesbert
07-24-2012, 07:44
Perhaps as you see it. I and many others do not see it that way.
Right. You're depending on your own private judgement and the false, unbiblical, untelable, and illogical belief which is sola scriptura.

Too many extra Biblical doctrines, too much veneration of the saints instead of the one who alone is worthy, too many thorny fruits. Too many claims of authority.
All based on Jesus' teachings. You should follow His teachings. But no "extra Biblical doctrines" such as sola scriptura. Actually, that is an UN-biblical doctrine, and a teaching of men which nullifies the very Word of God.

Jesus said we could know them by their fruits. Your sect flunked that test centuries ago.
Whoops, since you're being untruthful, can I also say that YOU flunked that test? Aren't YOU a sinner?

Jesus is the one who is worthy. Jesus is the one who is the leader of His Church. No man may usurp that authority no matter how lofty the claims.
RIGHT. No one can usurp that authority, as your belief system does. However, IF one believes the Bible, it witnesses Jesus' granting His Authority to MEN, thus showing definitively that your beliefs are wrong:

Mt 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Mt 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Mt 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Lu 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Vic Hays
07-24-2012, 10:36
Whoops, since you're being untruthful, can I also say that YOU flunked that test? Aren't YOU a sinner?



That's right I am a sinner as well as all other humans with the exception of Jesus. He alone is worthy. There is no other man that is worthy.

I follow Jesus. You are following who knows what. Philosophy of men can never take the place of Jesus.

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said to him, One thing you lack: go your way, sell whatever you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Schabesbert
07-24-2012, 11:58
That's right I am a sinner as well as all other humans with the exception of Jesus. He alone is worthy. There is no other man that is worthy.
And yet, He takes unworthy men and imbues them with His own Authority, as I have shown from scripture (which, of course, you ignored since it showed quite plainly that your belief system is flat-out unbiblical.).

How can He do that? By providing them with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I follow Jesus. You are following who knows what.
You claim to, but you do not. You are not following the Jesus of the Bible, even if you believe you are.

Philosophy of men can never take the place of Jesus.
True. Or philosophy of women.

Schabesbert
07-24-2012, 12:05
That's right I am a sinner as well as all other humans with the exception of Jesus. He alone is worthy. There is no other man that is worthy.
So what of your argument that the Catholic Church is unworthy since it had sinners? Were you confused? Were you being deceitful? Were you grasping at straws to disparage the Church that Jesus built?

Vic Hays
07-24-2012, 12:35
So what of your argument that the Catholic Church is unworthy since it had sinners? Were you confused? Were you being deceitful? Were you grasping at straws to disparage the Church that Jesus built?

I never said that. It certainly is easy for you to find an argument when you are answering your own objection isn't it?

Jesus says to follow Him. You are saying I need to follow your imperfect sect. Sorry, Jesus wins.

In keeping with the thread we find that those who follow the Lamb are without fault before the throne because they are covered by Christ's righteousness and not their own. They have been redeemed from sin.

Revelation 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These were redeemed from among men, being the first fruits to God and to the Lamb.
14:5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

Schabesbert
07-24-2012, 13:34
I never said that. It certainly is easy for you to find an argument when you are answering your own objection isn't it?
You said:
"Jesus said we could know them by their fruits. Your sect flunked that test centuries ago."


Jesus says to follow Him. You are saying I need to follow your imperfect sect. Sorry, Jesus wins.
The logic isn't hard to follow, if you're actually trying to find the Truth:

1. Jesus says to follow Him.

2. Jesus also said to those (imperfect men) He installed as leaders: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

3. Jesus said that we must listen to His Church: "if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

So, if you're really listening to Jesus and not just giving Him lip service, you NEED to listen to His Church.

I explained to you how this can be, just above. You ignored that, and went on to repeat your mantra without giving it any thought. OR, realizing that the Truth is inconvenient to your beliefs, you just studiously ignored it.


In keeping with the thread we find that those who follow the Lamb are without fault before the throne because they are covered by Christ's righteousness and not their own. They have been redeemed from sin.
This is WAY out of context, and you don't have any idea what you're talking about here. These are a rather special 144,000 VIRGIN MEN. But since it's a non-sequitor, and most likely a red herring on your part, I'll defer discussion and concentrate on the part you're trying to dodge above.

Vic Hays
07-24-2012, 14:00
You said:
"Jesus said we could know them by their fruits. Your sect flunked that test centuries ago."



The logic isn't hard to follow, if you're actually trying to find the Truth:

1. Jesus says to follow Him.

2. Jesus also said to those (imperfect men) He installed as leaders: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."


Obviously the present leaders of your sect are not the men Jesus was talking to.
Jesus said to judge them by their fruits.

Paul also warned against false Apostles.

II Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

You are attempting to get people to stop following Jesus and instead follow imperfect men.

Schabesbert
07-24-2012, 18:00
Obviously the present leaders of your sect are not the men Jesus was talking to.
That's beside the point; the point is that your beliefs are WRONG, and demonstrably so from scripture. Jesus did indeed delegate His Authority to MEN, something you vehemently denied.

Jesus said to judge them by their fruits.
Right. Individuals. Not the doctrines and beliefs of His Church, which He vowed to protect.

Paul also warned against false Apostles.
Correct. Although I'm pretty sure that he didn't call out Ellen G. White by name, just in principle.

II Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Yep. He didn't, unfortunately, tell us that they'd be called SDA.


You are attempting to get people to stop following Jesus and instead follow imperfect men.
Another false dichotomy. Jesus, as I showed above quite plainly from scripture, commanded us to follow imperfect men. But He also sent these imperfect men the guidance of the Holy Spirit to ensure that they'd never teach false doctrines to the entire Church.

Vic, why won't you do as Jesus commanded? Pride?

Vic Hays
07-24-2012, 20:42
Another false dichotomy. Jesus, as I showed above quite plainly from scripture, commanded us to follow imperfect men. But He also sent these imperfect men the guidance of the Holy Spirit to ensure that they'd never teach false doctrines to the entire Church.

Vic, why won't you do as Jesus commanded? Pride?

Please cite the verse where Jesus commanded us to "follow imperfect men".

I have already shown you at least one verse where Jesus commanded to follow Him. What do you have against following Jesus?

John 10:7 Then said Jesus to them again, Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
10:8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Schabesbert
07-25-2012, 07:10
Please cite the verse where Jesus commanded us to "follow imperfect men".
Why are you being purposefully obtuse?

He said:
Lu 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Now, the only question remaining is whether the "you" to whom Jesus was referring to were imperfect men or not.


I have already shown you at least one verse where Jesus commanded to follow Him. What do you have against following Jesus?
Again with the false dichotomies?
Following Jesus MEANS to do as He said, which includes following His Church.

Therefore it's YOU who are opposed to following Jesus. Quite blatently.

Vic Hays
07-25-2012, 08:27
Why are you being purposefully obtuse?

He said:
Lu 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Now, the only question remaining is whether the "you" to whom Jesus was referring to were imperfect men or not.



Again with the false dichotomies?
Following Jesus MEANS to do as He said, which includes following His Church.

Therefore it's YOU who are opposed to following Jesus. Quite blatently.

As usual you have not cited the text that says "follow the church"

While it may be imperfect men that Jesus sent, what is wrong with Jesus words? What is wrong with following Jesus?

Could it be that these men that Jesus commissioned were to spread His words? Jesus expected that His words would be available to believers.

Luke 6:47 Whoever comes to me, and hears my sayings, and does them, I will show you to whom he is like:
6:48 He is like a man which built an house, and dig deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently on that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded on a rock.

Schabesbert
07-25-2012, 08:46
As usual you have not cited the text that says "follow the church"
That's because you didn't ask.

You asked "Please cite the verse where Jesus commanded us to "follow imperfect men". "

I answered.

You are one confused individual.



While it may be imperfect men that Jesus sent, what is wrong with Jesus words?
Nothing. You should try to heed them for a change.

What is wrong with following Jesus?
Nothing, which is why I try to do so. You could consider that, as well.

Could it be that these men that Jesus commissioned were to spread His words?
You can speculate as to what these men were told to do, but the fact is that Jesus actual words said that we should listen to them as we would Him. You might want to find loopholes in Jesus' commands that aren't there, but I think you'd be better served by actually following Jesus as you wrongly claim you do.

Vic Hays
07-25-2012, 08:48
You can speculate as to what these men were told to do, but the fact is that Jesus actual words said that we should listen to them as we would Him. You might want to find loopholes in Jesus' commands that aren't there, but I think you'd be better served by actually following Jesus as you wrongly claim you do.

John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Not just any words from any one who makes claims will do Bert.

Schabesbert
07-25-2012, 12:44
John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Not just any words from any one who makes claims will do Bert.
And?
I'm not claiming that these men weren't commanded to spread His words. As a PART of their ministry. As a PART of what they were authorized to do. I certainly hope your thinking isn't as limited as all that.

Vic Hays
07-25-2012, 14:02
And?
I'm not claiming that these men weren't commanded to spread His words. As a PART of their ministry. As a PART of what they were authorized to do. I certainly hope your thinking isn't as limited as all that.

You are limiting this work to your sect. That is limited thinking.

Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Do you think Christians are only called to be Roman Catholic?
Do you think only Roman Catholics have authority to preach the Gospel?

Acts 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Schabesbert
07-25-2012, 14:29
You are limiting this work to your sect. That is limited thinking.
Subject-jumping much?

Look, Catholicism/Protestantism aside, I've shown that your beliefs are just wrong. Rather than stay on-subject, you're just changing the subject.

It's like trying to nail jello to a tree.


Do you think Christians are only called to be Roman Catholic?
That's a new subject, but there is only ONE faith according to St. Paul. I've yet to see a better candidate for the one faith than the faith that has existed from the time of Jesus.

Do you think only Roman Catholics have authority to preach the Gospel?
No. Anyone can preach the Gospel, just so long as it is the Gospel that the Apostles delivered, and not some pseudo-gospel that is the result of false prophetesses or people who have mis-interpreted scripture for themsleves relying on ONLY scripture and their personal misinformed interpretation of it.

Vic Hays
07-25-2012, 15:03
That's a new subject, but there is only ONE faith according to St. Paul. I've yet to see a better candidate for the one faith than the faith that has existed from the time of Jesus.




Are you insinuating that that one faith is Roman Catholicism? :upeyes:
Sorry, that does not fit the blueprint laid out in the Bible.

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said to me, See you do it not: I am your fellow servant, and of your brothers that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Schabesbert
07-25-2012, 15:33
Are you insinuating that that one faith is Roman Catholicism? :upeyes:
There are only 2 viable candidates: Catholicism and Orthodoxy. For very good reasons, I've determined that the faith that best fits all the Biblical and historical criteria is Catholicism.

Sorry, that does not fit the blueprint laid out in the Bible.
Of course it does.

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Absolutely. "The Woman," Mary, has been given to us as our Mother at the foot of the Cross. Those who are faithful to the teachings of Christ (and His Church) are thus all her "seed."


Revelation 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said to me, See you do it not: I am your fellow servant, and of your brothers that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Yep. Do you have some point to make here, or are you just throwing out non sequitors? Or are you trying to slyly imply something false about Catholic beliefs (i.e., bearing false witness)? You do that often, insinuate things that you're afraid to say straight out since a) that would be OBVIOUS bearing of false witness, and you seem to want to do it with plausible deniability (very similar to the serpent in the garden in Genesis 3:1) and b) saying it straight out would reveal just how ridiculous your beliefs are.

And still you're changing the subject, having been shown that your beliefs are utterly false. Hmmm ...

Kingarthurhk
07-25-2012, 17:06
Exactly. Which is why we have maintained the full Bible, consisting of 73 books, and have not removed books as have protestants.

Okay, please inform me how this fits in with scripture:


The dignity of the priest is also estimated from the power that he has over the real and the mystic body ofJesus Christ. With regard to the power of priests over the real body of Jesus Christ, it is of faith that when theypronounce the words of consecration the Incarnate Word has obliged himself to obey and to come into their hands under the sacramental species. We are struck with wonder when we hear that God obeyed the voice of Josue The Lord obeying the voice of man

1 and made the sun stand when he said move not, O sun, towards Gabaon, . . . and the sun stood still
2 But our wonder should be far greater when we find that in obedience to the words of his priests
HOC EST CORPUS MEUM God himself descends on the altar, that he comes wherever they call him, and as often as they call him, and places himself in their hands, even though they should be his enemies. 1 " Obediente Domino voci hominis." Jos. x. 14.
2 " Sol, contra Gabaon ne movearis. . . . Stetit itaque sol in medio coeli." Ibid. x. 12.
And after having come, he remains, entirely at their disposal; they move him as they please, from one place to another; they may, if they wish, shut him up in the tabernacle, or expose him on the altar, or carry him outside the church; they may, if they choose, eat his flesh, and give him for the food of others. " Oh, how very great is their power," says St. Laurence Justinian, speaking of priests.

" A word falls from their lips and the body of

Christ is there substantially formed from the matter of bread, and the Incarnate Word descended from heaven,

is found really present on the table of the altar ! Never did divine goodness give such power to the angels. The

angels abide by the order of God, but the priests take him in their hands, distribute him to the faithful, and

partake of him as food for themselves."


1With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the
power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of changing them from the
slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests,
and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution, provided the penitent is
capable of it.

“Such is," says St. Maximus of Turin, " this judiciary power ascribed to Peter that its decision
carries with it the decision of God."


2

1 Maxima illis est collata potestas! Ad eorum pene libitum, corpus Christi de panis transsubstantiatur materia; descendit de coelo in

carne Verbum, et altaris verissime reperitur inmensa! Hoc illis prærogatur ex gratia, quod nusquam datum est Angelis. Hi assistunt

Deo; illi contrectant manibus, tribuunt populis, et in se suscipiunt." Serm. de Euchar.

2 " Tanta ei (Petro) potestas attributa est judicandi, ut in arbitrio ejus poneretur coeleste judicium." In Nat. B. Petri, hom. 3.

The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it, writes St. Peter Damian.

1 Hence St. JohnChrysostom thus concludes: " The Sovereign Master of the universe only follows the servant by confirming in heaven all that the latter decides upon earth.

"2Priests are the dispensers of the divine graces and the companions of God. " Consider the priests," says St.
Ignatius, Martyr, " as the dispensers of divine graces and the associates of God." :

3" They are," says St. Prosper,
" the glory and the immovable columns of the Church; thay are the doors of the eternal city; through them all reach Christ; they are the vigilant guardians to whom the Lord has confided the keys of the kingdom of heaven; they are the stewards of the king s house, to assign to each according to his good pleasure his place in the hierarchy."

4Were the Redeemer to descend into a church, and sit in a confessional to administer the sacrament of penance,
and a priest to sit in another confessional, Jesus would say over each penitent, "Ego te absolve," the priest would likewise say over each of his penitents,

"Ego te absolve," and the penitents of each would be equally
absolved. How great the honor that a king would confer on a subject whom he should empower to rescue from prison as many as he pleased ! But far greater is the power that the eternal Father has given to Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ has given to his priests, to rescue from hell not only the bodies but also the souls of the faithful:

1 " Præcedit Petri sententia sententiam Redemptoris." Serm. 26.

2 " Dominus sequitur servum; et quidquid hic in inferioribus judicaverit, hoc ille in supernis comprobat." De Verbis Is. Hom.5.

3 In domo Dei, divinorum bonorum ceconomos, sociosque Dei, Sacerdotes respicite." Ep. ad Polyc.

4 " Ipsi sunt Ecclesiæ decus, columnæ firmissimæ; ipsi januæ Civitatis æternæ, per quos omnes ingrediuntur ad Christum; ipsi

janitores, quibus claves datæ sunt regni coelorum; ipsi dispensatores regiæ domus, quorum arbitrio dividuntur gradus singulorum.

" De Vita cont. 1. 2, c. 2


“The Son," Says St. John Chrysostom, "has put into the hands of the priests all judgment; for having been as it
were transported into heaven, they have received this divine prerogative. If a king gave to a mortal the power..."

"DIGNITY AND DUTIES OF THE PRIEST; OR, SELVA.

A COLLECTION OF MATERIALS FOR ECCLESIASTICAL

RETREATS. RULE OF LIFE AND SPIRITUAL RULES."
BY ST. ALPHONSUS DE LIGUORI

Doctor of the Church.

Let's play "Wheres Waldo" and see how many blasphemies you can spot in just a portion of this primary text.

Now, please tell me how is the above work not adding to scripture, and in fact aborogating it, contradicting it, and putting aside for agrandization of man rather than God?

Schabesbert
07-25-2012, 18:04
Okay, please inform me how this fits in with scripture:
Please narrow it down to an actual question, and we can discuss how you're wrong yet again.

Vic Hays
07-25-2012, 21:13
There are only 2 viable candidates: Catholicism and Orthodoxy. For very good reasons, I've determined that the faith that best fits all the Biblical and historical criteria is Catholicism.



Of course they do not. They do not teach the commandments of God. They are among the lawless ones who are in rebellion against God.

The Bible contrasts those who are overcome by the Beast and those that keep the commandments of God.

Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Kingarthurhk
07-25-2012, 23:02
Please narrow it down to an actual question, and we can discuss how you're wrong yet again.

I think I narrowed the gist of his entire book rather well.

I think you are simply avoiding the issue.

Brasso
07-26-2012, 07:06
There are only 2 viable candidates: Catholicism and Orthodoxy. For very good reasons, I've determined that the faith that best fits all the Biblical and historical criteria is Catholicism.

LOL.

That's like saying the true form of Judaism is Islam. Absolutely absurd.

The RCC changed the commandments. Did away with the commandments. Made up their own commandments. Make God a liar.

There is no way they are the "church". It's laughingly ridiculous.

Schabesbert
07-26-2012, 07:34
Of course they do not. They do not teach the commandments of God. They are among the lawless ones who are in rebellion against God.
Your logic is absolutely impenetrable, but only because it is absolutely circular.

The Bible contrasts those who are overcome by the Beast and those that keep the commandments of God.

Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Right. The Bible doesn't specifically mention the SDA and whatever "church" Brasso follows as being opposed to the saints; it's just implied.

Schabesbert
07-26-2012, 07:35
I think I narrowed the gist of his entire book rather well.

I think you are simply avoiding the issue.

That's interesting, but I'm not going to address an entire book. A question or two from a book, OK, but not an entire book which I have not read

So, no specific question, then?
Fine.

Vic Hays
07-26-2012, 11:25
Okay, please inform me how this fits in with scripture:



The RCC doesn't think that they need to fit with scripture. Since they believe they are always right then logically they believe that whatever they write must be true. Therefore they are above scripture. They are sadly mistaken to think they are above the written Word of God.

Jesus put it this way:

Matthew 10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

I suppose someone may ask for a citation:

from The Catholic Record of London, Ontario, Canada, September 1, 1923: "Sunday is our MARK of authority...the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact."

Schabesbert
07-26-2012, 11:59
The RCC doesn't think that they need to fit with scripture. Since they believe they are always right then logically they believe that whatever they write must be true. Therefore they are above scripture. They are sadly mistaken to think they are above the written Word of God.
What a horribly deceitful thing to say, Vic. I didn't know you could stoop so low. I'm hoping, for your sake, that you repent of this vile statement.

I suppose someone may ask for a citation:

from The Catholic Record of London, Ontario, Canada, September 1, 1923: "Sunday is our MARK of authority...the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact."
Funny, but this particular author doesn't seem to be speaking officially for the Catholic Church.

Vic, would it be fair for me to use any quote from any SDA member to show just how diabolical the SDA beliefs are? Is this the way you roll, Vic?

For those who desire clarity and honesty, the Catholic belief is that BOTH scripture AND the Church's official magestrial doctrines (since they are guided by the Holy Spirit and guaranteed by the promises of Jesus) are completely true. Since both are true, they can not (and in fact do not) conflict.

Vic Hays
07-26-2012, 12:28
For those who desire clarity and honesty, the Catholic belief is that BOTH scripture AND the Church's official magestrial doctrines (since they are guided by the Holy Spirit and guaranteed by the promises of Jesus) are completely true. Since both are true, they can not (and in fact do not) conflict.

And if they do conflict they don't conflict because they said so.

Schabesbert
07-26-2012, 14:55
And if they do conflict they don't conflict because they said so.
Thanks for keeping with the same deceitful MO; at least you're being consistant.

You cannot point to any such instance, and so you make insinuations like the one above.

What do YOU do when people claim, for instance, that the Gospel of Mark contradicts the Gospel of Matthew?

An ADULT, reading such things in context, knows that they don't contradict. But yet, it's easy for the unlearned and unstable (see 2Pe3:16) to make such claims.

Such are your insinuated claims above.

Kingarthurhk
07-26-2012, 16:56
What a horribly deceitful thing to say, Vic. I didn't know you could stoop so low. I'm hoping, for your sake, that you repent of this vile statement.

You sound like an Inquisitor already...


For those who desire clarity and honesty, the Catholic belief is that BOTH scripture AND the Church's official magestrial doctrines (since they are guided by the Holy Spirit and guaranteed by the promises of Jesus) are completely true. Since both are true, they can not (and in fact do not) conflict.

As I qouted from official Church doctrine and Scripture and that doctrine are completely at diametrical odds. How do you reconcile this?

Vic Hays
07-26-2012, 17:22
Thanks for keeping with the same deceitful MO; at least you're being consistant.

You cannot point to any such instance, and so you make insinuations like the one above.

What do YOU do when people claim, for instance, that the Gospel of Mark contradicts the Gospel of Matthew?

An ADULT, reading such things in context, knows that they don't contradict. But yet, it's easy for the unlearned and unstable (see 2Pe3:16) to make such claims.

Such are your insinuated claims above.

I was just paraphrasing your claims. I guess you can see how circular and preposterous they are.

Look at what you posted below:

"For those who desire clarity and honesty, the Catholic belief is that BOTH scripture AND the Church's official magestrial doctrines (since they are guided by the Holy Spirit and guaranteed by the promises of Jesus) are completely true. Since both are true, they can not (and in fact do not) conflict."

Schabesbert
07-27-2012, 07:08
You sound like an Inquisitor already...
Then so did John the Baptist, and any number of saints.


As I qouted from official Church doctrine and Scripture and that doctrine are completely at diametrical odds. How do you reconcile this?
Easy. You're mistaken. Or distorting on purpose.

I can't really tell what you're saying here, though, since your sentence doesn't parse. Is English your first language?

Schabesbert
07-27-2012, 07:21
I was just paraphrasing your claims. I guess you can see how circular and preposterous they are.
No, you were creating a strawman caricature to purposefully distort. It's a subtle way to tell a lie. I guess you're among the most subtle creatures (see Genesis 3:1).

Look at what you posted below:

"For those who desire clarity and honesty, the Catholic belief is that BOTH scripture AND the Church's official magestrial doctrines (since they are guided by the Holy Spirit and guaranteed by the promises of Jesus) are completely true. Since both are true, they can not (and in fact do not) conflict."
Yes.

Why do you think that Truth can contradict Truth?

When atheists claim that the Gospel of Mark contradicts the Gospel of Matthew, or that the Epistle of James contracts Romans, etc. etc., they use substantially the same argument as you're using here.

You're both wrong.

You're falsely saying that they don't contradict just because we say they don't. That's a deceitful argument, but subtle, I'll give you that.

They don't contradict because they don't contradict.

Brasso
07-27-2012, 07:26
Yes, they do. For reference, I give you this:

The Bible.

Vic Hays
07-27-2012, 07:55
Why do you think that Truth can contradict Truth?

When atheists claim that the Gospel of Mark contradicts the Gospel of Matthew, or that the Epistle of James contracts Romans, etc. etc., they use substantially the same argument as you're using here.

You're both wrong.

You're falsely saying that they don't contradict just because we say they don't. That's a deceitful argument, but subtle, I'll give you that.

They don't contradict because they don't contradict.

I believe that Jesus spoke Truth and was the Truth. It is not difficult to compare that with the history of your sect.

Luke 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew's_Day_massacre
"Death toll
Estimates of the number that perished in the massacres, “have varied from 2,000 by a Roman Catholic apologist to 70,000 by the contemporary Huguenot duc de Sully, who himself barely escaped death".[29] Accurate figures for casualties have never been compiled,[30] and even in writings by modern historians there is a considerable range, though the more specialised the historian, the lower they tend to be. At the low end are figures of about 2,000 in Paris[31] and 3,000 in the provinces, the latter figure an estimate by Philip Benedict in an article in 1978.[32] Other estimates are about 10,000 in total,[33] with about 3,000 in Paris[34] and 7,000 in the provinces.[35] At the higher end are total figures of up to 20,000,[36] or 30,000 in total, from "a contemporary, non-partisan guesstimate" quoted by the historians Felipe Fernández-Armesto and D. Wilson.[37] For Paris, the only hard figure is a payment by the city to workmen for collecting and burying 1,100 bodies washed up on the banks of the Seine downstream from the city in one week. Body counts relating to other payments are computed from this.[38] Among the slain were the philosopher Petrus Ramus, and in Lyon the composer Claude Goudimel.
[edit]Reactions to the massacre



Gregory XIII's medal
The Politiques were horrified but many Catholics inside and outside France regarded the massacres, at least initially, as deliverance from an imminent Huguenot coup d'etat. The severed head of Coligny was apparently despatched to Pope Gregory XIII, though it got no further than Lyons, and Pope Gregory XIII sent the king a Golden Rose.[39] The Pope ordered a Te Deum to be sung as a special thanksgiving (a practice continued for many years after) and had a medal struck with the motto Ugonottorum strages 1572 showing an angel bearing a cross and sword next to slaughtered Protestants.[40]


The massacre, with the murder of Gaspard de Coligny above left, as depicted in a fresco by Giorgio Vasari.
Pope Gregory XIII also commissioned the artist Giorgio Vasari to paint three frescos in the Sala Regia depicting the wounding of Coligny, his death, and Charles IX before Parliament, matching ones on the defeat of the Turks at the Battle of Lepanto (1571). "The massacre was interpreted as an act of divine retribution;"

Schabesbert
07-27-2012, 08:34
I believe that Jesus spoke Truth and was the Truth. It is not difficult to compare that with the history of your sect.

Luke 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
So, would you say that this contradicts this passage?

Mt 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

You see, you need to read scripture AND HISTORY like an adult, realizing that events and conditions are more complicated than the facile descriptions you give.

And even to the extent that there have been sinners in the Church, I chalenge you to show how this means that it is not Christ's Church.

Jesus SAID that His Kingdom would contain tares among the wheat. I guess you just don't understand Jesus' teachings, or deny them.

Schabesbert
07-27-2012, 08:35
Yes, they do. For reference, I give you this:

The Bible.
The Bible is a great witness for the Catholic Church. And, I might add, given BY the Catholic Church.

Vic Hays
07-27-2012, 08:43
So, would you say that this contradicts this passage?

Mt 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

You see, you need to read scripture AND HISTORY like an adult, realizing that events and conditions are more complicated than the facile descriptions you give.

And even to the extent that there have been sinners in the Church, I chalenge you to show how this means that it is not Christ's Church.

Jesus SAID that His Kingdom would contain tares among the wheat. I guess you just don't understand Jesus' teachings, or deny them.

They made a mistake? These are the infallible leaders that you want me to trust?

Schabesbert
07-27-2012, 09:17
They made a mistake? These are the infallible leaders that you want me to trust?
Vic, please don't pretend that you haven't been told dozens, if not hundreds, of times what the doctrine of infallibility entails. Are you being deceitful on purpose to make a point?

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm
Paragraph 889-892 in particular.

Let me know if you need any help with the big words.

Schabesbert
07-27-2012, 09:18
They made a mistake? These are the infallible leaders that you want me to trust?
So, nothing about your allegations of contradictions? Didn't think so when brought out into the light of day.

Vic Hays
07-27-2012, 09:39
So, nothing about your allegations of contradictions? Didn't think so when brought out into the light of day.

Don't have time to enumerate all the contradictions.

Jesus alone is worthy of:

Revelation 4:11 You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created.

Of course there is that controversy with satan.

Revelation 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Brasso
07-27-2012, 13:46
There are no tares in the Kingdom.

Vic Hays
07-27-2012, 14:02
There are no tares in the Kingdom.

Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather you together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

It would seem so that when God's kingdom comes there are only two classes, the saved and the lost.

Bert on the other hand believes the kingdom is already here and the pope is the head of it.

Kingarthurhk
07-27-2012, 16:38
Then so did John the Baptist, and any number of saints.

I don't recall the saints torturing people. We must be reading different books again.:upeyes:



Easy. You're mistaken. Or distorting on purpose.

I can't really tell what you're saying here, though, since your sentence doesn't parse. Is English your first language?

Not really. I qouted the primary source word or word from the original document. Please disect it and tell me how it does not conflict with scripture. I see nothing but rife contradictions and blasphemies.

Kingarthurhk
07-27-2012, 19:28
Vic, please don't pretend that you haven't been told dozens, if not hundreds, of times what the doctrine of infallibility entails. Are you being deceitful on purpose to make a point?

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm
Paragraph 889-892 in particular.

Let me know if you need any help with the big words.

Psalm 18:30-31, "As for God, his way is perfect: <sup class="crossreference" value='(BN (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-14149BN))'></sup>
The Lord’s word is flawless; <sup class="crossreference" value='(BO (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-14149BO))'></sup>
he shields <sup class="crossreference" value='(BP (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-14149BP))'></sup> all who take refuge <sup class="crossreference" value='(BQ (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-14149BQ))'></sup> in him.
<sup class="versenum">31 </sup>For who is God besides the Lord? <sup class="crossreference" value='(BR (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-14150BR))'></sup>
And who is the Rock <sup class="crossreference" value='(BS (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-14150BS))'></sup> except our God?"

So, the Pope is not flawless and perfect, that belongs only to God. Neither is the pope the Rock, as that is clearly God's domain as well.

Why would such a man claim these things for himself? Though, it does remind me of another scritpture:

Isaiah 14:13-15, "You said in your heart,
“I will ascend <sup class="crossreference" value='(AK (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17942AK))'></sup> to the heavens;
I will raise my throne <sup class="crossreference" value='(AL (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17942AL))'></sup>
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AM (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17942AM))'></sup>
on the utmost heights <sup class="crossreference" value='(AN (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17942AN))'></sup> of Mount Zaphon.<sup class="footnote" value='[b (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-17942b)]'>[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+14&version=NIV#fen-NIV-17942b)]</sup>
<sup class="versenum">14 </sup>I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; <sup class="crossreference" value='(AO (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17943AO))'></sup>
I will make myself like the Most High.” <sup class="crossreference" value='(AP (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17943AP))'></sup>
<sup class="versenum">15 </sup>But you are brought down <sup class="crossreference" value='(AQ (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17944AQ))'></sup> to the realm of the dead, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AR (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17944AR))'></sup>
to the depths <sup class="crossreference" value='(AS (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17944AS))'></sup> of the pit."

Vic Hays
07-28-2012, 07:41
Psalm 18:30-31, "As for God, his way is perfect: <sup class="crossreference" value='(BN (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-14149BN))'></sup>
The Lord’s word is flawless; <sup class="crossreference" value='(BO (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-14149BO))'></sup>
he shields <sup class="crossreference" value='(BP (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-14149BP))'></sup> all who take refuge <sup class="crossreference" value='(BQ (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-14149BQ))'></sup> in him.
<sup class="versenum">31 </sup>For who is God besides the Lord? <sup class="crossreference" value='(BR (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-14150BR))'></sup>
And who is the Rock <sup class="crossreference" value='(BS (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-14150BS))'></sup> except our God?"

So, the Pope is not flawless and perfect, that belongs only to God. Neither is the pope the Rock, as that is clearly God's domain as well.

Why would such a man claim these things for himself? Though, it does remind me of another scritpture:

Isaiah 14:13-15, "You said in your heart,
“I will ascend <sup class="crossreference" value='(AK (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17942AK))'></sup> to the heavens;
I will raise my throne <sup class="crossreference" value='(AL (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17942AL))'></sup>
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AM (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17942AM))'></sup>
on the utmost heights <sup class="crossreference" value='(AN (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17942AN))'></sup> of Mount Zaphon.<sup class="footnote" value='[b (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-17942b)]'>[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+14&version=NIV#fen-NIV-17942b)]</sup>
<sup class="versenum">14 </sup>I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; <sup class="crossreference" value='(AO (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17943AO))'></sup>
I will make myself like the Most High.” <sup class="crossreference" value='(AP (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17943AP))'></sup>
<sup class="versenum">15 </sup>But you are brought down <sup class="crossreference" value='(AQ (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17944AQ))'></sup> to the realm of the dead, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AR (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17944AR))'></sup>
to the depths <sup class="crossreference" value='(AS (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-17944AS))'></sup> of the pit."

What it all boils down to is that it is not authority that is the basis of God's kingdom, it is principle.

God's principles are Love, Truth, fairness (justice), and individual liberty. If the fruits are not in accordance with these, that organization is not moved by the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 20:24 And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brothers.
20:25 But Jesus called them to him, and said, You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority on them.
20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
20:27 And whoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Vic Hays
07-29-2012, 11:26
The motivation has changed for observing the law and as can be observed in the context law as seen here refers to moral law. The Old Covenant observation was to be righteous. The New Covenant is to glorify God at the change He has made in us through the sacrifice of Jesus and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. No, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, You shall not covet.

Brasso
07-29-2012, 14:04
Gosh darnit. Why did God give us so many immoral laws if He just wanted us to keep the moral ones?

Vic Hays
07-29-2012, 15:57
Gosh darnit. Why did God give us so many immoral laws if He just wanted us to keep the moral ones?

The Ten Commandments are the covenant and contain the moral laws. Jesus, Paul and other New testament people saw these as more important than the laws about straining the water to remove the gnats while using technicalities and philosophy to bypass the morality of the laws of the Ten Commandments.

Mark 7:7 However, in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things you do.
7:9 And he said to them, Full well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.
7:10 For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother; and, Whoever curses father or mother, let him die the death:
7:11 But you say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatever you might be profited by me; he shall be free.

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said to him, Why call you me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
10:19 You know the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor your father and mother.
10:20 And he answered and said to him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said to him, One thing you lack: go your way, sell whatever you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
10:22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.