Results 21 - 40 of 76
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Ancient Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126890 | ||
Good afternoon, brother. If I am mistaken on the history of Bible translations, then so be it. The material I have read says what I have stated, but because they said it does not attest to any legitimacy. By all means educate me. I'd like to learn. As I understand it, the other versions you mentioned, while legitimate, were not considered authorized translations. The Vulgate, according to what I have read, was the standardized, authorized version in the Catholic Church (which was by far the most dominant in its day), and it is because of the Latin orientation of the Bible that King James commissioned the English translation to be made (in spite of the Catholic Church). Again, if the information I read is incorrect, then it is incorrect. I am, admittedly, not an expert in that particular field of study. I read enough to be educated in it so I will not be completely ignorant. On the subject of Lucifer, the lexicon I use is Strong's, derived from Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, and Girdlestone's Synonyms of the Old Testament. And the Hebrew dictionary also cross references the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. According to these, the word being used in Isaiah 14:12 is heylel (hay-lale), rooted in halal (haw-lal) in the sense of brightness. halal (haw-lal) is not the word being used according to the references I have. The literal translation proposed by this lexicon is "morning-star" from the word heylel (hay-lale). The translations of the New American Standard (star of the morning), New International Version (morning star), and the New Revised Standard Version (Day Star), all concur that this is the best translation of the Hebrew word present in the text. I do not criticize your credentials or your comments. I don't know what your credentials might be, and I certainly value your input. But these three, barring the widely popular King James Version, are the three leading translations accepted for their literal and accurate renderings. In this particular case, I am going to trust in their expertise and accept the translation as "morning star." I appreciate your input on the subject regardless, and I have given your statement fair consideration. There are other versions that translate it as you say. But as those other translations are not as commonly accepted, and are not always done by the spectrum of scholars that gave their efforts to render the type of accuracy we have in the New American Standard, I must decline the veracity of your proposed translation of "Shining One." Now, in case I am confused in your post, if it is the word "lucifer" you are saying translates as "a shining one," I find that a common dictionary addresses this issue. [Middle English Lucifer, Old English Lucifer, from Latin: Lucifer, "light-bearer" : lux (stem luc-), light and -fer.] This word was commonly used for the planet Venus, recognized by epithet as the morning star. Additionally, the Greek word used in the Septuagint is heos-foros, which also means to "bear light." This is consistent with the Latin word lucifer. And in 2nd Peter 1:19, the Greek word is foce-foros, which means virtually the same thing, "light-bearer," and which the New American Standard, New Revised Standard, and the New International Version all once again agree accordingly, that the best rendition of the word is "morning star." Lucifer is used in Isaiah 14:12 and 2nd Peter 1:19. Heos-foros and foce-foros, which are variants of each other, are also used in both places, and morning star, an accepted scholarly rendition, is used in both places. While there might have been English translations, I would have to submit that lucifer, being a Latin word, came from the Latin, not from Greek, Hebrew, or English. Now, did the King James Version come from the Latin? I'll say I honestly do not know if you have information that differs from mine. I thought I knew, but it appears there are sources to express various hypotheses. I greatly appreciate your input. If you have more to add, by all means. I'm interested in learning. Correct me if I am mistaken about something. All my love, Ancient |
||||||
22 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126902 | ||
Hey EdB. I will have to take some time to look over what you wrote. I don't like to be hasty in what I say, so I want to give your information the time it deserves. Then I can make some educated, wise decisions regarding which direction to continue in as far the information available to me. Thank you so much for the hard work you put into your post, and I want you to know that your efforts are appreciated and will not be ignored. Ancient |
||||||
23 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126998 | ||
EdB, I took time to look over your information and consider it. I also double-checked my references in case I was mistaken. You were right. The King James was written by 7(?) groups of Hebrew/Greek scholars of the time, commissioned by King James. The one I mistaken referred to was the Catholic bible translated to English only a few years earlier (1603ish) from the Latin Vulgate. Now, I was of the impression that the Strong's dictionary with the best of Vines included was a good lexicon. If you say it is not, I will take your word for it and ask if you can recommend a good Hebrew/Greek lexicon that will be both reliable and easy to use so I can do more accurate word studies? (ISBN number included in the recommendation would be a fantastic help). Now, the "shining one" versus "morning star" is a confusing issue. If it translates in its most literal sense as "shining one," why is it being rendered as "morning star" in all of the major translations? I do see what you are saying and why. This is why I am confused. Should it not be translated as "Shining One" if that is what the word truly translates to? Or is this "Shining One" a word/phrase that was used perhaps as an epithet for the planet Venus, much like lucifer is used for the planet Venus while it retains the literal definition of "Light Bearer?" Hope to hear from you soon. Ancient |
||||||
24 | Christ Sometimes Taught in Greek | Mark 12:30 | Ancient | 126840 | ||
God did promise to scatter them to the four winds and make them a byword amongst the nations. I have no ill will to anyone, Jew or otherwise, but the events of 66-70, finally concluded around 130 with the uprising of Simon Ben-Koseba, certainly seemed like a promise fulfilled. I love history. Do you do much history reading doctrinsograce? Perhaps we can discuss some interesting things. Ancient |
||||||
25 | Please stop laying blame -Marylin Manson | 1 Cor 13:1 | Ancient | 126903 | ||
Out of curiosity, am I missing something here in regard to Marylin Manson? Has he converted, but suffering rejection regardless? Or is this just a simple matter of "why are Christians persecuting a heathen?" Ancient |
||||||
26 | Please stop laying blame -Marylin Manson | 1 Cor 13:1 | Ancient | 126905 | ||
You know, after considering this, I'm wondering, should we not be loving Marylin Manson? I know we should separate ourselves from the world, but this is more a matter of association. We should love our enemies, bless those that curse us, render good for evil, etc. Should we, as the Christian community in general, not be treating such a man as described in the Sermon on the Mount, that perhaps he will hear us and find the truth? Love suffers all things, hopes all things. Love is patient, and does not act unbecomingly. Love bears all things and endures all things. Should this not be our attitude toward him? "He causes His sun to rise on the the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." [Matt 5:44-48] Ancient |
||||||
27 | Loud Mouthed Christian: Help! | 1 Cor 13:1 | Ancient | 126915 | ||
Let's not forget that while we are preserving our holy meat and holding back our pearls, we are also supposed to go into all the world and make disciples of all men. You are absolutely right in saying that we should shake the dust off our sandals if they won't hear us, but we have a duty to try. Ezekiel 3:17-19 "Son of man (by context speaking to Ezekiel here), I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me. When I say to the wicked, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself." Ancient |
||||||
28 | Loud Mouthed Christian: Help! | 1 Cor 13:1 | Ancient | 126916 | ||
Let's not forget that while we are preserving our holy meat and holding back our pearls, we are also supposed to go into all the world and make disciples of all men. You are absolutely right in saying that we should shake the dust off our sandals if they won't hear us, but we have a duty to try. Ezekiel 3:17-19 "Son of man (by context speaking to Ezekiel here), I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me. When I say to the wicked, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself." Ancient |
||||||
29 | Why do we not keep the 7th day Sabbath | Col 2:16 | Ancient | 126892 | ||
You're right, brother. It is by grace through faith, and no other way. If I might point out something, though, not to contradict, but in order to fill out your explanation a bit, we must still keep the intent of the law. While we are in no wise under the law, the intent of the law, as Jesus explains in Matthew 7:12, is to do to others as we would have them do to us (i.e. love your neighbor as yourself). This intent we must keep, for we know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. [1st John 3:14] To love your neighbor as yourself fulfills the law (i.e. keeps it to the fullest extent by default in that all the laws are derived from it. See Romans 13:8-10), but failing to love is akin to murder: Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. [1st John 3:15] Always remember that Jesus commanded the adulterous woman to "go and sin no more." [John 8:11] This applies to us as well. If we love him, we will keep his commandments. [John 14:15] I am not contradicting you. Again, I'm expanding on what you said. You have to be careful when you make statements about "not being required to maintain all of the old laws." It is written that until heaven and earth pass, not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until all be fulfilled. Things have passed from the law, like sacrifices, cleanliness ceremonies, traditions, selection of the High Priest, etc. So we can assume that all has been fulfilled. But in the fulfillment, the law was moved from paper to the heart, and we are still subject insomuch that, as I stated before, we must keep the intent, which is to love one another as Jesus loved us. By this will all men know that we are his disciples. Just be careful to be clear when you make statements like that. I understand it, but some won't, and others will plainly defy you and think you are trying to say that because we aren't under the law we have a license to sin, which thing is still identified by the heart and conscience. Ancient |
||||||
30 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 126992 | ||
Country Girl, I am in agreement with you. As opposed to the Old Testament being a valid covenant, the New Testament scripture clearly states time and again that we are not under the Law (Law of Moses/Old Covenant). Do we all continue to go to school once we've received the sought after degree? The Law, by comparison, was the professor of Righteousness and Redeption 101. Christ came and gave us our degree. [Galatians 3:24-25] Now we are professors of Perfection and Purity 201. Use math as an example of how the law works and where it falls into our current usage. In practical life, we take basic math, moved up to advanced math, and eventually undertake the difficult tasks of geometry, trigonometry, and calculus. While learning basic math, we struggle to grasp the concepts. We are young, and our minds have trouble wrapping around the idea. In time, though, we learn what our teachers were trying to impart. When our studies lead us as far as trigonometry and calculus, we still use basic math! But basic math is not a thing we think about. It is something that is deeply ingrained, and something we just understand. Half the time I don't even think about why 12 plus 12 is 24 anymore. It just is. I understand why it is, but could no more explain it to a child than I could explain the complexities of why the sky is blue. I just understand it and apply it to the practical application of calculus. It is the calculus I am trying to understand instead of the basic math, in other words. Basic math still has its place, but it is not something I need to focus on in light of the far superior methods of higher calculation. The irony of the Law and the New Covenant of Jesus Christ is that it all worked in the reverse order of my above example. It started with calculus and ended with basic math. We had laws for everything under the sun, including not muzzling the ox, not tripping the blind, not going back for every grape, etc. There were also variables, like "just in case" sacrifices for those that think they "might" have sinned. Defining the full extent of the law was in all ways an impossible task. This is the reason we all failed, just as a first grader would have failed at calculus. Then came Jesus, the amazing mathematician, who looked at the whole thing, knew the pattern inherently, and said, "you know what people, this calculation, when fully solved, equates to 1 plus 1 equals 2." The equation of the Law, represented by the Old Covenant, is equivelent to 1 plus 1 equals 2. Love God with all your mind, heart, soul, and strength plus Love your neighbor as yourself equals the fulfillment of the Law which is the solution to the equation. Now that we have been reduced to basic math, we no longer need to fear error. In all the equations of life, 1 plus 1 is going to equal 2. "This person is doing this to me. What is the solution? I will look to God and love this person as myself, and this is the correct solution to my problem." "Is this thing I am inclined to do a sin? Since I don't know, let me break out my equation breaker. Does this thing go against loving God? Does this thing go against loving my neighbor? Okay then ... Love plus Love equals fulfilled. Problem solved." The Old Testament, in short, has not really gone away, but it is no longer relevent. We couldn't grasp the lessons of the complicated math, so we were given the simple solution to summarize it. Now that we have the answer, this solution is all encompassing, and we have no real need to go back to complicated math, except as a matter of higher learning to better understand the simple but absolute solution to the complicated equation. All scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. [2 Tim 3:16-17] If you put yourself back under the law (i.e. try to solve the equation yourself instead of accepting the simple solution given), you are doomed to failure. They couldn't figure out the solution, and neither can we. Jesus gave us the solution, so let us trust in his math skills. These are my casual thoughts on the subject. If you wish deeper discussion, I'll gladly oblige. There is a great deal more I can say to further support this scriptural truth. Love to you sister, Ancient |
||||||
31 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127093 | ||
Country Girl wrote: "The true authority in this dispensation as blessed by God Himself was given to His Son as stated in Matt 28:18. Thus, the whole NT is epitimized with the Supreme Perfect Example and High Priest of our Lord. Only His Words and those of His appointed representatives should be heeded, and NOT those of the OT prophets including Moses himself. Don't get me wrong, those men in the OT were good men. They tried their best but they didn't have 3 and half years of living and being with the Savior like the Apostles did. Those OT prophets didn't have the benefit and full empowerment of the Holy Spirit with Its Gift of Salvation in Its Full and Powerful measure." Fantastic Country Girl. That was an impressive and powerful statement. I am blessed to have read it. Ancient |
||||||
32 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127098 | ||
In relation to Sunday worship, I would like to add my two cents as well, Lord willing that I should be of profit to someone else. The scriptures tell us in Romans, "Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind." It is also written in Colossians, "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a holy day or a new moon or a Sabbath day--things which are a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." Paul tells us in Romans that there is no command we have that is not summed up by the statement, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Going to church, while certainly a fine thing, is not a commandment. Hebrews 10:25 is often considered a commandment: "not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some ..." I find, however, that the preceeding verse adheres to Paul's teaching, and puts the statement into perspective: "and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near." The early church, as recorded in the writings of Pliny the Younger, met on the first day of the week before dawn. The earliest church, according to Acts 2:46, met every day in the temple, not just on Sunday. When all is said and done, going to church is little more than a "work of the flesh" and is of no profit for righteousness. As it is written in Galatians, "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." To summarize what I am saying: We are not commanded to go to church. Let every man be fully pursuaded in his own mind. The one that does not esteem one day above another, God will make him stand, and we should not judge another's servant, for no man should be your judged regarding Sabbaths, or other related holy days. Those that choose to go to church, you do a fine thing. Those that choose not to go to church, it would be better if you did, but it is not required. If you are weak, you could use the instruction. If you are strong, you could instruct others. So either way it is a good thing, and we don't want to forsake the assembling of ourselves because it is our opportunity to provoke one another to love. What day you go is not relevent. It's the spirit behind it; that you are going because you want to, wish to help others, wish to be an active member of a congregation, etc. Love and blessings, Ancient |
||||||
33 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127119 | ||
Country Girl, Remember sister, I'm not contradicting you. I think going to church is a good thing. I'm just cognizant of the fact that making it a commandment when it isn't a commandment creates an occasion of sin and stumbling for those that believe it to be a commandment and for one reason or another are unable to keep it. [Romans 7:9-11 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the law; for I would not have known about coveting if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the law sin was dead. I was once alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me."] By all means ... let us go to church. But let us always remember WHY we go to church. It is not because we are commanded to, as you pointed out that no such passage exists, but because we want to. Those that don't want to go ... they don't have their heart in it anyway. So their worship would be false. Always remember that the commandment of the New Testament is to Love one another as he loved us. All others amount to this, are derived from this, and cannot exist or function without this. Blessing to you sister, Ancient |
||||||
34 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127138 | ||
EdB, I disagree with your interpretation of this passage, but thank you for responding with your input. I gave it fair consideration, but do not see a commandment there so much as I see advice. We'll have to agree to disagree. With love, Ancient |
||||||
35 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127141 | ||
Steve, Thank you so much for responding. I considered your statement, and I think that this passage you are citing, while you are likely correct in your estimation, is not conclusive. I can punch holes in the credibility of it being an absolute statement good for doctrine. For example: Does Acts 20:7 say that they did not meet on the second day of the week? Or the third? Or the fourth? Does Acts 20:7 say that they only met on that day of the week? Is it possible they met on the other days as well, but we are not informed here because it is not immediately relevent to the story being told? Is it also possible they met the other days, since we are lacking an address of the issue in this passage, and especially in comparison with Acts 2:46? Is it possible that they were at the tail end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, seeing that Paul and some of the others had gone ahead of the rest of the group, and the group that stayed behind didn't leave Phillipi until after said holiday? Could it be that the first day of the week was the last convocation of the holiday? The holiday lasts from the 14th through the 21st [Exodus 12:18]. It starts at evening on the 14th, and it ends at evening on the 21st. If the holiday started on a Sunday at evening, that would have it ending on a Sunday at evening. Could this be why they were gathered? We know from 2 Corinthians 2:12-13 that a door was opened up for Paul to preach the Gospel in Troas. But we know also from 2 Timothy 4:13-17 that in Troas, Alexander the coppersmith vigorously opposed his teaching, and everyone deserted Paul. So what kind of disciples were these men in Acts 20:7? We're talking about the same place. Are we talking about the same time? Is this the same occurrence? Did these "disiciples" we're wont to take example from the same "disciples" that abandoned Paul? It is my opinion that Acts 20:7 is a weak example, and I find it by no means a conclusive example as to the regular habits of the disciples. Acts 2:46 is a better and far more defined example of the habits of the disciples in my opinion. Now, I do agree that they met on Sundays, but as you will note in my previous posts, the veracity behind this is stated by Pliny the Younger, who said that the Christians met on the first day of the week before sunrise. These are the words of a historian that plainly recorded the event and was specific about it. In short, I don't disagree that Sunday was the day they met, only that Acts 20:7 is a weak example that can be argued. I would also point out from my previous posts, that I am of the opinion that when or where we meet is not relevent. They did what they did for whatever reason they did it. I find that "They did this, so we must do this," is an inferior teaching to, "They did this, and this is why, so let's apply the "why" to our lives." Thanks for your response. I wasn't hasty in responding. I've had this debate with someone before over Acts 20:7. I don't think it's a discussion worth having. And to those that are misunderstanding my posts, let me say one more time that I am an advocate of going to church. While I don't believe it is commanded, only advised for the sake of upholding one another, I still think it is a good thing, and I definitely would recommend anyone not currently attending to attend. Thank you again, Ancient |
||||||
36 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127142 | ||
Steve, I believe she is trying to say that those who [were] worshipping according to the law, worshipped according to the law, and in full form. Those who [were] worshipping without the law, worshipped according to the method and manner prior to the existence of the written law. Ancient |
||||||
37 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127171 | ||
EdB, I wanted to be nice about this subject, but I feel that you are insulting me now. The answer to your question is yes. I would gladly stand before God and tell him that the commandment of Jesus Christ was to love one another, so that all men will know that we are his disciples. Going to church, while a good and worthwhile thing, is not a commandment. You say that it is. I disagree with you. I do not disagree in order to suit a lifestyle. I disagree because it is not a commandment. Further, you are putting words in my mouth. I have stated clearly in all of my posts on this subject that I am an advocate for going to church. I think a person should. I think, however, that they should go because they want to, not because they have to. And as far as these commandments go, let us look at what the commandments are: A lawful person keeps the law. A lawless person does not keep the law. The law is comprised of 700-some-odd commandments according to a preacher I once spoke to. I really believe this is where it gets complicated for most people. With that many commandments, and each equating to murder if you violate it, how can we ever live up to it? We can't. That is why we had to die to the law [Romans 7:4-6 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were by the law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.], under the law, that we might be freed from the law and the sin that it occasions [Romans 7:7-11 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.]. That's why we are not under the law anymore in the sense of 700-some-odd commandments. Because none of us were able to live up to it in our former lives without Christ, we had to die to be free. In baptism, we go down in imitation of the death of Christ, and come up in the newness of life. When we accept Christ, we die, but because he died to be the propitiation for our sins, we don't pay the ultimate penalty of spiritual death. Instead, we are resurrected with him to live a new life, and this new life is not subject to the laws of the flesh. It is subject to the law of the Spirit, which is the intent that drives the law. [Romans 6:4-7 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in the newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.] So what then? If we are dead to the law, and no longer subject to it, how then can we keep what is not there? Shall we kill since we are not subject to the commandments of the law? Certainly not. We are slaves to do righteousness (slaves to do the right thing). Shall we steal because we are not subject to the commandments of the law? Certainly not. Again, we are slaves to do the right thing. While some maintain the idea that there is no law at all, I would point out that we are to keep the "law of Christ." [Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.] There is still a law that must be kept. Again, [Galatians 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.] (Emphasis at this point on the existence of the "Law of Christ"). Continued ... |
||||||
38 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127173 | ||
EdB, (Continued from previous post. Please read everything in context ...) To understand what the law is, how to live up to it, what the laws are, how to remember them, and how to keep the law in general, let us look at Christ's definitions of the law. [Matthew 7:12 In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.] In this passage, he is saying plainly that the Golden Rule is the point of the Law and the Prophets. Love your neighbor as yourself is what it means. [Matthew 22:36-40 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law? And He said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.] In this passage, Jesus states clearly and indisputably that the Law and the Prophets are all derived from, have their roots in, or are directly related to: Love God, and Love your neighbor. A thing that is dependent upon something else is [contingent upon that thing, subordinate to that thing, and unable to exist or function satisfactorily without the aid or use of that thing. 'The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language'] Based upon these two definitions given by Jesus himself, the Law and the Prophets cannot exist or function without love. They have no application in the absense of love (contingent). They are subordinate to love (Belong to an inferior class, subject to the authority or control of the greater). And do to others as you would have them do to you summarizes them. Jesus then states later [John 13:34-35 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.] Then again [John 15:12 This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.] and yet again [John 15:17 This I command you, that you love one another.]. Jesus is trying to make a point here. There are no riddles or parables, no hidden meanings ... He is giving them a command, and as though they might forget it, he says it two more times to drive the point home. So in other words, Jesus is saying that if you do to others as you would have them do to you, you are keeping the law, because this is what the law was designed to accomplish. Now, what about the teachings of the Apostles? Did they adhere to the same principle Jesus taught? Again, he taught that love is where the law comes from, love is the master the law serves, love is the contingency upon which it has its existence, and love is the summarization of the law, then gave them the new commandment to love one another. Is love really enough to keep the law? Let's look at some of the epistles. [Romans 13:8-10 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.] Let us see also [James 2:8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighor as yourself," you are doing well.] [1st John 2:10 The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him.] [Galatians 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."] Fulfill: 1. To bring into actuality; to effect. 2. To carry out. 3. To measure up to; satisfy. 4. To go to the end of; finish or complete. Continued ... |
||||||
39 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127174 | ||
EdB, (Continued from previous post. Please read both of the previous posts to get full context of this one ...) According to even these few pieces of scripture, it is clearly evident that loving your neighbor as yourself does the following: It completes, measures up to, carries out, and satisfies the Law, causes you to walk in the light, takes away any cause for stumbling, and you do well by keeping the law in this way. Additionally, it should be noted [1 Tim 1:5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.] To summarize: Love is where the law comes from. Love is the master the law serves. Love is the contingency upon which it has its existence. Love summarizes the law. Love is the commandment given to the Apostles. Love completes the law, measures up to the law, carries out the law, and satisfies the law. Love causes you to walk in the light. Love takes away any cause for stumbling in you. You do well by keeping the law by means of love. The goal of their instruction was love. Some people gloss over the word love. For whatever reason, they see it and miss it at the same time. Love is not a byproduct of being righteous and keeping the law. The law is a byproduct of man's inherent desire to hate. Love is primary, not secondary. So keeping the law is done by loving your neighbor as yourself. If you do this thing, you will not stumble. Transgressing the law, by contextual definition, would be to fail to love your neighbor as yourself. Going to church, except it be for the purpose of brotherly love, which it sometimes can in fact be, is not a commandment by the standard of the New Testament. If my absence causes someone to be hurt, then I am wrong and should be attending, but I am hurting no one, I can worship God right here in the comfort of my home. Now, back to my original post ... I disagree with you. I don't want to discuss this. Thank you. Ancient |
||||||
40 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127197 | ||
Steve, If those without the Law of Moses could not have been worshipping the One True God, then please explain the king of Salem: [Genesis 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the prist of the most high God.] Such a person, after whose order Christ would be: [Psalm 110:4 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.] Ancient |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |