|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 18, 2007 17:23:06 GMT -5
Were can someone see this text that agrees with you?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 18, 2007 17:10:34 GMT -5
You really think the KJV translators had no clue to what " ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. " means?
You really need to stop making things up. No where, in greek or english, in that verse does it say that the body of Christ is to teach the law.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 18, 2007 10:33:15 GMT -5
That's right. I can't think of anywhere that Sabbath was commanded to anyone other than Israel. It's interesting that the Sabbath was a sign that showed Israel was separate. Circumcision was the sign of Abraham's covenant, the keeping of the sabbath was the sign of Israel's covenant.
Exo 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 17, 2007 15:41:02 GMT -5
You should stop making up things. This is utter nonsense and you could never find this in that chapter. Fornication is clearly condemned in the NT. Eating things sacrificed to idols with it being done with "conscience" to the idol is wrong. This is because of what others would see it as (you worshiping and idol) and your conscience. 1Co 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 1Co 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 1Co 8:3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him. 1Co 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 1Co 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1Co 8:7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 1Co 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 17, 2007 15:25:22 GMT -5
What Jesus and the apostles taught is what we obey, not "the law." Our foundation is not the law. Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. So, anything that is taught in the OT that isn't reiterated in the NT doesn't apply. Mainly this is Israeli governmental laws and things pertaining to sacrifices. Those are the main two areas. Things pertaining to morality are obviously going to be consistent throughout all time since God's character doesn't change. This may label me as antinomian, but the law has been thrown out. I wasn't the first to say this, Paul was. Just saying "The Law" has been done away doesn't make Christians lawless. "The Law" is the Sinai Covenant, wouldn't you agree? When you say someone is lawless it means they don't have restraint or they live without any standard. This is not true of a Christian. Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 15, 2007 15:04:22 GMT -5
That's not a bad expression of what I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 14, 2007 13:46:27 GMT -5
In all honestly, where did you come up with that? Where does it say that there were some that rose up that told them that they needed to be circumcised so they could keep the law? The arguement was that if they needed to be circumcised AND keep the law. How can you suggest that the word "and" really means "to?"
Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and[/b] to command them to keep the law of Moses.
And the apostles plainly responded...
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and[/b] keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
This also shows that the "law of Moses" and "the law", in the mind of the apostles, are synonymous terms.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 14, 2007 12:25:56 GMT -5
I could misunderstand his writtings. but do I also misunderstand his actions? Paul, himself, delivered a letter from the Apostles that said they never commanded a Gentile to keep Moses law. It's a hard pill for me to swallow that Paul's writings were different than his actions. Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: Act 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Where does the Bible say that "the Law" is the sacrificial system? Here is a quote from someone you may agree with. I believe that the law as given through Moses includes the Ten, for sure, but also all the rest of the instructions, including the "food laws".... From what I understand Moses gave instructions on how to give sacrifices. Do you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 13, 2007 13:03:52 GMT -5
Do you believe that the flesh= sin dwelling in us? I think you do, but I'm not sure.
I surely believe a Christian can sin and is tempted daily.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 12, 2007 22:31:03 GMT -5
I'm not sure what version you are quoting, but the KJV says "Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. "
Jesus came to fulfill the law. He didn't come to rip it apart, but to complete it.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 12, 2007 22:28:41 GMT -5
What do you mean by that? Do you believe Paul contradicts Jesus? Jesus came to take away the first and establish the 2nd. Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
I didn't threaten you with eternal burning. The scripture promises it to you if you preach another gospel. You do have to obey God. You have to obey the Gospel, not the old covenant. I haven't accused you of anything. Are you preaching another gospel? I never said you were.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 12, 2007 22:18:02 GMT -5
What was Paul talking about in Romans 6?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 12, 2007 15:58:25 GMT -5
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. You are going to burn in an eternal (not temporary) lake of fire if you preach another gospel.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 12, 2007 15:54:05 GMT -5
No, I do not believe anyone has to keep Saturday any holier than any other day. You should keep everyday holy. I thought you knew my position on this topic. Josh, So, you think the "Law" has been done away with? And is not to be kept any longer? Of course. That is what the Bible teaches. 2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven 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: 2Co 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 2Co 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
I picked that verse because it uses the very phrase you used. Yes, I preach against all of those things. Christian don't keep laws in the sense that they did under the law. When you are born again God gives you a new nature where you fulfill the righteousness of the law by walking in the spirit not by keeping 600 or so laws. The law was only temporary. Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth 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. It was added... till.. After faith has come Christians are not under the law. Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Christians have died to the law. Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Gal 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. You can't get any more plain.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 12, 2007 10:31:57 GMT -5
Jack,
Do you believe that Christians all have "sin (a noun) dwelling in them?"
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 11, 2007 22:06:29 GMT -5
No, I do not believe anyone has to keep Saturday any holier than any other day. You should keep everyday holy. I thought you knew my position on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 11, 2007 22:05:35 GMT -5
I believe that "sin as a noun" is gone when you have been baptized into his death.
I believe the new birth is when the "old nature" has been crucified and now everything is new. That's one aspect of it anyways.
No, I'm not a Calvinist.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 11, 2007 21:43:03 GMT -5
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. Rom 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
In the above verses "sin" is a noun in each one.
|
|
|
Tongues
Jul 5, 2007 11:34:36 GMT -5
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 5, 2007 11:34:36 GMT -5
Where in Psalm 12:6-7 does it say it is speaking to Christians or the "Christian Bible"?
|
|
|
Tongues
Jul 2, 2007 10:59:43 GMT -5
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 2, 2007 10:59:43 GMT -5
If the speaker doesn't understand the tongue, then how would they know what language it is in?
1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
Personally, I don't hold to that doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 27, 2007 22:23:17 GMT -5
You may already know this but in King James English you and ye are always plural; thou and thee are singular. That is one reason I think the KJV is superior to the modern versions. In modern English 'you' can mean plural or singular. It could get confusing at times when reading a story to know if the whole group or an individual is being addressed in modern versions. Here is a short article with a helpful chart. ncw.biblebase.com/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?cid=3&lid=3
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 26, 2007 21:44:19 GMT -5
Do you guys think Paul felt like a sinner at the moment of his writing? If so, why?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 26, 2007 10:49:40 GMT -5
Do you (or anyone) believe he was talking about his life at that moment or looking at his life as a whole and emphasizing his past? It seems from the context that he is talking about his past.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 23, 2007 16:18:55 GMT -5
Since it says they came out after his(Jesus') resurrection, I've pondered that after Jesus' resurrection when a Christian dies the go to heaven and that now Abraham's bosom is empty.
Eph 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 23, 2007 15:49:12 GMT -5
You say that all of those verses with the exception of the one from Revelation was pre-resurection. I've always believed that Jesus went to Abraham's bosom after he died.
Speaking of Revelation, what do you do with all the saints mentioned in Heaven? It's post-"catching away"?
Rev 19:1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:
This verse is before all those in death and hell are at the judgment.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 23, 2007 11:54:31 GMT -5
I think you forgot a fairly popular view that says Christians go to heaven and sinners go to hell. Hell being Hades which will eventually be cast into the lake of fire.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 24, 2007 22:48:34 GMT -5
I'm not too schooled on this topic but I'll add a quick thought.
Just because they quoted it and considered it scripture doesn't mean it's superior to a Hebrew text. I quote the KJV just like they would the Septuagint. Why don't I just quote it in Greek? I don't fully understand it nor would most on this board. I also am writing in English. Why didn't they quote in Hebrew? Many didn't have full grasp of Hebrew (not Jesus... possibly his audience) and the main point: they were writing in Greek.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 24, 2007 17:36:50 GMT -5
Here goes! These verses just tell us that Christ gave himself as a payment. It doesn't say to whom or what. I would say this could be applied to an atonement theory, but the strict context is dealing with casting out devils. It would seem that Jesus taught that for a man to be delivered from possession that the devil would have to be bound before the man could be released. In other words, a devil isn't going to bind himself to take his own property only someone who is in opposition would. I agree with your previous interpretation of this that you brought out in the thread Evan asked about. You said this isn't dealing with atonement. Maybe I agree with you. Even if it is dealing with the atonement it doesn't say to who or what it is given to. Jesus defeated death by the resurrection. Again, this verse doesn't tell to who or what the atonement was offered. I believe this is dealing with his resurrection power. I don't have much to comment on this other than "Amen, yes he did." The old man was crucified with Christ. This verse doesn't tell to who or what the atonement was offered to. I would see Romans 6 as a good reference to this also. Christ gave himself so that men's sins could be forgiven. This parable doesn't actually tell how God forgives us. As you can tell from the last line the moral of this parable is that God will do to you what was done to the servant that didn't forgive, if you do not forgive others. You could possibly insert this into an atonement theory but that is not the reason Jesus gave this parable. Amen. He forgave us without us having to do anything to earn it. Forgive others the same way. God gave his son for our sins which would in turn deliver us from this age. I would say this is dealing with the miracle of regeneration. I was delivered from this age when God changed me. Yes, we were bought with his blood, but from who or what? Christ came to destroy the works of the devil.... We were dead in sins and he brought us near. Also, Gentiles were considered the circumcision but in Christ we have circumcision of the heart and can be a child of Abraham. Jesus offered himself to God, not the devil, and not to a principle. I enjoy the emphasis on Jesus delivering us from sin and the power of it, but we cannot forget who Jesus offered himself to. My emphasis over the last few years have been on that as opposed to mere forgiveness (but of course that is important to!). This offering was not a process but happened at a one time instance. The only logical conclusion is that he was offered on the Cross. When else would it be sufficient to say Christ offered himself? Amen. We are separated to God through the blood of Christ. See above. Those verses aren't dealing with the atonement but that a Christian must forgive others. You didn't pay God anything, God took care of it all Himself. You don't need a payment, take care of it yourself and forgive them. Not the Devil! They are both important. Without the death we wouldn't have a new covenant, without the resurrection we wouldn't be partakers of resurrection life. He was raised for our justification! (Romans 4:25) The Bible teaches that without Jesus having shed his blood you would have not been forgiven. Maybe it would seem better if the devil demanded a blood sacrifice and God was requited to pay him? Something like the Devil having power over God and making him submit? But yet we see God demanding blood on the Passover. Your "pagan" illustration and your "pushing" illustration both sound like the satisfaction view to me. God is angry with the wicked every day! Evil men hate God! Maybe one needs appeased and the other to repent. Rev if you don't believe that Jesus offered himself to Satan, then to who or what did he offer himself? Yes... Do you have any proof that anyone held to that view before Origen? My main dispute is that Jesus offered himself to God. I'm not even talking about if he was under wrath or not but that the offering was God-ward. Both. All sinners need to delivered from that wrath to come. Jesus made it possible that man could be forgiven and to deliver us from the power of sin. Both! You can't separate them. The answer is obvious, but doesn't show to who or what the offering was to. The sinner. Brother, I think you have found a great emphasis in the atonement. That being he delivered us from sin, hell, self, Satan, and the world. It's a great emphasis but doesn't prove at all that Jesus was offered to Satan or a principle. The book of 1 John tell us. Again, this doesn't prove to who the atonement was offered to. You've been talking to yourself to much in this thread. You have a lot to respond to but maybe this will work for now.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 23, 2007 16:02:55 GMT -5
I don't have a view ironed out either, so many we can come to a conclusion together. I'll try to take a stab at a few of your objections when I can. Don't let me forget. A few of them I see your dilemma and have pondered it myself.
I believe we were in bondage to this world, sin, ect. but I do not believe God owed Satan to buy us back. I'm just saying that as a general statement, not necessarily applying it towards you. The Bible teaches that God owns all souls.
Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 23, 2007 15:30:23 GMT -5
Is someone being paid in this view or a principle being satisfied? Maybe I'm not fully grasping your slant on this view. I'm not sure your view lines up with what is traditionally taught as the ransom view. The below is from wikipedia
|
|