| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
12 Dec 2005 12:28:35 PM |
| Object: |
Sola Scriptura In Despair |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1134335247.418782.170260@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
LieMaker wrote in message
3) The Arab's have the "rite" of circumcision, but not the "right" to it.
4) Paul NEVER said Circumcision and Moses' law go hand in hand--he said
He said to the Galatians: "If anyone circumcises he ought to
follow
the whole Law.
What do you think this means?
If you had continued into the passage, Paul would have told you EXACTLY what
he meant: NO ONE is saved by the law because no one can KEEP the law. Hence,
Yet in the same Bible through James' mouth Hebrew Christians
are encouraged to be loyal to Moses' Law and Circumcision.
That means to keep the Law.
As James told Paul not to scare away those who decided
to circumcise their boys
Two contradictory dictums in the same Book which is supposed
to be God's unique word.
You are left with pick and chose.
For some - the Hebrews Christians or Islamic Christians-
the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem has AUTHORITY over Paul.
That is their choice and they have been consistent with
their Scriptures throughout HISTORY.
You are left to pick and chose
we are saved by grace through faith and NOT law. (Whereas you lying frauds
put the law back on, and it's not even your law to begin with--it's the Jews
law.)
Nothing belongs to you.
"To Israel belongs the Law, the covenants, the patriarchs and the
rituals
and from Israel is descended the MESSIAH, God be blessed
eternally." Paul to the Romans.
He told you uncircumcised and unclean that you should not brag
Ike
--
Don't put a period where God put a question mark.
******************************
"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation" is
now available in hardcover, softcover, and ebook editions.
For a synopsis, author bio, an explanation of the real "code" in Revelation,
an excerpt, and links to major sales sites, visit
www.eickleberrybooks.com
******************************
Remove X from address to reply
.
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura In Despair |
12 Dec 2005 01:12:47 PM |
|
|
<Tohu.Bohu> wrote in message
4) Paul NEVER said Circumcision and Moses' law go hand in hand--he
said
He said to the Galatians: "If anyone circumcises he ought to
follow
the whole Law.
What do you think this means?
If you had continued into the passage, Paul would have told you EXACTLY
what
he meant: NO ONE is saved by the law because no one can KEEP the law.
Hence,
Yet in the same Bible through James' mouth Hebrew Christians
are encouraged to be loyal to Moses' Law and Circumcision.
That means to keep the Law.
As James told Paul not to scare away those who decided
to circumcise their boys
Two contradictory dictums in the same Book which is supposed
to be God's unique word.
You are left with pick and chose.
For some - the Hebrews Christians or Islamic Christians-
the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem has AUTHORITY over Paul.
That is their choice and they have been consistent with
their Scriptures throughout HISTORY.
You are left to pick and chose
we are saved by grace through faith and NOT law. (Whereas you lying
frauds
put the law back on, and it's not even your law to begin with--it's the
Jews
law.)
Nothing belongs to you.
"To Israel belongs the Law, the covenants, the patriarchs and the
rituals
and from Israel is descended the MESSIAH, God be blessed
eternally." Paul to the Romans.
He told you uncircumcised and unclean that you should not brag
When in doubt, you should always go to what Jesus himself said!!
Matthew 5: 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I
am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
I trust that you can read that!!
Not one Jot (the smallest bit) or one tittle (the least quantity) will pass
from the law, until two things happen.
1) Heaven and earth pass away. Which as history will tell you, has not
happened.
2) Until all be fulfilled. What is all here?? Whatever it may be, we know
that Heaven and earth have not passed away, so we can safely say that ALL
has not been fulfilled.
Now that is what Jesus himself says.
Now if you prefer the teachings of Paul over the Saviour, who is the Christ.
why do you call yourself Christians?
Call youself Paultheapostatefollowers, which has the acronym (DUMMY).
Smile.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura In Despair |
12 Dec 2005 12:48:32 PM |
|
|
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134412114.991362.71500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1134335247.418782.170260@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
LieMaker wrote in message
3) The Arab's have the "rite" of circumcision, but not the "right" to
it.
4) Paul NEVER said Circumcision and Moses' law go hand in hand--he
said
He said to the Galatians: "If anyone circumcises he ought to
follow
the whole Law.
What do you think this means?
If you had continued into the passage, Paul would have told you EXACTLY
what
he meant: NO ONE is saved by the law because no one can KEEP the law.
Hence,
Yet in the same Bible through James' mouth Hebrew Christians
are encouraged to be loyal to Moses' Law and Circumcision.
That means to keep the Law.
Actually, it doesn't. You're missing Matt. 5:17 from your exegesis.
Prior to Christ, salvation required adherence to the Mosaic Law. Christ took
the place of the Law, therefore salvation thereafter flowed through Him to
those who had the requisite relationship with Him.
What trips the legalistic mind up is the question "Where does that leave the
Law?" It leaves it as the perfect expression of the Mind of God vis a vis
righteousness, but our salvation no longer depends on an adherence to it.
As James told Paul not to scare away those who decided
to circumcise their boys
Two contradictory dictums in the same Book which is supposed
to be God's unique word.
You are left with pick and chose.
With a better understanding, no need to pick and choose -- one concrete,
consistent dictum.
Mike
For some - the Hebrews Christians or Islamic Christians-
the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem has AUTHORITY over Paul.
That is their choice and they have been consistent with
their Scriptures throughout HISTORY.
You are left to pick and chose
we are saved by grace through faith and NOT law. (Whereas you lying
frauds
put the law back on, and it's not even your law to begin with--it's the
Jews
law.)
Nothing belongs to you.
"To Israel belongs the Law, the covenants, the patriarchs and the
rituals
and from Israel is descended the MESSIAH, God be blessed
eternally." Paul to the Romans.
He told you uncircumcised and unclean that you should not brag
Ike
--
Don't put a period where God put a question mark.
******************************
"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation"
is
now available in hardcover, softcover, and ebook editions.
For a synopsis, author bio, an explanation of the real "code" in
Revelation,
an excerpt, and links to major sales sites, visit
www.eickleberrybooks.com
******************************
Remove X from address to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura In Despair |
12 Dec 2005 06:12:52 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134412114.991362.71500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1134335247.418782.170260@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
LieMaker wrote in message
3) The Arab's have the "rite" of circumcision, but not the "right" to
it.
4) Paul NEVER said Circumcision and Moses' law go hand in hand--he
said
He said to the Galatians: "If anyone circumcises he ought to
follow
the whole Law.
What do you think this means?
If you had continued into the passage, Paul would have told you EXACTLY
what
he meant: NO ONE is saved by the law because no one can KEEP the law.
Hence,
Yet in the same Bible through James' mouth Hebrew Christians
are encouraged to be loyal to Moses' Law and Circumcision.
That means to keep the Law.
Actually, it doesn't. You're missing Matt. 5:17 from your exegesis.
Prior to Christ, salvation required adherence to the Mosaic Law. Christ took
the place of the Law, therefore salvation thereafter flowed through Him to
those who had the requisite relationship with Him.
This is besides the point.
Do you think that the ApostleS did not know that?
My contention is Sola Scriptura.
But anyway, If Christ took the place of Moses Law why the
Hebrews Christians are required to be loyal to Moses costums.
Why is that James asked Paul to exempt the Jews who come
to Christ from his teaching
Why the Apostles did not tell it during the Council at Jerusalem?
Why there seems to have a set of Doctrines for the Jews and
another set of Doctrines for the Gentiles at the time
in the same Bible?
Are you saying that the Bible has uniform doctrines on Moses'Law
and Christ?
When you say Jew which group of Jews are you talking about?
Are you talking about those who rejected Jesus as Christ or
those who converted, that to say the Hebrews Christians?
SOLA SCRIPTURA SUCKS
What trips the legalistic mind up is the question "Where does that leave the
Law?" It leaves it as the perfect expression of the Mind of God vis a vis
righteousness, but our salvation no longer depends on an adherence to it.
As James told Paul not to scare away those who decided
to circumcise their boys
Two contradictory dictums in the same Book which is supposed
to be God's unique word.
You are left with pick and chose.
With a better understanding, no need to pick and choose -- one concrete,
consistent dictum.
Mike
For some - the Hebrews Christians or Islamic Christians-
the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem has AUTHORITY over Paul.
That is their choice and they have been consistent with
their Scriptures throughout HISTORY.
You are left to pick and chose
we are saved by grace through faith and NOT law. (Whereas you lying
frauds
put the law back on, and it's not even your law to begin with--it's the
Jews
law.)
Nothing belongs to you.
"To Israel belongs the Law, the covenants, the patriarchs and the
rituals
and from Israel is descended the MESSIAH, God be blessed
eternally." Paul to the Romans.
He told you uncircumcised and unclean that you should not brag
Ike
--
Don't put a period where God put a question mark.
******************************
"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation"
is
now available in hardcover, softcover, and ebook editions.
For a synopsis, author bio, an explanation of the real "code" in
Revelation,
an excerpt, and links to major sales sites, visit
www.eickleberrybooks.com
******************************
Remove X from address to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura In Despair |
12 Dec 2005 07:02:11 PM |
|
|
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1134432772.751855.14710@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134412114.991362.71500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1134335247.418782.170260@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
LieMaker wrote in message
3) The Arab's have the "rite" of circumcision, but not the
"right" to
it.
4) Paul NEVER said Circumcision and Moses' law go hand in
hand--he
said
He said to the Galatians: "If anyone circumcises he ought to
follow
the whole Law.
What do you think this means?
If you had continued into the passage, Paul would have told you
EXACTLY
what
he meant: NO ONE is saved by the law because no one can KEEP the
law.
Hence,
Yet in the same Bible through James' mouth Hebrew Christians
are encouraged to be loyal to Moses' Law and Circumcision.
That means to keep the Law.
Actually, it doesn't. You're missing Matt. 5:17 from your exegesis.
Prior to Christ, salvation required adherence to the Mosaic Law. Christ
took
the place of the Law, therefore salvation thereafter flowed through Him
to
those who had the requisite relationship with Him.
This is besides the point.
It is entirely your point. Please re-read your own post.
Do you think that the ApostleS did not know that?
My contention is Sola Scriptura.
But anyway, If Christ took the place of Moses Law why the
Hebrews Christians are required to be loyal to Moses costums.
Why is that James asked Paul to exempt the Jews who come
to Christ from his teaching.
Why the Apostles did not tell it during the Council at Jerusalem?
Why there seems to have a set of Doctrines for the Jews and
another set of Doctrines for the Gentiles at the time
in the same Bible?
At the time of the first council, it was not at all clear (see Acts 15 v5)
if Christianity was to become a sect of Judaism, or a religion unto itself.
That was a matter still to be worked out by conciliar action in the future.
James would continue to exist in the Hebrew culture, being the Bishop of
Jerusalem, and would continue to live his life according to the Law as he
always had, and there was no sin in doing so. v19-21 is not even close to a
ruling that the larger group of the followers of Christ must live according
to the Law of Moses. In short, it is not surprising in the least that the
Jewish Christians living in Jerusalem would continue to live according to
the Law, as there was no sin in doing so. To do otherwise would bring
persecution from the Jews themselves, as well as ostracization from their
own families who were not following Christ.
Are you saying that the Bible has uniform doctrines on Moses'Law
and Christ?
The NT does, sure.
When you say Jew which group of Jews are you talking about?
Are you talking about those who rejected Jesus as Christ or
those who converted, that to say the Hebrews Christians?
Jewish believers in Christ.
SOLA SCRIPTURA SUCKS
Well, more to the point, it just doesn't work all that well.
Mike
What trips the legalistic mind up is the question "Where does that leave
the
Law?" It leaves it as the perfect expression of the Mind of God vis a
vis
righteousness, but our salvation no longer depends on an adherence to
it.
As James told Paul not to scare away those who decided
to circumcise their boys
Two contradictory dictums in the same Book which is supposed
to be God's unique word.
You are left with pick and chose.
With a better understanding, no need to pick and choose -- one concrete,
consistent dictum.
Mike
For some - the Hebrews Christians or Islamic Christians-
the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem has AUTHORITY over Paul.
That is their choice and they have been consistent with
their Scriptures throughout HISTORY.
You are left to pick and chose
we are saved by grace through faith and NOT law. (Whereas you lying
frauds
put the law back on, and it's not even your law to begin with--it's
the
Jews
law.)
Nothing belongs to you.
"To Israel belongs the Law, the covenants, the patriarchs and the
rituals
and from Israel is descended the MESSIAH, God be blessed
eternally." Paul to the Romans.
He told you uncircumcised and unclean that you should not brag
Ike
--
Don't put a period where God put a question mark.
******************************
"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in
Revelation"
is
now available in hardcover, softcover, and ebook editions.
For a synopsis, author bio, an explanation of the real "code" in
Revelation,
an excerpt, and links to major sales sites, visit
www.eickleberrybooks.com
******************************
Remove X from address to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "MichaelC" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura In Despair |
12 Dec 2005 09:33:04 PM |
|
|
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134441901.591319.207680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1134432772.751855.14710@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134412114.991362.71500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1134335247.418782.170260@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
LieMaker wrote in message
3) The Arab's have the "rite" of circumcision, but not the
"right" to
it.
4) Paul NEVER said Circumcision and Moses' law go hand in
hand--he
said
He said to the Galatians: "If anyone circumcises he ought
to
follow
the whole Law.
What do you think this means?
If you had continued into the passage, Paul would have told you
EXACTLY
what
he meant: NO ONE is saved by the law because no one can KEEP the
law.
Hence,
Yet in the same Bible through James' mouth Hebrew Christians
are encouraged to be loyal to Moses' Law and Circumcision.
That means to keep the Law.
Actually, it doesn't. You're missing Matt. 5:17 from your exegesis.
Prior to Christ, salvation required adherence to the Mosaic Law.
Christ
took
the place of the Law, therefore salvation thereafter flowed through
Him
to
those who had the requisite relationship with Him.
This is besides the point.
It is entirely your point. Please re-read your own post.
Do you think that the ApostleS did not know that?
My contention is Sola Scriptura.
But anyway, If Christ took the place of Moses Law why the
Hebrews Christians are required to be loyal to Moses costums.
Why is that James asked Paul to exempt the Jews who come
to Christ from his teaching.
Why the Apostles did not tell it during the Council at Jerusalem?
Why there seems to have a set of Doctrines for the Jews and
another set of Doctrines for the Gentiles at the time
in the same Bible?
At the time of the first council, it was not at all clear (see Acts 15
v5)
if Christianity was to become a sect of Judaism, or a religion unto
itself.
That was a matter still to be worked out by conciliar action in the
future.
James would continue to exist in the Hebrew culture, being the Bishop of
Jerusalem, and would continue to live his life according to the Law as
he
always had, and there was no sin in doing so. v19-21 is not even close
to a
ruling that the larger group of the followers of Christ must live
according
to the Law of Moses. In short, it is not surprising in the least that
the
Jewish Christians living in Jerusalem would continue to live according
to
the Law, as there was no sin in doing so. To do otherwise would bring
persecution from the Jews themselves, as well as ostracization from
their
own families who were not following Christ.
To say that Jesus was the Messiah brought persecution, I guess
you would suggest that they gave up preaching for fear
of persecutions.
Apparently they did not, although the persecutions continued.
The History of Christianity in the Acts is very clear, there
were Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah, there
were those who accepted Him and were told to live according to
their Mosaic costums and there were the Gentiles and uncircumcised.
If anyone thinks otherwise he is a liar as attested
in the letter sent out to the gentiles Church from the council.
Nonsense. As stated before, the opinion rendered by James was far short of a
mandate to maintain Jewish law within the Christian community, and even if
it was, it was one man's opinion, and that man was not in a position to
dictate to the rest. The Church was a church of consensus rule at the time,
a tradition that was maintained throughout Christianity until the Schism.
But, if you wish, you can call me, and all the rest of the 2.25 billion
Christians who disagree with your novel interpretation, liars. It's your
perogative.
No Jew would ever walked away from Moses at that time.
To become what? A Gentile uncircumcised?
Why sent the Gentiles a dietary Law at all If that would bring
persecution upon them If you think that persecution was the issue?
I don't "think" it was the issue. It was ***clearly*** the issue. This is
simply a matter of history. Just a decade before, Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee
himself, had left his homeland in Greece for the express purpose of giving
the nascent Christian church a problem, and I expect you're fully aware of
the events of Acts 7. Do you believe that in a decade the Pharisees had
changed their tune about the Christians?
Are you saying that the Bible has uniform doctrines on Moses'Law
and Christ?
The NT does, sure.
No it does not. It give us useful information how christianity
was lived in history or real life both by the Jew Christians
and the Gentiles Christians. The "NT" is no treatise on doctrinal
matters > EXCEPT Paul's occasional letters.
Straw man. You didn't ask me if it was a treatise on doctrinal matters. You
asked me if it had uniform doctrines on the Law and Christ.
History told us that the Ebionites and the Hebrews Christians
lived according to Moses' costums. James words are the
scriptural proof.
Where did James tell them to live according to the Law? Answer: He didn't.
The chapter can be understood by noting that it's divided into three parts:
Peter's view was that the Holy Spirit had come upon Gentile and Jew alike,
without respect for persons (Acts 10:34) and because of that fact, they
should not be (as the Pharasaical Christians wanted) a requirement for
circumcision or to live by the Law; in fact, Peter stated his opinion that
placing " ...a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our
fathers nor we were able to bear" would actually be sinful to do (tempting
God.). James then rendered his opinion (which, I will remind you again, was
not authoritative) that the Gentile believers should still be councilled to
do three things " that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from]
fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood."
Since the Law contains nearly 700 mitzvahs, if memory serves, an opinion
that the Gentiles do three things (that would be .43% of the total Law) is
hardly asking them to keep the whole of it.
Paul Versus James: Two doctrinal lines colliding in the Bible.
Nonsense. What you call "doctrinal lines" form a perfect balance. Faith and
works exist inseparably from one another, not in the false dichotomy taught
by some. Works are the visible proof that faith exists in the individual.
James did not say "faith is dead." If he had, you would have been quite
right -- but, he said faith WITHOUT works is dead, a straightforward
assertation that the two exist in a terse dynamic, a dynamic which Paul
alludes to constantly by claiming that "salvation is by faith" but then
detailing the works he expects to be manifest in the Church.
Mike
When you say Jew which group of Jews are you talking about?
Are you talking about those who rejected Jesus as Christ or
those who converted, that to say the Hebrews Christians?
Jewish believers in Christ.
SOLA SCRIPTURA SUCKS
Well, more to the point, it just doesn't work all that well.
Mike
What trips the legalistic mind up is the question "Where does that
leave
the
Law?" It leaves it as the perfect expression of the Mind of God vis
a
vis
righteousness, but our salvation no longer depends on an adherence
to
it.
As James told Paul not to scare away those who decided
to circumcise their boys
Two contradictory dictums in the same Book which is supposed
to be God's unique word.
You are left with pick and chose.
With a better understanding, no need to pick and choose -- one
concrete,
consistent dictum.
Mike
For some - the Hebrews Christians or Islamic Christians-
the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem has AUTHORITY over Paul.
That is their choice and they have been consistent with
their Scriptures throughout HISTORY.
You are left to pick and chose
we are saved by grace through faith and NOT law. (Whereas you
lying
frauds
put the law back on, and it's not even your law to begin
with--it's
the
Jews
law.)
Nothing belongs to you.
"To Israel belongs the Law, the covenants, the patriarchs and the
rituals
and from Israel is descended the MESSIAH, God be blessed
eternally." Paul to the Romans.
He told you uncircumcised and unclean that you should not brag
Ike
--
Don't put a period where God put a question mark.
******************************
"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in
Revelation"
is
now available in hardcover, softcover, and ebook editions.
For a synopsis, author bio, an explanation of the real "code" in
Revelation,
an excerpt, and links to major sales sites, visit
www.eickleberrybooks.com
******************************
Remove X from address to reply
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Paul VS James: Catholic Christianity Vs Islamic Christianity In The Bible |
12 Dec 2005 08:53:06 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
Jewish believers in Christ.
SOLA SCRIPTURA SUCKS
From the Bible you can get Islam and from the same Bible
you can have Catholicism. As we know it one is the reversal
of the other , yet you guys talk about Sola Scriptura as If Jesus
left a book behind or as If the Apostles canonized a treatise
on Christ...
SOLA SCRIPTURA SUCKS
Well, more to the point, it just doesn't work all that well.
Mike
What trips the legalistic mind up is the question "Where does that leave
the
Law?" It leaves it as the perfect expression of the Mind of God vis a
vis
righteousness, but our salvation no longer depends on an adherence to
it.
As James told Paul not to scare away those who decided
to circumcise their boys
Two contradictory dictums in the same Book which is supposed
to be God's unique word.
You are left with pick and chose.
With a better understanding, no need to pick and choose -- one concrete,
consistent dictum.
Mike
For some - the Hebrews Christians or Islamic Christians-
the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem has AUTHORITY over Paul.
That is their choice and they have been consistent with
their Scriptures throughout HISTORY.
You are left to pick and chose
we are saved by grace through faith and NOT law. (Whereas you lying
frauds
put the law back on, and it's not even your law to begin with--it's
the
Jews
law.)
Nothing belongs to you.
"To Israel belongs the Law, the covenants, the patriarchs and the
rituals
and from Israel is descended the MESSIAH, God be blessed
eternally." Paul to the Romans.
He told you uncircumcised and unclean that you should not brag
Ike
--
Don't put a period where God put a question mark.
******************************
"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in
Revelation"
is
now available in hardcover, softcover, and ebook editions.
For a synopsis, author bio, an explanation of the real "code" in
Revelation,
an excerpt, and links to major sales sites, visit
www.eickleberrybooks.com
******************************
Remove X from address to reply
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura In Despair |
12 Dec 2005 08:45:01 PM |
|
|
MichaelC wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1134432772.751855.14710@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MichaelC wrote:
<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134412114.991362.71500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1134335247.418782.170260@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
LieMaker wrote in message
3) The Arab's have the "rite" of circumcision, but not the
"right" to
it.
4) Paul NEVER said Circumcision and Moses' law go hand in
hand--he
said
He said to the Galatians: "If anyone circumcises he ought to
follow
the whole Law.
What do you think this means?
If you had continued into the passage, Paul would have told you
EXACTLY
what
he meant: NO ONE is saved by the law because no one can KEEP the
law.
Hence,
Yet in the same Bible through James' mouth Hebrew Christians
are encouraged to be loyal to Moses' Law and Circumcision.
That means to keep the Law.
Actually, it doesn't. You're missing Matt. 5:17 from your exegesis.
Prior to Christ, salvation required adherence to the Mosaic Law. Christ
took
the place of the Law, therefore salvation thereafter flowed through Him
to
those who had the requisite relationship with Him.
This is besides the point.
It is entirely your point. Please re-read your own post.
Do you think that the ApostleS did not know that?
My contention is Sola Scriptura.
But anyway, If Christ took the place of Moses Law why the
Hebrews Christians are required to be loyal to Moses costums.
Why is that James asked Paul to exempt the Jews who come
to Christ from his teaching.
Why the Apostles did not tell it during the Council at Jerusalem?
Why there seems to have a set of Doctrines for the Jews and
another set of Doctrines for the Gentiles at the time
in the same Bible?
At the time of the first council, it was not at all clear (see Acts 15 v5)
if Christianity was to become a sect of Judaism, or a religion unto itself.
That was a matter still to be worked out by conciliar action in the future.
James would continue to exist in the Hebrew culture, being the Bishop of
Jerusalem, and would continue to live his life according to the Law as he
always had, and there was no sin in doing so. v19-21 is not even close to a
ruling that the larger group of the followers of Christ must live according
to the Law of Moses. In short, it is not surprising in the least that the
Jewish Christians living in Jerusalem would continue to live according to
the Law, as there was no sin in doing so. To do otherwise would bring
persecution from the Jews themselves, as well as ostracization from their
own families who were not following Christ.
To say that Jesus was the Messiah brought persecution, I guess
you would suggest that they gave up preaching for fear
of persecutions.
The History of Christianity in the Acts is very clear, there
were Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah, there
were those who accepted Him and were told to live according to
their Mosaic costums and there were the Gentiles and uncircumcised.
If anyone thinks otherwise he is a liar as attested
in the letter sent out to the gentiles Church from the council.
No Jew would ever walked away from Moses at that time.
To become what? A Gentile uncircumcised?
Why sent the Gentiles a dietary Law at all If that would bring
persecution upon them If you think that persecution was the issue?
Are you saying that the Bible has uniform doctrines on Moses'Law
and Christ?
The NT does, sure.
No it does not. It give us useful information how christianity
was lived in history or real life both by the Jew Christians
and the Gentiles Christians. The "NT" is no treatise on doctrinal
matters
EXCEPT Paul's occasional letters.
History told us that the Ebionites and the Hebrews Christians
lived according to Moses' costums. James words are the
scriptural proof.
Paul Versus James: Two doctrinal lines colliding in the Bible
When you say Jew which group of Jews are you talking about?
Are you talking about those who rejected Jesus as Christ or
those who converted, that to say the Hebrews Christians?
Jewish believers in Christ.
SOLA SCRIPTURA SUCKS
Well, more to the point, it just doesn't work all that well.
Mike
What trips the legalistic mind up is the question "Where does that leave
the
Law?" It leaves it as the perfect expression of the Mind of God vis a
vis
righteousness, but our salvation no longer depends on an adherence to
it.
As James told Paul not to scare away those who decided
to circumcise their boys
Two contradictory dictums in the same Book which is supposed
to be God's unique word.
You are left with pick and chose.
With a better understanding, no need to pick and choose -- one concrete,
consistent dictum.
Mike
For some - the Hebrews Christians or Islamic Christians-
the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem has AUTHORITY over Paul.
That is their choice and they have been consistent with
their Scriptures throughout HISTORY.
You are left to pick and chose
we are saved by grace through faith and NOT law. (Whereas you lying
frauds
put the law back on, and it's not even your law to begin with--it's
the
Jews
law.)
Nothing belongs to you.
"To Israel belongs the Law, the covenants, the patriarchs and the
rituals
and from Israel is descended the MESSIAH, God be blessed
eternally." Paul to the Romans.
He told you uncircumcised and unclean that you should not brag
Ike
--
Don't put a period where God put a question mark.
******************************
"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in
Revelation"
is
now available in hardcover, softcover, and ebook editions.
For a synopsis, author bio, an explanation of the real "code" in
Revelation,
an excerpt, and links to major sales sites, visit
www.eickleberrybooks.com
******************************
Remove X from address to reply
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
