Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-30-2012, 14:00   #61
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schabesbert View Post
Please provide an actual quote, NOT just your intrepretation of what this means.

" For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

He clearly states that until heaven and earth pass that the law shall remain. Now he does say till all is fulfilled. However Christ broke the law himself, so how could he have fulfilled it?

Quote:
See, you go right into pedantic mocking, rather than reasoned discourse.
Stop it LOL. Sure I was sarcastic but you know you cannot substantiate your claims that Jesus was referring to the temple. And I don't need to substantiate that he wasn't because the bible clearly states he was referring to heaven and earth. It's right there. Interesting that a believer is arguing that the bible says something OTHER than what is written and a non-believer is arguing for what is actually on the page. Interesting indeed.


Quote:
You can certainly spilll a lot of ink (electrons?) and say nothing other than
Your attempt to marginalize my argument won't work. You have still not proven that your twist, or Shea's twist on scripture is the accepted universal interpretation. You have yet to prove that in this instance the bible is saying anything other than what is on the page. What makes your view the correct one? Who put you... or your master Shea... in charge of dictating the meaning of scripture?

Last edited by Glock36shooter; 10-30-2012 at 14:00..
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 14:05   #62
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by scccdoc View Post
Actually I hoped that you would realize how childish your insults were.
Hmmm hope and pray in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up faster.

Quote:
You apparently believe this behavior is acceptable and apologizing is not something you do.
I only apologize when I'm unjust in my actions. You deserved what you got.

Quote:
So according to your thought process, when you insult me (as you did in this post) , I am frustrating you!
Yes, because you were being intentionally vague and willfully evasive. You were dodging the question and I found that frustrating. Had nothing to do with the fact that you and I believe differently. So you're being a liar in that regard. You should probably repent.

Quote:
Your lifestyle??????????????????? no comment
Then why did you bring it up genius?
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 14:11   #63
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
If not then how did he fulfill the law? Does this not mean Christ sinned?
I wouldn't call what Christ did as a sin but some may argue otherwise. Certain Jews and Brasso for example.

The way I understand it the purpose of the law is a way for God's people to be able to remain in communion with him on some level. Christ fulfilled it through His sacrifice. Sort of a reinstatement of the creation to the Creator.
__________________
------------------------------------------------------
Warranty voiding

Never buy vegan tacos from a chick with longer armpit hair than yourself. - Woofie
Roering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 14:38   #64
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
I wouldn't call what Christ did as a sin but some may argue otherwise. Certain Jews and Brasso for example.
Well what was the punishment for violating the Sabbath? And what was the punishment for instructing someone else to violate the Sabbath?

Quote:
The way I understand it the purpose of the law is a way for God's people to be able to remain in communion with him on some level. Christ fulfilled it through His sacrifice. Sort of a reinstatement of the creation to the Creator.
Who says his death fulfilled the law? And the law was more than a way to remain in communion, it was God's law on how man should conduct himself. Which raises the question why would God change his mind about this?
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 14:58   #65
Schabesbert
Senior Member
 
Schabesbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
" For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
He fulfilled all of the Law.

Quote:
He clearly states that until heaven and earth pass that the law shall remain.
Finish the sentence.

Quote:
Now he does say till all is fulfilled. However Christ broke the law himself, so how could he have fulfilled it?
He fulfilled the intended meaning of the Law, not necessarily the Jews' legalistic interpretation of it. He didn't break the Law; He MIGHT have broken the way the Jews interpreted it.

What the Jews did has been described as "building fences around the Law" in an attempt to make absolutely, positively sure that the actual Law wasn't broken. In some instances, they perverted the actual intent of the Law in doing so. Christ restored the original meaning of the Law.

Quote:
Stop it LOL. Sure I was sarcastic but you know you cannot substantiate your claims that Jesus was referring to the temple. And I don't need to substantiate that he wasn't because the bible clearly states he was referring to heaven and earth. It's right there. Interesting that a believer is arguing that the bible says something OTHER than what is written and a non-believer is arguing for what is actually on the page. Interesting indeed.
Why? Other prophets said nearly identical things in similar contexts.

Quote:
Your attempt to marginalize my argument won't work. You have still not proven that your twist, or Shea's twist on scripture is the accepted universal interpretation.
Why is it important that it be an "accepted universal interpretation?" Something can be true and not be an "accepted universal interpretation."

Quote:
You have yet to prove that in this instance the bible is saying anything other than what is on the page. What makes your view the correct one? Who put you... or your master Shea... in charge of dictating the meaning of scripture?
It is an interpretation that harmonizes the context of the entirety of scripture. This is important. If I find a statement by, say, a politician, that can be taken in multiple ways, but other statements are less ambiguous, I would be less-than-honest if I tried to force the interpetation that contradicted their other less ambiguous statements in an attempt to "catch" them in a "gotcha" moment. It happens all the time, but honest people see through it.
__________________
He is no fool who exchanges that which he cannot keep for that which he can never lose.

Ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou
Schabesbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 15:17   #66
Brasso
Senior Member
 
Brasso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Stranger in a strange land.
Posts: 8,796
Quote:
Doesn't appear so. He was confronted for doing work on the Sabbath. He also told a man he had just healed to pick up his mat on the Sabbath.

Like I said. Jesus was not so legalistic.
This is your argument? God was confronted by a Pharisee for breaking the commandment that He gave in the first place, and your first reaction, because you hate the Truth so much, is to side with the opinion of a man over God?

Please, what was the "work" He did and where is it forbidden in the Torah? How is healing a sick person considered work in the Torah? Oh, they were forbidden by man made rules, but where in the actual Torah was it forbidden?

You don't even know what the Torah says, yet you criticize it. You even go so far as to claim that your sinless Messiah sinned. Really? So then you have no Messiah. Maybe it's the Pope.

I would suggest that you don't know even a smidgeon of what you think you know. That you are wise in your own sight. And you twist Paul to your own destruction, taking a false interpretation of his words over the words of God Himself because it fits with your preconceived views of leaving you in charge of your life instead of Him. You know better than God.

Well God had something to say about that.

"Let God be true and every man a liar."
__________________
Yeshayahu 9:7 Of the increase of His rule and peace there is no end, upon the throne of David and over His reign, to establish it and sustain it with justice and with righteousness from now on, even forever. The ardour of יהוה of hosts does this.

Last edited by Brasso; 10-30-2012 at 15:20..
Brasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 15:17   #67
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schabesbert View Post
He fulfilled all of the Law.
How so? Not by following it completely certainly.

Quote:
He fulfilled the intended meaning of the Law, not necessarily the Jews' legalistic interpretation of it. He didn't break the Law; He MIGHT have broken the way the Jews interpreted it.
Jesus wasn't a Christian. He was a Jew. In his life he was expected to follow God's law. In his death you can give that whatever meaning you want. But he failed to follow the law in his life as a Jew. Christ sinned.

Quote:
What the Jews did has been described as "building fences around the Law" in an attempt to make absolutely, positively sure that the actual Law wasn't broken. In some instances, they perverted the actual intent of the Law in doing so. Christ restored the original meaning of the Law.
What is your evidence of this? Or is this another of M. Shea's opinions? You talk about the Jews as if Christ wasn't one of them.

Quote:
Why? Other prophets said nearly identical things in similar contexts.
We're talking about Christ... not other prophets.

Quote:
Why is it important that it be an "accepted universal interpretation?" Something can be true and not be an "accepted universal interpretation."
Because we are talking about cannon here. Not just what you get out of reading Shakespeare. This isn't interpreting art... it's interpreting the guide book to the universe (or so says the believer) we need to make sure that your view is the right view and not just your opinion... or the opinion of someone else doing your thinking for you. This is what I'm getting at when I say you put your interpretation forward as the only correct one and anyone who sees it differently is just wrong. It's also proof that you can twist the bible to support pretty much whatever you want it to. Because it isn't what the law says... it's the "Spirit" of the law. And you can pretty much make that up as you go along.

Quote:
It is an interpretation that harmonizes the context of the entirety of scripture. This is important.
No, it attempts to wiggle out of the contradictions that are present. You choose whatever twisting makes them easiest to swallow. You choose the interpretation that satisfies YOU.

Quote:
If I find a statement by, say, a politician, that can be taken in multiple ways, but other statements are less ambiguous, I would be less-than-honest if I tried to force the interpetation that contradicted their other less ambiguous statements in an attempt to "catch" them in a "gotcha" moment. It happens all the time, but honest people see through it.
Politicians are people, flawed and stupid at times. This is the word inspired by God. Are you saying that those who wrote it didn't know what they were talking about? That they really meant one thing when saying another? Seems pretty sketchy ground for the inerrant living word of God Almighty.
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 15:31   #68
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,266


Quote:
Originally Posted by Schabesbert View Post
Finish the sentence.
Not sure what you mean by this, the full quote has been posted at least twice from two different translations. It's meaning seems fairly obvious. Need to see it again?

Quote:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
So, you are hanging your hat on "until everything is accomplished"? You think his crucifixion was the accomplishment he was referring to when a mere moment before that he clearly states that he did not come to abolish the law or prophets? Seems like you are going through some mental gymnastics to try and make the bible fit what you think it should say. To me, he is saying the law will be in effect until all prophecy is fullfilled and since there hasn't been a rapture, that doesn't seem to have happened yet.

I think you are selecting an "interpretation" that allows you to maintain your worldview. It's a subtle form of cognitive blindness.
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Geko45; 10-30-2012 at 15:33..
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 15:35   #69
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
I think you are selecting an "interpretation" that allows you to maintain your worldview. It's a subtle form of cognitive blindness.
Thank you! I thought I was the only one seeing this plainly.
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 16:10   #70
FCoulter
Senior Member
 
FCoulter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
Thank you! I thought I was the only one seeing this plainly.
Thats how I see it, but alas poor christianty has been taught by the god of this world, instead of the True God. Unil the wake up and repent the veil will remain over their eyes. I do find it funny how atheists actually understand the Bible more clearly than most all so called christians.
FCoulter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 16:47   #71
Schabesbert
Senior Member
 
Schabesbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
How so? Not by following it completely certainly.
Wrong. He followed it completely, as it was originally intended.

Quote:
Jesus wasn't a Christian. He was a Jew. In his life he was expected to follow God's law.
Which He did. He also demonstrated that the Jews had erred in their legalism.

Quote:
In his death you can give that whatever meaning you want. But he failed to follow the law in his life as a Jew. Christ sinned.
Alas, repeating it doesn't make it so.

Quote:
What is your evidence of this? Or is this another of M. Shea's opinions? You talk about the Jews as if Christ wasn't one of them.
I'm sorry, but instead of simply asking dumb questions, perhaps if you did a bit of research? Start by googling "fences around the law."

Just because I know you're intellectually lazy, and for the sake of others just peruzing this, I'll start with a quote from Judaism 101. HINT: Mark Shea isn't the author.
Mitzvot D'Rabbanan: Laws Instituted by the Rabbis

In addition to the laws that come directly from Torah (d'oraita), halakhah includes laws that were enacted by the rabbis (d'rabbanan). These rabbinic laws are still referred to as mitzvot (commandments), even though they are not part of the original 613 mitzvot d'oraita. Mitzvot d'rabbanan are considered to be as binding as Torah laws, but there are differences in the way we apply laws that are d'oraita and laws that are d'rabbanan (see below).

Mitzvot d'rabbanan are commonly divided into three categories: gezeirah, takkanah and minhag.

A gezeirah is a law instituted by the rabbis to prevent people from accidentally violating a Torah mitzvah. We commonly speak of a gezeirah as a "fence" around the Torah. For example, the Torah commands us not to work on Shabbat, but a gezeirah commands us not to even handle an implement that you would use to perform prohibited work (such as a pencil, money, a hammer), because someone holding the implement might forget that it was Shabbat and perform prohibited work. The word is derived from the root Gimel-Zayin-Reish, meaning to cut off or to separate.
Quote:
We're talking about Christ... not other prophets.
We're talking about Christ in context of the other prophets. Please try to keep up.

Quote:
Because we are talking about cannon here. Not just what you get out of reading Shakespeare. This isn't interpreting art... it's interpreting the guide book to the universe (or so says the believer) we need to make sure that your view is the right view and not just your opinion... or the opinion of someone else doing your thinking for you.
True. This is why Jesus left us a Teaching Authority.

But this doesn't address the fact that your OPINION above is just plain wrong. I don't judge the rightness or wrongness of ANYTHING by whether it's a "accepted universal interpretation."

Quote:
This is what I'm getting at when I say you put your interpretation forward as the only correct one and anyone who sees it differently is just wrong.
You're dropping your previous statement in favor of another ludicrous statement? Changing subject to hide your previous one?

Quote:
It's also proof that you can twist the bible to support pretty much whatever you want it to.
You've got a pretty strange definition of "proof."

Quote:
Because it isn't what the law says... it's the "Spirit" of the law. And you can pretty much make that up as you go along.
No, the Law nowhere specified that it was wrong to heal on the Sabbath. I know you really have no idea what it really says, but making assertions out of ignorance will only reduce your credibility.


Quote:
No, it attempts to wiggle out of the contradictions that are present. You choose whatever twisting makes them easiest to swallow. You choose the interpretation that satisfies YOU.
More false statements devoid of any semblance of evidence. Is that how you live your life? Sure seems to be...

Quote:
Politicians are people, flawed and stupid at times. This is the word inspired by God.
I wasn't talking about the politicians; I was talking about the interpretations that an honest person (maybe you could find one to ask?) would give such statements.
__________________
He is no fool who exchanges that which he cannot keep for that which he can never lose.

Ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou
Schabesbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 16:53   #72
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
Well what was the punishment for violating the Sabbath? And what was the punishment for instructing someone else to violate the Sabbath?
In the past it had been death. In 30-33 AD I'm not sure what kind of punishment would have been given....if any.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
Who says his death fulfilled the law? And the law was more than a way to remain in communion, it was God's law on how man should conduct himself. Which raises the question why would God change his mind about this?
Throughout time there have been changes to the law and as I have said on this website before. Although God doesn't change, people do. In the same way you may have different expectations for your different children and at different times in their lives.
__________________
------------------------------------------------------
Warranty voiding

Never buy vegan tacos from a chick with longer armpit hair than yourself. - Woofie
Roering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 16:55   #73
Schabesbert
Senior Member
 
Schabesbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Not sure what you mean by this, the full quote has been posted at least twice from two different translations. It's meaning seems fairly obvious. Need to see it again?
Nope; just wanted to point out that just posting it and then ignoring it doesn't provide actual context.

Quote:
So, you are hanging your hat on "until everything is accomplished"?
Silly me, "hanging my hat" on the FULL statement rather than taking a snippet out of context like you two seem to insist on doing.

Quote:
You think his crucifixion was the accomplishment he was referring to when a mere moment before that he clearly states that he did not come to abolish the law or prophets? Seems like you are going through some mental gymnastics to try and make the bible fit what you think it should say.
Sts. Paul & Barnabas (as recorded by St. Luke) thought so:
Ac 13:26 "Brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you that fear God, to us has been sent the message of this salvation.
27 For those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets which are read every sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning him.
28 Though they could charge him with nothing deserving death, yet they asked Pilate to have him killed.
29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb.

Quote:
To me, he is saying the law will be in effect until all prophecy is fullfilled
To you?

Quote:
and since there hasn't been a rapture, that doesn't seem to have happened yet.
Rapture?

Quote:
I think you are selecting an "interpretation" that allows you to maintain your worldview. It's a subtle form of cognitive blindness.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

At least I have studied it. You have your "opinion." You know, the OTHER thing that everyone has, and which everyone else's stinks?
__________________
He is no fool who exchanges that which he cannot keep for that which he can never lose.

Ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou
Schabesbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 16:56   #74
Schabesbert
Senior Member
 
Schabesbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
Thank you! I thought I was the only one seeing this plainly.
Wow, I'm SHOCKED that you two would agree on this. Shocked, I tell you.
__________________
He is no fool who exchanges that which he cannot keep for that which he can never lose.

Ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou
Schabesbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 17:51   #75
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,266


Quote:
Originally Posted by Schabesbert View Post
Rapture?
Finally, something we agree on. lol!
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 18:13   #76
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 11,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brasso View Post
Those aren't ceremonial. Circumcision was around long before Sinai and the Feast Days haven't even all been fulfilled yet. They're about YOUR Messiah. Why don't you keep them? Has the definition of forever changed? Has heaven and earth passed away?

The only thing that's really changed is the Priesthood. I really want to understand your reasoning process that takes you from forever to ceremonial and done away with, without any support from the Bible.
You are even in denial of the Bible support that I provided. Are you running for a political office?

Here is a change I can cite in the Law of Moses.

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.
Matthew 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.

Actually it is not a change. The law of Moses is not in line with the original Moral Law as evidenced by Jesus words, " but from the beginning it was not so."

Therefore it is obvious that the Law of Moses was a compromise while God dealt with the sin problem. Therefore the Law of Moses is not an absolutely accurate representation of morality and not intended to be eternal as you suggest.
__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Last edited by Vic Hays; 10-30-2012 at 18:15..
Vic Hays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 20:25   #77
Schabesbert
Senior Member
 
Schabesbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 10,616


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Finally, something we agree on. lol!

Great. But you didn't seem to notice that this also removes your "fig leaf" of an objection (pun intended).
__________________
He is no fool who exchanges that which he cannot keep for that which he can never lose.

Ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou
Schabesbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 20:46   #78
Alpine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
I disagree. I know... since I do not view it your way I am wrong. Nevertheless the Bible has been translated and retranslated to the satisfaction of the world. It's only when it's blatant contradictions, barbaric morality, and archaic mythologies cannot be reconciled with modern day knowledge and wisdom that the so called biblical scholars must begin twisting the meanings of things and reinventing the intentions of the authors. The bible says the world and heavens. If it meant temple... it would say temple. If it meant Jerusalem it would have said so. You are stretching to have it mean what you want it to mean. Or at least the "Scholars" who's every word you hang on are stretching it.



So long as the meaning agrees with your world view and God hates all the same people you do. Otherwise you'd pick another interpreter that twists it to your liking.




Of which you have none.




So long as it agrees with your world view.
What you're saying is:
1) There are many different interpretations of the bible. Rather than search for the correct one, I will reject them all.
2) The bible is not written the way I would have written it, therefore I reject it.
Alpine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 20:55   #79
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,266


Quote:
Originally Posted by Schabesbert View Post

Great. But you didn't seem to notice that this also removes your "fig leaf" of an objection (pun intended).
My only objection is that the bible is not internally consistent and thusly can not be considered the divine work of god. Seriously, god can't do any better than the same political BS that has played out again and again for thousands of years? I'm not buying it.
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Geko45; 10-30-2012 at 21:00..
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 06:27   #80
Brasso
Senior Member
 
Brasso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Stranger in a strange land.
Posts: 8,796
Theres a difference between sending your wife away and being able to legally marry another. That's a poor example.

Moses never commanded divorce. He only made concession for it. God states over and over in the Old Testament that He hates divorce. Furthermore, Paul in Cor also makes concession for divorce in the case of unbelieving spouses.

So it's not a case of the Law being changed. It's simply a matter of making provision in case it's unavoidable by one of the parties involved. The fact that man took a provision and made it a matter of course doesn't change how God feels about it or whether it's moral or not.

And I hate to sound like a broken record again, but....

Messiah is the one who gave Moses the instructions in the first place. I think He knew what He was doing. You are once again calling Him a liar by saying He changed His own Law that He said was forever, in both Testaments btw, and that He changes, which again, both testaments says is impossible.
__________________
Yeshayahu 9:7 Of the increase of His rule and peace there is no end, upon the throne of David and over His reign, to establish it and sustain it with justice and with righteousness from now on, even forever. The ardour of יהוה of hosts does this.

Last edited by Brasso; 10-31-2012 at 08:28..
Brasso is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:37.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 666
157 Members
509 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31