Endurance wrote:Aineo wrote:Endurance, I have fully explained what I believe and why. If you cannot comprehend what was written that is your problem. However, the only thing you have shown is that you can quote Scripture but you don't understand what you post. This is evident since you quoted Paul and then ignored that Paul taught that gentiles (and Jews) do not have to obey the whole Law since Christians are under grace not the Law.
Incorrect you are again. I do acknowledge that Paul taught the gentiles that they don't have to obey everything. Those things being circumcision, sacrifices, etc b/c they were foreshadowing of things to come or rather things that Christ have fulfilled.
Other things such as to abstain from blood are part of the law and they are encouraged to keep it, right?
You said you have addressed everything, what of this?
1 Corinthians 14:37 - If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 15:34 - Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.
1 John 3:4 - Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Look at these scriptures. Do you agree with John, that sin is the transgression of the law? Do you agree with Paul who says that what he is writing are the commandments of the Lord? Does he not afterward tell them to sin not?
If you agree with Paul and John. Then you are acknowleding that one of the commandments of the Lord is to awake to righteousness and sin not. And you also, acknowledge that transgressing the LAW is sin. Now, to not keep the Sabbath is to transgress the law, right? And if you do not awake to righteousness and sin not, you are not obeying the commandment of the Lord, right? Therefore,
John 14:24 - He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
Matthew 15:3 - But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Luke 6:46 - And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Do you acknowledge that we are commanded to sin not as Paul wrote and that He said he was writing the commandments of the Lord?
Do you acknowledge that John says that sin is the transgression of the law?
and what of this?
Acts 10:28 - And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean
According to Peter, the vision was telling him not to call any man common or unclean. It had nothing to do with eating. SO Aineo, who is right, you or Peter?
Acts 10: 15 - And again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
Do you still feel as though you were right in assuming that Acts 10:9-16 is disannulling dietary things, or do you now agree with Peter that is was God telling him to not call any man unclean.
Note: at not one point did I tell anyone that they cannot eat certain foods. I said I don't because He told us these things for a reason. But I do say that we should honor the Sabbath.
And what about this?
Luke 16:16 - The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
This says that John was the last prophet of the OT, and Christ is the first of the new. Which is indicated by Him saying since that time, the kingdom of God is preached. Did He not make this claim while still being alive? So it was not after the resurrection, but after John, when He began. Please stop giving scripture your meaning for it and accept His.
Again I say, like the author of Hebrews has stated. The Sabbath which was ordained centuries before the promise made to Abraham is not disannulled by it, because it was ordained before the promise. Just as the law, given centuries after the promise does not disannul the promise.
Do you still feel that Christ was the last prophet of the OT?
Do you agree that the Sabbath was ordain before the promise?
If so, then I repeat what was promised centuries later cannot disannul what God ordained. Just as the law which was given centuries later cannot disannul what was promised. Til heaven and Earth pass my friend
What about this?
Again you have given the scripture your own meaning. THe scripture does not say don't mix meat (animal) and dairy (for that matter I don't know anyone who drinks milk with steaks). It says, don't boil a goat in it's mothers milk. It does not say don't mix dairy and animal.
Deuteronomy 14:21 - Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
Do you still believe that God said not to mix dairy and animal? If so, show me the scripture that says this. This one says not to seethe a kid in his mother's milk. It says nothing of dairy and animals.
What of this?
Acts 15:21 -
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Now they were talking about what to say to the gentile believer right? Let's keep things in context here.
Acts 15: 19-20 - Wherefore my sentence is,
that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
You see, in order not to be overbearing, they just spoke of the most serious matters because (verse 21 above) they had access to what Moses taught in the synagogues every SABBATH. So there was no need to express everything b/c they had teaching on the Law every week.
Do you still feel that Acts 15:20 is speaking of the only things we are to observe or that they where not trying to be overbearing and just spoke of what they felt was most important?
And what of this?
Yes I have studied them and according to Paul the law has not been done away with, but rather established (Rom 3:31). The OT is our foundation. How do you suppose we deny our foundation. If the Law is established by us, then we should be manifestations of it. Do you agree?
Do you agree? if not, why?
And what of this?
John 14:24 - He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
You said according to me, those who love God keep his commandments, but who is saying it. Me or Christ?
Matthew 15:3 - But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Luke 6:46 - And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
And what of this?
Aineo, God did not change the Law. God is the Law (His Word) and God does not change friend. Do you believe that God changes? We are told that the Word is God. Do you feel the the Law is not part of God's Word?
Do you feel God changes? Is the Law part of God's word? Is the Word God?
The thing is that Christ revealed (manigested) God (The Word which the law is part of) in the flesh. You accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about yet, you fail to correct what I'm saying. Just going off and giving your own opinion does not do this. But rather explaining how what I'm saying is wrong and then offering the correct explanation does, which you have failed to do. Look at the dietary thing above. Am I not explaining how your interpretation is wrong by qouting Peter and explaing why (He interpreted it differently than you do)? Yet you are not doing this. You say I'm wrong and go off and state how you feel rather than explaining how I'm wrong and giving what you say is the truth.
WIth the dietary thing, Christ being the last prophet of the OT, etc. I have explained how you are wrong. Do you still think you are correct. Partial statments are above. Feel free to respond. But if we keep on jumping place to place, we will go nowhere. Unless you ignoring them means you are conceding, I'm awaiting your response and then I will respond likewise...
Or will you ban me because I feel you are giving scripture your own meaning and explaining why I feel that way? No need to ban me for these things. All you have to do is explain how what I said you said wrong is right and how I'm wrong. Do all things with wisdom and understanding friend...
With Love,