The Gospel of the Kingdom and the plot twist.
- Thread starter Nick M
- Start date
Unpack that if you could be so kind.
The better question is you believe WHAT? about the entire Bible, from Moses to John, and one of those things that compose what you believe about the entire Bible, from Moses to John is that only the original manuscripts were inerrant. Hence, the scripture you have now is not inerrant, ergo errors are present.
That means you believe the manuscripts were altered. Which is exactly what Jeremiah said,
(Jeremiah 8:8 NRSV) How can you say, "We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?
So since you don't have these original manuscripts, then you don't know what was altered. ... Unless the Father sent someone to tell you, and fix the TORAH
(Matthew 5:17 KJV+) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to Mend.
YOU say that He is Messiah only of Jews. I don't deny Jesus among men, any man.
(Hebrews 8:6-7 KJV) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Why is your "Third Covenant" absent? (Because its illusory,.)
(Hebrews 8:13 KJV) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
(POOF)
No, you cannot. There is a Justice that proceedeth from God, yet there is a justice that proceedeth from men. To drop the adjectival declarative would be to purposefully create confusion and chaos. So NO, you cannot compel my speech.
The Law of God was not written on the hearts of men at the Fall of Adam.
You have missed the second question that God asked. Go find it. And then find the answer.
If the Law of God was written on the hearts of men at the Fall of Adam and Eve, then why all the nonsense of needing Moses to Give the Law?
Do you tdruly believe God is so incompetent that he has to run around Giving TWO Laws? If we call on the Law of Moses, you now seem to be inventing something akin to the Law of Adam. (Which he received by means of sinning.)
(Jeremiah 8:8 NRSV) How can you say, "We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?
Maybe that part of the Law was in fact the false pen of the scribes making it into a lie because the scribe was a homophobe.
PLEASE do not glue posts together that are written to different individuals. You've already hit the absurd, showing an astonishing low reasoning ability, so I'm not about read through everything you write just to see if something was addressed to me. If you wish to address me, then keep it in a single post.
Rhema
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Nah, along with the conviction came a merciful pardon.
It doesn't matter how many people claim it was written by Paul. If the evidence doesn't support it, and such a position goes against what the Bible teaches, then the belief is false, no matter who those people are who believe Paul wrote Hebrews.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
An appeal to tradition is another logical fallacy.
In other words, this person makes a logical fallacy to support an idea that he cannot defend Biblically.
Begging the question. Another fallacy, by the way.
Which is evidence contrary to his position...
More begging the question...
Because someone who thought that Paul wrote it added the title to it.
The title of Hebrews that I have in my Bible, however, simply says "The Epistle to the Hebrews"
Which was also added after the fact. But the point is that just because a title that was added says or does not say that it's from Paul, doesn't not mean anything, because the title is not part of the original scriptures.
You were given 11 different reasons (pieces of evidence) why Paul is not the author of Hebrews. You ignored them completely.
You should at least consider your opponent's position before dismissing it out of hand.
Correct.
Correct. None of which are significant enough to change the overarching story of the Bible.
No, it means that I believe that the original manuscripts have been copied hundreds of times over the course of 3500 years in order to preserve them, and that, because men are fallible creatures, and make mistakes, some mistakes have crept into the Bible we have today, not to mention the fact that languages change over time, different spellings are used, and if you've ever tried to learn a language other than English in your life, you would know that no translation is a perfect 1:1 translation. But again, none of those errors in the text, or grammatical changes, or translations, affects the overarching Plot of the Bible, BECAUSE it has a plot, it tells a story, and in doing so, teaches solid principles that anyone can learn simply by reading the Bible.
Jeremiah has nothing to do with this.
Jeremiah is talking about false teaching.
There is no false teaching in Paul's writings.
Do you really think that God couldn't write a book that couldn't stand the test of time?
Have you ever read the Bible, cover to cover?
It tells a story. And because it tells a story, it is VERY hard to get the details wrong, especially if the one transcribing it is even half attempting to preserve it.
What we DO have, however, are texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, which, when compared to modern Hebrew versions, show almost no differences between the two, other than minor grammar changes and word spellings, which is a testament to the dedication of those who transcribed the text from aging materials onto new scrolls.
I have not claimed any divine revelation other than what is revealed through God's word.
Mend? What? Why would anyone translate that word "mend"? It means "to fill, fulfill, complete."
Not mend.
| Strong's g4137 - Lexical: πληρόω - Transliteration: pléroó - Part of Speech: Verb - Phonetic Spelling: play-ro'-o - Definition: to fill, fulfill, complete. - Origin: From pleres; to make replete, i.e. (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.. - Usage: accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply. - Translated as (count): might be fulfilled (10), was fulfilled (5), it might be fulfilled (4), may be fulfilled (4), being filled (3), having been completed (3), is fulfilled (3), complete (2), Has been fulfilled (2), has filled (2), should be fulfilled (2), to fulfill (2), are fulfilled (1), be filled (1), being filled with (1), fill up (1), filling (1), fulfill (1), fulfilled (1), full (1), had passed (1), has fulfilled (1), having been passed (1), having fulfilled (1), He had completed (1), He has fulfilled (1), He may fulfill (1), He might fill (1), I am full (1), I have been filled (1), I may be filled (1), it filled (1), it is fulfilled (1), it should be fulfilled (1), it was filled (1), may be full (1), may fill (1), might have been fulfilled (1), they fulfilled (1), they had fulfilled (1), to accomplish (1), to be fulfilled (1), to complete (1), to have been fulfilled (1), to have fully proclaimed (1), was filled (1), was fulfilling (1), were filled (1), were fulfilled (1), will be filled (1), will be fulfilled (1), will fill up (1), would be fulfilled (1), you have filled (1), you may be filled (1), you may be filled with (1), you may fulfill (1), You will fill (1). |
Anyways, any further discussion of this needs to be taken to a new thread.
What historical texts do you have that show that Jesus was the promised Messiah for the Gentiles also?
Never said you did.
What I said is that Jesus is the Messiah, melekh mashiach, which literally means "annointed king."
Now Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross. And the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. - John 19:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John19:19&version=NKJV
Yes, the New Covenant. Made with the same two parties as the Old Covenant: God, and Israel.
OR, because Hebrews was... *GASP* ... written to the Hebrews, who were under the New Covenant, whereas Paul was told by Christ to go to the Gentiles!
Yes, the author of Hebrews is speaking about the Old Covenant, made between Israel and God, vanishing away, because there is (or, from our perspective, was) a New Covenant that came into effect upon the death of the Testator, Jesus Christ.
However, as Paul points out, that Covenant has been put on hold because Israel rejected her Messiah, so God turned to working with the Gentiles instead.
Then from here on out, every time I say "justice," I mean your "Justice of God," and I will specify when I am talking about men's standards of justice versus God's.
I'm not interested in playing your word games.
Deal with it.
Where did I say "at the Fall of Adam"?
I don't remember specifying a "when."
Make the argument yourself. I'm not going to do it for you.
This shows you know almost nothing about Genesis, let alone the Bible, and the reason God put a tree in the middle of the garden and told His creation not to eat of it.
What happened after Cain killed his brother?
God put a mark on him that told people that he was not to be put to death for his crime of killing his brother.
This was the beginning of what is known as "the dispensation of conscience."
There was NO law from that point until IMMEDIATELY after Noah God off the ark.
Why do I say it's from Cain?
Because there was a law prior to Cain.
Do you know the other name for "the knowledge of good and evil"?
It's the law.
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a symbol of the law.
What was the very first law that God gave to Adam?
"Do not partake of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil."
In other words...
Do not partake of the law.
The FIRST AND ONLY LAW that God gave Adam was "do not partake of the law!"
Adam violated that law, and thus partook of it.
But between Cain and Noah, there was no law. This was for God to show men that a law is required, that men cannot achieve righteousness without a law.
No, I think that God was wise in giving men a law written on their hearts, for as Paul says:
But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,who “will render to each one according to his deeds”:eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath,tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.For there is no partiality with God.For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them )in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. - Romans 2:5-16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans2:5-16&version=NKJV
God, in the end, will judge men who have never heard of Moses, or of Jesus, or of grace, by whether they kept the law written on their heart, and acknowledged that there is a Being higher than themselves who made the universe.
This brings me to the answer of your question.
Did you notice the progression throughout the Bible?
God gave one law, to not partake of the law. Man broke that law.
Then He gave another single law in Genesis 9. Men broke that law.
Then He gave Moses the 10 Commandments. Israel violated all 10.
Then He gave another 600+ laws, and Israel violated all of them.
So why the need to give the law?
The answer is that men need the law. God showed us what happens when there is no law, and He had to destroy the earth and wipe out all but 8 people because men had become so wicked without it as a result of Him banning the law.
You seem to have forgotten your own position at this point, because you're the one arguing that you're under the New Covenant.
Guess what a covenant is?
IT'S A KIND OF LAW!
The people under the New Covenant were required to keep the law.
Supra. I never stated WHEN God wrote the law on the hearts of men, or how they received it.
Yes, you quoted that already.
Or, maybe, homosexuality is an abomination, and is harmful to God's creation, and so God forbid it.
Or do you deny what Jesus said?
And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” - Matthew 19:4-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew19:4-6&version=NKJV
The "+Quote" button is there for that very purpose, Rhema. I'm not going to just not use a feature of the site I'm on when it's intended to be used in the way I used it.
Also, I don't do it often, but when I do, it's so that I can catch up on the discussion with a single reply.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Disrespecting TOL Staff will earn you a warning, and you will be temporarily banned.
This is in our rules.
Just because I don't agree with your beliefs doesn't mean I have "an astonishingly low reasoning ability."
Here's a hint: If the quoted text has "Quote by Rhema" at the top of it, or is in a separate box beneath one that does, I'm replying directly to you.
And a bonus hint: If I use the @ symbol, followed by your name, it means I'm either talking to you or about you.
In other words, please learn how the site works.
If you feel that reading posts on here is too much for you, you can always leave.
If we actually believe Paul we understand that Paul dictated most of his writings to others which means that his way of writing was a stream of conciousness in those books. If he actually sat down and wrote the book of Hebrews himself the differences are going to be stark. It will appear as if the books were written by two separate authors to those of us looking at them two thousand years later.
That "very large company of devout and learned men" was full of men who were, just like you and me, just as fallible as everyone else.
This is why your argument is fallacious, because men can be wrong about things, even men in positions of authority.
This is one such case where those men were wrong, for the reasons listed here:
11 reasons why Paul did not write Hebrews [Jerry Lockhart]
Written by: Amazing Grace Bible Study Fellowship & Jerry Lockhart Preface Why I Believe Paul Did Not Write Hebrews Preface Every book in the New Testament section of the Bible has a human autho…
romansthruphilemon.wordpress.com
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, really!
The body of Christ has no priesthood. If it did, Paul would have mentioned it in his epistles.
The book TO THE HEBREWS is not about the body of Christ.
The "body" spoken of there is NOT the body of Christ (and its capitalization in your quote simply shows your extreme bias).
What does that have to do with the body of Christ?
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Right Divider
Body part
Heb 13:20 (AKJV/PCE)
(13:20) Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
Note that Paul never calls the Lord Jesus Christ a "shepherd" nor does he call believers in the body of Christ "sheep".
(13:20) Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
Note that Paul never calls the Lord Jesus Christ a "shepherd" nor does he call believers in the body of Christ "sheep".
Last edited:
Paul did write using these words..."Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock." (Acts 20:28-29)
Also, Paul did write of "bishops" in four different locations, which like "pastors" can be seen/interpreted as "shepherds".
Right Divider
Body part
Paul did not write the book of the Acts of the apostles.
Paul never writes about shepherds of sheep. He never calls believers in the body of Christ "sheep".
I realize that you never seriously consider anything that I explain to you.
I agree.
Luke wrote some of the words that Paul spoke though, including Acts 20:28-29.
If you want to be Pharisaic about it, you are right.
If you want to really think about it though, he does indeed write about bishops and pastors, which are comparable to shepherds.
I "consider" it very much.
Right Divider
Body part
Cheap insults are for children.
It wasn't an insult.
It was the result of your reaction to my post citing Paul's use of the words bishop and pastor...which both mean "shepherd".
To hold to some idea that just because Paul never "said" the word "sheep" in any of his epistles makes Gentile believers somehow different or less than Jesus Jewish followers in Christ is ludicrous.
Do you follow Christ?
I agree that Paul wrote Hebrews. Paul dictated the vast majority of his writings. As we don't know when Hebrews was written ir could have been just after he recieved his sight back from Annanius and went into the "wilderness" for three years. Yet thousand years later Ir would look like two separate authors
It fascinates me how many people are willing to believe something with virtually no evidence whatsoever and/or treat something as though it were a matter of opinion as if it doesn't even really matter who's right and who's not.
Is this how they do the rest of their doctrine?
Unfortunately, for most, the answer to that question is, yes!
Personal opinions about matters of theology haven't meant anything to me since at least the sixth grade but the average Christian can't tell the difference between a personal opinion and a categorically stated fact and they aren't interested enough to even realize their ignorance, never mind fix it.
Is this how they do the rest of their doctrine?
Unfortunately, for most, the answer to that question is, yes!
Personal opinions about matters of theology haven't meant anything to me since at least the sixth grade but the average Christian can't tell the difference between a personal opinion and a categorically stated fact and they aren't interested enough to even realize their ignorance, never mind fix it.