How can one learn?
- Thread starter Rainrider
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
So long as both agree, then both can be right, If what they agree on is fully in line with the Whole of Scripture. If not, then there is a real good chance both have something wrong. Oh unlessss one is perfect,, which I know nether of us are. How do I know this? Everyone is a sinner, so we can't be perfect.
It is me saying you misunderstand it. If one is physically dead they don't move, think, or talk. As you do this, you are dead pysically. If one is dead spiritually, they can't love, or learn truths that are placed before them. Nor can they grow, or learn Who HaShem is. They must have the spirit in them to do any of the above. So once agian I say you are not dead. As you have shown that I say the Scripture lies, looks like I get to stay.
OK let me try this one last time, then I am done. If you can't look at Mat.5:17-18 ONLY then you wish to lead this in a circle, I am so tired of talking in circles. So please, LOOK AT Mat.5:17-18 and explain them. Nothing from any other book, or chapter, only MAT. 5:17-18. Does that make it REAL CLEAR what I am looking for. It should as I have asking for the same thing for some time now.
I started out giving my understanding of every passage posted. Yet have, (As best I remember), never had an answer to a direct question. As it stands now, I am done. Oh I will still post, only I will not reply to anyone until they give their understand of 2 simple passages. A simple thing to do for any that claim an understanding, and will go a long way to finding THE truth. Not mine, yours or anyone's, THE TRUTH.
You see every passage in the Word must be completely in line with every other passage. So the use of any passage to try and say another is wrong, isn't an above board answer in my mind.
Now if my understanding isn't the same as yours, is that an argument? No it is one's understanding. Simple as that. Now if one see's an opposing view as a threat, I can't help that.
Also if one see's me as argumentative, let them walk away. I opened this thread, and I will leave when I am done with it. It is an obligation in my mind.
You see every passage in the Word must be completely in line with every other passage. So the use of any passage to try and say another is wrong, isn't an above board answer in my mind.
Now if my understanding isn't the same as yours, is that an argument? No it is one's understanding. Simple as that. Now if one see's an opposing view as a threat, I can't help that.
Also if one see's me as argumentative, let them walk away. I opened this thread, and I will leave when I am done with it. It is an obligation in my mind.
[QUOTE="Rainrider, post: 5176090, member: 257575"]I started out giving my understanding of every passage posted. Yet have, (As best I remember), never had an answer to a direct question. As it stands now, I am done. Oh I will still post, only I will not reply to anyone until they give their understand of 2 simple passages.[/QUOTE]There was nothing in your OP asking a direct question about two specific passages. You did include two passages, but not as "What does this mean to you?" So go ahead and post the two passage you want addressed. You have said a lot of negative stuff, but let's cut to the chase. You give us your understanding and ask us if that is also our understanding of those two passages (whichever they are).
I am doing this in a reply to you, as I am in hopes that if my understanding is wrong, you will stay with this passage and show me how. I do hope you find this informative. I am going to do what I have asked others to do, and they seem to over look it.
What seems to ahppen when one looks at Mat. 5:17-18 is they see only one word, FULFULl. They also seem to blind to the fact that the prophets are included. So lets brak it down, then you may see why my understanding is as it is. Don't get me wrong, I don't know this is 100% right, it how what I think I know. Changing my thinking can be done, it will however take some doing, and all passages must fall in line with the whole of the word. When it comes to the idea that the Law has been removed, you will fisrt need to show me from only the 2 passages I am going to use how my understanding of them is wrong.
Mat 5:17¶Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
as we can see Yeshua clearly tells us,, Don't think I came to destroy the LAWS or the PROPHETS. So it should be clear that was never His reason for coming. One can say that at that time He had given Himself as our sacrifice, so it all changed at the cross. However when we remember that the prophets are placed in the same sentence as the Law. they are both part of what must be accomplished.
Also, when we look at the next part, He reminds us, He didn't come to destroy but to fulfill. Now in some Bibles it reads abolish rather than destroy. As both hold the same meaning to a great degree, it safe to say that He didn't come to remove them. As is clear if one looks at Strong's. The Greek word here is, katalyo and means, to dissolve, disunite. Where as fulfill in Greek is, pleroo and means "to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full. or to make complete in every particular, to render perfect." One may also use this from Strong's. "to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally" or " to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)"
Keep in mind that as the prophets are included, they to must be fulfilled. As we will now see.
Mat 5:18 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.
As we can see we are given a time when the Law will be removed. That being when Heaven and earth pass. Now as we look prophecy, it is clear that not all has came to pass. The 3rd Temple, Gog, The beast that slay's believers, as well as the 1000 year reign of Yeshua, are just some. So for us to say that any passage can stand in contrast with this, isn't something that can be done. Well it can, it just doesn't follow the fact that no one passage can stand in conflict with another. Ask any Biblical teacher, they will say the same.
Knowing this, I had to back up and rethink alot of what I thought I knew at the time. When I asked pastors from the Baptist, 7th day advent. RCC, and many others, they only said, "You misunderstand that." Much of what I see on here has also be said by them. Yet just as on here, not once has anyone given any kind of understanding of the 2 passages listed. Excpet for the RCC. Oddly they see it the same way I do, yet seek an end run so they can still follow their pagan roots.
This is where you will find that I stand strong in my conviction. If there is no other understanding of this passage, then we have no right to set any passage in conflict with it. We must seek to reconcile what we think we know, so that there is no longer a conflict. In doing so, I have done a lot of work on Paul's writings. In that study it became clear that both Paul and Yeshua were doing the same thing. They both spoke out against mans laws, being passed off as HaShem's law. Trust me, they are not the same. In today's world many see Yeshua as speaking against what is now called Rabbinic Law.
Sadly many today think that rabbinic Law is the Torah. So they include things that are not a part of the laws that govern civil society. Does this mean I am removing any part of Torah, not at all.
you see it was not me that gave the Torah, and placed the Laws that govern women over women, or the laws for the High priest on them alone. Nor did I have a hand in making the Temple Services the way they are. Every set of Laws are given to give order in the place it is intended to be followed. That is why I say many people on here talk of things they have no understanding of.
Oh I know that makes me argumentative, or is used to say I am not giving an answer. However that simply isn't true. I place things in the order they are given to us in the Word, as HaShem seen fit to share Himself with us. the use of the Temple services to say the Law has been removed just doesn't fit.
Now as to the NEW covenant. If we look at it, we find that HaShem has not removed the Law, just changed where it is written. There was no need to place the whole of the Torah in ones mind and on their heart. Why? In times when there was no Temple, to try and follow the Temple services is a sin. However not offering a sacrifice, even if the Temple was in place, isn't. In fact, not once are we told we must give them or that is a sin.
Now it Find it odd that one is so willing to say the law has been removed, when they will also have to say the sin is a real thing, and if they are honest, will have to say the world is following after sin like it is something holy. Don't get me wrong, we all sin, and must seek forgiveness for it. When we turn our lives over to HaShem, He does not remove our free will. He wants us to follow His ways of our own free will. As for anyone looking to make a case that they no longer sin, and walk the Laws in perfection, I call it misleading to themselves and others. After all our righteousness is as filthy rags. Yet if one was to walk the Torah in perfection, they would be Holy in every regard.
So why would I seek to expanded my understanding at all? We all should do this, it helps us to see the Sin in our lives, and work to remove it. Then when stand at the thorn for Judgment, we may be seen as clean, washed of our sins. If we have truly repented. To say there is now longer any law to govern us is the same as saying we are now free to live a life of sin, and it's all good.
So tell me, is lieing a sin? How about adultery, homosexuality, theft, lust, and so? If so then the law does apply to us. It is us that work to remove sin from our life, by seeking the Help of HaShem. The spirit leads us to see that sin, and helps us to over come it yes. however we are still free to say, "No thanks, I like this sin in my life." It is also true that a true believer wouldn't say, or think that. Yet as we have seen through out history, even the most educated of us sin.
Think about the lady that touched the hem of Yeshua's cloths. Now it is my understanding, and really doesn't matter how one see this, that she brushed with the back of her hand, the Tzitzit. that would be the, for lack of a better way to say it, tassels that are put on the corners of their clothing. Mostly the prayer shawl. She was healed not by the act, rather by the faith it took to be so bold as to do so, and believe that healing would come from it. In my own way I have done this. I steeped up and asked that my eyes be open to His Truth. I had to rethink so much I thought I knew, just to get to where I am now with what I think I know. So I understand it isn't an easy thing to undertake. In the end however, it is well worth it. I am almost 100% sure I left something unsaid. So ask away. Please don't take this down the road of Paul said, Lets lookk at HaShem has said first. Through a fuller understanding Of Torah, the bed rock of which all scripture is built, we find may find an understanding we never thought of.
Thank you for takeing the time to read this, and if you do chose to go down this path, keep in mind, I may at some point ask for your understanding of a passage. If I do so, I am looking for you understanding of that passage only. Not what another passage may say, that may seem to stand in direct conflict of the one I am asking about. that is not orderly, and as such is also not how the Word Word to conduct any study.
What seems to ahppen when one looks at Mat. 5:17-18 is they see only one word, FULFULl. They also seem to blind to the fact that the prophets are included. So lets brak it down, then you may see why my understanding is as it is. Don't get me wrong, I don't know this is 100% right, it how what I think I know. Changing my thinking can be done, it will however take some doing, and all passages must fall in line with the whole of the word. When it comes to the idea that the Law has been removed, you will fisrt need to show me from only the 2 passages I am going to use how my understanding of them is wrong.
Mat 5:17¶Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
as we can see Yeshua clearly tells us,, Don't think I came to destroy the LAWS or the PROPHETS. So it should be clear that was never His reason for coming. One can say that at that time He had given Himself as our sacrifice, so it all changed at the cross. However when we remember that the prophets are placed in the same sentence as the Law. they are both part of what must be accomplished.
Also, when we look at the next part, He reminds us, He didn't come to destroy but to fulfill. Now in some Bibles it reads abolish rather than destroy. As both hold the same meaning to a great degree, it safe to say that He didn't come to remove them. As is clear if one looks at Strong's. The Greek word here is, katalyo and means, to dissolve, disunite. Where as fulfill in Greek is, pleroo and means "to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full. or to make complete in every particular, to render perfect." One may also use this from Strong's. "to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally" or " to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)"
Keep in mind that as the prophets are included, they to must be fulfilled. As we will now see.
Mat 5:18 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.
As we can see we are given a time when the Law will be removed. That being when Heaven and earth pass. Now as we look prophecy, it is clear that not all has came to pass. The 3rd Temple, Gog, The beast that slay's believers, as well as the 1000 year reign of Yeshua, are just some. So for us to say that any passage can stand in contrast with this, isn't something that can be done. Well it can, it just doesn't follow the fact that no one passage can stand in conflict with another. Ask any Biblical teacher, they will say the same.
Knowing this, I had to back up and rethink alot of what I thought I knew at the time. When I asked pastors from the Baptist, 7th day advent. RCC, and many others, they only said, "You misunderstand that." Much of what I see on here has also be said by them. Yet just as on here, not once has anyone given any kind of understanding of the 2 passages listed. Excpet for the RCC. Oddly they see it the same way I do, yet seek an end run so they can still follow their pagan roots.
This is where you will find that I stand strong in my conviction. If there is no other understanding of this passage, then we have no right to set any passage in conflict with it. We must seek to reconcile what we think we know, so that there is no longer a conflict. In doing so, I have done a lot of work on Paul's writings. In that study it became clear that both Paul and Yeshua were doing the same thing. They both spoke out against mans laws, being passed off as HaShem's law. Trust me, they are not the same. In today's world many see Yeshua as speaking against what is now called Rabbinic Law.
Sadly many today think that rabbinic Law is the Torah. So they include things that are not a part of the laws that govern civil society. Does this mean I am removing any part of Torah, not at all.
you see it was not me that gave the Torah, and placed the Laws that govern women over women, or the laws for the High priest on them alone. Nor did I have a hand in making the Temple Services the way they are. Every set of Laws are given to give order in the place it is intended to be followed. That is why I say many people on here talk of things they have no understanding of.
Oh I know that makes me argumentative, or is used to say I am not giving an answer. However that simply isn't true. I place things in the order they are given to us in the Word, as HaShem seen fit to share Himself with us. the use of the Temple services to say the Law has been removed just doesn't fit.
Now as to the NEW covenant. If we look at it, we find that HaShem has not removed the Law, just changed where it is written. There was no need to place the whole of the Torah in ones mind and on their heart. Why? In times when there was no Temple, to try and follow the Temple services is a sin. However not offering a sacrifice, even if the Temple was in place, isn't. In fact, not once are we told we must give them or that is a sin.
Now it Find it odd that one is so willing to say the law has been removed, when they will also have to say the sin is a real thing, and if they are honest, will have to say the world is following after sin like it is something holy. Don't get me wrong, we all sin, and must seek forgiveness for it. When we turn our lives over to HaShem, He does not remove our free will. He wants us to follow His ways of our own free will. As for anyone looking to make a case that they no longer sin, and walk the Laws in perfection, I call it misleading to themselves and others. After all our righteousness is as filthy rags. Yet if one was to walk the Torah in perfection, they would be Holy in every regard.
So why would I seek to expanded my understanding at all? We all should do this, it helps us to see the Sin in our lives, and work to remove it. Then when stand at the thorn for Judgment, we may be seen as clean, washed of our sins. If we have truly repented. To say there is now longer any law to govern us is the same as saying we are now free to live a life of sin, and it's all good.
So tell me, is lieing a sin? How about adultery, homosexuality, theft, lust, and so? If so then the law does apply to us. It is us that work to remove sin from our life, by seeking the Help of HaShem. The spirit leads us to see that sin, and helps us to over come it yes. however we are still free to say, "No thanks, I like this sin in my life." It is also true that a true believer wouldn't say, or think that. Yet as we have seen through out history, even the most educated of us sin.
Think about the lady that touched the hem of Yeshua's cloths. Now it is my understanding, and really doesn't matter how one see this, that she brushed with the back of her hand, the Tzitzit. that would be the, for lack of a better way to say it, tassels that are put on the corners of their clothing. Mostly the prayer shawl. She was healed not by the act, rather by the faith it took to be so bold as to do so, and believe that healing would come from it. In my own way I have done this. I steeped up and asked that my eyes be open to His Truth. I had to rethink so much I thought I knew, just to get to where I am now with what I think I know. So I understand it isn't an easy thing to undertake. In the end however, it is well worth it. I am almost 100% sure I left something unsaid. So ask away. Please don't take this down the road of Paul said, Lets lookk at HaShem has said first. Through a fuller understanding Of Torah, the bed rock of which all scripture is built, we find may find an understanding we never thought of.
Thank you for takeing the time to read this, and if you do chose to go down this path, keep in mind, I may at some point ask for your understanding of a passage. If I do so, I am looking for you understanding of that passage only. Not what another passage may say, that may seem to stand in direct conflict of the one I am asking about. that is not orderly, and as such is also not how the Word Word to conduct any study.
There was nothing in your OP asking a direct question about two specific passages. You did include two passages, but not as "What does this mean to you?" So go ahead and post the two passage you want addressed. You have said a lot of negative stuff, but let's cut to the chase. You give us your understanding and ask us if that is also our understanding of those two passages (whichever they are).[/QUOTE]
I have done just that in my last post. #411. I think it may answer any question you may have. If not, so long as we stay on them, and not turn to this passage or that, that may seem to stand in conflict, we can find where we both stand. Just in case someone thinks I am hiding something, the 2 passages have remained the same, Mat.5:17-18.
I do hope you read the post I did on this, as it will save some time. By you explaining your understanding, we will have a solid base to start from. The we will be looking at other passages to show what The bible truly tells us. However once any passage stands in conflict with the 2 I gave, we should both be asking, how it fits with Mat. After all that will be the foundation on which we build.
I have done just that in my last post. #411. I think it may answer any question you may have. If not, so long as we stay on them, and not turn to this passage or that, that may seem to stand in conflict, we can find where we both stand. Just in case someone thinks I am hiding something, the 2 passages have remained the same, Mat.5:17-18.
I do hope you read the post I did on this, as it will save some time. By you explaining your understanding, we will have a solid base to start from. The we will be looking at other passages to show what The bible truly tells us. However once any passage stands in conflict with the 2 I gave, we should both be asking, how it fits with Mat. After all that will be the foundation on which we build.
The answer to you question is within this verse itself.
1. Christ contrasts "destroy" with "fulfil". So what is destroy? It is to "put an end to the existence of something by damaging or attacking it." Christ never damaged or attacked the Law since it is His own Law, and He is the one who gave it. But He did come to fulfil it, and He did so in many ways.
2. At the same time 2 Corinthians 3 and the book of Hebrews clearly tell us that the Law was to be REPLACED and ABOLISHED -- set aside. That was God's plan all along since He panned for the New Covenant to go into effect the day Christ died.
So why are you not satisfied with God's decision?
Now here "the Law" applies to the entire OT (Tanakh). And since all has not been fulfilled (including the establishment of the New Heavens and the New Earth) the OT remains an important part of the Bible. This is a reference to all the prophecies waiting to be fulfilled.
1. Christ contrasts "destroy" with "fulfil". So what is destroy? It is to "put an end to the existence of something by damaging or attacking it." Christ never damaged or attacked the Law since it is His own Law, and He is the one who gave it. But He did come to fulfil it, and He did so in many ways.
2. At the same time 2 Corinthians 3 and the book of Hebrews clearly tell us that the Law was to be REPLACED and ABOLISHED -- set aside. That was God's plan all along since He panned for the New Covenant to go into effect the day Christ died.
So why are you not satisfied with God's decision?
Now here "the Law" applies to the entire OT (Tanakh). And since all has not been fulfilled (including the establishment of the New Heavens and the New Earth) the OT remains an important part of the Bible. This is a reference to all the prophecies waiting to be fulfilled.
I am happy with everything HaShem does. However it not the Word I disagree with, it is mans understanding. You see, like almost everyone, you passed over the FACT that the prophets are tied to the Law. There in lies the problem. As humans, we do get things wrong, when it comes to the Word, one tends to over look any part that doesn't fit their understanding. Again, I do understand this, as I was thought the Law had been removed.
Yet when we look at 18, it becomes clear as day that it has not been. That or I missed that Heaven and earth had passed. Just so you know, this is not the only time Yeshua tied the Laws and Prophets together. Mat. 7:12, Mat.11:13, Mat. 22:40, there may be more, I just don't have the time look them all up right now.
Now may I ask where you get the idea the Heaven and earth have passed? That is something that comes after the 1000 reign.
You really need to work on where you place a person's dissatisfaction. When a person is in disagrement with you, that in no way implies they are are dissatisfied with the Word, or HaShem. So please re-frame from trying to place a person in conflicet with things they are not. It can be seen as one wishing to try to discrete another for no real reason. Or is it that you hold so much knowledge, that to disagree with is the same as disagreeing with HaShem himself?
Yet when we look at 18, it becomes clear as day that it has not been. That or I missed that Heaven and earth had passed. Just so you know, this is not the only time Yeshua tied the Laws and Prophets together. Mat. 7:12, Mat.11:13, Mat. 22:40, there may be more, I just don't have the time look them all up right now.
Now may I ask where you get the idea the Heaven and earth have passed? That is something that comes after the 1000 reign.
You really need to work on where you place a person's dissatisfaction. When a person is in disagrement with you, that in no way implies they are are dissatisfied with the Word, or HaShem. So please re-frame from trying to place a person in conflicet with things they are not. It can be seen as one wishing to try to discrete another for no real reason. Or is it that you hold so much knowledge, that to disagree with is the same as disagreeing with HaShem himself?
How would you write of the temple in heaven, if you had a vision of it? Is not the temple in heaven that which Jesus stepped into when offering His blood? And that which the angels step out of at the Second Coming of Christ?
I don't see these arguments definitively discrediting the view that @Lafftur offered.
The 3rd temple can very well be descriptive of the body of Christ on earth, which foundation Cornerstone has been laid, and with The Coming of Christ providing the Capstone.
I don't see these arguments definitively discrediting the view that @Lafftur offered.
The 3rd temple can very well be descriptive of the body of Christ on earth, which foundation Cornerstone has been laid, and with The Coming of Christ providing the Capstone.