Christian Forums

Quote from: RB on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 17:23:13

Quote from: MeMyself on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 17:08:57No..she wasn't..

I'll go with God's witness of this.

Quote2nd Corinthians 11:3...Reads~ "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

Again it is written:

Quote1st Timothy 2:14....Reads~"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

You said:

QuoteIn my marriage, I am more intuitive.

MeMyself, there will be exception in every marriage, and I will not disagree with this~but, exceptions only proves that the rule stands! Sure you can find exceptions to the rule, I have seen this in my life time, but, I have seen the rule much more.  Good night~ tomorrow, the Lord willing.

Red, I was agreeing with your post about Eve. You said Mama Eve was not too wise concerning the wiles of Satan, was she? and I said No, she wasn't. As in, she wasn't very wise.

Also, I acknowledged MY marriage, not all marriages.  I have strength in my intuition, but it can sweep me away; my dh is the balance for that, due to his strengths, but his strengths can also sweep him away.

Texas Conservative,

Because the Bible is prodominately a Hebrew Book, why would I consult the Greek? I'll consult the Hebraic mind concerning Hebraic things.

Would you consult the Japanese for the things that are Samoan in nature? Not likely.

So, common sense and good reasoning tells me I chose the right frame.

what is the goal here?  Are you trying to point people away from Christ and to the Law for salvation?

 ::bowing::f

Quote from: LexKnight on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 17:45:17

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 17:29:56
Also,

Because the historical Jesus is Jewish, I will only refer to Him as Yeshua from now because that is the name given to Him at birth and only call Him Jesus when conveying how Christianity views Him so you will see the difference. 

I will also place the Title Rabbi before His name because the historical "Jesus" is a Rabbi.

I will also refer to Paul by his Hebrew name Shaul. I'll add the Title Rav at the beginning as well because it is said that he also is a rabbi.

All this, so things can stay in their proper frame biblically.

Why don't you wear a prayer shawl and Scriptural ribbons around your fingers, then? Perhaps get a pigeon outside so you can offer it before the Lord?

You really think you'll get more brownie points from the Lord by doing so? All you're doing is walking in a religious spirit, walking by a letter instead of by the Spirit. Saul's name was changed into Paul, and he fully acknowledged, accepted, and embraced it, so you're gonna insult him by acknowledging him by his former name? Not to even mention giving him a title, something he would be adamantly against.

These are the kind of replies I have to ignore. Don't assume anything about me. This is a mistake Christians make with me all the time.

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 18:25:44
::bowing::f

Quote from: LexKnight on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 17:45:17

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 17:29:56
Also,

Because the historical Jesus is Jewish, I will only refer to Him as Yeshua from now because that is the name given to Him at birth and only call Him Jesus when conveying how Christianity views Him so you will see the difference. 

I will also place the Title Rabbi before His name because the historical "Jesus" is a Rabbi.

I will also refer to Paul by his Hebrew name Shaul. I'll add the Title Rav at the beginning as well because it is said that he also is a rabbi.

All this, so things can stay in their proper frame biblically.

Why don't you wear a prayer shawl and Scriptural ribbons around your fingers, then? Perhaps get a pigeon outside so you can offer it before the Lord?

You really think you'll get more brownie points from the Lord by doing so? All you're doing is walking in a religious spirit, walking by a letter instead of by the Spirit. Saul's name was changed into Paul, and he fully acknowledged, accepted, and embraced it, so you're gonna insult him by acknowledging him by his former name? Not to even mention giving him a title, something he would be adamantly against.

These are the kind of replies I have to ignore. Don't assume anything about me. This is a mistake Christians make with me all the time.

Why? Why do you *have* to ignore them? They are relevant and you should be eager to give an answer, seems to me.

Cov,

Where is your scripture, or are you all bluster?

 

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 18:30:45
Cov,

Where is your scripture, or are you all bluster?

Have patience, I'm working trying to talk at the same time.

1) common sense
2) good reasoning
And
3) reality

Theses are my choice weapons.

My target?:

Your conscience in light of how you been taught to understand the Bible.

Hmm...where should I start...back to baptism... (stay tuned)

Quote from: MeMyself on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 18:12:31
what is the goal here?  Are you trying to point people away from Christ and to the Law for salvation?

On the contrary, I'll bring them closer to the Messiah through the Law. You don't think that's possible because that's how Christianity trained you. Get ready to have your mind freed.

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 18:47:50

Quote from: MeMyself on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 18:12:31
what is the goal here?  Are you trying to point people away from Christ and to the Law for salvation?

On the contrary, I'll bring them closer to the Messiah through the Law. You don't think that's possible because that's how Christianity trained you. Get ready to have your mind freed.

If you mean to show that the Law points people TO Christ, great! I agree.  If you mean we are only saved through the following of it, sorry. Wrong. 

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 13:25:50
doorknocker,

You asked if I can produce 2 or 3 scripture/verses that clearly defined Sin as transgression of Law. This is easy:

1John 3:4: 'Whoever commits Sin, transgresses the Law: because Sin is transgress

ion of the Law.'

That's point-blank. Have you consciously sinned recently? Or should I say, have you offended the Law recently?

Daniel 9:11: 'Yes, all Israel have transgressed your Law.'

Pretty straight forward? Consistent? Yes. One more?

Lamentations 3:42: 'We have transgressed and have rebelled...'

Transgressed and rebelled against what? The Law.

Those are easy FT references. Let's test my rule of consistency and see if NT compliments:

Acts 1:25: ".....from which Judas by TRANSGRESSION fell....."

Judas stole and caused an innocent man to be murdered. Are there any LAWS against such in your Bible? Yes, and they're easy to find

So, it's consistent from first half to second. How is Christianity defining Sin today? Some Christian earlier said Sin is unbelief and disobedience. That's as far as Christianity will take it but noticed how that person only gave you the half. Because when you start connecting these subjects to Law, the Christian religion will decline from acknowledgement. You have to start asking why that is. It's red flags when you start investigating the validity of Christianity's doctrines. Don't be afraid to ask those hard questions--that turn out to have simple biblical answers.

You asked, 'Sin is the transgression of which Law?'

Simply: Read your Torah and it'll be obviously written in plain English.

Covkeeper34,

If you are quoting what I said, then at least do it correctly.

I asked if you can produce 2 or 3 verses/references that clearly define that sin IS 
the transgression of the law.

You  said that I asked to produce 2 or 3 scripture verses that defined Sin   AS 
transgression of Law..


There is but one verse that states that sin IS the transgression of the law.

There is lots of verse stating that people transgressed the law.



You stated in an earlier post that my definition of sin was not biblical.


What I posted was   unbelief--- disobedience


Scripture also states that anything that does not come from faith IS sin.

And

Without faith it is impossible to please God.


Would I be correct to state that unbelief is the opposite of faith?


Disobedience. ...unbiblical?

God told Adam  not to eat of a certain tree and he was disobedient.


Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world.

Now was the sin that entered into the world   disobedience?


Was this sin a transgression of the law?

As it is written.....

sin indeed was in the world before the law was given.




You ask....have you consciously sinned lately

Answer..     No


You ask...Or should I say, have you offended the Law recently?

Answer.... if you are referring to the law as His commandments,     then No.

Water Baptism:

Pay attention to what's happening at the water. Here we see John Baptist ministering repentance. What are these Hebrews repenting for according to the Bible?

They're repenting for trangressing the Covenant of God at the mouth of Moses. Sin is the trangressing of the Law, right?That baptism is a return to the Law you fell away from or NEVER KNEW.

Sin is defined in the Bible as offenses against the Law. No amount of Christian theology can cover that up.

Repentance is ALWAYS a return to the Law. The Bible gives no other definition. Christianity would have you redefine it. You doubt it? Find the consistency and use both halves of the Bible; not just the second

Now, if it's consistent and clear that BIBLICAL repentance is always a return to Law and only bad Christian theology denies that, think about what happened when you got baptised:

Notice how when you got baptised, no one told you you were being baptised into the Covenant you never knew(American Christians)? That's because you got baptised into the Christian religion; you didn't get baptised into that Covenant--like you should of.

The promises of that Covenant belong to the people of it. Christianity denies that Covenant saying it's done away with. Q:

Christians, tell me: How are you claiming the promises of a Covenant that you openly refuse? Explain that on a common sense level. But before you do, realize that as far as Covenants are concerned, its consistently true that there is not a single Covenant given that negates the previous one. Go look. That consistency only breaks down in the Christian religion but we're exposing that today.

Any thoughts?

 

doorknocker,

Yes, unbelief is the opposite of believing.

Yes, disobedience was the sin that entered into the World. Disobedience to what, though?

Was that sin a trangressing of what Law, the Law of Moses? No.

Was John wrong when saying Sin is the transgression of the Law?

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 19:58:58
Water Baptism:

Pay attention to what's happening at the water. Here we see John Baptist ministering repentance. What are these Hebrews repenting for according to the Bible?

They're repenting for trangressing the Covenant of God at the mouth of Moses. Sin is the trangressing of the Law, right?That baptism is a return to the Law you fell away from or NEVER KNEW.

Sin is defined in the Bible as offenses against the Law. No amount of Christian theology can cover that up.

Repentance is ALWAYS a return to the Law. The Bible gives no other definition. Christianity would have you redefine it. You doubt it? Find the consistency and use both halves of the Bible; not just the second

Now, if it's consistent and clear that BIBLICAL repentance is always a return to Law and only bad Christian theology denies that, think about what happened when you got baptised:

Notice how when you got baptised, no one told you you were being baptised into the Covenant you never knew(American Christians)? That's because you got baptised into the Christian religion; you didn't get baptised into that Covenant--like you should of.

The promises of that Covenant belong to the people of it. Christianity denies that Covenant saying it's done away with. Q:

Christians, tell me: How are you claiming the promises of a Covenant that you openly refuse? Explain that on a common sense level. But before you do, realize that as far as Covenants are concerned, its consistently true that there is not a single Covenant given that negates the previous one. Go look. That consistency only breaks down in the Christian religion but we're exposing that today.

Any thoughts?

So, I am betting you don't eat bacon then.  Poor you.  You are missing out.

Quote from: MeMyself on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 18:49:52

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 18:47:50

Quote from: MeMyself on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 18:12:31
what is the goal here?  Are you trying to point people away from Christ and to the Law for salvation?

On the contrary, I'll bring them closer to the Messiah through the Law. You don't think that's possible because that's how Christianity trained you. Get ready to have your mind freed.

If you mean to show that the Law points people TO Christ, great! I agree.  If you mean we are only saved through the following of it, sorry. Wrong.

We'll visit that last reply later. But maybe by the time we get done, we won't have to.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 20:26:40

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 19:58:58
Water Baptism:

Pay attention to what's happening at the water. Here we see John Baptist ministering repentance. What are these Hebrews repenting for according to the Bible?

They're repenting for trangressing the Covenant of God at the mouth of Moses. Sin is the trangressing of the Law, right?That baptism is a return to the Law you fell away from or NEVER KNEW.

Sin is defined in the Bible as offenses against the Law. No amount of Christian theology can cover that up.

Repentance is ALWAYS a return to the Law. The Bible gives no other definition. Christianity would have you redefine it. You doubt it? Find the consistency and use both halves of the Bible; not just the second

Now, if it's consistent and clear that BIBLICAL repentance is always a return to Law and only bad Christian theology denies that, think about what happened when you got baptised:

Notice how when you got baptised, no one told you you were being baptised into the Covenant you never knew(American Christians)? That's because you got baptised into the Christian religion; you didn't get baptised into that Covenant--like you should of.

The promises of that Covenant belong to the people of it. Christianity denies that Covenant saying it's done away with. Q:

Christians, tell me: How are you claiming the promises of a Covenant that you openly refuse? Explain that on a common sense level. But before you do, realize that as far as Covenants are concerned, its consistently true that there is not a single Covenant given that negates the previous one. Go look. That consistency only breaks down in the Christian religion but we're exposing that today.

Any thoughts?

So, I am betting you don't eat bacon then.  Poor you.  You are missing out.

Lol dear Christian, just because you can cook and put it in your mouth, doesn't mean it's meant for FOOD. God in His wisdom tried to show us that.

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:10:58

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 20:26:40

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 19:58:58
Water Baptism:

Pay attention to what's happening at the water. Here we see John Baptist ministering repentance. What are these Hebrews repenting for according to the Bible?

They're repenting for trangressing the Covenant of God at the mouth of Moses. Sin is the trangressing of the Law, right?That baptism is a return to the Law you fell away from or NEVER KNEW.

Sin is defined in the Bible as offenses against the Law. No amount of Christian theology can cover that up.

Repentance is ALWAYS a return to the Law. The Bible gives no other definition. Christianity would have you redefine it. You doubt it? Find the consistency and use both halves of the Bible; not just the second

Now, if it's consistent and clear that BIBLICAL repentance is always a return to Law and only bad Christian theology denies that, think about what happened when you got baptised:

Notice how when you got baptised, no one told you you were being baptised into the Covenant you never knew(American Christians)? That's because you got baptised into the Christian religion; you didn't get baptised into that Covenant--like you should of.

The promises of that Covenant belong to the people of it. Christianity denies that Covenant saying it's done away with. Q:

Christians, tell me: How are you claiming the promises of a Covenant that you openly refuse? Explain that on a common sense level. But before you do, realize that as far as Covenants are concerned, its consistently true that there is not a single Covenant given that negates the previous one. Go look. That consistency only breaks down in the Christian religion but we're exposing that today.

Any thoughts?

So, I am betting you don't eat bacon then.  Poor you.  You are missing out.

Lol dear Christian, just because you can cook and put it in your mouth, doesn't mean it's meant for FOOD. God in His wisdom tried to show us that.

Dear Foolish Galatian (should be your name), God in His wisdom showed us that all food is acceptable and to eat it with thanksgiving.

So CK, do you think that you must keep all the old levitical laws, so that, for example you dont wear clothes of mixed fabrics?

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:17:44

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:10:58

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 20:26:40

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 19:58:58
Water Baptism:

Pay attention to what's happening at the water. Here we see John Baptist ministering repentance. What are these Hebrews repenting for according to the Bible?

They're repenting for trangressing the Covenant of God at the mouth of Moses. Sin is the trangressing of the Law, right?That baptism is a return to the Law you fell away from or NEVER KNEW.

Sin is defined in the Bible as offenses against the Law. No amount of Christian theology can cover that up.

Repentance is ALWAYS a return to the Law. The Bible gives no other definition. Christianity would have you redefine it. You doubt it? Find the consistency and use both halves of the Bible; not just the second

Now, if it's consistent and clear that BIBLICAL repentance is always a return to Law and only bad Christian theology denies that, think about what happened when you got baptised:

Notice how when you got baptised, no one told you you were being baptised into the Covenant you never knew(American Christians)? That's because you got baptised into the Christian religion; you didn't get baptised into that Covenant--like you should of.

The promises of that Covenant belong to the people of it. Christianity denies that Covenant saying it's done away with. Q:

Christians, tell me: How are you claiming the promises of a Covenant that you openly refuse? Explain that on a common sense level. But before you do, realize that as far as Covenants are concerned, its consistently true that there is not a single Covenant given that negates the previous one. Go look. That consistency only breaks down in the Christian religion but we're exposing that today.

Any thoughts?

So, I am betting you don't eat bacon then.  Poor you.  You are missing out.

Lol dear Christian, just because you can cook and put it in your mouth, doesn't mean it's meant for FOOD. God in His wisdom tried to show us that.

Dear Foolish Galatian (should be your name), God in His wisdom showed us that all food is acceptable and to eat it with thanksgiving.

Do you have at least 2 or 3 Scriptural or verse references to verify that? Keep in mind that I used to be a Christian for 20yrs, you won't say anything surprising to me.
But....

Notice how when Peter had his vision, he told God plainly that he STILL wasn't eating [pork, crab, etc..]? You mean to tell me in all that time the 12 were with Rabbi Yeshua, no one told Peter he could eat American Bald Eagles? Rabbi Yeshua never told him in all that time that he could eat pit bulls to the full?

Lol, thinking your Bible says you can eat American Bald Eagles now, is only something a Christian would believe and that Religion can fool you if you don't know your Bible well. You gotta start thinking things through, guy.

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:31:43
So CK, do you think that you must keep all the old levitical laws, so that, for example you dont wear clothes of mixed fabrics?

There's no Temple for Levites to perform at, ceremonial Laws as far as Temple is concerned is obsolete.

May I ask an important question. What is it that saves CK, the death and resurrection of Jesus who is righteous and perfect and our belief and trust in Him, or our pathetic attempts to obey and keep to an enormous set of rules and laws and regulations that the Jews couldnt keep?

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:36:53

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:31:43
So CK, do you think that you must keep all the old levitical laws, so that, for example you dont wear clothes of mixed fabrics?

There's no Temple for Levites to perform at, ceremonial Laws as far as Temple is concerned is obsolete.

OK, so already you are finding laws that you dont keep to. How about the mixed fabrics thing?

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:38:48
May I ask an important question. What is it that saves CK, the death and resurrection of Jesus who is righteous and perfect and our belief and trust in Him, or our pathetic attempts to obey and keep to an enormous set of rules and laws and regulations that the Jews couldnt keep?

The Bible doesn't say you can't keep the Law. No, the Christian religion says that. Go look.

No, the Bible says it's impossible to be justified solely by keeping the Law. Christianity never teaches you that.

But look:

Notice what it says about John Baptist's parents in the first chapter of Luke? Looks like it says in PLAIN ENGLISH that they kept the Law BLAMELESSLY. What does your Religion have to say about that verse?

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:40:14

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:36:53

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:31:43
So CK, do you think that you must keep all the old levitical laws, so that, for example you dont wear clothes of mixed fabrics?

There's no Temple for Levites to perform at, ceremonial Laws as far as Temple is concerned is obsolete.

OK, so already you are finding laws that you dont keep to. How about the mixed fabrics thing?

Still learning about that particular law. I do however wear tzit tzits as commanded.

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:45:49

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:38:48
May I ask an important question. What is it that saves CK, the death and resurrection of Jesus who is righteous and perfect and our belief and trust in Him, or our pathetic attempts to obey and keep to an enormous set of rules and laws and regulations that the Jews couldnt keep?

The Bible doesn't say you can't keep the Law. No, the Christian religion says that. Go look.

No, the Bible says it's impossible to be justified solely by keeping the Law. Christianity never teaches you that.

But look:

Notice what it says about John Baptist's parents in the first chapter of Luke? Looks like it says in PLAIN ENGLISH that they kept the Law BLAMELESSLY. What does your Religion have to say about verse?

So you are saying that Jesus blood shed for you isnt enough to save you. That you must keep all the laws blamelessly as well. 

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:47:20

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:40:14

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:36:53

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:31:43
So CK, do you think that you must keep all the old levitical laws, so that, for example you dont wear clothes of mixed fabrics?

There's no Temple for Levites to perform at, ceremonial Laws as far as Temple is concerned is obsolete.

OK, so already you are finding laws that you dont keep to. How about the mixed fabrics thing?

Still learning about that particular law. I do however wear tzit tzits as commanded.

  Commanded for Jews.    Have you been circumcised? 

Romans 5 v 18
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

5 Therefore, since we have been justified [that is, acquitted of sin, declared blameless before God] by faith, [let us grasp the fact that] we have peace with God [and the joy of reconciliation with Him] through our Lord Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed). 2 Through Him we also have access by faith into this [remarkable state of] grace in which we [firmly and safely and securely] stand. Let us rejoice in our [a]hope and the confident assurance of [experiencing and enjoying] the glory of [our great] God [the manifestation of His excellence and power].

acts 15 v 5-11
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses."

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

I would point you to verse 10 above and ask you what Peter asked them.

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:48:36

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:45:49

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:38:48
May I ask an important question. What is it that saves CK, the death and resurrection of Jesus who is righteous and perfect and our belief and trust in Him, or our pathetic attempts to obey and keep to an enormous set of rules and laws and regulations that the Jews couldnt keep?

The Bible doesn't say you can't keep the Law. No, the Christian religion says that. Go look.

No, the Bible says it's impossible to be justified solely by keeping the Law. Christianity never teaches you that.

But look:

Notice what it says about John Baptist's parents in the first chapter of Luke? Looks like it says in PLAIN ENGLISH that they kept the Law BLAMELESSLY. What does your Religion have to say about verse?

So you are saying that Jesus blood shed for you isnt enough to save you. That you must keep all the laws blamelessly as well.

Lol, no.

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:49:25

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:47:20

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:40:14

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:36:53

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:31:43
So CK, do you think that you must keep all the old levitical laws, so that, for example you dont wear clothes of mixed fabrics?

There's no Temple for Levites to perform at, ceremonial Laws as far as Temple is concerned is obsolete.

OK, so already you are finding laws that you dont keep to. How about the mixed fabrics thing?

Still learning about that particular law. I do however wear tzit tzits as commanded.

  Commanded for Jews.    Have you been circumcised?

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:49:25

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:47:20

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:40:14

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:36:53

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:31:43
So CK, do you think that you must keep all the old levitical laws, so that, for example you dont wear clothes of mixed fabrics?

There's no Temple for Levites to perform at, ceremonial Laws as far as Temple is concerned is obsolete.

OK, so already you are finding laws that you dont keep to. How about the mixed fabrics thing?

Still learning about that particular law. I do however wear tzit tzits as commanded.

  Commanded for Jews.    Have you been circumcised?

Yes, I have. I know, the Christian religion says that's gong into bondage according to their miseducation of Rav Shaul.

Know what's funny about that? If Rav Shaul really taught that and Timothy was his disciple, doesn't it make you wonder why he never stopped Timothy from being circumcised?**gasp**

Think about that very carefully and critically.

Remember Shaul is Jewish and Timothy half Jewish. So, put two and two together.

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 23:17:51

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:49:25

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:47:20

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:40:14

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:36:53

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:31:43
So CK, do you think that you must keep all the old levitical laws, so that, for example you dont wear clothes of mixed fabrics?

There's no Temple for Levites to perform at, ceremonial Laws as far as Temple is concerned is obsolete.

OK, so already you are finding laws that you dont keep to. How about the mixed fabrics thing?

Still learning about that particular law. I do however wear tzit tzits as commanded.

  Commanded for Jews.    Have you been circumcised?

Yes, I have. I know, the Christian religion says that's gong into bondage according to their miseducation of Rav Shaul.

Know what's funny about that? If Rav Shaul really taught that and Timothy was his disciple, doesn't it make you wonder why he never stopped Timothy from being circumcised?**gasp**

Think about that very carefully and critically.

Remember Shaul is Jewish and Timothy half Jewish. So, put two and two together.

Because he was taking Timothy to the Jews.  They knew Tim was only a half brother, so they were inclined to disregard him. Paul had him circumcised to remove any complain or criticism against Tim.  The point was that the gospel of grace be furthered and no stumbling block get in the way of that.  The Jews would have been so wrapped up in law, they would have dismissed Tim for not being circumcised.

Quote from: MeMyself on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 23:39:19

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 23:17:51

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:49:25

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:47:20

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:40:14

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:36:53

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 21:31:43
So CK, do you think that you must keep all the old levitical laws, so that, for example you dont wear clothes of mixed fabrics?

There's no Temple for Levites to perform at, ceremonial Laws as far as Temple is concerned is obsolete.

OK, so already you are finding laws that you dont keep to. How about the mixed fabrics thing?

Still learning about that particular law. I do however wear tzit tzits as commanded.

  Commanded for Jews.    Have you been circumcised?

Yes, I have. I know, the Christian religion says that's gong into bondage according to their miseducation of Rav Shaul.

Know what's funny about that? If Rav Shaul really taught that and Timothy was his disciple, doesn't it make you wonder why he never stopped Timothy from being circumcised?**gasp**

Think about that very carefully and critically.

Remember Shaul is Jewish and Timothy half Jewish. So, put two and two together.

Because he was taking Timothy to the Jews.  They knew Tim was only a half brother, so they were inclined to disregard him. Paul had him circumcised to remove any complain or criticism against Tim.  The point was that the gospel of grace be furthered and no stumbling block get in the way of that.  The Jews would have been so wrapped up in law, they would have dismissed Tim for not being circumcised.

So, if getting circumcised leads back into bondage, as Christianity teaches, did Timothy go back into bondage? If so, Shaul contradicts his own teachings and leads Timothy back into bondage regardless of the reason, right?

Or should we go with a more biblical answer that Timothy got circumcised according to the commandment like Rav Shaul did and getting circumcised helped him gain entrance to the Jews?

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 23:55:27
Layceers,

Water baptism is a baptism of repentance according to John's baptism. I concur.

We baptise in Christ's name as commanded. It's an outward expression that you are turning from Lawlessness to Lawfulness. It's identifying yourself with the Covenant of God.

Which Covenant?   

Who is the Mediator?