|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/13/2008 5:48:16 PM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
Haven't participated in this thread yet. Can anyone tell me the difference between "works of the Law" romans 3:28 and the law of love?
Hint: See Is 1 for help.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/13/2008 7:17:04 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Geraldh
Haven't participated in this thread yet. Can anyone tell me the difference between "works of the Law" romans 3:28 and the law of love?
Hint: See Is 1 for help.
What are you trying to get to? As the scripture states that it is a faith justification.
You also need to go back a few posts and see what the main discussion is about between Bluethread and Spongblob. One camp is telling the other camp that there is a fine line for a works base salvation. Where Paul would say that after awhile in that camp you may end up like the evil one and become a big headed person who thinks they can't do anything wrong. Say things like what a great thing I just did.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/14/2008 10:04:24 AM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 934
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
I've got a few minutes to hit some of the highlights...
quote:
ORIGINAL: LBolt
...I really don't think you would term God's word as 'nonsense' if you new that Torah was not legalism but rather God's teaching, instruction and direction.
Using physical attributes to determine one's status in the kingdom makes 'no sense' (nonsense). God gave those requirements to illustrate the strict spiritual requirements that really do make sense and which have to be met in order to be a part of the kingdom. And thankfully, all those requirements get met when a person believes and is sealed with the Holy Spirit, making the literal requirements inapplicable (not demolished) to them who have now died to their old relationship with the flesh (the peculiarities of the flesh that stood between them and God).
We have been set free from the laws that governed those physical attributes the same way a woman is no longer obligated (bound) to the law of marriage that kept her in relationship with her now deceased spouse. Do you understand this? A law about my penis, or my nationality, or whatever, doesn't have authority over a flesh body I'm no longer married to because it died it Christ. Those laws aren't abolished (they still apply to anyone in the flesh). They just don't apply to me anymore now that I'm in Christ.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LBolt
"Love God, love your neighbor" has been taught over 1000 years before Yahshua came in the flesh or the apostles mentioned this.
We all know this. What is new is that it is written on the heart now in the new covenant. Jeremiah said we'd all know the Lord for ourselves and have his word written on our hearts. Jeremiah even tells us what it means to 'know the Lord' and uses the widow and the orphan as the example, not the worship laws of the old covenant.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LBolt
Yahshua constantly rebuke the religious leaders of His time regarding the Commandment of God and the commandments or traditions of men. Mark 7:1-23, Moses was given the Torah from God Almighty Himself and not man and HaMosiach (the Messiah) confirms the fact that their legalistic traditions have made the word of Elohim of none effect. This was dealing with a specific aspect of the 10 commandments which involved honoring one's own parents. The religious leaders was concerned with pots and pans and washing your hands in a ritualistic way and Messiah dealt with the heart of the matter...they regarded the tradition of the elders over the word of God which was rooted in an evil heart.
The main point is, in their attempt to establish guidelines for keeping the requirements of the law they actually caused people to break that law (or at least what God intended through any given law). We understand all this. You are aware that Moses did this, aren't you? But we falsely understand it as having been given from the mouth of God because it's in the first five books of the Bible.
I had noticed in my years of reading the Bible that the old covenant seems to kind of morph as time goes along. Now I know that it's probably because of Moses's rabbinical influence. What we are to understand today is we are not under that system, or method of relating to God anymore.
We follow the two principles of the Spirit within us, now written on the heart, which were once lost in strict stipulations for worship. And those are as you know, 'love God, love others'. That way we are in no danger of neglecting the true intentions of the law that might have been perverted through rabbinical ruling (even Moses' rulings, whatever other ones there are in the law besides his law of divorce). That is what it means to be under the authority and supervision of the Spirit now, and not under the law.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LBolt
Yahshua regarded this as the Word of God and rebuked the religious leaders for making it null and void. The way you make the word of God null and void is to not do it and teach others contrary.
So how do you know what is rabbinical and what is not in the old covenant law recorded for us in our OT's? And what do we do with the fact that there really is a legitimate precedant laid down for us in the New Covenant for some things not being literally in effect anymore from the old covenant?
You don't seem to realize, either it's the whole old covenant law, or someone's variation of it. The first option is out (even you folks don't submit to the whole law), so who's variation of the law do we all clock into to please God? This is the very crux of my argument against literal law keeping--there's no such thing as a God given, definitive answer to what constitutes the law outside of the letter of the law we already have. And as I've pointed out, not even the literalists are keeping that. That's why I say this is one big, meaningless denominational argument. One that gets settled in Jesus and Paul's teaching that it's all about godly love. That's the measure of discernment we use to interpret the law, not the letter of the law itself.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LBolt
There is a verse that says I am the LORD thy God and I change not...There is another verse that says Jesus Christ the same, yesterday, today and forever more. He's also referred to as the living word or the word made flesh...that tabernacled amongst us. The word of God was and is and forever will be His Torah (TaNaKH and the New T.) but the word that was made flesh...was the Torah.
I've plainly proved to you that some of the words that God is speaking today are not the same as then. The word that was made manifest among us is not the literal letter of the law in some weird mystic sense.
The word made manifest among us is the person who's been speaking those words from the creation of the world ("let there be..."). Now he's not just a voice, or a word. Now he's visible. The word, the voice of God, has been made manifest in the world in the person of Jesus. 'The word came and dwelt among us...'. That is a much more palpatable and non-mystical understanding of what it means for 'words' to take on actual flesh. And one that makes it easier to understand how the voice of God can now be visible without that meaning the words that were spoken back then are still applicable. We see the speaker now, not the words he spoke.
< Message edited by SpongeBlog -- 10/14/2008 10:11:42 AM >
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/14/2008 6:46:09 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1666
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
Though I enjoy discussion issues, answering questions and responding to rational arguments, I have grown tired of wading through unnecessarily condecending, presumptious and prejudicial phrases. I am also unable to abide sophistry like the repeated stating of one's positions as established fact when the point has not been conceeded and generalizations regarding the positions of others. I have pointed these out before, yet they continue. Therefore, until I see a reduction of these distractions any further discussion is not worth the time. I have noted several examples from the last post so it will hopefully be clear what I am refering to.
"I see again that I was wrong in thinking we all knew that."
"I know you get this, but you seem bound and determined to resist my point."
"There is no way you can honestly deny this."
"And, as you surely must notice . . ."
"I know you don't believe that."
"the Torah observant camp"
"I have already proved . . ."
"a weird rabbinical tradition"
"A very, very weak argument."
"Jews failed to acknowledge . . ."
"You completely destroy the significance of the Holy Spirit, the glory of the New Covenant, by denying what I'm saying."
"Don't you dare tell me . . ."
"Even you can see . . . "
"you're kidding yourself if you think . . ."
"waltzing into covenant"
If these were used occasionally or were to the point, I could continue to ignore them. However, this many times in one post combined with not once acknowledging that anything you say is opinion, makes it extremely difficult to stay on point. Therefore, until then enjoy dancing around the issues.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/14/2008 7:24:25 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1666
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
I am still waiting to the responce to that I have ask for patiently. Why in the world when most of us speak english. You guys have to use hebrews words. Is it to put confusion in the pot?
I do not speak for others. The reason I have used biblical terms is that the "english" terms have many connotations related to them that presume points not proven. Therefore, rather than argue about the definition of words that were never spoken by those who lived before 100CE, I would prefer to discuss significant terms that actually were used in the Scriptures. By the way, we don't speak english in this country. We speak american, a combination of latin, germanic, tribal and slag based languages and our dictionary is now based on common modern usage and not respected historical literature.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/14/2008 8:21:22 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Bluethread;
quote:
I do not speak for others. The reason I have used biblical terms is that the "english" terms have many connotations related to them that presume points not proven. Therefore, rather than argue about the definition of words that were never spoken by those who lived before 100CE, I would prefer to discuss significant terms that actually were used in the Scriptures. By the way, we don't speak english in this country. We speak american, a combination of latin, germanic, tribal and slag based languages and our dictionary is now based on common modern usage and not respected historical literature.
Did you notice that the scriptures have been over years and years. Been translated to different languages. You write that you use the Hebrew because you can skip and get to the point. But Jesus talked in the language (Aramaic) that they were using in Israel at the time, not Hebrew. Also Paul would talk and write in Greek. Doesn't it kind of make sense you would also try to use the words we use? If I didn't have some knowledge to the Hebrew and Greek language. I would be lost to follow you in your thoughts. Maybe something to consider since you say we speak American.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/14/2008 8:38:13 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1666
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
Did you notice that the scriptures have been over years and years. Been translated to different languages. You write that you use the Hebrew because you can skip and get to the point. But Jesus talked in the language (Aramaic) that they were using in Israel at the time, not Hebrew. Also Paul would talk and write in Greek. Doesn't it kind of make sense you would also try to use the words we use? If I didn't have some knowledge to the Hebrew and Greek language. I would be lost to follow you in your thoughts. Maybe something to consider since you say we speak American.
It sounds like you are making an argument for using greek and aramaic when discussing significant words or phrases. I have no problem with that. I have reverted back to using english to avoid offence and have been criticized for trying to get clear definitions. So, tell me in one short sentence what does J E S U S mean? Also, what is T H E L A W?
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/15/2008 12:28:27 AM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 934
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Though I enjoy discussion issues, answering questions and responding to rational arguments, I have grown tired of wading through unnecessarily condecending, presumptious and prejudicial phrases. I am also unable to abide sophistry like the repeated stating of one's positions as established fact when the point has not been conceeded and generalizations regarding the positions of others. I have pointed these out before, yet they continue. Therefore, until I see a reduction of these distractions any further discussion is not worth the time. I have noted several examples from the last post so it will hopefully be clear what I am refering to.
"I see again that I was wrong in thinking we all knew that."
"I know you get this, but you seem bound and determined to resist my point."
"There is no way you can honestly deny this."
"And, as you surely must notice . . ."
"I know you don't believe that."
"the Torah observant camp"
"I have already proved . . ."
"a weird rabbinical tradition"
"A very, very weak argument."
"Jews failed to acknowledge . . ."
"You completely destroy the significance of the Holy Spirit, the glory of the New Covenant, by denying what I'm saying."
"Don't you dare tell me . . ."
"Even you can see . . . "
"you're kidding yourself if you think . . ."
"waltzing into covenant"
If these were used occasionally or were to the point, I could continue to ignore them. However, this many times in one post combined with not once acknowledging that anything you say is opinion, makes it extremely difficult to stay on point. Therefore, until then enjoy dancing around the issues.
It's funny in these forums. If you share an opinion, you get bashed for not providing scripture. Then when you share scripture, you get bashed for not presenting them in an opinionated fashion. "Oy vey!"
"...John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." (Matt. 11:18-19)
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/15/2008 1:03:24 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
So, tell me in one short sentence what does J E S U S mean? Also, what is T H E L A W?
Jesus means Son of God, the law means a bunch of rules. Got you, didn't I  and you thought you could pull a fast one on me.
Just one thing if I ever did what you have written in what you have encountered. Please forgive me for that. You know someone could come on this thread and not know God at all. I would like for us to be able to explain it very clear to that individual.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/15/2008 8:03:25 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Lapidoth,
Been there done that. What are you asking or stating with that web site?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/15/2008 8:03:43 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1666
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Though I enjoy discussion issues, answering questions and responding to rational arguments, I have grown tired of wading through unnecessarily condecending, presumptious and prejudicial phrases. I am also unable to abide sophistry like the repeated stating of one's positions as established fact when the point has not been conceeded and generalizations regarding the positions of others. I have pointed these out before, yet they continue. Therefore, until I see a reduction of these distractions any further discussion is not worth the time. I have noted several examples from the last post so it will hopefully be clear what I am refering to.
"I see again that I was wrong in thinking we all knew that."
"I know you get this, but you seem bound and determined to resist my point."
"There is no way you can honestly deny this."
"And, as you surely must notice . . ."
"I know you don't believe that."
"the Torah observant camp"
"I have already proved . . ."
"a weird rabbinical tradition"
"A very, very weak argument."
"Jews failed to acknowledge . . ."
"You completely destroy the significance of the Holy Spirit, the glory of the New Covenant, by denying what I'm saying."
"Don't you dare tell me . . ."
"Even you can see . . . "
"you're kidding yourself if you think . . ."
"waltzing into covenant"
If these were used occasionally or were to the point, I could continue to ignore them. However, this many times in one post combined with not once acknowledging that anything you say is opinion, makes it extremely difficult to stay on point. Therefore, until then enjoy dancing around the issues.
It's funny in these forums. If you share an opinion, you get bashed for not providing scripture. Then when you share scripture, you get bashed for not presenting them in an opinionated fashion. "Oy vey!"
"...John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." (Matt. 11:18-19)
So, these are opinions, one would never know from your posts. You state them as if they are indisputable facts. In fact, I seem to remember you saying as much. I'm not talking about the Scriptures of course.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/15/2008 11:18:49 PM
|
|
|
Dan94
Posts: 51
Joined: 9/25/2008
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
|
Matthew 27:51 "At that very moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom"
Romans 6:15 "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!
Ga 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other then the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
Acts 20:29-31 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day in with tears.
Now these scriptures may mean something very different to some people with a law degree, who have a tendency to twist and complicate. Feeling they have to play the role of the Holy Spirit, even though we know "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit give life. (2Co. 3:6)
I sense that this is where denominations started, men started to argue while being pumped up by the letter, forgetting that "The just shall live by faith"
Seems that men have a tendency to get men to follow them, even if it takes dividing the flock. They want to argue the meaning of words rather then in the Spirit in which the Word was spoken. In simple translation Paul told the early church to "Follow Me as I follow Christ" Paul would never distort the truth, he preached a simple gospel of good news "He is Risen"
John 19:30 "It is finished" and it means "It is Finished" whether it's written in Greek, English, Japanese, Italian, French, German, Russian, Arabic, Hebrew, or any other language.
I don't know maybe I'm being ridiculous, silly Me, just wanting to please Jesus by loving Jesus, thus fulfilling the whole law...did I just make that up? Maybe loving Jesus written in English means something entirely different in Hebrew or ancient Greek. Better go find a translator because I do not want to offend the Lord by letter...wait He knows My Spirit and the thoughts and intents of my heart.
Whew!...Thank God!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/16/2008 9:41:27 AM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 934
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
So, these are opinions, one would never know from your posts. You state them as if they are indisputable facts. In fact, I seem to remember you saying as much. I'm not talking about the Scriptures of course.
When I say, 'I think', or 'I believe', that's an opinion. When I say, 'the Bible says', that's written fact. But when I say, 'I think the Bible says', that means I'm too tired or don't have enough time to look it up.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/16/2008 9:58:58 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2485
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Therefore, rather than argue about the definition of words that were never spoken by those who lived before 100CE, I would prefer to discuss significant terms that actually were used in the Scriptures
But, Blue, brother, that is the really convoluted issue that I am dying to know - what is the purpose of your bilingual terminology usage?
What matters is if 2 or more people actually agree on definition on the word they use in debate. Using another language is not going to help but add more confusion.
People read the English version and go by it. So what are you trying to achieve by using a transliterated Hebrew word and then its English version in paranthesis?
It at best shows your devotion to your denominational practices* and at worse it suggests exceptional vanity and desire to "show off" which ,I give you thebenefit of the doubt, is not the issue here. If there is something more to it, please, do explain !
For example, If I quote Jesus’s words Lama azavtani/Lama savahtani/(Why have you forsaken me?)How is Hebrew and Aramaic versions are of any additional help?
Mcleod, Dan and Spongie, does posting it multilingual in any way changed your perscpective ? I honestly try to understand BT’s point!
*and if that the case, fine, great. I want people to respect my choices so I surely respect theirs!
And if someone doenst like what I do, its their problem. Stay by what you believe, but dont claim it helps others somehow....
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/16/2008 10:04:11 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2485
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
quote:
MCleod:
I am still waiting to the response to that I have ask for patiently.
I've been away for a while ...what would you like to know?
LG
What i asked above as well - whats the point of BT's presentation style. If its just what he likes and believes to be right,sure. We understand. IF he tries to make additional point, what is it?
Like if , for exampe, when he says: Mikvah (Ritual washing)..etc according to the text. How does adding the word Mikvah suppose to help in the debate?
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/16/2008 10:14:38 AM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 934
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
...Blue, brother, that is the really convoluted issue that I am dying to know - what is the purpose of your bilingual terminology usage?
Bilingual? Gasp! Isn't that one of those abominable sins?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
...Mcleod, Dan and Spongie, does posting it multilingual in any way changed your perscpective ?
Not one iota (yuk, yuk).
I'm just now understanding the difference between 'Torah' and 'Ha Torah'. There's no way possible to glean the difference from the words themselves. And the English words used to explain the difference suffice from there on for continued discussion.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/16/2008 10:16:39 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2485
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I see this thread has taken on a life of it's own, propelled by verse after verse, after verse. Maybe I'm out of place in this thread, some what of a nuisance like a little brother who unknowingly annoys His older siblings.
Correct, it taken the life of its own - about 4500 posts before you came in and trust me little brother Dan, you wonderful point has been expressed many times before, if less eloquently and nicely.
I will give you a brief summary of the problem here, so you dont have to bother going thu all the posts and learn where is the beef.
AS you said, OT is important , but Love and Being a New Creation is what really matters.
Nobody in neither camp here suggests salvation by works or Law, but some people say that literal keeling of certain OT Laws is important . Not all Laws that we are capable of keeping even considering the limitations of having no Temple, mind you, no, just some of their choosing :)
While i am not denying their absolute right to worhsip as they please,. I am trying to figure out why they think it is so important it makes one a better chirstian.
To me its a superficial thing, and by itself doesnt add nothign to "quality" of our faith
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/16/2008 11:18:50 AM
|
|
|
LBolt
Posts: 999
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
Bilingual? Gasp! Isn't that one of those abominable sins?
Now you making it tempting  it its illegal i gotta indulge,
Rabbi Sfog (Sponge). But will ask Rabbi Lapidoth ( Torch) and Rabbi Barack ( LBolt)
(presuming Lbolt is short for LighteningBolt?) of their opinions on that too
Hey...I finally figured out that quote thingy. I'm having a Odeliyah moment...LOL!!
I think BT tried to explain his position. We all speak bi-lingual Christian-ease of sorts. When we pray we typically pray in our native tongue and then conclude with "in Jesus' name....Amen" I see English and Hebrew in this ending. Why not say "so be it?" Of course in a lot of churches, especially Pentecostal, Baptist churches you say "amen" when you agree with the preacher. I never hear, "so be it" spoken. (Of course in a tongue talking church you'll hear a lot of different languages... )
During prayer, praise and worship corporately and even privately you will hear shouts of "HallaluYah" in the midst of these wonderful activities. Why not say, "Praise YHWH" or "Praise YAH" or "Praise I AM" or "Praise Jehovah?"
Phrases such as "Jehovah Jirah", Jehovah Rapha"... can similarly be heard as well. I think there is something intricately intimate in using Hebrew words that helps us to connect to the One we love and adore. There is a sincere connection to the language, land and culture for all of us to some varying degree or another. We need to celebrate it and denigrate you brother and sister.
Parenthetical statement here: {If you discern otherwise, then make sure you go to the Father in prayer about and ask Him to deal with the situation. More times than not He'll deal with you and if need be deal with the individual.}
Why do alot of predominate African-American (or for that matter any other culture) churches name their churches after a city in Zion. Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church, Mt. Hermon....., Mount Sinai Baptist and the like? I believe there is an affinity to the land, people, language and culture inbedded in the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.
Also, as you study the scriptures more and learn the "whys" behind the some things, you find your trying to break your self from saying certain things or using certain terminology. This may be what Bluethread is trying to convey.
When I post I tend to go back and forth, it's hard to break old habits but at the same time I want to be understood nonrtheless. I believe that YAH is perfecting us after His perfect will and that He's understands our thoughts and intents of the heart. I hope that it is to please Him, if it is not...YAH please purge me until it reflect your image!
I purposely did not answer this because it appeared to be an attempt to thwart the conversation down on a bunny rabbit trail and using accuasations of "using Hebrew to prove one's spiritual superiority" to dismiss the information presented. Sorry if this is not your intent but past experiences lead me to believe otherwise, unfortunately. We get caught on 'nilly dilly' personal petpeeves and ignore the intent and context of the argument presented.
< Message edited by LBolt -- 10/16/2008 12:05:01 PM >
_____________________________
Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding...she shall give to thine head an ornament of grace..---Proverbs 4:7
www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-60604-743-9
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/16/2008 11:42:33 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Bluethread shame on you for thinking this; 
quote:
From where did you get these definitions? Is this what they mean to you? Are these generally accepted as complete definitions? The true test is will these defintions hold or will they be redefined as one progresses through a discussion? For example, I was under the impression that some here included the book called Genesis in "the Law". The majority of that book has no rules at all.
the first law mention is in the first book. Remember what he told the couple in the garden. Do not eat of the tree.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
or like this 
. Because I would have been out in the outfield watching the game go by. And not really knowing what had transpired at the plate. 
