Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Question for the holy guys

In 2022, the day of Sabbath seems to be what folks make it to be. Jewish friends in my youth had a time/day frame and seem to have held with that, and good Christian friends in recent times have a time/day frame that differs from what we practice. I have known a few people that treat it even differently.

Given human history of messing around with the "calendar" in addition to the various interpretations that folks conjure, I believe that the fundamental concept of that day, and what is done during it and with it, is of far more importance than the time/day frame chosen or assigned.

So 'thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal' etc, no longer applies to Christians....or is it a case of cherry picking? What is said to be important to God is no longer of value, and Jesus did the very thing that he said he had not come to do.......

It’s crystal clear, despite your intent to muddy the water by intentionally ignoring what’s clearly been posted, while you continue to try to stir up the sediment; just as you also continue to do over and over and over again regarding Jesus doing “the very thing that he said he had not come to do.”

I'm not the one trying to muddy the waters.

The words attributed to Jesus state; ''think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For 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.'

The words ''till all be fulfilled'' is interpreted by Christians to mean, that the blood sacrifice, crucifixion, means the law no longer applies to believers.


Yet if the law of the prophets are in fact destroyed by the blood sacrifice, the Christian interpretation contradicts 'think not that I am come to destroy the law of the prophets, ' and is therefore false.

If Jesus did destroy the law, instead of 'think not that I come to destroy the law of the prophets,'' it should have been, ''I have come to abolish the law of the prophets and there shall be a new covenant.''

See…!?!?
Yes you are.

And men here see right through it.

I said you believe what you think.....tying the devilish twist as usual....how things work and how the world works is also your opinion....the evidence for me is clearly there (I did not say proof) to believe in an afterlife....and yes, theology is a matter of faith, and we have countless opposing (other, is a better word) theologies that are based on faith....and yes indeed, it's there for anyone to see...if you are willing. Clearly, many are not willing......I could not have said it better.

This is my belief....and yes you are trying to muddy the waters...when the law you are referring to was introduced, it was never intended to be the instrument by which man would save himself, but it was the instrument through which man was to be saved. In a very real sense, man is saved through the fulfillment (keeping) of the law. When Christ fulfilled the law, he earned the privilege of life. Those who are in Christ, likewise, share in his righteousness and are declared righteous right alongside him. In that sense, the law has always stood and will continue to stand.

That being said, though, it's important to realize that we basically choose whether the law applies to us individually or not -- through grace, we can choose to be in Christ, or we can choose to stand on our own merits when we're judged. In that sense, too, the law still stands.

''The men here'' is the critical part.

What you mean is ''there are men here who feel their toes are being trodden on when their faith is questioned.''

Yet, the quoted verses say what they say and mean what they mean regardless. If someone say that that haven't come to do something, then proceed to do that very thing, they create a contradiction.

I'm not trying to do anything.

Simple pointing out what the bible tells us about Jesus and the law is not trying to muddy the waters. I didn't change anything. I didn't misinterpret anything.

The words attributed to Jesus in fact tell us ''think not that I have come to abolish the law of the prophets'

Now if Jesus did in fact abolish the law the prophets, doing so falsifies ''think not that I have come to abolish the law of the prophets.''

Basic logic, not deception.

Nope. You’re clearly wrong. On ALL accounts. As you have been every single time you’ve tried to intentionally muddy the waters on this issue.

And there are no contradictions. NONE.

If the law was a 747, Jesus was landing it. If the law was a motivational speech, Jesus was concluding it. If the law was a homework assignment, Jesus was completing it.

And you don’t abolish a 747 by landing it; nor do you abolish a motivational speech by concluding it; and you certainly don’t abolish a homework assignment by completing it.

Jesus said that not even the smallest detail of God’s law would disappear until it’s purpose had been fulfilled. Its purpose was clearly fulfilled. By Him. He clearly said so.

Jesus didn’t come to “do away with the law”...as in to destroy the validity of it, or to undermine the credibility of it...He came to retire it because its purpose had been fulfilled, by Him. Just as He said.

It’s still just as crystal clear as it’s always been. Period.

Despite your repeated efforts to intentionally make it otherwise.

Clearly there is.

If you say that you are not going to do something, then proceed to do the very thing that you said that you were not going to do, you have contradicted yourself.


Or maybe you don't understand what the law entails. Does 'thou shalt not kill' or 'thou shalt not steal,' etc, ring a bell?

Or are you cherry picking....oh, well, uhm, maybe this part is ok, but that part is surely abolished!


Yet Christians claim to be free of the law of the prophets, that they live under a new covenant, which means that for them the law no longer applies, therefore is null and void, abolished...the very thing that Jesus said he had not come to do.



'Fulfilled' does not mean ''abolished.'' If it did, the words of Jesus are a contradiction. Not to abolish but to effectively abolish, just using a different word.


Not abolish, yet to abolish....just using a different word "fulfill.' What a dance, the semantic waltz!

If you're an atheist you have a metaphysical world view and ultimately, it is based on faith.

That's just silly. The universe is physical.

It’s more than OK with me that you choose to see it as something other than what it really is.

Regardless…

The physical and historical facts are that Ancient Judaism came to an absolute and complete end on August 6 in AD70 when the Roman Legion completely destroyed the Jewish Temple…just as Jesus predicted…and the Mosaic Law was never officially or fully practiced again because it became impossible to do so. Period.

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality.” - Carl Sagan

Again, when the law you are referring to was introduced, it was never intended to be the instrument by which man would save himself, but it was the instrument through which man was to be saved. In a very real sense, man is saved through the fulfillment (keeping) of the law. When Christ fulfilled the law, he earned the privilege of life. Those who are in Christ, likewise, share in his righteousness and are declared righteous right alongside him. In that sense, the law has always stood and will continue to stand.

That being said, though, it's important to realize that we basically choose whether the law applies to us individually or not -- through grace, we can choose to be in Christ, or we can choose to stand on our own merits when we're judged. In that sense, too, the law still stands.

I think Tarquin means you have a worldview...a belief/faith......
The elements of one's worldview, the beliefs about certain aspects of Reality, are the atheist's beliefs in.....

epistemology: beliefs about the nature and sources of knowledge;

metaphysics: beliefs about the ultimate nature of Reality;

cosmology: beliefs about the origins and nature of the universe, life, and especially Man;

teleology: beliefs about the meaning and purpose of the universe, its inanimate elements, and its inhabitants;

anthropology: beliefs about the nature and purpose of Man in general and, oneself in particular;

axiology: beliefs about the nature of value, what is good and bad, what is right and wrong.

satanology: beliefs about a need to misquote the Bible, present false information about the tenets of such beliefs, and attempt to undermine foundations of Christian lives.

Maybe they teach it down under.

"It", is simple good folks