Leaderboard

The Jerusalem council evidently disagrees with your claim. The Jerusalem council did not find fault with any of the teachings of Moses, but rather with the teachings of the men who had gone out without authorization. James specifically mentioned in the council that Moses is taught in every city, but the council didn't apply their decision to every city. They sent their decision only to the cities where the unauthorized men had taught, and applied their decision only to Gentile believers, not to Jews.

Are you equating "moral" with "natural" ? Cause I don't think those two things are the same. Man's nature is carnal, therefore immoral. Man will "naturally" do what he can get away with, UNLESS indwelt by the Spirit of God. The indwelling is stronger than our carnal nature, which allows us to live "morally". Why does it matter exactly WHEN the LORD reminded human beings (a few of them) about His special rest day? If the LORD declared the 7th Day "holy" - set apart for the LORD, at creation - the day after creating Adam and Eve, I would assume He told Adam about it. Where did Moses get the creation account that he wrote down? I think there's a verse that says Moses consulted other sources. If human beings then forgot a whopping lot of the LORD's work, I think the LORD would reintroduce it slowly, first calling Abraham and establishing a relationship with him, then going on to Jacob, finally to the rescue of Israel from Egypt, then the revelation of his "Law". And even that was not a FULL revelation. The first human beings were offering animal "sacrifices". Right? When Cain brought plants, the LORD rejected his offering. I think it can be assumed that Adam had some instruction about this, and had passed that instruction on to Cain and Abel. Job offered sacrifices for his children, in case they had sinned. Job lived about he same time as Abraham, perhaps earlier. How did Job know what was sin and what wasn't, and what to offer as "burnt offerings" ? Because the Bible does not specifically say "Shem instructed Job, doesn't mean he didn't. Their actions say they were "instructed" by someone.

Another thing - The OT priests would examine the sacrifice - not the sinner. With 20/20 hindsight, this is a big clue to me that the Father looks at the perfection of the sacrifice - His Son - rather than the perfection of the confessing sinner. Priests can't override the perfection of the sacrifice by refusing absolution.

Also lets not forget that when Joseph was tempted by Potiphar's wife he knew what Adultery was!! Yet as was mentioned by Gustave, the 10 Commandments were not even spoken of!! Obviously they were!!

Or could the difference be the motivation for circumcision? In Galatians, they were being circumcised because the Judaizers convinced them that circumcision was required for salvation. Maybe Timothy asked to be circumcised so he could "fit in" better when he accompanied Paul and/or preached in synagogues.

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:14-17) What scripture was Paul talking about? The Old Testament! The New Testament didn't exist yet. The Old Testament was the standard used by the early church.

A. The Bible doesn't use the term "Trinity" nor does it emphasize the "three-ness" of God. I believe everything the Bible actually says about the nature of God, and I believe that everything Jesus claimed about himself and his relationship to God. I believe about the Spirit of God the same as the people who wrote the Old Testament and the New Testament, which is somewhat different than the way people explain the Spirit of God today. B. I believe that it is possible for any man, including the apostle Paul, to teach things that are contrary to Scripture. So everything must be tested by previously existing Scripture to see whether it is true. In Acts 17:10 the Bereans were commended for testing the teachings of Paul using the Old Testament scrolls found in the Jewish synagogue to see whether Paul's teachings agreed with the Old Testament. The Bereans found that Paul's teachings were in agreement with the previously existing Scripture of his day, just as Paul himself claimed about his own teachings. I agree with the conclusion of the Bereans that Paul's teachings are all valid because, when his writings are correctly interpreted in context, Paul's teachings do agree with the Old Testament. However, many people misinterpret Paul's writings, ignoring much of the context. It is common to hear people claim that Paul wrote things that contradict and overthrow previous Scripture. Those misinterpretations of Paul's writings are very popular in Christianity even though it is obvious that those teachings would never have passed the same test that the real teachings of Paul passed -- the test the Bereans used -- searching the Scriptures daily to see whether Paul's teachings were compatible with previous Scripture. Christians today tend to do the opposite of what the Bereans did. The Bereans used the Old Testament as the standard of truth to determine whether Paul's teachings were true, but Christians today use their own out-of-context interpretations of Paul's writings as the standard of truth to determine whether any of the Old Testament scrolls are still true. If the apostle Paul had actually been teaching things that are contrary to the Old Testament, as many people today claim he did, then Paul would definitely be a false teacher. I don't believe that is the case.

5 Things You Didn't Know About The Battle of The Sexes_2 On September 20, 1973, Billie Jean King won the Battle of the Sexes when she defeated tennis pro Bobby Riggs in a long-anticipated match. Here are 5 things you didn't know about the tennis match between Riggs and King... King Challenged the Male-Dominated Sport of Tennis The exhibition tennis match between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs, the retired tennis player who had been a superstar in the world for three years running, was advantageous to both of them. King wanted to challenge the pay scale of women tennis players and bring the game to the forefront as a sport back at a time when women could not hold a credit card in their name without their husband’s approval. Meanwhile, Riggs saw it as an opportunity to increase the popularity of tennis, to make money for himself, and to bring his name back into the limelight. Riggs Wanted to Play King After Beating a Female Australian Tennis Player Riggs was seeking attention in 1973 when he began slamming women’s tennis and challenging female players to a match. Mostly, he was ignored until Margaret Court, a champion player from Australia, agreed to play him. Riggs was known as a hustler who used drop shots and other tennis tricks, and Court lost the match 6-2 and 6-1, being so badly beaten by the 55-year-old that it became known as the “Mother’s Day Massacre.” Rumors Flew That the Mob Had Fixed the Match One of the greatest urban legends in tennis is the subject of a terrific, in-depth piece by ESPN’s Don Van Natta. In his article, “The Match Maker: Bobby Riggs, The Mafia and The Battle of the Sexes,” Van Natta traces the origins of the long-held rumor that Bobby Riggs threw the 1973 Battle of the Sexes. Riggs was allegedly deeply in debt to the mob for a lot of money. Riggs died in October 1995 at the age of 77. His son, Larry, told ESPN his father knew people involved with the mafia and that it was "possible" he discussed throwing the match. Their Entrance into the Astrodome Was a Spectacle Worthy of Cecil B. DeMille Riggs entered the Houston Astrodome, where the game was played, in a rickshaw, accompanied by attractive girls and wearing a Sugar Daddy jacket that he had been paid $50,000 to don. King was brought out in a flamboyantly decorated gold litter carried by members of Rice University’s track team. The two tennis players exchanged gifts of a giant Sugar Daddy given by Riggs and King’s gift to him, which was a live piglet she had named Robert Larimore Riggs. King Rockets to Stardom as a Result of the Match With Riggs After beating Bobby Riggs 6-4, 6-3 and 6-3, for which she was awarded $100,000, King obtained endorsements from Wilson, Colgate, Adidas, and other companies. The following year, she earned nearly $1 million. Riggs took up golf and played tennis in the senior circuit into his 70s. The two players remained friends until Riggs died of cancer in 1995.

The "grafted in" analogy comes from Romans 11. Paul uses the Olive Tree to symbolize Israel. He got that from Jeremiah. Jeremiah 11:16-17 “The LORD called your name, Green Olive Tree, Lovely and of Good Fruit, with the noise of a great tumult He has kindled fire on it, and its branches are broken.” (See also, Jeremiah 5:10-11.) So the Olive Tree represents Israel. Romans 11:13-24 “For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I [Paul] am an apostle to the Gentiles . . .” “And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive branch, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, . . . You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.’ Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith.” The "root" represents Christ. Paul says the root is holy (Rom 11:16), and we partake of The Root. The Olive Tree represents all the redeemed people of God. Believers grafted in. Unbelievers "broken off" ("cut off" was the OT term for "cut off from Israel"). Only those who remain attached to "the Tree" (citizens of Israel) will be saved. This picture does not support the idea that "the Church" has "replaced" Israel, as the chosen people of God. Ephesians 2:11-22 [Paul - writing to Gentile believers] “Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh [meaning uncircumcised] . . . that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” Once the Gentiles came to faith, they were no longer "aliens" or "strangers" "from the commonwealth of Israel". Which means that believing Gentiles become citizens of Israel. And if there is one law for both - Israel and strangers who sojourn with them in faith - then the question is: What requirements of that Law - as commanded at Sinai, are still requirements today - for BOTH Jew and Gentile believers in Christ ? Other things support the idea that "Israel" is the redeemed people of God. Jerusalem will be the capital city. The truth that we are "Abraham's seed" if we belong to Christ, and are "circumcised in heart". Galatians 3:29 "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Good point Joe. I'm gonna write this one in the margin of my Bible. I want to remember it.

I was NOT justifying circumcision for believers today. But do you think the LORD's command to Abraham - to circumcise, was "barbaric" ?

The ideas presented by Photodude require examination. They are related to this thread because in NT times it is quite certain that the males who were "under law" would have been circumcised in the same manner that Jesus and Paul had been circumcised. It is also possible that those who were not "under law" were also circumcised in the manner of Abraham's circumcision, rather than in the manner of Pharisee circumcision. Photodude has correctly noted that God declared the created world "good", and "very good". At that point in time the humans were totally obedient to whatever God instructed them to do, and that obedience was also an integral part of the world that was "very good". If it is going to be considered wrong to "think they can improve on God's creation", then wouldn't it also be considered "wrong" to stop obeying God's instructions that were given later. If making changes to God's creation is wrong, then it would also have been "wrong" for Adam and Eve to pick fruit to eat because that would change the shape of the tree that God created good (without providing anesthetic for the tree), and it also places food into the "good" stomachs that God presumably created empty of food. It would also be "wrong" to get a haircut, trim one's fingernails, perform any kind of surgery, or to break or displace the female hymen. It seems obvious that at least some of these activities should not be considered "wrong", so it should be safe to disregard the amazement that some have expressed regarding those who desire to follow God's instructions regarding circumcision. The argument that circumcision is wrong because it supposedly is motivated by a desire "to improve on God's creation" seemes to be based on flawed or incomplete logic.

The term "Sabbath" in Scripture is used for both the weekly 7th day and for feast days that the Jews observed throughout the year.

Moral vs "ceremonial" What does "moral" mean anyway? Does "moral" only involve our treatment of other people? Does it not involve our relationship with our Creator? Who defines "moral" ? God does. In many ancient cultures, virgins had sex with worshipers at their temples. They didn't consider that "immoral". In some cultures they sacrificed human beings - to their gods. They didn't consider that "immoral". So you could say that even the adultery laws, and commands concerning marriage were "special instruction" for the Israelites, along with merciful treatment of slaves, etc. etc. etc. Very different from the cultures surrounding them. If God has commanded something, then not doing what He has commanded IS open rebellion against Him. That is immoral. Which means that the prophetic/typical laws WERE moral laws. There is no law of God, that is not a "moral law". The ONLY ONE specifically "changed" was "the priesthood". With the priesthood goes the prophetic system of animal sacrifices. That law was "changed" by God Himself .

I won't copy Photodude's post. All I can say is Yik!!!!!!!! We were discussing the symbolism of believing Gentiles being "grafted in" to Israel, and becoming "partakers of the covenants" without benefit of circumcision or the pharisaic education process that went with it. Please take the sensationalism somewhere else!

The priest - as a TYPE of Christ, "made atonement for" the one who had broken the Covenant. The sinner (or husband in the case of a wife or daughter who had sinned) was to confess the sins over the head of the animal to be sacrificed as the "sin offering", with his hands pressing down on the animal. We don't know whether the priest actually "heard" the confession. It's possible. But the sinner was talking to God, not to the priest. The sinner would slit the animal's throat. The priest would dissect/clean the animal, and offer it with salt and grain, on the alter. The priest would eat a portion also, thus taking a reminder of it into the Sanctuary. The priest did not say, "I absolve thee". The OT priest was acting as a mediator, presenting the sinner's offering to God as a token of the sinner's repentance. Jesus has presented Himself - His own life, as our "sin offering". Jesus is the "one Mediator" between God and man. (I Tim 2:5). Yes, Jesus has been given authority to on earth to forgive sins (Matt 9:6). His Father gave Him that authority.

On the Sabbath: There is much in Jewish practice that relates to the Sabbath. One might argue that such is not binding on the Christian today and still argue that the Sabbath, as given to Adam and to Eve, has an application to Christians today. That could include a specific time-period for the Sabbath.

New Testament says, "Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed." (Jam 5:16 NKJ) Doesn't say to confess transgressions to someone especially appointed as bishop or priest. Main problem I have is with a Catholic priest absolving the sinner - something only God our Father can do. Jesus told us how to pray. "Our Father . . . forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" (Matthew 6:12). Jesus also said, "And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (Mat 23:9). Isn't that what Catholics say, "Forgive me Father for I have sinned."

Hmmmm. Plowing, planting, harvesting, threshing, treading grapes or pressing olives, etc. etc. etc. Work!

no

There is a very important article in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary titled "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy." While that article gives a good overview, you can also take the principles of that article and come up with more specific applications to different periods of history. Had Jesus been accepted when he came, there would not have needed to be a second coming. Things could have wrapped up with the first coming. Also, an exegesis of Mathew 24 and the other chapters did indeed tie together the fall of the temple with the second coming. A major reason why the church lost it's first love in Revelation was that the temple fell and Jesus did not come. (One of the theories behind the book of Hebrews is that it is explaining the great disappointment of 70 AD.) [related to this is that one of Desmond Ford's mistakes was that he clearly saw that the New Testament Church was looking forward to the second coming in their day. Sadly he thought that the second coming that they were looking for was the only Biblical second coming instead of seeing the many different times that he could have come had the gospel been spread.] Once again we must not confuse our eschatology with the possible eschatologies that we have had all through history.

I'm open to the possibility that there are two extremes. One is that the middle east no longer has anything to do with last day events, the other is that it will be central for last day events. Deuteronomy 4 gives two possible histories of Israel. One is staying in the land, being faithful and blessed and having the world come to them. The other is how God would use them in exile from the promised land and their mission would be to "go ye in to all the world." Back when God was offering to use Israel in the land, that piece of property was the center of the world. It was the junction of the major trade routes between Europe, Asia and Africa. Today it no longer occupies such a central place thus no longer provides the potential that the land had back in ancient times. Of Deuteronomy 4 the only viable application is exile theology. However, the land is central to people of the book. The 3 monotheistic religions. People who have truth but will either use it in a respectful way and be used by God, or used in ways of self exaltation and be used by Satan. Also, among the fundamentalist movement of all 3 groups the Christians and Muslims are expecting Jesus to come to Jerusalem and the Fundamentalist Jews are expecting the Messiah to come in the same way. So the middle east will be a field of examples in both how God can use people from all three groups and how Satan will use people from all three groups.

As I understand Pam's post, she did not suggest that you were calling DB a pedagogue. As I read it one could draw any of two (2) inferences from her post: a) She was calling DB A pedagogue 'b) She was calling you a pedagogue. Perhaps she was doing neither? Perhaps she was only doing one of the above. In any case, I did not perceive her post to be a negative. I would not be offended if anyone here called me a pedagogue. By the way, the reason that I posted the web dictionary definition that I posted was because it most closely met the standard dictionary definition that I had learned many years ago. It meets the definition of my current American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

that's your opinion, just as what Doug Batchelor states, is *his* studied opinion. nobody's forcing anyone to believe anything... it behooves everyone not to have one person, or one source, as their spiritual pedagogue on the meaning of scripture ...

Muslim, Jews, and the Orthodox leader meet with the Pope.