How do you know God the Father? What does He look like? What are His attributes? He is perfect, good, righteous, holy. The Torah is His perfect image. Jesus fulfilled the Torah. He is God and He was perfect. We see the Father in Him. We can not obtain perfect through the letter of the law. That’s why Jesus died. Salvation is by grace alone. But, doesn’t His Spirit in us teach us about Him? And He and the Father are One. Is doing, in union with the Spirit of God, what God calls holy and perfect a right way to go? After we have been redeemed by grace? Shouldn’t that righteousness BE the fruit we bear if we indeed house the Holy Spirit? Again, I’m not arguing that we can in any way keep the law to gain salvation, I’m talking about the way we live and what we look like to others. I’m talking about being a witness.
Have you taken a look at the amount of divorces in the church? Pornography? Child abuse? Adultery? I’d say we need to be pointed still.
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. **On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. **
(Mat 22:37-40)
Kelly, well I’ve def enjoyed this thread and w/o you there’d be nothing new to explore. I don’t believe Bob or I have ever meant to back you into corner or make you feel inadequate. It’s only a discussion and I haven’t preceived you as judging me or anyone else. Yes I see judgement inherent in your view (that is pig eaters are sinners) but I never got that from you or shepherd - in other words you’ve not been judgemental to me.
I get it that you’re not preaching salvation by works. But I’m wondering if you can see how fine the line is for those who did (back in Jesus’ time). I have strong doubts the Sanhedrin argued that they were saved by not eating pork. Rather I’ll bet anything that they argued just as many do today - my obedience via my faith is what saves me. Jews were all about faith, but they didn’t realize they were legalistic in their faith. They believed that via obediece to rules their faith showed their righteouss character.
I don’t think anyone here disagrees with you on obedience. Like I said, it’s an axiom (we all agree). What’s being disagreed on is how to intepret law and dispensations (as Magma is doing).
I’ve already shows that Jesus was (via subtext) telling the Pharisees that he desecrated the sabbath and yet was blameless. I also stated how you yourself begin fudging numbers when it comes to telling nazis your hiding jews or not. I would say you totally lie to them (according to literal interpretation) and yet are blameless (did not sin). I see Jesus this way. The reason is because of how I interpret deceit (to lie or bear false witness). But who am I or who are you to make such calls?
Regarding Acts 15, yes I see James stated that they be kept from eating blood or things sacrificed to idols, yet we KNOW what Paul said about that. In other words, they were simply doing they’re best to control a situation. On one hand they knew the law was a dead end (in legalistic terms) yet I agree with you never would they say the law was bad - it’s a semantical issue - what do we mean by “law”.
You stated to Magma: “If I am in error, I’d rather it was by responding to salvation by “overdoing” God’s Word.”
This is exactly what I think the Rabbi’s did of Jesus’ time and before - For if a man collecting wood warrants death, then they have to know - WHAT CONSTITUTES WORK. If eating pork angers God, then what if there’s animal poop on your hands - you better wash em. This is why they didn’t tell Jesus his disciples were breaking the law. Instead they declared they don’t follow the tradition. But there were more severe matters (which warranted death) like the sabbath. So if God says “Don’t light a fire” then I doubt anyone was ligghint fires on the sabbath. If God says don’t bake your goods, I doubt you’d find the men doing it and then saying “My wifes the cook so I can do it”. It would take ALOT to move mose of Catholocism or Protestants from the traditional position (and rightly so). The Pharisees, as I see it, were in agreement with you - I’d rather be in error by adding to the law and making sure I meet the minimum requirements then disobey the commands by carrying my mat home. Yet you judge them for adding to the word of God. Basically I hear you saying you’ll add to it too in order to meet the minimum requirements. So again you make no sense to me.
Again, no one here is saying Jesus was sinning. But we are questioning what does “law” mean and how do we interpret the law. You’re happy to add to it yet you seem unhappy to add to it (as the pharisees did).
In case I didn’t say it right, withholding information from an evil man is not a sin , bearing false witness AGAINST your neighbor is . . .
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (Exo 20:16)
Not “to” your neighbor. Bearing false witness AGAINST your neighbor is declaring they have broken a commandment and are eligible (if you will) for judgment. In this case the Jew had not committed a crime or sin against God or his neighbor. It would not be bearing false witness AGAINST my neighbor to withhold information from the Nazi about the hidden Jew.
God also commands us to protect the innocent neighbor. In this case, the Jew . . .
Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked. (Exo 23:7)
Nazi = evil. Jew = innocent. To hand an innocent person over to an evil person would be a sin.
It isn’t breaking a commandment as I’ve shown above. On the contrary, it would be breaking a commandment to turn the Jew in.
I think I’ve shown from the Bible that my interpretation is stable. It seems that you are thinking in the “letter” of the law and you believe it harsh but, in reality it is just. It shows that God is on the side of those who seek to obey or “do” His will. There are weighty matters of the law. Justice, mercy and faith. We should do these without leaving the rest undone.
Vocational? It was the Israelite’s “vocation” to gather manna, gather firewood, cook manna, take care of livestock, move when God moved. There weren’t postmen and landscapers. God didn’t want them doing “everyday” work. He didn’t want them to “go their own way”. He didn’t want them to neglect the weighty matters of the law. All those who came before Christ kept the law by faith.
That’s how I do it.
I think we need to agree that the only work the Israelite’s had was what they did all the time. They didn’t put in 8 hours at the local pizza joint or anything. They gathered their manna and firewood, took care of livestock, etc. That was their work. So that is what God is saying to refrain from. I would say our rest in Jesus is not complete until we cross the finish line. We are entering that rest now but, we will come into it fully after we have finished the work God has given us to complete on this earth, in our lifetime.
There were provisions for people to break the sabbath and be without blame. Such as, if the 8th day came on the Sabbath it was allowable to circumcise on it and be blameless. It isn’t really a big issue that Jesus, David or the priests broke the sabbath and were blameless. There are times and situations allowable by God to do something on the Sabbath. The main things are, overall do not go your own way and do not work. Just rest. It’s not really that hard and it’s not a burden. If you are keeping Torah, you know what and when things are required that would normally be considered breaking Sabbath laws.
Hopefully, my last post can clear up some of your concerns. I did not judge the pharisees as adding to the law. It was Jesus who said it but, I am in agreement with Him. I have not “added to” the law. My comment of “overdoing” was just saying, I’d rather obey Him in what He says is right than just say I’m saved and sin against Him or someone else because I am “free from the law”.
Also, we speak past each other because we have totally different presuppositions of the pharisees.
I am not trying to move Catholics or Protestants. I’m not into big shot ministry. I’m just a middle aged, uneducated housewife.
I find you “restate” my comments in a way opposite of what I am saying. I’m not sure why but, perhaps in my inability to relay my position clearly, you find it hard to understand what I am saying? This law/salvation by grace issue is the confusion people had in what Paul was saying. He struggles to relay the importance of obedience to Torah but, not for salvation.
The rest of the commandments hang on those two, just as Jesus hung on a tree. The other things that hang(G2910)
the other two that were crucified with Jesus
A millstone around someones neck
a serpent on Pauls arm carnality) for the mind set on flesh is death, but the mind set on spirit is life
Moses represents the natural, Christ is the spiritual, the natural is first then spiritual, the OC was about the natural, the 1st adam vs. the 2nd adam, the stone temple vs. the spiritual temple, laws written on stone vs. the laws written on our hearts
Heb 10:9 hen he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second.
kill 10, slay 8, put to death 2, take up 1, do 1, take away 1
The Mosaic law is hung/killed on the cross, sin is condemned in the flesh(of Christ) and the power of sin is the law
Hello ISIA, I’m sorry I am so long in reply but I have been away from the www for over a week. Thank you for your enquiry, I’ll do my best to put what I believe:
Time permits me only to pint out the most obvious but even one will suffice to prove my point.
Jesus said:
Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
(In addition please note that Jesus did NOT say “the Word of God says”.
Now if you can find that in our canon, you will have given me a tremendous education. If not, then perhaps you can understand that my point is valid.
I hope this post will help. We are both brothers in Christ and are united in what He has done for us.
You put it in quotes, so I will do the same when I put it into my esword word-finder.
Let’s see:
KJV OT Case sensitive:
Zero times.
KJV OT not case sensitive:
Four times the phrase ‘word of God’ is used but not once do these 4 refer to writings.
e.g.:
1Ch 17:3 And it came to pass the same night, that the word of God came to Nathan, saying,
1Ch 17:4 Go and tell David my servant, Thus saith the LORD, Thou shalt not build me an house to dwell in:
I believe that what you have written (and I am sure you did not intend it) is a complete falsehood. I may be wrong myself and will be happy to retract what I have just said, but you will have to shew me.
You put it in quotes, so I will do the same when I put it into my esword word-finder.
Let’s see:
KJV NT case sensitive:
Only once and NOT referring to the writings (or scriptures):
Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Amen! This is exactly what I believe.
KJV NT not case sensitive:
44 times . Out of these 44 times 35 of them quite clearly cannot b e referring to ‘the scriptures’ indeed many of them define what they mean and it is the Logos - that is Jesus Christ in Living Word, Spirit and mystical body. In the other five cases, though someone at first glance (or through tradition of men) may be able to construe the meaning as ‘scripture’, it would go against what the scripture has told us in all other cases and it would go against the example of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Jesus referred to the scriptures which the Jews then possessed on many occasions and every single time, He simply referred to them as ‘the writings’.
I also believe that it is very important.
Many of the words that Moses spoke were undoubtedly uninspired. Some of the things which Moses spoke, were undoubtedly inspired. I cannot imagine that anyone would dispute this (other than a non-Jew/christian).
I do not believe your last sentence is evident from the text. It is however, self evident that those words inscribed on tablets are words from God. They become the ‘Word of God’ if and when they are enlivened by the Spirit (who is Christ Himself) within the heart of the one who hears/reads.
I appreciate it and I hope you will regard my reply as no more than my 2 penneth.
Thanks for the reply and I pray we can be united in love and humility as we discuss these things!! Me included.
I am short on time as well but a couple quick notes.
John 7:38- Virtually all commentators, and anyone familiar with the OT see this as a direct reference to Eze 47:1-9 and Zech 13:1,I think one has to understand the context of those Messianic texts in order to see the correlation, But their is deep meaning and significance there as one does. Perhaps we can delve into it another time. Is there any other quote of Jesus you can offer up to prove your point?
Also, your search of the Word of God is not a conclusive way to search my point. The OT asserts that what God “Spoke” as written down was from God…thus the Word of God. This occurs over 2000 times. This began to be refered as the “Word of God” and this term is carried over in the NT to speak of both Jesus and the Word God spoke through His Spirit. This is why for example, Jesus calls Moses Writings “the Logos of the God”. To contend it is only Jesus, it to ignore hundreds of texts that call scripture the Word Of God. That which comes forth from the Spirit of God or is Begotten of God is always refered to as the Word of God. Yes Jesus is the fullfilment of what the Word of God as scripture is referring, but that doesn’t negate what is written down. The Very Message from which we hear and are saved is the Word of God. Think about it, it’s both The Spirit of God, The message of Jesus and also the Truth that we are able to understand and Believe.
Redhot and Aug,
I am not sure who said it and Again I am short on time and will expand on this later but it seems one or both of you must be in my opinion confused regarding Paul’s view of the Law. Paul establishes in his epistles (gal, eph, col, rom, cor) two unmistakeable points regarding God’s Law:
The Law cannot save…and never could. It points out our sin and points to Christ. Trying to follow the law for salvation is NOT what the law was meant for. Salvation is by Grace through Faith in Jesus.
The law should still be upheld. Should we disregard the law of God? ABSOLUTELY NOT! That is Paul’s arguement over and over and over. He warns against the deeds of the flesh. He Recommands the 10 commandments and he defines spirit living and love in no unambigous terms, and as right in line with God’s perfect law of liberty, revealed in the 10 commandments.
In your Galatians quotes regarding point 1 above please note that in the same breath, in the same book a few paragraphs later Paul Defines for you what the flesh is in order to make Point 2 above. As he always does.
Gal 5:19
Now the Works of the Flesh are evident…
Adultery Fornication Uncleanness lewdness Idolatry Sorcery Hatred Contentions Jealosy Outbursts Selfish ambition etc etc Those who practice such things will not inherit the reign of God.
Then 6:7…
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows that he will also reap.
I may be misunderstanding your guys point but Paul is unmistakeably clear that Point 1 and point 2 above are both true.
Once A christian puts their faith in Christ are they then to live any way they would like. Or should they Love God and One another As God Defines?
Thanks and God Bless!
Bob, I am still sortin through the arguements as previously stated.
Hi Steve
I wonder if we should take this to another thread if you’ve got the time and inclination? If so, would you mind giving me the source/method for your ‘over 2000’ statement and your justification for “virtually all commentators” . If so, I’d be delighted to address your points.
Exodus 32:19 As he approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moses became enraged and threw the tablets out of his hands, smashing them at the base of the mountain.
There are no witnesses to what was written on tablet, no witnesses to that anything was written on the tablet, and no witnesses that God even wrote the tablets except one, Moses.
Indeed, the entire account of this event was written by Moses in the first place. Any proof of this event happening came from the very man who claims it happened and nobody else.
John 8:17 In your [own] Law it is written that the testimony (evidence) of two persons is reliable and valid.
Where is the evidence that those words inscribed on tablets are words from God except from Moses himself, destroying them before anyone could even be witness to how they were written and what was written on them.
Just saying, there is a reason why Jesus called them the ‘words of Moses’, ‘your law’, “their traditions”, etc. and never calling it God’s Law, or the Words of God. Jesus never referred to anything of the Law written by Moses, as God’s Law or God’s Words.
Seems best to move the discussion regarding The Inspiration of scripure to a different thread.
If you guys agree let me know and I will start another thread.
Meanwhile I will still be studying the arguements that scripture supports same-sex relationships in hope to post my questions and point of view regarding that topic, on this thread.
Yes please. Thanks Steve.
But I believe in the inspiration of of scripture (though the word ‘scripture’ has blurred edges). For me, the issue is whether it is correct to label the protestant canon as ‘The Word of God’.
Technically in the Hebrew and Greek “tempt” simply means “test”. It does NOT mean you craved the thing which you were confronted with in the course of your test.
Modern English has given it a new meaning, something more along the lines of wanting something very badly. Look at the root words in Strong’s concordance. Tempt = “test” or literally “to pierce through” (the idea being - to find out what’s really inside).
In the modern definition of “tempt” we would have Jesus seething with every ungodly desire known to man, but simply having the strength to successfully resist those desires. In the proper scriptural usage it means He was put in practical situations which tested/proved what his character was. Ironically, in a literal “piercing through” He proved he was full of forgiveness: “Father forgive them”. In the modern definition He was simply able to resist His great desire to jump off the cross and retaliate violently - which would be the obvious normal human response.
I think you are right on that the missing of the mark is in the heart and not just the ability to control inner evil. In human society there is no penalty for thinking evil thoughts, but in spiritual life those thoughts reflect exactly where one is in their journey. The modern version is a way for the religious to pride themselves in controlling the evil which permeates their minds/hearts. Which is fine with me but sad that some think this equals spiritual purity.
The hard thing is to separate what is actual evil and what is religious dogma.
OK I will create a thread where we can discuss these things.
We can discuss canon if you would like, but that seems to me to be a seperate discussion that seems unneccesary for this topic. The Last time I checked… Romans 1 and all the epistles (Husband of one wife) were unanimously accepted as canon by all traditions.
Despite what tradition one follows (protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox etc) all 27 books of the NT are considered part of the canon. Some Traditions may recognize other writings, but that seems irrelevant to our discussion as we are not discussing these other writings but rather the widely accepted ones.
The Usual suspects have already mounted their attack on the long held tradition And I will be in the Minority but am willing to crash the party with the opposing viewpoint!!
Last time I checked the board is titled “Evangelical” Universalists
Just joking with you guys, and maybe some of it is semantics, but I think there are some questions that have not been asked on that posts that would challenge what appears to be the view of most. I intend to come in with an open mind.
Do we need to start a seperate thread on “Desecrating the Sabbath”?
I find this subject relevant to “gay rights” but am willing to move that subject to a different thread if needed.
I seems to me that seeing Jesus as breaking the Sabbath is one of the main arguements some are making for a basis of doing away with other commands and instructions the apostle Paul makes to New Covenant gentiles. And A basis for a negative view of the Law, which I find Paul to view as perfect and liberating and worthy to be upheld, though unable to save.
Auggy- I would like to revisit your interpretation of Sabbath Work and Jesus statement of desecrating the Sabbath. I find Leviticus 16 and Jesus Words to show that even the OT provides exceptions to work on the Sabbath. Specifically, when it is God’s Work and Neccessary work (such as Healing and feeding/watering). I may have missed it but I didn’t see you offer an explanation as to why God can commanded the priests to do the work of sacrifices on the Sabbath, if there is in your view NO work to be done on the sabbath. How would you arrive at such an interpretation of no exceptions to work, if God himself commanded exceptions.
carnality) for the mind set on flesh is death, but the mind set on spirit is life
