Results 1481 - 1500 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1481 | Can a divorced person remarry? | 1 Cor 7:15 | Reformer Joe | 39109 | ||
You are quite welcome. You didn't answer my question from before: have you found a God-honoring church where the Bible is proclaimed and members support one another in the pursuit of righteous living? --Joe! |
||||||
1482 | Can a divorced person remarry? | 1 Cor 7:15 | Reformer Joe | 39111 | ||
Well, keep in mind that many of the heroes of the Christian faith were shunned by their churches. Being shunned does not necessarily mean that you are the wrong one. Just make sure that your minister is preaching from the Word of God every Sunday, that they celebrate baptism and the Lord's Supper, and that church discipline is in place (the biblical model is a plurality of elders shepherding the flock, not one pastor -- or a pastor and his wofe -- lording it over the flock). May God's blessings be upon you! --Joe! |
||||||
1483 | Can a divorced person remarry? | 1 Cor 7:15 | Reformer Joe | 39174 | ||
Consider yourself forgiven. I find that interesting that that was a baited question directed toward me. Guess my discernment meter was on the fritz that day. You are correct, however, that there always exists a temptation to give the "knee-jerk" reaction myself. I have often found myself ready to leap at the keyboard to respond to an individual who posts something that really contradicts Scripture. Also, my wife can readily attest that egostism is something that I do indeed struggle with. God has blessed Christians with the truth, and often we have to struggle to remember that the truth did not origininate with our "super-brains," but rather that it is a revelation of God. Holding firmly to the truth is vital, but so is holding to it humbly. Thanks for the post! --Joe! |
||||||
1484 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | Reformer Joe | 53269 | ||
Shalom, and let me welcome you to the Forum. As a point of information, Ezekiel 36:26-27 are referenced quite often in the Reformed tradition as an example of the Holy Spirit's work in progressively sanctifying us. It fits in very well with what many would consider to be the New Testament parallel in Romans 8, where the difference between the regenerate and the unregenerate is summed up in terms of the ability and inability to submit to God's law. It is sad that it should seem to be such a radical concept. Reading Psalm 19 and 119 gives us the point-of-view of the Spirit-inspired David regarding the Law. Quite a passionate couple of songs those are, and the beloved is the Law! For us, as post-Christ people of God, the ceremonial and sacrificial aspects of the Law have been abolished (Ephesians), because Jesus as our mediator makes unnecessary the ceremonial rituals to approach an infinitely holy God (Ephesians 2:13-16), and because Hebrews 10 makes clear that the sacrifices were but a foreshadowing of the atonement that is found in Christ alone. However, the moral law still serves as an indicator of what pleases God, and we see both Paul (Ephesians 6) and James (James 2) favorably quoting the Decalogue as standards for the Christian. Classical Protestantism views the moral law of God (in both testaments) as vital to our sanctification. The Holy Spirit works through the law to convict us of our continuing sin, moving us to repent and consistently fall upon God's grace. Likewise, like in David's case, the Spirit of God causes us to love righteousness and to seek holiness, which is found in God's immaculate moral will -- His law. I have been fascinated by your contributions so far, and I have looked at your Web site. Are you a descendant of Abraham according to the flesh? I also noticed in your profile that you refer to "God and his prophet Yeshua." I certainly agree that Christ executes the office of a prophet in declaring to us by His word and Spirit, the will of God for our salvation (a little borrowing of one of our catechisms there). Do you subscribe also to a Trinitarian understanding of YHWH? Thanks again for providing some stimulating discussion! --Joe! |
||||||
1485 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | Reformer Joe | 53382 | ||
Greetings, once more. I am in the middle of leading a missions/evangelism week for 85 teens, so I am not able to follow this interesting discussion as much as I would like. I will respond to a couple of things just in passing. You wrote: "I find it interesting that Christians have such a wide range of views when it comes to the Torah, some say they are still in effect while others say they are not." Well, I think it comes down to the fine distinctions that some people can;t/won;t make. While I do hold that the ceremonial and sacrificial aspects of the law have found their fulfillment in Chirst (as well as Him fulfilling the moral requiremenets in our stead), I still have not found one Christian who denies the moral law's use can answer this question: "What can we do to please God that is not contained in the moral law of God?" The answer is, of course, nothing. God shows us how to please Him in the law, and while this is not a basis of our justification, the moral aspects of the law are important for our sanctification (Psalms 19 and 119). One other thing I wanted your input on: you cited Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount and his comments regarding the law. How do you think that is reconciled with Acts 15, in which the apostles did not require the Gentile converts to live as Jews? And what do you do with the book of Galatians, which is Paul's longest treatment of how the Judaizers are wrong to try and convince the Gentile converts to be circumcized and become subject to the covenant at Sinai? And the book of Hebrews, which seems to say that the Mosaic Covenant has served its purpose (namely, to prefigure the Messiah)? And can't the word "Torah" also refer to general moral instruction and not specifically the Pentateuch? Oh, one more. :) Regarding the Trinity, according to you, how does the Kabbalah's notion of the Trinity differ from that of the Nicene and Athanasians Creeds? Thanks again! --Joe! |
||||||
1486 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | Reformer Joe | 53464 | ||
You wrote: "Prior to this, as I believe it, Jews and Gentiles were following the Torah." Well, you have failed to show that conclusively. What evidence are you putting forth to demonstrate the validity of that claim? You wrote, in reference to Acts 15: "The question about whether they were to put the yoke of burden on them which they themselves could not keep is referring to the oral torah, additional commands which are not found in the Bible." That doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. First of all, Jesus during his ministry made it clear that the mishna and other oral traditions were the commandments of men and not those of YHWH. Therefore, the issue of an aprocryphal "oral Torah" wouldn't have been an issue for either Jewish nor Gentile Christians. Secondly, Acts 15:5 makes it clear that it was the Law of MOSES that was the issue, not any additional teachings. Verse 9 and 11 juxtapose the grace of God and the faith of the Gentiles with the proposition of the Pharisees in verse 5. There is absolutely no evidence that any extra-biblical commands were the ones in question. You wrote: "These Gentiles are babys and are told 4 things they should start doing (these were probably big problems in the communities they came from). Then it says that Moses is taught in the synagogues each Shabbat. It was understood that they would learn more about the Moses, and the Torah at the Shabbat services." No, I think you have this wrong. Again, we have no indication that the imposition of the directives from Jerusalem is "Torah 101" to be followed by successive stages. This would not be in keeping with God's requirements for Jews to keep the entire Law. And notice that these command, which you correctly state as being elements of the Pentateuch, are referred to as a BURDEN here, just as in the preceding verses. And what James is saying here is that these impositions are not for the sake of purification, but rather because there is a Jewish presence in the larger cities from ages past. There is no indication that the Gentiles participated in the synagogue services, only that they existed where Gentile Christians were. And that is the reason the Council of Jerusalem directed the Gentile Christians as it did. You wrote: "To many people make the Torah and the covenant at Sinai synonymous, they are not, the Torah is eternal and an intity to itself." Demonstrate from the Bible that the Torah in its entirety had any implications for people outside the covenant people of Israel. The Law of Moses was given at the same time as the covenant was ratified. You wrote: "Abraham knew the Torah (Gen 26:5 where the word laws is actually the Hebrew word Torah)" I am aware that "Torah" means "law." However, it does not always mean "THE Law" (i.e. the Law given through Moses). You are arguing from the conclusion you have already made, rather than demonstrating that your conclusion is a valid one. You wrote: "To be honest, I think the trinity limits God, I do confine him to three but to many more." If you allow "many more," than you do not confine Him to three. It is the same word for breath and Spirit in Greek as well. You speak of the Holy Spirit as merely a manifestation of God, while the Scriptures attribute much more. Is Jesus just a "manifestation" of God, or is He God? What other "manifestations" would you include in this "polyinity"? --Joe! |
||||||
1487 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | Reformer Joe | 53483 | ||
Thanks for your input, Bub. However, I don't think you understood my point. God's moral commands are indeed eternal, but you failed to address my arguments regarding Acts 15, Galatians, Ephesians 2, Colossians 2, and Hebrews, all which apparently point out that the ceremonial and sacrificial aspcects of the Torah have been consummated in Yeshua. What do you do with Galatians if the ENTIRE Torah is binding on all of God's covenant people today? | ||||||
1488 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | Reformer Joe | 53600 | ||
What Christians (and the Jewish believers) saw as a heavy yoke is the ceremonial aspects of the Law and the sacrificial requirements that came with violating God's moral commandments. It is God's moral commandments for our behavior which David embraces in Psalm 119 (and in Psalm 19 as well). It is the moral will of God which makes one wise; it is God's moral commandments what enlighten the eyes. And it is with the Spirit that we are not only able to follow God's moral commands, but also to love them. --Joe! |
||||||
1489 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | Reformer Joe | 53790 | ||
I did not flesh out the arguments, but rather merely mentioned the Scripture references like I did in this last post. You wrote: 'I can still can address the statement……you use the word “apparently”……can you give me a “definitely”?' I definitely can; I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt so that you could make your case. You wrote: "the sacrificial aspects being over, I can buy……there’s no physical temple, ergo there can be no physical sacrifices" Well, obviously there can be no temple sacrifices without the temple, but is that the real reason why Christians do not sacrifice at the temple? The book of Hebrews sheds great light on the purpose of the temple sacrifices in the Old Testament. The entire epistle is a comparison between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, directed at those who were tempted to abandon Christ for the comfort of the trappings of the Old Covenant. On the one hand, we have a comparison between Jesus and Moses, citing clearly the superiority of Jesus: "For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God. Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later; but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house--whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end." --Hebrews 3:3-6 Citing Jesus as the builder of the house, asserting His deity as co-builder with God the Father, the writer clearly indicates Jesus as worthy of more glory than Moses. In other words, Moses was a good servant, but Jesus is exceedingly far more superior. The book of Hebrews then goes on to talk about the priesthood under the Old Covenant, and Jesus as the Great High Preist of the New Covenant. It is here where we start to see the reasons why the priesthood and sacrifices were abolishedfrom the Christian view. The Levitical priests were mediators between God and men, offering the sacrifices which were a shadow of the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ: "For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins" --Hebrews 5:1 We then have two aspects to the Levitical priesthood, the priests themselves, who act as the mediators, and the sacrifices they offer for the sins of the people. We see in other parts of the Bible that only one mediator now exists between us and God (1 Timothy 2:5). If Christ is our sole mediator, what role is left for the earthly high priest? The writer of Hebrews drives this "change in the law" home in these verses: "Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also." --Hebrews 7:11-12 So we see in some places in Scripture there is a "change in law" and others where the law is described as everlasting. Therefore, two different things must be in view. Here, it is pretty clear that the nature of the Aaronic priesthood, with their accompanying sacrifices, was a shadow and "weak and useless" (Hebrews 7:18) and meant to be temproray, while the Melchizedek priesthood held by an eternal and perfect Jesus Christ making His sacrifice of Himself "once for all" serves as the mediator and high priest of a much better covenant, replacing the priests of a covenant that has passed away. Hence this declaration: "or, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God." The former sacrifices were "set aside" not because the temple had been destroyed (which was also a judgment of God), but because we have a "better hope" in Jesus Christ, our one and only Great High Priest of the New Covenant. --Joe! |
||||||
1490 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | Reformer Joe | 53793 | ||
Bub: You wrote: "The same person, Paul, said everyone of these things…….please explain to me how do you reconcile both lists?" My friend, you have hit on the very crux of the matter. Either Paul must be contradicting himself, or we have to look closer at what he is trying to say. One of the problems is that you have taken these points made by Paul out of their contexts. For example, he can say that "the doers of the Law will be justified" (Romans 2:13) and "a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 2:16) simply because of Paul's point that NO ONE is a doer of the law. Our fallen nature makes us incapable of submitting to God's law (Romans 8:7). Romans 3:10-18 gives us a very clear view of what man is like in relation to God's law, and the picture is not pretty. This brings up another interesting point: if the "law" that Paul has in view here is the sacrificial and ceremonial rituals, how is the "mind set on the flesh" incapable of submitting to these? The Pharisee, I am sure, did an excellent job of making sure every jot and tittle of ritual washings and feast days and sacrifices were done to the letter, and yet Jesus called them children of the devil. Paul clearly has in mind the moral commandments of God here when talking about loving the law and upholding God's law. Paul does not love the animal sacrifices; he loves the commandment to have no other gods before YHWH and the commandment to love ones neighbor as oneself and the commandment to refrain from stealing. As he clearly says, from these works no one will be justified, because no one but Christ my representative has kept the Law perfectly, and it is through faith in his perfect obedience to the Law and his once-for-all substitutionary death for my sins against God's law that I am declared righteous before the Father. |
||||||
1491 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | Reformer Joe | 53897 | ||
I am sorry, Bub, but your post did not address my concerns about your views on the Law of Moses at all. Nor did they address my comments from the book of Hebrews (7/9/02 10:12 a.m.), to which you have not responded. You wrote: "Do the teachings of the LORD (Torah) ever become obsolete? If so, then LORD is obsolete." The New Testament says: 'When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.' --Hebrews 8:13 Were there or were there not teachings/commandments of God which only pertained to the Old Covenant? Should I have been circumcised on the eighth day, for example? You wrote: "Frankly, I think that speaking against the LORD’s teachings (Torah) is blasphemy and refusing to live by any or all of them is presumptuous sin which is defined as wickedness." Well, I am not speaking against it, but you yourself do not consistently live by them, because you are by nature a sinner. And you are right...that is wickedness. And you think that you are doing to stand before an infinitely holy God in your own "righteousness"? :) You wrote, concerning Jesus: "He came to further expounded upon the LORD’s teachings to correct a lot of misunderstandings and misapplications, i.e. to fill In the holes." And what was the point of His death and resurrection, then? You also misapplied all three verses you cited in support of "Justification by Torah." Romans 2 is part of a three-chapter introduction to the epistle which shuts up all men (Jew and Gentile) under sin. Yes, doers of God's will will be justified. Now go read Romans 2:1-3 and then Romans 3:10-18 and see who has righteously followed Torah. Then go read Romans 4 and Galatians 3 and see how Abraham was justified through faith alone, apart from works, 430 years before the ceremonial and sacrificial laws were given to Israel. James 2:24 is part of a larger passage which is teaching that true saving faith results in obedience to God. Read James 2:14 and see that James is comparing someone who SAYS he has faith with one who shows his faith by obedience to the law of God. Faith is accompanied by God-honoring works, but it is not our works which God judges as worthy for admittance into His holy kingdom. If that were the case, then YHWH would be unjust for not punishing our many sins. Likewise, Jesus is talking about false Christians, and how the tree will be judges by its fruits. Following the Law of God is evidence of our justification, not the grounds or means of it. Paul expressly rules that out. Once more, you keep dodging all of those passages I have cited which indicate that certain aspects of the Law of Moses were for Israel alone and passed away with the Old Covenant. The moral commands were universal, but sacrifices are now pointless after Jesus' once-for-all sacrifice. In addition, the purification rights for God's people are unnecessary and not binding on Gentiles (Acts 15), because we are purified spiritually by the blood of Christ. --Joe! |
||||||
1492 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | Reformer Joe | 53900 | ||
Paul never spoke NEGATIVELY about the "law." He understood it perfectly: its intended purposes, and what it is not able to do. Not once, however, does he speak ill of the Law. With all due respect, it is you who does not "get it." You make the opposite mistake of those who say that the law of God has no use for the Christian, in that you want to make the commands and ordinances tied solely to the Old Covenant applicable to those who were never part of that covenant community. Both views are in error by failing to see that God's moral commandments regarding righteous behavior, while contained in the Law of Moses, transcend the Law as well. As such, you are arguing past each other, and neither one of you can address my support of God's moral law and the acknowledgement that the sacrificial and ceremonial laws have passed away with the Old Covenant. Neither your view nor the antinomian view is supported by the whole counsel of God. --Joe! |
||||||
1493 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | Reformer Joe | 53904 | ||
I fleshed out the idea in my post from yesterday morning. That post is easy to find. As of this writing, it is the post at the very bottom of the tree on this page. I would be very interested in reading your response to it. --Joe! |
||||||
1494 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | Reformer Joe | 54395 | ||
I think you are making more out of the name issue than is warranted. First of all, in almost every language a person's name varies. I would be called "Jose" in Peru and "Giuseppe" in Rome, because that is the derivative of "Joseph" in those languages. Likewise, "Jesus" comes from the Greek version of the Hebrew name. That is why we see Moses' successor being called "Joshua" in the Hebrew Scriptures and my Redeemer being called "Jesus" in the Greek ones. Since Yahoshua was a pretty common name in Judea during the Messiah's earthly ministry, and that there is at least one other "Jesus" mentioned in the New Testament, it is hardly a reason to start up conspiracy theories. And lest we insist that the Savior of the world be called by his Hebrew name or be dishonored, let's remember that the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek transliteration that the apostles penned.... --Joe! |
||||||
1495 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | Reformer Joe | 54475 | ||
'Do you have any Spanish friends, Joe? Do you call your Spanish friend Jose, “Joe”? Do you call Pedro, “Pete”? Do you call a Spanish person named “Jesus” (hay-soose), “Jesus” (gee-suhs)? If not, why not? Do you respect the integrity of his name and heritage perhaps?' Actually, many Jose's and Jesuses go by Joe and Jesse in the United States. And when I do visit my Latin American friends, I am Jose. You pick up a Spanish newspaper and read about the American President, you will see the name "Jorge Bush." It is a very common practice, and no one's heritage is being trampled by it. It is simply recognized that proper nouns, like any other nouns, are represented by different words in different languages. Only "sacred name" cults really make a big deal out of such things when it comes to Jesus. 'How can a translator translate “iesous” as “Jesus” in one place and as “Joshua” in another? SEE HEB 4:8? That is sloppy, inconsistent translating.' Then it must be very rough for you to find a Bible to match your superior knowledge, since I am not aware of a single one in English that meets your scholarly standards. I am glad that you are aware of the existence of the epistle to the Hebrews, since you seem so averse to addressing its substantive content. Since you have found it, maybe you should stop to consider that the English translators translated verse 4:8 the way they did so that English readers would be aware of whom the verse was describing. You wrote: 'Again, I ask……..Strong’s et al acknowledge that “Joshua” is the proper translation for Yehoshua and Iesous………where did “Jesus” come from?' The GREEK New Testament. You are a liar when you imply that Strong considers "Joshua" to be the solitary proper translation of Iesous. By the way, would you mind terribly if I start calling them both "Iesous," then? That's how the Bible has it, after all! 'As for, “And lest we insist that the Savior of the world be called by his Hebrew name or be dishonored, let's remember that the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek transliteration that the apostles penned....” WHHHHHAAAAATTTTTTT? That’s a ROFLOL!!!!!!' Yes, you are laughing yourself right off this Forum, Bub. Why don't you be a brave and honest man and tell us which parts of the Bible you think are from God and which ones aren't? --Joe! |
||||||
1496 | isn'tr it different for the saved? | 1 Cor 10:5 | Reformer Joe | 48674 | ||
So you do not sin? You have overcome it completely? --Joe! |
||||||
1497 | isn'tr it different for the saved? | 1 Cor 10:5 | Reformer Joe | 48675 | ||
And many hold that an "apostate" is only one who has partaken of the visible church and shows himself to have been never saved at all. --Joe! |
||||||
1498 | Why not Brothers? | 1 Cor 11:3 | Reformer Joe | 49795 | ||
The verse that Rob brought up is not that hard at all to fit into a Trinitarian understanding. It was absolutely essential for our sakes that Jesus Christ be in a situation where the Father was greater than Him. See my response to Rob for a fuller explanation. You wrote: 'Now from other Scriptures He uses the word "three" and "one" so if He really meant "three in one" God then wouldn't He have said so? Jesus said "greater works you will do" so we can do greater works than God? Obviously no.' Well, if we switch verbs like you just did, we could easily destroy the Trinity. Jesus said, "Greater works you WILL do." You changed it to mean that the apostles CAN do greater works than Jesus CAN do. To say that the apostles will do greater works does not mean in the slightest that Jesus couldn't do comparable works. Obviously we are not more CAPABLE than Jesus Christ. "Do you know of one time where Jesus said somebody was stupid because they didn't believe what he said?" No, he said that they were children of Satan, blind guides who make others twice the children of hell that they are, whitewashed tombs, hypocrites, lovers of the praise of men, not His sheep, and doomed for destruction. But I don't think that He went so far as to use the word "stupid." You wrote: "I have experienced this here on this forum and when it happens I bow out because I know I'm not going to change someone's mind who is so convinced." Well, especially when we are convinced by Scriptural truth... You wrote: 'Even top Trinitarian scholars say "no one understands the Trinity, you have to take it on faith."' No they don't! Very weak Trinitarian scholars tell people to take it on faith. Top Trinitarian scholars open the Bible and demonstrate that the whole counsel of God teaches the very doctrines you deny (to your peril). That is why the Arianism you promote here was condemned as heresy 1700 years ago. --Joe! |
||||||
1499 | Why not Brothers? | 1 Cor 11:3 | Reformer Joe | 49799 | ||
I am not uncomfortable with faith at all. I have been justified by faith (Romans 5:1). What bothers me is Jeff's use of the word "faith" in his post. He is basically saying that there is little or no biblical support for Trinitarian theology, but that "top Trinitarian scholars" encourage others to believe it anyway. We are to have faith in what God has revealed to us. He has revealed His nature as Trinitarian. We are never called to have faith in anything that is not part of God's revelation or contrary to it. Fortunately, the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't fall into that category. --Joe! |
||||||
1500 | Why not Brothers? | 1 Cor 11:3 | Reformer Joe | 49807 | ||
You wrote: "Deny God said he was ONE God." Why would I deny something I believe? "Deny Jesus Christ said many times he was not equal to God." I will let the Bible do my talking for me: 'But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.' --John 5:17-18 I already explained Jesus submitting to God the Father to be everything we could not due to our sin (Romans 8:3-4). You wrote: "Deny that he prayed to God." Again, why would I deny something that I believe? You wrote: "If he was God then he would be praying to himself." No...the Son was praying to the Father. As I stated before, there is communication and perfect fellowship among the three Persons of the one true God. Jeff, you claim to have once believed in the Trinity. However, you are making statements which demonstrate that you don't have a very good understainding of the doctrine at all. Let me direct you to a very throrough treatment of the Trinity, so you will at least have a good grasp of what you are attacking. I encourage you to read articles 8-11 of the Belgic Confession (link below), and then feel free to come back and critique the true doctrine of the Trinity and not some cariacature you have chosen as a straw man. http://www.reformed.org/documents/BelgicConfession.html --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 ] Next > Last [97] >> |