Does the OT apply to Christians?

[Shermana]

Yikes, that's some logic twisting there. And no, the laws don't apply to Christians according to the NT, have you read the relevant chapters? This, btw, is a good reason to include the entire NT in Christian teachings, otherwise peoples theories start to contradict themselves.

The entire "NT" as a whole contradicts itself. Paul contradicts James and Jesus and Jude, and Paul even contradicts himself. There are obviously spurious books like the Pastoral EPistles (Timothies, Titus) and Ephesians, there are interpolated passages, we don't know what manuscript versions are right, and there's controversy about whether Paul was a legitimate apostle.

When you remove Paul from the equation (as well as some of the likely interpolated verses and passages), there's really no contradictions.

Where would you even draw the line as to what behaviors Christians are supposed to uphold in the first place? How would 1 John come into play that exhorts Christians to walk as he walked? What about what Jesus says that those who break and teach to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least in the Kingdom? What about 1 John 5:3 where the love of God is defined as obedience to the commandments?

Why would you contradict yourself by selectively weighing which scriptures are most likely legitimate and which ones are the inventions of false apostles and interpolators?

 

[Desert Snake]

^ You realize then that the NT is commanding Christians to follow the OT laws, if one is to interpret scripture that way. That means, logically, every Christian should follow all the OT laws. Impractical, and, I don't think it even makes sense.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because I think your reasoning concerning the scripture is wrong.

 

[Shermana]

^ You realize then that the NT is commanding Christians to follow the OT laws, if one is to interpret scripture that way. That means, logically, every Christian should follow all the OT laws. Impractical, and, I don't think it even makes sense.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because I think your reasoning concerning the scripture is wrong.

Okay, I appreciate you saying that you think my reasoning is wrong without addressing why and merely saying that you think my interpretation is impractical and makes no sense, but I can just as easily say the same for you, while actually offering scriptural and scholarly support.

What's so impractical exactly? Can't resist your urges to murder and steal? Have a need to defraud and use false weights and measures? The idea of wearing fringes and having a Mezuzah is too burdensome? Want the money for more HBO and Showtime instead? Can't give up your precious Bacon?

I think I asked these questions earlier and you merely dismissed it as 'preaching".

The issue of the Priesthood and Temple Sacrifices I've covered before, the Babylonian exiles were exempt for similar reasons: There's no temple or organized priesthood at this time. Other than those, what's the problem?

Do you think just because a person wants to be "Christian" that they get to redefine what it means to follow what Jesus taught and redefine the text? Well that's what the orthodox church has done for millenia at least. But just because everyone's jumping off a bridge doesn't mean you have to too.

 

[Desert Snake]

Okay, I appreciate you saying that you think my reasoning is wrong without addressing why and merely saying that you think my interpretation is impractical and makes no sense, but I can just as easily say the same for you, while actually offering scriptural and scholarly support.

What's so impractical exactly? Can't resist your urges to murder and steal? Have a need to defraud and use false weights and measures? The idea of wearing fringes and having a Mezuzah is too burdensome? Want the money for more HBO and Showtime instead? Can't give up your precious Bacon?

I think I asked these questions earlier and you merely dismissed it as 'preaching".

Do you think just because a person wants to be "Christian" that they get to redefine what it means to follow what Jesus taught and redefine the text? Well that's what the orthodox church has done for millenia at least. But just because everyone's jumping off a bridge doesn't mean you have to too.

You're not going to change your mind on this, why would I vainly argue on and on about it? I don't think you would agree with or like my reasoning, and perhaps that makes sense, anyway, like I said, you can interpret scripture any way you like, as can I

 

[Shermana]

You're not going to change your mind on this, why would I vainly argue on and on about it? I don't think you would agree with or like my reasoning, and perhaps that makes sense, anyway, like I said, you can interpret scripture any way you like, as can I

Yes of course.

But however, this is a debate thread, so it's expected to actually debunk what I say, I'm not just here to change your mind, I'm here to present arguments and defeat the counter replies and show that they're untenable, arbitrary, denying or distorting what the text actually says, ignoring key factors, showing discrepancies, and thus ultimately unfounded, as well as showing where the text itself may be problematic such as with Paul's authenticity and interpolation issues.

So if your line of reasoning is insufficient, I am going to point out how. If you say that it's "Not practical", I'm going to show that it is indeed practical, and the idea that it's "not practical" is wholly unfounded.

 

[bnabernard]

Do you think just because a person wants to be "Christian" that they get to redefine what it means to follow what Jesus taught and redefine the text? Well that's what the orthodox church has done for millenia at least. But just because everyone's jumping off a bridge doesn't mean you have to too.

Where does one go to find the teachings of Jesus/Yeshua?

bernard (hug)

 

[Wayfaring Stranger]

The entire "NT" as a whole contradicts itself. Paul contradicts James and Jesus and Jude, and Paul even contradicts himself. There are obviously spurious books like the Pastoral EPistles (Timothies, Titus) and Ephesians, there are interpolated passages, we don't know what manuscript versions are right, and there's controversy about whether Paul was a legitimate apostle.

When you remove Paul from the equation (as well as some of the likely interpolated verses and passages), there's really no contradictions.

Where would you even draw the line as to what behaviors Christians are supposed to uphold in the first place? How would 1 John come into play that exhorts Christians to walk as he walked? What about what Jesus says that those who break and teach to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least in the Kingdom? What about 1 John 5:3 where the love of God is defined as obedience to the commandments?

Why would you contradict yourself by selectively weighing which scriptures are most likely legitimate and which ones are the inventions of false apostles and interpolators?

In this thread isn't it your duty to prove that the Torah is still letter perfect from the day Moses gave it when it was kept as an oral book until near the end of the exile into Babylon.

If Gentiles can't keep something intact that started out as a written text then the odds of somebody (from the 12 Tribes) doing it better with an oral book is totally impossible.

The royal law is the 10 Commandments and that is what the two NT covers. How many of the 600+ laws are covered by that also? As a Jew did you get the dietary update given to Peter in Acts 10?

 

[Sleeppy]

Jesus also told the people to obey the scribes and Pharisees. Then goes on to detail the "heavy and grievous" burdens they put on men. Each man has varying ability to carry law. They shut up the "reign of the heavens before men" and neither go in themselves. The command has been to suffer in the law, after Adam. God had said, "My Spirit does not strive in man - to the age." The birth of the new age is still being preceded by these labor pains. Having the Spirit, law (resulting from individual spiritual birth and growth - "inside of the cup") is being authored and measured out according to each one's working toward becoming greater than all prophets before - including John, the scribes, and the Pharisees. Summed up in the last verse of the chapter.. The scribes and Pharisees must accept the scribes and prophets sent to them by the Lord, Jesus.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes of course.

But however, this is a debate thread, so it's expected to actually debunk what I say, I'm not just here to change your mind, I'm here to present arguments and defeat the counter replies and show that they're untenable, arbitrary, denying or distorting what the text actually says,

That's actually what you're doing. You're selecting scripture to fit a pre-existing argument. It's called confirmation bias.

Following your example, I just compiled a new version of the KJV, now, there is no way for you to refute my arguments.

 

[Shermana]

That's actually what you're doing. You're selecting scripture to fit a pre-existing argument. It's called confirmation bias.

Following your example, I just compiled a new version of the KJV, now, there is no way for you to refute my arguments.

Indeed I have a confirmation bias. I will freely admit this.

But unlike you who merely dismisses my arguments and counter-replies as "preaching" and refuses to engage my questions and counters, I actually back up my arguments and don't run away when challenged. And my personal example of deciding what books to go by is the same example as earlier Church Fathers like Clement, Iraneus, Origen, etc. I strongly suspect you have absolutely no knowledge of how the canon came to be or early Church history, and you're attempting to go in swinging without any understanding of what you're swinging at, or what you're swinging with. Or you simply are looking for a quick dodge out of debating the specifics of what I brought up. My personal selection of Canon has nothing to do with debating what the texts say to those who have a different canon. All it means is that I have determined for myself what texts and manuscripts are best, what is interpolated, and what is not. When you say "I'm selecting a scripture", it appears that you think one is not allowed to do that and they must accept the standard Western Roman Canon in order to debate what they don't believe in.

By your logic, Ethiopian Christians wouldn't be able to debate other Bible versions.

With that said, I have no idea what your new version of the KJV has anything to do with being immune to refutation of arguments. You have basically flat out revealed no interest in honest debate, or a complete misunderstanding of how such debate works. I think you're under the delusion that one must accept the totality of one particular Bible version/translation to be able to discuss the pertinent details of the particular manuscripts and books or doctrinal issues. Otherwise, what are you trying to say with that "rebuttal"?

Are you even aware of the issues involved to begin with?

I can't decide if you're being willfully dismissive, have no concept of how textual criticism and scripture debate works, or what.

If you're having difficulty understanding how to debate doctrine and scripture and textual criticism and church historicity, let me know and I'll be happy to explain to you whatever you're having difficulty with. Which is apparently everything involved.

 

[Shermana]

]In this thread isn't it your duty to prove that the Torah is still letter perfect from the day Moses gave it when it was kept as an oral book until near the end of the exile into Babylon.

Why is it my duty to do that? Whether it is or not has no bearing on what the text itself says even by the NT standards. Whatever is pertinent such as the dietary laws we can assume is the same if we are discussing the NT context that mentions it. With that said, I do NOT believe the Torah is exactly the same and that some things may have been added and subtracted over the years, like the Law against Kings having too many wives. However, from what we do know, we are to follow. One should not throw out the entire thing because we can't be sure on a few details. If I have reason to suspect something being interpolated like "A king shall not have too many wives", then I'll question its legitimacy. How do you know that the Torah is NOT the same as it was before anyway? Shall we not obey ANY of it just because of this ambiguity? Does this mean you can now go defraud people and marry your sister because we don't know if its 100% the same? Where do we draw the line?

If Gentiles can't keep something intact that started out as a written text then the odds of somebody (from the 12 Tribes) doing it better with an oral book is totally impossible.

Perhaps you'd like to answer my question of why gentiles wouldn't be able to keep it. I most certainly agree that the Torah may have been edited, but you'll have to explain why none of it should be followed just because we can't determine what's not authentic. I'd reckon at best that less than 1% is added or deleted, and one day a prophet may arise again to let us know.

According to Paul, the law says that a woman should keep silent. Where's that part?

The royal law is the 10 Commandments and that is what the two NT covers. How many of the 600+ laws are covered by that also? As a Jew did you get the dietary update given to Peter in Acts 10?

You must have a terrible memory because I soundly refuted your Acts 10 argument using many links and sources from gentile Christian sources, or are you are dishonestly attempting to act like we never had this discussion. There is no dietary update. When asked to prove your claim with links, you deliberately refused each time and came up with a series of wacky, out of context replies using verses that in no way backed your position. Then you simply called the various sources I presented "wrong" without explaining how they were wrong and then posting your own interpretation as if you were right and they wrong just because.

If anything you proved an excellent example of how difficult it can be to debate someone who doesn't want to back their claims with links, insists that their view is right and others are wrong without need of scholarly validation or even textual context, and interprets verses to mean whatever they want and dismisses any counter argument regardless if they are cogent.

 

[Wayfaring Stranger]

Why is it my duty to do that? Whether it is or not has no bearing on what the text itself says even by the NT standards.

How about because you are giving the OT authority and dismissing the NT as being full of useless and inaccurate information.

Whatever is pertinent such as the dietary laws we can assume is the same if we are discussing the NT context that mentions it.

Assume in light of texts that say the exact opposite, how is that different from the OT Temple staff ignoring the teachings of the Prophets God sent to them. It would seem that both are dismissed in light of what others promote as being the right teaching.

With that said, I do NOT believe the Torah is exactly the same and that some things may have been added and subtracted over the years, like the Law against Kings having too many wives. However, from what we do know, we are to follow.

Maybe you have that part wrong and what was applicable until the cross was changed to accommodate a new direction in prophecy.

One should not throw out the entire thing because we can't be sure on a few details.

If you get a few things wrong yes I am allowed to put your whole doctrine into question as I am under no requirement to accept thing that are not correctly explained. For Acts 10 you cannot show that Acts 9 is not part of the blanket vision passage and the Gentiles arriving is the start of a new passage.

If I have reason to suspect something being interpolated like "A king shall not have too many wives", then I'll question its legitimacy. How do you know that the Torah is NOT the same as it was before anyway?

I'm convinced that it was put back into perfect order by Daniel and his 3 friends during the time in Babylon. That also means God would have made sure the NT was in letter perfect condition even as far as 323AD. After that the Latin and other Bibles changed things so the could make money off the sale of books that are different enough to be considered to be a new work by the ones who judge copywrite material. When I mean perfect it means certain word phrases like 'day of the Lord' are just like they are supposed to be because they all reference the very same day. That sort of accuracy.

Shall we not obey ANY of it just because of this ambiguity? Does this mean you can now go defraud people and marry your sister because we don't know if its 100% the same? Where do we draw the line?

Hard to push one concept and be in error with another one and claim to have it figured out.

Perhaps you'd like to answer my question of why gentiles wouldn't be able to keep it. I most certainly agree that the Torah may have been edited, but you'll have to explain why none of it should be followed just because we can't determine what's not authentic. I'd reckon at best that less than 1% is added or deleted, and one day a prophet may arise again to let us know.

I explained how the Gentiles messed up the text, that being said the KJV is said to be the original Hebrew (done by Jews in Jerusalem) for the OT and the original Greek for the NT.

According to Paul, the law says that a woman should keep silent. Where's that part?

That is when in Church on the Sabbath, ther is no demand they remain quiet at any other time. Even men are to be silent in Church during the sermon and you cab be sure that what they say after the sermon is where is agreed to during a conversation with the wife during the rest of the week.

You must have a terrible memory because I soundly refuted your Acts 10 argument using many links and sources from gentile Christian sources, or are you are dishonestly attempting to act like we never had this discussion.

I covered those links, one that you threw out without saying anything about them covering the points and why you agree with them and any points you may have had some questions about. I am a lot of things, being dishonest is not one of them and I have almost perfect recall in what I read and what I have said or haven't said. Mentioning Acts 9 was the last point I was starting to make, is it the same passage or not, it is Peter and he is raising Jews from the grave so why would the closing words of a passage to Jews not close with a message to Jews. Proof that Gentiles were included is in their baptism that is the same as it was for Jews in Acts 2 is the proof they were included.

There is no dietary update. When asked to prove your claim with links, you deliberately refused each time and came up with a series of wacky, out of context replies using verses that in no way backed your position.

So Scripture is now 'whacky' and covering back to back passages is defined as 'out of context'. Out of context is saying the term 'cut-off' in the 70 weeks prophecy is daeth when death doesn't happen until the mid point of the 70th week. The correct context has to do with a covenant and that is when John was called and that prevebnted Jesus from preaching the ssame message until John could not do that duty as he was in prison. That is a sample of what 'context' means.
What back my position is the beginning and end of two passages in the Acts 10 issue.

This is where the last part of the passage that is in the 2nd half of acts 10 changes.

Ac:11:18:
When they heard these things,
they held their peace,
and glorified God,
saying,
Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
Ac:11:19:
Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice,
and Cyprus,
and Antioch,
preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

I would think this verse alone would blow you doctrine to bits.

Ac:11:3:
Saying,
Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised,
and didst eat with them.

If anything you proved an excellent example of how difficult it can be to debate someone who doesn't want to back their claims with links,

I do by posting the relevant Scripture, that give me my view rather tahn waht somebody had promoted on some website, making it impossible to to debate as the writer is not on the thread.

insists that their view is right and others are wrong without need of scholarly validation or even textual context,

Again you are ignoring that my reference is from the Bible alone, why don't you do that if you understand it so well?

and interprets verses to mean whatever they want and dismisses any counter argument regardless if they are cogent.

Endless repeating that is didn't change the dietary laws is not an argument, it is a blank statement without validation. Avts:11:3 ansers both question, who the Gentiles were and did Peter eat their food during the time he was teaching them. I'm the one accepting what the words say and you are the one in denial. (and not just you although that will hardly come as a comforting thought)

 

[Shermana]

]How about because you are giving the OT authority and dismissing the NT as being full of useless and inaccurate information.

Such dishonesty. I give the NT much authority. I also believe it's filled with interpolations.

You confuse "what the NT says" with "What wayfaring stranger says it says".

Assume in light of texts that say the exact opposite, how is that different from the OT Temple staff ignoring the teachings of the Prophets God sent to them. It would seem that both are dismissed in light of what others promote as being the right teaching.

Again, you are basically saying "Unless you believe what I say, your interpretation means you dismiss the right teaching".

Maybe you have that part wrong and what was applicable until the cross was changed to accommodate a new direction in prophecy.

There is nothing remotely that says that anything "After the cross" no longer applies. That's a common misinterpreted Theology, and one which has no real scriptural support.

If you get a few things wrong yes I am allowed to put your whole doctrine into question as I am under no requirement to accept thing that are not correctly explained. For Acts 10 you cannot show that Acts 9 is not part of the blanket vision passage and the Gentiles arriving is the start of a new passage.

So basically you just say that I get it wrong and that's that and then repeat yourself.

I'm convinced that it was put back into perfect order by Daniel and his 3 friends during the time in Babylon. That also means God would have made sure the NT was in letter perfect condition even as far as 323AD. After that the Latin and other Bibles changed things so the could make money off the sale of books that are different enough to be considered to be a new work by the ones who judge copywrite material. When I mean perfect it means certain word phrases like 'day of the Lord' are just like they are supposed to be because they all reference the very same day. That sort of accuracy.

Oh okay, so which manuscript set did God make the entire NT correct in? If you believe that the later church changed things, then you're going against your own logic. I have a feeling you have no understanding of the history of Canon formation. With that said, I fail to see the relevance.

Hard to push one concept and be in error with another one and claim to have it figured out.

Yeah, just tell me that I'm in error, that will definitely rebut what I said.

How about YOU are the one in error? I'll just use your same tactics and write you off as being in error.

I explained how the Gentiles messed up the text, that being said the KJV is said to be the original Hebrew (done by Jews in Jerusalem) for the OT and the original Greek for the NT.

You have absolutely no idea about the KJV, thank you for revealing this.

That is when in Church on the Sabbath, ther is no demand they remain quiet at any other time. Even men are to be silent in Church during the sermon and you cab be sure that what they say after the sermon is where is agreed to during a conversation with the wife during the rest of the week.

So you believe its a command for women to be silent only while church is in session. Fascinating. But unsupportable.

I covered those links, one that you threw out without saying anything about them covering the points and why you agree with them and any points you may have had some questions about. I am a lot of things, being dishonest is not one of them and I have almost perfect recall in what I read and what I have said or haven't said. Mentioning Acts 9 was the last point I was starting to make, is it the same passage or not, it is Peter and he is raising Jews from the grave so why would the closing words of a passage to Jews not close with a message to Jews. Proof that Gentiles were included is in their baptism that is the same as it was for Jews in Acts 2 is the proof they were included.

Oh, being dishonest is most definitely one of them. Which Link did I throw out exactly? Please repost it. I should add hypocrticial to that list since you completely threw out all six or seven of the links I presented without dismissing them. And your thing on Acts 9 is so far off base I challenge you to find a single person who supports this. Did you even present a link?

So Scripture is now 'whacky' and covering back to back passages is defined as 'out of context'. Out

Sigh. Now you think that your interpretation is scripture itself? Maybe that's why you couldn't find a single link to quote that supports you?

of context is saying the term 'cut-off' in the 70 weeks prophecy is daeth when death doesn't happen until the mid point of the 70th week. The correct context has to do with a covenant and that is when John was called and that prevebnted Jesus from preaching the ssame message until John could not do that duty as he was in prison. That is a sample of what 'context' means.
What back my position is the beginning and end of two passages in the Acts 10 issue.

And what backs my position is the beginning and end of the Acts 10. You seem to not understand that your interpretation is not necessarily THE interpretation or that you may want to support yours with links. And be remotely in context.

This is where the last part of the passage that is in the 2nd half of acts 10 changes.

Ac:11:18:
When they heard these things,
they held their peace,
and glorified God,
saying,
Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
Ac:11:19:
Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice,
and Cyprus,
and Antioch,
preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

I would think this verse alone would blow you doctrine to bits.

Ac:11:3:
Saying,
Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised,
and didst eat with them.


I do by posting the relevant Scripture, that give me my view rather tahn waht somebody had promoted on some website, making it impossible to to debate as the writer is not on the thread.


Again you are ignoring that my reference is from the Bible alone, why don't you do that if you understand it so well?


Endless repeating that is didn't change the dietary laws is not an argument, it is a blank statement without validation. Avts:11:3 ansers both question, who the Gentiles were and did Peter eat their food during the time he was teaching them. I'm the one accepting what the words say and you are the one in denial. (and not just you although that will hardly come as a comforting thought)

[/quote]
I challenge you to present a link that remotely backs your view that this means a change in the dietary LAws. I did not just endlessly repeat, I backed my claim with numerous links that agree with my interpretation, which you failed to do for your own.

By the way, endless repeating that it DOES mean the end of the claims and then using out of context scriptural support does not mean you have backed your claim "With scripture".

Peter eating with gentiles does not mean he ate non-kosher food.

 

[Wayfaring Stranger]

Such dishonesty. I give the NT much authority. I also believe it's filled with interpolations.

Well the two points in this in Acts 10 both are rejected by you and that is all we have covered so your comment has nothing to support it at the moment.

You confuse "what the NT says" with "What wayfaring stranger says it says".

I can explain my points, you post a link and that is the end of it, obviously you cannout expain how it works or you would provide additional words about some specific part. I did one post that covers some aspect in each of those links, nobody has responded with any argument other than the one you promote in this comment.

Again, you are basically saying "Unless you believe what I say, your interpretation means you dismiss the right teaching".

I also dismiss what false Christians promote, why would I accept the view of the equivalent of those that are Jews like the ones in Matthew 23?

There is nothing remotely that says that anything "After the cross" no longer applies. That's a common misinterpreted Theology, and one which has no real scriptural support.

Sure it is, the bruise to the heel is different from the bruise to Satan's head.

So basically you just say that I get it wrong and that's that and then repeat yourself.

No I went through all your links and that was the proof that you are in error. Go back and do a rebuttal to them if that is in error.

Oh okay, so which manuscript set did God make the entire NT correct in? If you believe that the later church changed things, then you're going against your own logic. I have a feeling you have no understanding of the history of Canon formation. With that said, I fail to see the relevance.

That is why I don't read the Latin Bible. The quote below is from the KJV preface.

S. Jerome maketh no mention of the Greek tongue, wherein yet he did excel, because he translated not the old Testament out of Greek, but out of Hebrew.

If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.

Yeah, just tell me that I'm in error, that will definitely rebut what I said.

I covered some points, if you have some actual objection to what i said do a rebuttal to my post instead of this endless style.

How about YOU are the one in error? I'll just use your same tactics and write you off as being in error.

Part way there, now post some relevant Scripture.

You have absolutely no idea about the KJV, thank you for revealing this.

In case you missed this just above.

S. Jerome maketh no mention of the Greek tongue, wherein yet he did excel, because he translated not the old Testament out of Greek, but out of Hebrew.

If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.

So you believe its a command for women to be silent only while church is in session. Fascinating. But unsupportable.

Show it to be otherwise then.

1Co:14:34:
Let your women keep silence in the churches:
for it is not permitted unto them to speak;
but they are commanded to be under obedience,
as also saith the law.

Oh, being dishonest is most definitely one of them. Which Link did I throw out exactly? Please repost it. I should add hypocrticial to that list since you completely threw out all six or seven of the links I presented without dismissing them. And your thing on Acts 9 is so far off base I challenge you to find a single person who supports this. Did you even present a link?

Why would you need a link to Acts 9 or even have it explained who Peter was dealing with, Jews or Gentiles? The words are right there.
Why would you take the word of a person over the actual texts? I don't collect links.

Sigh. Now you think that your interpretation is scripture itself? Maybe that's why you couldn't find a single link to quote that supports you?

Spare me the condescending attitude, if you want me quiet post some relevant passage that disputes me.

And what backs my position is the beginning and end of the Acts 10. You seem to not understand that your interpretation is not necessarily THE interpretation or that you may want to support yours with links. And be remotely in context.

Neither the start or the finish is the start or end of a passage, most clearly seen in Acts:11.

I challenge you to present a link that remotely backs your view that this means a change in the dietary LAws. I did not just endlessly repeat, I backed my claim with numerous links that agree with my interpretation, which you failed to do for your own.

Well I debunked yours, look it up and do a reply to that post then.

By the way, endless repeating that it DOES mean the end of the claims and then using out of context scriptural support does not mean you have backed your claim "With scripture".

Go ahead post the 'out of context' portion.

Peter eating with gentiles does not mean he ate non-kosher food.

Scrambling doesn't begin to describe what you are doing in light of this verse.

Ac:11:3:
Saying,
Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised,
and didst eat with them.

 

[Shermana]

Well the two points in this in Acts 10 both are rejected by you and that is all we have covered so your comment has nothing to support it at the moment.

Yes, I reject your completely uncontextual position which you cannot find a single person to back your view with.

I can explain my points, you post a link and that is the end of it, obviously you cannout expain how it works or you would provide additional words about some specific part. I did one post that covers some aspect in each of those links, nobody has responded with any argument other than the one you promote in this comment.

Liar, I explained my points very well and quoted from the links. Your dishonesty is staggering. You are like someone who says "The sky is really polka dot pink because of this and that", and then refuses to hear any other argument especially one that's backed. You posted nothing that covers what you are saying.

I also dismiss what false Christians promote, why would I accept the view of the equivalent of those that are Jews like the ones in Matthew 23?

I appreciate that now you simply resort to calling me and my links I present as False Christians. That's all you really have essentially.

Sure it is, the bruise to the heel is different from the bruise to Satan's head.

I don't think there's a single person reading this who is going to remotely think you are remotely being cogent to anything, if so, I would like them to tell me if they agree.

No I went through all your links and that was the proof that you are in error. Go back and do a rebuttal to them if that is in error.

You went through my links? You mean you actually discussed them? I must have missed it. Otherwise, you are further demonstrating that the only thing you're capable of doing is calling them in error.

That is why I don't read the Latin Bible. The quote below is from the KJV preface.

Umm, relevance?

S. Jerome maketh no mention of the Greek tongue, wherein yet he did excel, because he translated not the old Testament out of Greek, but out of Hebrew.

Relevance?

If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.

Since you're not even remotely on the right page of covering the KJV, would you like to do a 1x1 about the KJV so we can actually discuss the relevant details?

I covered some points, if you have some actual objection to what i said do a rebuttal to my post instead of this endless style.

You covered nothing. You dodged what I posted and then made some whacky counter reply that was not in context at all. You claim you rebuted it when you did in fact not.

Part way there, now post some relevant Scripture.

What relevant scripture would I need to post? It's a matter of interpretation of the same verse, it's just that your interpretation is completely far out of left field and you refuse to post a single person who agrees with you, and then you simply dismissed all of my links as being in error and to be "False Christians".

In case you missed this just above.

S. Jerome maketh no mention of the Greek tongue, wherein yet he did excel, because he translated not the old Testament out of Greek, but out of Hebrew.

Seriously, what's the relevance?

If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.

That has nothing to do with the KJV, you obviously have no clue or a a desire to learn about the formation of the KJV texts.

Show it to be otherwise then.

How so? I already presented my argument with backing and sources and links and you rejected them outright. Your dishonesty doesn't allow anyone to even offer a backed counter-opinion and then you simply expect one to accept your wack interpretation and then you refuse to back it with links.

1Co:14:34:
Let your women keep silence in the churches:
for it is not permitted unto them to speak;
but they are commanded to be under obedience,
as also saith the law.

Did you forget that the point was about where that even is in the Law? And why would Paul even use the Law as an authority?

Why would you need a link to Acts 9 or even have it explained who Peter was dealing with, Jews or Gentiles? The words are right there.
Why would you take the word of a person over the actual texts? I don't collect links.

Thank you for admitting once again that you refuse to provide a link that promotes your view. Peter eating with gentiles doesn't mean he ate unkosher food. If you continue to insist otherwise, you further prove your total disregard for honesty.

Spare me the condescending attitude, if you want me quiet post some relevant passage that disputes me.

I'm being rather nice to you compared to the attitude I think you deserve. How am I supposed to dispute your interpretation when you'll just dismiss it out of hand what I already showed you? It's basically a matter of you reading into the text something that's not there and expecting me to prove that the text doesn't say what it actually says.

Neither the start or the finish is the start or end of a passage, most clearly seen in Acts:11.

Huh? I'm showing you that your reading of the passage doesn't indicate at all what you're saying.

Well I debunked yours, look it up and do a reply to that post then.

You debunked absolutely nothing. You merely proved how dishonest you are and how unwilling you are to back your position.

Go ahead post the 'out of context' portion.

For starters, claiming that Peter necessarily ate unkosher food with the gentiles perhaps?

Scrambling doesn't begin to describe what you are doing in light of this verse.

I have scrambled nothing. Reading something that's not there begins to describe yours.

Ac:11:3:
Saying,
Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised,
and didst eat with them.

[/QUOTE]

If you honestly think that this means Peter ate unkosher food necessarily, well thanks for showing that.

 

[Wayfaring Stranger]

Yes, I reject your completely uncontextual position which you cannot find a single person to back your view with.

The Bible backs it, you finding 100 links to a doctrine that is in error means 100 people are in error.
Matthew Henry (in part)
"Rise, Peter, kill and eat: without putting any difference between clean and unclean, take which thou hast most mind to.’’ The distinction of meats which the law made was intended to put a difference between Jew and Gentile, that it might be difficult to them to dine and sup with a Gentile, because they would have that set before them which they were not allowed to eat; and now the taking off of that prohibition was a plain allowance to converse with the Gentiles, and to be free and familiar with them. Now they might fare as they fared, and therefore might eat with them, and be fellow-commoners with them.

Liar, I explained my points very well and quoted from the links. Your dishonesty is staggering. You are like someone who says "The sky is really polka dot pink because of this and that", and then refuses to hear any other argument especially one that's backed. You posted nothing that covers what you are saying.

Really, I posted the post of mine, feel free to post the reply, here it is again. Just where are your quotes from the links or from the Bible?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3171888
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3172180

I appreciate that now you simply resort to calling me and my links I present as False Christians. That's all you really have essentially.

I would place you in the Matthew 23 group actually.

I don't think there's a single person reading this who is going to remotely think you are remotely being cogent to anything, if so, I would like them to tell me if they agree.

What would that prove other than people here think the same way. Saying Rome is part of the iron/clay kingdom doesn't make it so.

You went through my links? You mean you actually discussed them? I must have missed it. Otherwise, you are further demonstrating that the only thing you're capable of doing is calling them in error.

That's your style not mine.

Umm, relevance?

Do you forget your own statements?
“You have absolutely no idea about the KJV, thank you for revealing this.”

Relevance?

It shows you have no idea what text was used for the KJV

Since you're not even remotely on the right page of covering the KJV, would you like to do a 1x1 about the KJV so we can actually discuss the relevant details?

Anytime.

You covered nothing. You dodged what I posted and then made some whacky counter reply that was not in context at all. You claim you rebuted it when you did in fact not.

The link is in this post, go read it.

What relevant scripture would I need to post? It's a matter of interpretation of the same verse, it's just that your interpretation is completely far out of left field and you refuse to post a single person who agrees with you, and then you simply dismissed all of my links as being in error and to be "False Christians".

I actually said I challenge Christians on a lot of their current promotions, based on passages rather than opinions of other men who cannot be questioned.

Seriously, what's the relevance?

Same as before, showing you what text was used.

That has nothing to do with the KJV, you obviously have no clue or a a desire to learn about the formation of the KJV texts.

The preface is more authoritative than you baseless comment.

How so? I already presented my argument with backing and sources and links and you rejected them outright. Your dishonesty doesn't allow anyone to even offer a backed counter-opinion and then you simply expect one to accept your wack interpretation and then you refuse to back it with links.

Again with the names, whatever. Is your doctrine so fragile that only links can support it, none of them cover all of the passage, they repeat what they have been taught from men who can and do make errors.

Did you forget that the point was about where that even is in the Law? And why would Paul even use the Law as an authority?

The Law is the 10 Commandments, this is just being polite and making discussion in Church less hectic in that only the men spoke, that you think wives were to be quiet all the time just means you hare reading bad thought out links or your reading comprehension is lacking, after all that is why people reference links over actual verses. If I could find one item in a link that you disagree with that puts the whole article into question.

Thank you for admitting once again that you refuse to provide a link that promotes your view. Peter eating with gentiles doesn't mean he ate unkosher food. If you continue to insist otherwise, you further prove your total disregard for honesty.

Wrong again, even with Matthew Henry agreeing he is stuck on a 7 year trib and that is in error on that point.

I'm being rather nice to you compared to the attitude I think you deserve. How am I supposed to dispute your interpretation when you'll just dismiss it out of hand what I already showed you? It's basically a matter of you reading into the text something that's not there and expecting me to prove that the text doesn't say what it actually says.

I could give you a link to a site that would remove the burden from you. It won't help your flawed doctrine though but it will remove that temptation for a good long time.

Huh? I'm showing you that your reading of the passage doesn't indicate at all what you're saying.

So why not use the whole passage then. After all the OT cannot be correctly figured out without the NT texts being included, that doesn't slow down a lot of Jews though.

You debunked absolutely nothing. You merely proved how dishonest you are and how unwilling you are to back your position.

I'm still here so it ain’t over is it?

For starters, claiming that Peter necessarily ate unkosher food with the gentiles perhaps?

Show he didn't, at least I can show him eating at their table and to be quite frank Jesus cleared up the issue before.



M'r:7:14:
And when he had called all the people unto him,
he said unto them,
Hearken unto me every one of you, a
nd understand:
M'r:7:15:
There is nothing from without a man,
that entering into him can defile him:
but the things which come out of him,
those are they that defile the man.
M'r:7:16:
If any man have ears to hear,
let him hear.
M'r:7:17:
And when he was entered into the house from the people,
his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
M'r:7:18:
And he saith unto them,
Are ye so without understanding also?
Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man,
it cannot defile him;
M'r:7:19:
Because it entereth not into his heart,
but into the belly,
and goeth out into the draught,
purging all meats?

I have scrambled nothing. Reading something that's not there begins to describe yours.

Actually you are going to find out that error in one point ruins the wjole of your current beliefs, I don't think you are ready for that.

If you honestly think that this means Peter ate unkosher food necessarily, well thanks for showing that.

Do you see where he packed a lunch, you can't even name the 6 that went with him.



Ac:11:12:
And the Spirit bade me go with them,
nothing doubting.
Moreover these six brethren accompanied me,
and we entered into the man's house:



Define kill and eat.

 

[Desert Snake]

I just realized something.............seems like some of the most vocal critics of the KJV or whole NT are non-Christians, i'm guessing that according to their 'outsider' view of Christianity, they don't have a very good understanding of Biblical scripture, especially NT.............it's almost like much of the time the arguments are presented in only a straight verse manner, no context, and often interpreted wrongly

anyways, just throwing out some thoughts

 

[Shermana]

The Bible backs it, you finding 100 links to a doctrine that is in error means 100 people are in error.
Matthew Henry (in part)
"Rise, Peter, kill and eat: without putting any difference between clean and unclean, take which thou hast most mind to.’’ The distinction of meats which the law made was intended to put a difference between Jew and Gentile, that it might be difficult to them to dine and sup with a Gentile, because they would have that set before them which they were not allowed to eat; and now the taking off of that prohibition was a plain allowance to converse with the Gentiles, and to be free and familiar with them. Now they might fare as they fared, and therefore might eat with them, and be fellow-commoners with them.

Okay, I'm just do what you do and write off Matthew Henry as in error. Notice however that he doesn't mention how it explicitly says its referring to the gentiles now being able to enter the church.

Really, I posted the post of mine, feel free to post the reply, here it is again. Just where are your quotes from the links or from the Bible?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3171888
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3172180

Umm, excuse me, your Matthew Henry post does not quote from the Bible. Yet you have a problem with me quoting other churches that agree with my view. Hypocrisy at best.

I would place you in the Matthew 23 group actually.

And I'd place you in the Matthew 7:22-23 group. And the Matthew 5:18-19 group.

What would that prove other than people here think the same way. Saying Rome is part of the iron/clay kingdom doesn't make it so.

Huh?

That's your style not mine.

Do you forget your own statements?
“You have absolutely no idea about the KJV, thank you for revealing this.”

Do you forget that this in no way demonstrates why the KJV is supposed to be more accurate?

It shows you have no idea what text was used for the KJV

No, it shows YOU have no idea. Get it straight.

Anytime.

You're on.

The link is in this post, go read it.

Go ahead and repost it for this thread for everyone else reading and feel free to add a quote that you feel supports your position.

I actually said I challenge Christians on a lot of their current promotions, based on passages rather than opinions of other men who cannot be questioned.

Says the person who uses Matthew Henry and then decries other people who use quotes from other sources.

Same as before, showing you what text was used.

How does it that show that?

The preface is more authoritative than you baseless comment.

How so?

Again with the names, whatever. Is your doctrine so fragile that only links can support it, none of them cover all of the passage, they repeat what they have been taught from men who can and do make errors.

So you're saying that you don't need any links or backing to support your claim? Doctrine needs to have objectivity. You don't just get to say what's what and then say everyone else is in error while writing off and dismissing any counter reply while using out of context passages. Even if you used Matthew Henry, I can just go ahead and say HE is in error, except I showed how he doesn't even mention the explicit explanation of the vision. All you are doing is saying that people who disagree with you are wrong. You are the one with such a fragile doctrine that you can't really back it.

The Law is the 10 Commandments, this is just being polite and making discussion in Church less hectic in that only the men spoke, that you think wives were to be quiet all the time just means you hare reading bad thought out links or your reading comprehension is lacking, after all that is why people reference links over actual verses. If I could find one item in a link that you disagree with that puts the whole article into question.

No, the Law is about ALL the commandments. The Jews have ALWAYS recognized the word "Law" to mean "Entire Mosaic Law", not just the 10 commandments. Jesus included "Do not steal "and "do not defraud" in the same sentence.

Wrong again, even with Matthew Henry agreeing he is stuck on a 7 year trib and that is in error on that point.

Huh? 7 year trib? Relevance?

I could give you a link to a site that would remove the burden from you. It won't help your flawed doctrine though but it will remove that temptation for a good long time.

Okay, so that's a refusal to provide a link and resorting to calling my doctrine flawed. Maybe I should just stoop to your level and start calling your doctrine flawed. Which it is. What temptation are you talking about, and why do you feel it would remove this temptation?

So why not use the whole passage then. After all the OT cannot be correctly figured out without the NT texts being included, that doesn't slow down a lot of Jews though.

I DO use the whole passage. You refuse to address the fact that it specifically says that the vision is only talking about gentiles being able to enter the church. You're not even making sense.

I'm still here so it ain’t over is it?

Huh?

Show he didn't, at least I can show him eating at their table and to be quite frank Jesus cleared up the issue before.

You're asking me to disprove a negative? Show me that he didn't dance the hokey pokey with them while you're at it. Show me that he didn't drink blood either. Show me that he didn't commit beastiality. You really have no understanding of logic or you are simply unaware of how disproving a negative works and you insist on your reading into the text that's not there. Jesus did NOT clear up the issue before. If you're going to get into Mark 7:14, which Jesus called a "PARABLE", then that's another story which I'll also be happy to 1x1 on.

M'r:7:14:
And when he had called all the people unto him,
he said unto them,
Hearken unto me every one of you, a
nd understand:
M'r:7:15:
There is nothing from without a man,
that entering into him can defile him:
but the things which come out of him,
those are they that defile the man.
M'r:7:16:
If any man have ears to hear,
let him hear.
M'r:7:17:
And when he was entered into the house from the people,
his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
M'r:7:18:
And he saith unto them,
Are ye so without understanding also?
Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man,
it cannot defile him;
M'r:7:19:
Because it entereth not into his heart,
but into the belly,
and goeth out into the draught,
purging all meats?

And why does Jesus call it a "parable?

Now I'm sure you're just going to write off this link as "in error" and "false doctrine" or something, but your view is far from the universally accepted understanding, and if Jesus did advocate doing away with the dietary Laws, he'd be contradicting himself and wouldn't be the Jewish messiah. I wouldn't follow any claimant saying you can eat pork.

And also, that means you can eat PEOPLE!!!

Did Jesus Declare All Meats Clean?

Actually you are going to find out that error in one point ruins the wjole of your current beliefs, I don't think you are ready for that.

I don't think you're ready for intellectual honesty or honest debate. Perhaps we should ask the Father to show which of us in error through some physical means since we can't seem to resolve this through textual interpretation.

Do you see where he packed a lunch, you can't even name the 6 that went with him.

HUH???

Define kill and eat.

Slaughtering the animal and eating them. But it was a vision. With an explicit meaning. And that meaning is directly explained right after.