Doing the Law

[Thana]

No, claiming that you speak the truth because you have the Spirit guiding you is preaching, especially when it's in lieu of an actual counter-argument. It's a last-ditch last resort. How is it possibly debating? How is claiming that you have God's Spirit guiding you in any way a debate argument?

My arguement was that, Reading the bible as simply a man, You'll see what you want to see. You'll read into what you want to read into.

Reading the bible with an open heart, and the Holy Spirit, You'll see what God wants you to see, Not what you want to see.
You'll have the understanding that you need.

That's my argument. It's not a last ditch last resort, It's the truth to me.

 

[Shermana]

My arguement was that, Reading the bible as simply a man, You'll see what you want to see. You'll read into what you want to read into.

Reading the bible with an open heart, and the Holy Spirit, You'll see what God wants you to see, Not what you want to see.
You'll have the understanding that you need.

That's my argument. It's not a last ditch last resort, It's the truth to me.

Okay, well reading the Bible with an Open Heart and his Holy Spirit guiding me has led me to a completely different interpretation than yours that directly clashes and contradicts with yours, and says that yours is wrong and should be discarded.

 

[Thana]

Okay, well reading the Bible with an Open Heart and his Holy Spirit guiding me has led me to a completely different interpretation than yours that directly clashes and contradicts with yours, and says that yours is wrong and should be discarded.

You're trying to say the Holy Spirit in you is disagreeing with my argument that the Holy Spirit is what one needs to understand the bible fully?

I mean, Seriously?

 

[Shermana]

You're trying to say the Holy Spirit in you is disagreeing with my argument that the Holy Spirit is what one needs to understand the bible fully?

I mean, Seriously?

No, try reading again. I'm saying it's saying that your claim that it has guided you to your interpretation is wrong.

 

[Thana]

No, try reading again. I'm saying it's saying that your claim that it has guided you to your interpretation is wrong.

If the Holy Spirit worked like that, Do you think we'd being having this discussion?

The Holy Spirit is for guidance and understanding.
Do you think it's for guiding you to contradictions and discussions on it's credibility?

 

[Shermana]

If the Holy Spirit worked like that, Do you think we'd being having this discussion?

The Holy Spirit is for guidance and understanding.
Do you think it's for guiding you to contradictions and discussions on it's credibility?

See, here you're not understanding me again.

You're under the presumption that it has in fact brought you to your conclusion.

In fact, you're basically stating what my argument is.

Obviously it will NOT bring people into conflict.

Therefore, one of us is wrong.

So obviously, one of us does NOT have the holy spirit guiding them to their interpretation and conclusion.

Now do we how determine which of us is mistaken?

 

[Thana]

See, here you're not understanding me again.

You're under the presumption that it has in fact brought you to your conclusion.

In fact, you're basically stating what my argument is.

Obviously it will NOT bring people into conflict.

Therefore, one of us is wrong.

So obviously, one of us does NOT have the holy spirit guiding them to their interpretation and conclusion.

Now do we how determine which of us is mistaken?

I'd say it'd be the one who isn't a Christian.
You'd say it's the one who is a Christian.

But for hypotheticals, Say you are also a Christian guided by the Holy Spirit.
Well, then we wouldn't be having this arguement.
So I guess there's your answer?

But for your arguement, Christians are still human beings. Imperfect.
We also have free will.
So if two Christians were having this arguement, It wouldn't be because of the Holy Spirit, It'd be because they're imperfect, And they made a choice to argue.

 

[Shermana]

Okay, so therefore, one of those Christians who is imperfect may want to reassess whether the Holy Spirit is giving them the answer and not just rely on that and try to actually argue and debate using actual arguments and debate points and critical thinking. Obviously the Spirit would not be guiding people into wrong beliefs, and if two people claim to have the Spirit, and they have conflicting interpretations, that can't possibly be the Spirit guiding both of them now can it.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit might not be guiding the one who says that the text can be thrown out if it doesn't match with the ideals of "Modern culture" though.

Usually when a Christian claims to have the Spirit guiding them, it's more often than not when they've had a question or argument poke a hole in whatever view they're pushing and they can't defend it. I highly doubt the Spirit would want that to be a defense in lieu of rational argument.

 

[Thana]

Okay, so therefore, one of those Christians who is imperfect may want to reassess whether the Holy Spirit is giving them the answer and not just rely on that and try to actually argue and debate using actual arguments and debate points and critical thinking. Obviously the Spirit would not be guiding people into wrong beliefs, and if two people claim to have the Spirit, and they have conflicting interpretations, that can't possibly be the Spirit guiding both of them now can it.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit might not be guiding the one who says that the text can be thrown out if it doesn't match with the ideals of "Modern culture" though.

Usually when a Christian claims to have the Spirit guiding them, it's more often than not when they've had a question or argument poke a hole in whatever view they're pushing and they can't defend it. I highly doubt the Spirit would want that to be a defense in lieu of rational argument.

Who determines who's argument is rational when one is religious and the other is not?
The Holy Spirit guides us all, That does not mean we listen to it.
I'm just going to try a different approach, Forget the Holy Spirit because you don't understand or you don't want to, Or you're prejudice against it. I don't know.

But, common sense dictates that the bible was written a long time ago, Concerning people alive, along time ago. So the bible will reflect that culture, It does not mean that one must change themselves to emulate that culture.

For in that culture, It was an eye for an eye.
But when Jesus came, It was turn the other cheek.
One must use common sense in this scenario, Or you'll just be making me want to bang my head against a brick wall.

Do you see my point?

 

[Shermana]

Forget the Holy Spirit because you don't understand or you don't want to, Or you're prejudice against it. I don't know.

So because I disagree that you have the Spirit, I don't understand it or am prejudiced against it. Arrogance overwhelming.

Who determines who's argument is rational when one is religious and the other is not?

Are you implying I'm not religious because I disagree with you?

For in that culture, It was an eye for an eye.
But when Jesus came, It was turn the other cheek.
One must use common sense in this scenario, Or you'll just be making me want to bang my head against a brick wall.

Jesus was not changing the Law, he was saying the same exact thing that Modern Rabbis are saying, that it was never meant to be read literally but as an idiomatic expression for monetary compensation, and turning the other cheek is for petty insults and infractions. The New Testament teaches nothing new.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/new.html

One must use common sense in this scenario, Or you'll just be making me want to bang my head against a brick wall.

Do you think you own the monopoly on "Common sense" and that people with different interpretations don't have common sense? That's okay if you do, I kind of do in a way myself. I can't even begin to explain how much these Christians with their ridiculous interpretations and rabbit hole-defenses make me want to bang my head against a wall.

The Holy Spirit guides us all, That does not mean we listen to it.

Where does the text say this exactly? You think it guides JWs and Mormons and Moonies and 7th day adventists and Catholics all the same? Or do you just think they are all not listening to it?

Why did David ask God to not take the Spirit away from him?

 

[Latuwr]

Hi Sincerely,
Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!
You wrote:
Belief in Christ's death upon the Cross as a substitute for one who is already "dead in trespasses and sins",---gives LIFE.
Notice your words, "as a substitute", where is it written in the Scriptures that ELOHIM accepts substitutes for the disobedient?
Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,
Sincerely, Latuwr

 

[Thana]

So because I disagree that you have the Spirit, I don't understand it or am prejudiced against it. Arrogance overwhelming.



Are you implying I'm not religious because I disagree with you?



Jesus was not changing the Law, he was saying the same exact thing that Modern Rabbis are saying, that it was never meant to be read literally but as an idiomatic expression for monetary compensation, and turning the other cheek is for petty insults and infractions. The New Testament teaches nothing new.

The New Testament teaches nothing New



Do you think you own the monopoly on "Common sense" and that people with different interpretations don't have common sense? That's okay if you do, I kind of do in a way myself. I can't even begin to explain how much these Christians with their ridiculous interpretations and rabbit hole-defenses make me want to bang my head against a wall.



Where does the text say this exactly? You think it guides JWs and Mormons and Moonies and 7th day adventists and Catholics all the same? Or do you just think they are all not listening to it?

Why did David ask God to not take the Spirit away from him?

If Christians dismiss the OT (in a sense, Im simplifying here) Then we're practically crapping all over the Jews.

I apologize. And no, I didn't assume you weren't religious.

We disagree on the relativity of the OT, But know that I think it's important, Just as important as the NT.

And since common sense depends on the individual, I can't claim I own the monopoly on common sense.

And if we are meant to take some parts of the bible literally and some parts not, Who determines what is meant to be taken literally and what is not?

 

[Shermana]

If Christians dismiss the OT (in a sense, Im simplifying here) Then we're practically crapping all over the Jews.

Okay, I agree with that. However I take it a step further. By denying the link with the historical fact that the original Christian Church was nothing but Old-Testament-following Jews, they are also "crapping all over" the very foundations of Christianity. I see nothing about it that says it was ever meant to be changed. The notion of taking away the roots of the Hebrew scriptures and the doing of the Law was a later development once the gentiles entered the picture, and it's a historical controversy. Meanwhile, the Jesus in the gospels says point blank that the Law is forever binding, until heaven and collapse, and anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments, until heaven and earth collapse, shall be called the least in the Kingdom. The "doers of Lawlessness" will be rejected and cast out.

And even for Jews in general, to say that Christianity has somehow made their law obsolete and that they're thus wasting their time, is as well "crapping all over them". So in either case, the antinomian philosophy is one big series of "Crapping all over" the very foundations of the Abrahamic faith.

I apologize. And no, I didn't assume you weren't religious.

We disagree on the relativity of the OT, But know that I think it's important, Just as important as the NT.

And since common sense depends on the individual, I can't claim I own the monopoly on common sense.

And if we are meant to take some parts of the bible literally and some parts not, Who determines what is meant to be taken literally and what is not?

The issue of what is what is meant to be taken literally and what is meant to be taken figuratively is an entirely different animal, but in terms of the Law itself, we can argue that some things are meant to be taken 100% literally based on historical precedent. The notion that eye for an eye was not meant to be literal is something even modern Rabbis agree with. The modern Rabbis actually agree with Jesus on a whole lot more than they'd like to admit.

 

[Thana]

Okay, I agree with that. However I take it a step further. By denying the link with the historical fact that the original Christian Church was nothing but Old-Testament-following Jews, they are also "crapping all over" the very foundations of Christianity. I see nothing about it that says it was ever meant to be changed. The notion of taking away the roots of the Hebrew scriptures and the doing of the Law was a later development once the gentiles entered the picture, and it's a historical controversy. Meanwhile, the Jesus in the gospels says point blank that the Law is forever binding, until heaven and collapse, and anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments, until heaven and earth collapse, shall be called the least in the Kingdom. The "doers of Lawlessness" will be rejected and cast out.

And even for Jews in general, to say that Christianity has somehow made their law obsolete and that they're thus wasting their time, is as well "crapping all over them". So in either case, the antinomian philosophy is one big series of "Crapping all over" the very foundations of the Abrahamic faith.



The issue of what is what is meant to be taken literally and what is meant to be taken figuratively is an entirely different animal, but in terms of the Law itself, we can argue that some things are meant to be taken 100% literally based on historical precedent. The notion that eye for an eye was not meant to be literal is something even modern Rabbis agree with. The modern Rabbis actually agree with Jesus on a whole lot more than they'd like to admit.

Then, In that sense, Do you find that Messianic Jews are crapping all over Orthodox Jews?

It's a difficult argument, I'll give you that, Concerning the OT 'laws'. And I find myself, As a modern, 21st Century woman, Having a hard time trying to accept things such as finding myself unclean when I'm having my period, Even though I know it's only because I just ovulated. How does that make me unclean, And why should it make me any different from when I'm not menstrating?

And if I find myself coming across a homosexual, Or a woman who had sex before marriage, I'm not going to start throwing stones at them.

I determine what I take literally from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Whereas a Jew might take it from a Rabbi, Or a Catholic might take it from the Pope.

So I don't dismiss what the OT says, But neither do I follow all of what it says. And I think, to you that would mean damnation. But to me, It means I'd rather follow Jesus's teachings, Since hopefully whatever the reason for the laws of that time, Jesus's teaching's will keep me safe from whatever predicament I might have found myself in if I hadn't followed the OT laws.

 

[sincerly]

Hi Sincerely,
Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!
You wrote:
Belief in Christ's death upon the Cross as a substitute for one who is already "dead in trespasses and sins",---gives LIFE.
Notice your words, "as a substitute", where is it written in the Scriptures that ELOHIM accepts substitutes for the disobedient?
Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,
Sincerely, Latuwr

Hi Latuwr, Read Lev. chap. 4 and Chap.5 for starters.

 

[Shermana]

Then, In that sense, Do you find that Messianic Jews are crapping all over Orthodox Jews?

Not at all. Why would they be? Messianic Jews for the most part believe in Torah compliance. The only thing we are "Crapping all over" is the strict, artificial interpretations of vague, ambiguous Messianic prophecies, which we can view as "Crapping all over" the original intent of them as we see it.

It's a difficult argument, I'll give you that, Concerning the OT 'laws'. And I find myself, As a modern, 21st Century woman, Having a hard time trying to accept things such as finding myself unclean when I'm having my period, Even though I know it's only because I just ovulated. How does that make me unclean, And why should it make me any different from when I'm not menstrating?

What do you think "Unclean" means in that case? Do you think its too restrictive to say you should avoid carnal relations or sitting on household furniture while you're on your time?

And if I find myself coming across a homosexual, Or a woman who had sex before marriage, I'm not going to start throwing stones at them.

Jewish Law requires them to be brought before the Sanhedrin. There is no Sanhedrin at this time, so we are left to leave them to God's judgment. However, there is no execution for a woman who has pre-marital relations unless she lies about being a virgin, although it's still highly condemnable, and in much of the NT apocrypha (And OT), it says its a fate worse than death for women.

I determine what I take literally from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Whereas a Jew might take it from a Rabbi, Or a Catholic might take it from the Pope.

But we're back at square one, you don't know whether the Holy Spirit is truly guiding you or you're just using it as an excuse for your particular confirmation bias, since obviously there are many, many, many people who also claim the Spirit guides them who have contradictory opinions such as what is literal and what is not.

So I don't dismiss what the OT says, But neither do I follow all of what it says.

I'd say that you should follow all that is applicable in the "Spirit" of the Law. None of it is undone. It is perpetual. If some things cannot be done, such as stoning adulteresses, because there's no politically autonomous Sanhedrin, then we leave it to God. Other things are totally within our control and can be done. Such as, just because you don't stone adulterers, does that mean you can go out and commit adultery? Do you believe adultery is now acceptable?

And I think, to you that would mean damnation

.

It would mean points against you in purgatory.

But to me, It means I'd rather follow Jesus's teachings

,

And to me, it means you are NOT following Jesus teachings but you are actually going directly against what he teaches, and he specifically says that those who teach to break the least of the commandments shall be among the lowliest in the kingdom, and that the "doers of lawlessness" will be cast out. If you claim the spirit guides you against this position, then you claim the spirit is guiding you to think Jesus was lying.

Since hopefully whatever the reason for the laws of that time, Jesus's teaching's will keep me safe from whatever predicament I might have found myself in if I hadn't followed the OT laws.

Well I can tell you for a matter of fact that Jesus's teachings are not being followed if you aren't obeying the OT laws. Have you actually read the Gospels all the way through?

 

[Thana]

Not at all. Why would they be? Messianic Jews for the most part believe in Torah compliance. The only thing we are "Crapping all over" is the strict, artificial interpretations of vague, ambiguous Messianic prophecies, which we can view as "Crapping all over" the original intent of them as we see it.



What do you think "Unclean" means in that case? Do you think its too restrictive to say you should avoid carnal relations or sitting on household furniture while you're on your time?



Jewish Law requires them to be brought before the Sanhedrin. There is no Sanhedrin at this time, so we are left to leave them to God's judgment. However, there is no execution for a woman who has pre-marital relations unless she lies about being a virgin, although it's still highly condemnable, and in much of the NT apocrypha (And OT), it says its a fate worse than death for women.



But we're back at square one, you don't know whether the Holy Spirit is truly guiding you or you're just using it as an excuse for your particular confirmation bias, since obviously there are many, many, many people who also claim the Spirit guides them who have contradictory opinions such as what is literal and what is not.



I'd say that you should follow all that is applicable in the "Spirit" of the Law. None of it is undone. It is perpetual. If some things cannot be done, such as stoning adulteresses, because there's no politically autonomous Sanhedrin, then we leave it to God. Other things are totally within our control and can be done. Such as, just because you don't stone adulterers, does that mean you can go out and commit adultery? Do you believe adultery is now acceptable?

.

It would mean points against you in purgatory.

,

And to me, it means you are NOT following Jesus teachings but you are actually going directly against what he teaches, and he specifically says that those who teach to break the least of the commandments shall be among the lowliest in the kingdom, and that the "doers of lawlessness" will be cast out. If you claim the spirit guides you against this position, then you claim the spirit is guiding you to think Jesus was lying.



Well I can tell you for a matter of fact that Jesus's teachings are not being followed if you aren't obeying the OT laws. Have you actually read the Gospels all the way through?

What were the OT Laws point if not for self preservation, Spirtitual contenment and survival?

I ask why does God want us to do these things? Is it because it's for our betterment? And if so, Does that mean that perhaps I can follow the NT without requiring the OT because everything I need to keep myself safe in body and spirit is also in the NT?

That's my reasoning, I suppose.

 

[Shermana]

What were the OT Laws point if not for self preservation, Spirtitual contenment and survival?

I ask why does God want us to do these things? Is it because it's for our betterment? And if so, Does that mean that perhaps I can follow the NT without requiring the OT because everything I need to keep myself safe in body and spirit is also in the NT?

That's my reasoning, I suppose.

Now think what "Spiritual contentment" means.

God wants us to do things like refrain from Pork, obey Sabbath, bathe after emitting fluids, fast on the holiest day, not engage in adultery or forbidden relations, and avoid contact with contaminated things because it's for the sake of the holiness of our soul. It's similar to why you wouldn't want to drink lemonade if someone ****** in it. Or would you want to hang a picture on the wall if it was heavily flawed and splattered with mud. Your soul is that glass of lemonade. Your soul is that picture.

Jesus specifically says you must keep all the Commandments, and that those who teach to break the least of them will be among the peons and lowliest of the kingdom, if not outright rejected as "Doers of lawlessness". So no, you absolutely cannot follow the NT if you reject the OT, you are basically calling Jesus a liar or rebelling against what he explicitly taught. Unfortunately, rebelling against what Jesus explicitly taught has been the mainstream current among "Christiandom" for the last 1900 years.

 

[Thana]

Now think what "Spiritual contentment" means.

God wants us to do things like refrain from Pork, obey Sabbath, bathe after emitting fluids, fast on the holiest day, not engage in adultery or forbidden relations, and avoid contact with contaminated things because it's for the sake of the holiness of our soul. It's similar to why you wouldn't want to drink lemonade if someone ****** in it. Or would you want to hang a picture on the wall if it was heavily flawed and splattered with mud. Your soul is that glass of lemonade. Your soul is that picture.

Jesus specifically says you must keep all the Commandments, and that those who teach to break the least of them will be among the peons and lowliest of the kingdom, if not outright rejected as "Doers of lawlessness". So no, you absolutely cannot follow the NT if you reject the OT, you are basically calling Jesus a liar or rebelling against what he explicitly taught. Unfortunately, rebelling against what Jesus explicitly taught has been the mainstream current among "Christiandom" for the last 1900 years.

I know that passage, And I understand your point.
And I don't outright disobey the OT, I just don't follow some customs and some laws.

If I am wrong in this, Then I know one day I'll be set on the right path.
I trust in God to help me find righteousness and truth.

 

[Shermana]

I know that passage, And I understand your point.
And I don't outright disobey the OT, I just don't follow some customs and some laws.

If I am wrong in this, Then I know one day I'll be set on the right path.
I trust in God to help me find righteousness and truth.

Well then, I shall leave you with that. May you be directed towards the truth and have a willing Spirit to embrace it.