Results 21 - 40 of 89
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Ancient Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127314 | ||
Emmaus, Jesus is the one that said "two or three gathered," and that "He would be in their midst." The Jewish congregation, is the Jewish congregation, not the Christian congregation. The 12 people called, is recognized by many as pertaining to one "disicple" for each of the tribes of Israel. As for heirarchy and authority, Jesus said to call no man "Master," for one is our master, even God our Father. I think you are splitting hairs with me at this point. Ancient |
||||||
22 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127303 | ||
So what you're saying, Ed, is that you cannot answer my questions because you are well aware of what the correct answers conclude. You THINK I'm trying to make a buffoon of you, but I'm asking reasonable questions that have answers you are plainly aware of, else you would not be wary of answering. Do YOU think that this is not showing a blatant unwillingness to be wrong and concede? Do you want to teach me or not? You are being given the opportunity. Are you going to take it, or are you going to continue to play this game of pointing fingers at me and avoiding the questions? As for my statement, I think the statement is pretty self explanatory. Just because something has "always been that way" does mean it's right. People used to think the world was flat, and the "orthodox" "Christians" tortured, maimed, and murdered those that refused to adhere to the "orthodox" teaching of the church. Long standing tradition doesn't make it correct. People have and do make mistakes, as they eventually discovered when Columbus discovered the New World. I have seen (though not by me personally) a number of orthodox views argued on this forum, and torn to pieces by people with sound scripture that made the doctrine so full of holes, it looked like a wheel of swiss by the time it was over. And with their wonderful pride, they shut up and don't respond to the final questions that drive home the final nail. I think my statement is appropriate. If you want to be a robot, have at it. The Lord is my teacher, not man, and the scriptures say what they say. Half of what I came up with was arrived at before learning orthodox doctrines. Upon hearing those orthodox doctrines and seeing what they were made of, I knew the holes immediately. Now, you're right about requiring you to play on my terms. This is not about your opinion, and brow beating me into compliance. We will discuss this topic according to all available evidence, and explore it objectively, or we are doing nothing more than discussing your opinion. So answer the questions, drop the subject, or concede. Now, your comments about the "rape, murder, and mayhem" is not laid on the "church" as in the "living body of Christ," but is laid at the feet of orthodox doctrines of the various centuries. Reread my posts if you didn't understand this to be my statement. Ancient |
||||||
23 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127300 | ||
Ed, you are underestimating how powerful love is. It is the primary thing, and it accomplishes the fullest extent of the law. I don't think you are understanding this thing. Think on it for a while. Now, this 1-10 list is not a list of excuses. They are valid questions. I have every right to ask them if you are going to lay a commandment in my lap that is not clearly stated as a commandment, but instead given as an exhortation. If you REALLY want to teach me something, as I am giving you a sincere and genuine opportunity to do; I am open-minded to hear what you have to say, and to weigh it, and I am prepared to change my views if your arguement proves true. But I insist that you answer my questions and stop avoiding them. If you can't answer them, I will be forced to assume that you cannot, and under such circumstances, I will have no choice but to remain unconvinced of your arguements. Now, do you want to convince me or not? I'm ready to listen, but you must provide some answers to the very reasonable questions I have asked you before we can properly continue. Otherwise we are arguing over nothing more than opinion, conjecture, and the interpretation of a passage that we already disagree on. I did hear what you said in this last post, as you are tempering it down a bit, but I once again insist that you answer, else this conversation cannot be properly discussed. Ancient |
||||||
24 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127298 | ||
Hey Emmaus, You always post good things, with good sound judgment. I don't disagree with what you're saying. I never did. I think it is a good idea to go to church. My argument has never been that you should not go, but that it is not a commandment. If you make it a law, you put yourself under the law, sin is identified, it revives, and you die. Also, as you say, the Body of Christ is the Church. We, the living members, are all the building stones of the house of God, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. Jesus said that where two or three are gathered, there he is in their midst. My real question concerning church and commandment is, when did the fellowship of two or three become inadequate? Why does someone now need a preacher and a full congregation of worshippers instead of just two or three together? Aside from the statement of Jesus, we do not otherwise have any parameters to this "command" to go to church. An assembling, in my estimation by scripture, need not consist of any more than two. Again, going to church is good, but I see no reason to make it a command until your lack of attendance starts to bring harm to others. Ancient |
||||||
25 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127287 | ||
EdB, This discussion must begin with you properly addressing my questions. If you can't do that adequately, then there is no need to continue. Please address them in a competent fashion. You are correct in saying that I don't really care about orthodox Christianity. Being age old tradition doesn't make it right. The scriptures say what they say, and tradition is wrong on many points. I see something many don't see. Maybe that makes me wrong. Maybe that makes me special. Who knows which. Answer my questions properly, credibly, competently, and objectively, and we will continue from there. I'm not otherwise going to address anything else regarding this topic. Ancient |
||||||
26 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127278 | ||
Okay Ed, I'm going to be open minded and give you the opportunity to instruct me. This is a genuine offer of meekness. Please answer or expound on the following: 1) As God is the same yesterday today and forever, and God's methodology in instituting commandments is always quite detailed, should this not be the case in the New Testament as well? 2) If the Hebrews passage is a commandment, what are the specific parameters of this commandment? How often? Where? How many people should be attending? What day does this passage prescribe? 3) If Hebrews does not have parameters to follow, then is it really a commandment, according to the examples given in the past of God's lawmaking? How are we supposed to follow when we aren't told how? Or shall we just decide on our own what the parameters should be? 4) In what way do you consider love, being all encompassing, to have potential for failure when Corinthians says that love never fails? 5) What thing that I have said has given you the impression that we should love only in word, doing anything else however we please, as opposed to loving in deed and truth, as described in Corinthians? 6) If all commandments we have are summed up by love, are derived from love, and are fulfilled by love, then what commandments do you suggest do not fall within these parameters without contradicting scripture? 7) If love is once again the fulfillment of the law and from where the law is derived, then in what way does attendance at a church building adhere to this commandment or exhortation in Hebrews that cannot also be adhered to through a Bible study of five or six people? 8) Jesus said that where two or three are gathered in his name, he is there in their midst. At what point did two or three gathered become inadequate in favor of a church congregation? 9) With our present availability to as many as twenty bible translations, interlinear bibles, concordances, online websites, history books, a voice of our own to raise in song, radios to sing along to, homes to gather together, and dozens of commentaries and other books on various topics ... what thing can we not accomplish at our home that can only be accomplished at church? 10) What thing makes you believe that going to church is a commandment when loving your neighbor, in truth not word, fulfills the law regardless of going to church? Let us start here. If you respond with a bit of humility instead of insults, I will continue to discuss this. If you respond with more name calling or "you don't know what you're talking about" comments, then I will put this topic to rest unresolved. Whether or not I receive the instruction you wish to give will be entirely dependent upon your ability to behave like a Christian. Fair enough? Ancient |
||||||
27 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127275 | ||
Steve, you didn't actually specify. If this is what you think, then so be it. I really have no desire to discuss this anymore. I feel like I'm talking to myself. Ancient |
||||||
28 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127274 | ||
Ed, you are assuming that you are correct, and I am incorrect. I see what you say, and why you say it. I am absolutely certain that you have not considered my words above a casual thought. In my three long posts, I said something very important that you cannot disagree with, and yet you try to disagree with it without addressing it. You are not, and have not, given my words fair consideration. As far as I'm concerned, when I told you I disagreed with you, demonstrated why, and asked not to discuss this, you chased after me. This is harrassment, not instruction. Are you so full of yourself as to believe that you are the only one in this discussion that might have a valid point? If you think going to church is a command, then go to church, don't ever miss it, else you make yourself a murderer, and otherwise leave me be. My conscience is not judged by you or anyone else. If you want to hear what I have said and weigh it properly for application, attempt to see what I have said and why, perhaps we can discuss this topic. But so long as you are calling me heretical, atheistic, humanistic, and all the other name-calling insults, I see no reason to discuss either this topic or any other. Ancient |
||||||
29 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127265 | ||
Hey doctrinsograce, You are applying the principles the way they are often taught, so no, you do not err in the application of the principles we are discussing. The problem I find with these three principles, is that we only need one principle, not three. All the law in fulfilled in one statement: Love your neighbor as yourself. This is how you generate commands. This is why the Apostles did the things they did from which we derive example. This is the only implication that should be derived from any reasonable statement that is not clear. We don't imply command, but love, and try to understand it as such. Please take the time to read the three posts I mentioned in my last post to Country Girl. I spent a good deal of time on them in order to present it soundly for edification. Thanks for responding doctrinsograce. Ancient |
||||||
30 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127258 | ||
Go away EdB. You are harrassing me. Ancient |
||||||
31 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127255 | ||
EdB, You asked: "Was the church responsible for Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, The Papacy, Confessionals, Indulgences, and many other horrible thing as you put it or was it corrupt men that acted in the name of the church?" The answer is yes, the church was responsible. The orthodox views of the time declared Jews heretics and no longer worthy of human rights or life. The orthodox views of the time declared the Muslims heathens and no longer worthy of human rights or life. Christian orthodox views of the time declared people with moles, strange or reclusive behavior, or of a different point of view to be no longer worthy of human rights or life. The orthodox Christian views of the time determined a heirarchy in the church that created a situation conducive to being a respector of persons. The orthodox Christian views of the time declared that the Pope had to forgive sins, and that dirty rotten sinners ought to pay indulgences in order to get that forgiveness. The orthodox Christian views of the time declared that people needed to confess sins to a man, because they did not have access to God directly. Whether or not man's corruption did it, it all came from a poor interpretation of scripture, and the orthodox views of the time were responsible for justifying the actions. If those in control had followed the true doctrine of brotherly love, the witch trials wouldn't have happened, the Crusades wouldn't have happened, indulgences wouldn't have happened, the Inquisition wouldn't have happened. Cortez slaughtered the Aztecs because they didn't convert to Chritianity. And this, of course, because they didn't speak his language and had no idea what he was saying. Now this: "Love without restraint quickly runs amuck." Perhaps the kind of love you know runs amuck. The love of Christ is described in 1 Corinthians 13, and such does not run amuck. Love never fails according to what the Bible says. You wrote: "You talk about my pride my arrogance. It is not me standing outside of orthodoxy saying your all wrong! I know the correct answer! And if you follow me I will lead you to the truth!" Ed, if you don't recognize your arrogant attitude by this, your very own statement, then I don't know what else to say. If you don't recognize your pride in not considering anything I've said, disregarding the absolute values of scripture as I have presented to you, then I don' tknow what else to say. Call me names if you please. I'm pretty much done talking to you. This is a one-sided debate. I didn't come to you, you came to me. What this all boils down to is this: I think that it is not a commandment to go to church. You think it is. You have been attacking me. I have been defending against you. You want me to bend to your opinion, and because I do not, based upon a sound arguement and established precedent that you choose to ignore, you choose to insult me and call me names. So I'll tell you what. I'll give you what your pride demands: Ohhh, EdB, you're so absolutely right. How could I have ever been so misled as to believe that Christ set us free from law and tradition to establish love as the new doctrine. I am so terribly grateful that you have shown me the truth by giving me the commandment contrary to the precedent of Christ. Now that I have the commandment, the sin, taking occasion by the commandment, can work in me all manner of transgression. Again, I am thankful, for I was alive without the law, but now that you gave me the commandment, sin has revived and killed me. I was sooooo wrong to believe in righteousness by Christ and to let no man be my judge in regard to holy days or sabbaths. Truly, I thought righteousness was by faith, but now you've shown me better, that I can have all the benefits of being fallen from grace by standing on my own righteousness through works. This was sarcastic, but quite how I see it. You want to be right and to have me admit you are right. This thing is not going to happen if I disagree with you, and for good reasons at that. So, let me ask you one more time ... please stop insulting me and trying to force your opinion on me. I didn't want to talk about this with you because we are not going to agree. And it all comes down to the passage in Hebrews, of which we have differed interpretations based on one understanding or another. I'm sorry, but you will not convince me that such a passage that is clearly an exhortation to me is the commandment that it clearly is to you. Understand? Ancient |
||||||
32 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127250 | ||
EdB ... You see this: "I know it is Old Testament and you have that ripped out of your Bible since we are free of it." Because of this sort of nonsense, I will not address one letter of your response, nor read the rest of what you wrote, nor look up anything you quoted. I have asked you repeatedly to stop being rude and insulting. Since you can't respect that and show a hint of meekness, your efforts are wasted. Try me again without the insults, mockery, and condescending remarks. You might get somewhere. Good day. Ancient |
||||||
33 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127248 | ||
Country Girl, Thank you for replying. I always appreciate your input, as it is ever mild and spoken with a certain humility. I recognize the three principles you are speaking of. The terms, as I was taught them, are Direct Command, Apostolic Example, and Necessary Inferrence. Personally, I don't know of any precedent for establishing commands after these three principles. The commandments of Christ were to believe in him and love one another. Direct command is going to fall within the bounds of brotherly love. Apostolic example is going to be understood by brothery love, and emulated in the specific example as well as other aspects of life if you understand the underlying motive of the example. Necessary inference, or implied command, is a matter of personal interpretation. Someone thinks they see an implied command, and suddenly it is one. I find that this particular method of determining the things we need to do is dangerous, and has the inherent capacity to put us back under the law. I find that the precedent is quite soundly established through scripture that commandments are both made and comprehended by brotherly love, and no other way. If a commandment recognized by a person falls outside the bounds of this parameter, it is a commandment of men, and not a commandment of Christ. If you have not already done so, please read posts: 127171, 127173, 127174. These explain my position on this matter in much greater detail. I do not believe church is a necessary thing for worshipping God, however much I advocate going to church. I do not see it as a commandment. If it is not commanded, then it is not a commandment, and though it may sound like a stubborn point of view, so long as it is not stated to be a commandment, I will not treat it as a commandment. It is a matter of liberty that we can choose to go or not. I have personally made the choice to go, but I recognize also that I am not to judge someone else regarding holy days or sabbaths. [Col 2:16] Until someone can produce a direct and absolute commandment that says we "must" go to church, I will hold to the position that it is not required. I'm sorry that we do not agree on this. I truly wish for the sake of harmony that I could agree with you, but I cannot wrap my mind or heart around the idea of a commandment that is not a commandment being taught as a commandment in order to be a potential stumbling block to another by being a commandment that will someday occasion and revive sin by means of the commandment and kill a person spiritually. This is how I feel about it, and it is not likely to change. Not because I'm stubborn or unreachable, but because I see this circumstance in a different way. Thanks again for your input Country Girl. It is always appreciated, though I do not agree with you on this particular topic. Ancient |
||||||
34 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127212 | ||
EdB, You wrote: "Sir that is not my interpretation but rather the interpretation of the church for nearly 2000 years. It is called orthodox Christianity." Let me remind you, in case you have forgotten, that "orthodox" Christianity over the course of the last 2000 years is also responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, The Papacy, Confessionals, Indulgences, and many other horrible things. Just because they taught it doesn't mean they taught the right thing. Orthodox Christianity has murdered, stolen, molested, raped, falsely accused, tortured, and enslaved. If not for Martin Luther standing in defiance to the Roman Catholic Church, you wouldn't have the spiritual opportunities you have today. Sometimes you have to question what has been taught. The Spirit is our guide, not orthodoxy. For all of orthodox Christiany in our modern day, I can tell you that in 100 sermons, if love is taught twice it is a lot. Why is that, do you suppose, if orthodox Christianity has it right in all respects? God is Love. God is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and end. By this standard, Love is the beginning and ending of all things. Why is it so absent in so many churches? Why, when it is not only the commandment of Christ, but the greatest commandment period, is it taught so infrequently? Now Ed, you have written to me four times, and you have directly and deliberately insulted me four times. This statement: "All I can say is thanks after I ripped that page out of my Bible as mere advice it is getting lighter." just was not necessary. Is this what YOU learn when you go to church? Do you learn to insult your brothers in Christ? The Bible teaches us to be meek, and to esteem everyone as greater than ourselves. I will be honest, you are making it difficult for me to be nice. It's all I can do not to lose my temper. Your pride and arrogance is quickly becoming a stumbling block to me. Stop. Ancient |
||||||
35 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127211 | ||
You know EdB, you are trying my patience. I did not say, "Just do anything we want, live any way we want, and say anything we want." Did you even read my posts? You are putting words in my mouth, and nothing I posted even remotely suggested such a thing. I insist that you reread them and take time to carefully and fairly evaluate the information. As far as "All you need is love," this is absolutely correct. I substantiated this fact with three pages of post, carefully thought out, and backed up with plain scripture that requires no interpretation. What you are mistaking me for saying is that we should just say we are loving each other, and otherwise do what we want. This is not what I said. I said that we should love in deed and in truth. Romans 12:1 does not defy what I said. If you read verses 2-21, which defines "presenting our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God," it conforms completely to the practice of brotherly love. Neither does 1 Peter 1:15-16 defy what I have said. Being "holy" in your conduct is to keep the commandment of Christ (i.e. Love each other as I have loved you). Such a person will not steal, murder, adulterate, bear false witness, or violate any other commandment. Now let me address this other statement: "No I think we are called to follow more than just love although everything is encompassed in love." This is absolutely ambiguous. "We have to follow more than love, but everything is encompassed in love." If everything is encompassed in love, then what, pray tell, do we need to follow that is more than love? In your hasty attempt to refute me, you are contradicting yourself. Now, this statement: "Oh yes I know that is just advice not an admonishment of the truth. I can see why you don’t want to discuss this. It exposes the roots of your theology." You are just being rude. THIS is why I didn't want to discuss this with you. I prefer to plant seed in fertile ground, not dash it against a wall. I want you to know that I spent hours trying to give you a sound response, scripturally sound, and complete in explanation. As far as I can tell, you read it, got the point (as you have demonstrated with your condescending John Lennon example), verified the truth of it (although everything is encompassed in love) because you would have to defy plain scripture to deny it. Then you dismissed it all with a wave of the hand because I can't possibly be right, even though you can't refute what I said without contradicting plain scripture, which is evident, else you wouldn't have contradicted yourself. Now, as a matter of scriptural truth, I challenge you to provide at least one other clear scriptural statement regarding going to church. You and I are in disagreement about the interpretation of Hebrews 10:25. I say it is an exhortation to do this thing that we may provoke one another to love and good works. You say it is a commandment to go to church. My interpretation adheres to the doctrine of Christ, and that being love one another as he loved us. Your interpretation puts us under the law and revives sin. We will not agree on this passage. Since a matter is established by two or three witnesses (for the sake of space, I'll leave out the quotes, but will happily provide them if you require), I ask that you provide another witness to this command. I can provide as many as twenty witnesses to verify that love is all that is required. If your "command" is credible, show me. Show me, and I will listen, acknowledge, adhere, and admit you are right. Ancient |
||||||
36 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127207 | ||
Hank, you have been good to me, so don't take anything personal that I might say. I've answered a number of posts today, and most recently got insulted by two different people over trivial matters. I'm in a temper, but know that it is not directed at you. I am going to reiterate for what seems like the hundredth time: "I am an advocate for going to church. I think it is a good thing. I think that the weak can be strengthened, exhorted, upheld, educated, and find comfort and fellowship. I think that the strong can be the ones to strengthen, exhort, uphold, educate, and give the comfort and fellowship." Did everyone hear me this time? I've posted this statement in every post related to this topic, starting with the first one. My issue is in calling it a command. Righteousness is to do the right thing. The right thing to me may not be the right thing to do for you. If you need church, and I don't, then so be it. (Please refer back to my statement). The doctrine of Christ is: Believe in Jesus Christ, whom God raised from the dead, and love one another as He gave us commandment. The law of Christ is: Love one another, and believe in me. Failing to love is true transgression of the Law of Christ. If I choose not to go to church, I am not hurting anyone. I find no reason to conclude that "go to church" is a commandment. Are we not the church? Are we not the building itself, we the members of the body of Christ? [Ephesians 2:19-22 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.] Further, what is an assembling? Did Jesus not say that where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them? [Matthew 18:20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.] At what point does a coming together of two or three suddenly become inadequate? I have a Bible study at my house on Thursday nights. There are some young Christians that come. I am quite delighted in their progress. They have not yet found a church they feel comfortable in (and many, I'm certain, have encountered this as well), but in our gathering of five or six, they are more provoked to love and good deeds than I've seen out of most Christians coming straight out of church. When I go to church, it's because I want to, but I find the place of meeting and the size of the congregation completely irrelevant. The idea is, don't go it alone. If you come together, whether by two or by two hundred, you can provoke one another. This is a fact. I have seen it with my own eyes in practical application. As for it being a work of the flesh, let me ask you: Who has done right? The man that goes to church every week, appears righteous to all those around him, then goes to work on Monday and cheats his customers? Or the man that misses church, thinks on God all day every day, loves his neighbor as himself, and in all ways actively practices righteousness? I can tell you plainly that these two people are real people, and this is the way they behave. Who has done right in the eyes of God? Going to church, for some people, is a crutch. They think going to church makes them righteous, but in all other ways outside those walls, they act like Godless, loveless heathens. Christ is our righteousness, not going to church. You either practice the doctrine of Christ, or you do not practice the doctrine of Christ. Going to church has nothing to do with that. The worst Christians I've ever met are the ones that attend weekly. The most sincere Christians I've ever met are the ones that never go at all. To close, I'll say one more time: I am an advocate of going to church. It is a good thing, and all should take advantage of the fellowship, instruction, and exhortation. Ancient |
||||||
37 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127206 | ||
Dear Steve, Let me open by saying that you are being insulting, condescending, accusatory, opinionated, and otherwise rude. Based on your response and the lack of reasonable answers, it is apparent to me that you did not take any time to consider what I said or why. I disagreed with your comment about Acts 20:7, demonstrated why I disagreed with it, and otherwise agreed with you that Sunday was the day of worship according to historical evidence. Taking my statements, putting words in my mouth through your lack of consideration, and demeaning me, is not the way you are going to pursuade me. You stated: "Based on your post, you are simply unteachable." I am unteachable because I refuted what you said, used scripture to substantiate it, and offered an alternative while agreeing with you? It seems to me that I am not the one unteachable here. Your one-liner statement, followed by a rash rebuke to credible statements, has all the stink of pride. You criticized me for saying: "I can punch holes in the credibility of it being an absolute statement good for doctrine," and turned right around and said, "So can I." What, exactly, is your point? If holes can be punched in it, then it is not a valid passage upon which to base a doctrine. Build upon a rock, not upon the sand. What you are holding to is flawed, and not because of the point, but because of your choice of scripture reference. There are better ones available. You said: "you were on a tangent based on slim evidence--one verse (Acts 2:46)." Need I point out to you that you were basing your point on the same slim evidence--one verse (Acts 20:7)? Do you not know that this makes you a hypocrite? The wisdom that is from God is without hypocrisy [James 3:17]. Your criticism was unbecoming. You said: "2 Timothy was written well after this--a minimum of a year and more likely several years." What credible evidence do you base this on? There are 28 chapters to the book of Acts. The events in Troas were in chapter 20. That's awfully close to the end. Paul is taken into custody in Acts 21:27, and from there ends up in Rome. You said: "Also, if you want to be believed, answer more questions than you ask." What questions, exactly, did you ask that I needed to answer? The whole of your post was: "You mentioned Acts 2:46, but might I point you to Acts 20:7 where the practice became meeting on the first day of the week." So you pointed me there, and I demonstrated that "this passage you are citing, while you are likely correct in your estimation, is not conclusive." I agreed with you that you were right, but found the reference lacking, and proceeded to demonstrate. What, exactly, is the problem here? Now, you said: "Do you have the same disregard for other Scriptures like:" I never disregarded any scripture. I feel that Acts 2:42-47 is a better example for the subject. I did not disregard Acts 20:7, but acknowledged the more definitive passage. Your statement is downright rude. I resent it. In no way was I trying to say that "believing" or "repenting" or "being baptized" was to be ignored. These things are plain statements, and I personally believe, have repented, and have been baptized. As for '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.' We are not meant to be robots. They did the things they did for a reason. If we don't understand what that reason is, we can't apply the principle to other parts of our lives. To simply emulate what they did is ignorant when the opportunity is there for us to learn an even greater principle than simple mimicry. I hope I have properly addressed your statements to your satisfaction. If you feel the need to rebuke me again, I recommend you pray first, think second, and respond last. I have no desire to be in strife with you or anyone else. Ancient |
||||||
38 | 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 |
||||||
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 | 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 ... |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |