How can one learn?

[Rainrider]

I mean, "It says here, 'have no other gods...', etc, and Torah defines good and evil, and Jesus followed the Law, and said He didn't come to do away with the Law, but to fulfill It, so why wouldn't I use the Torah as a guide to how I live in righteousness before God?"

To use Torah as a teacher is what we should do yes. That in no way is saying we must keep ever detail of it. As it seems you understand this, I won't get into the details of pointing out ever passage in Torah. I am sure you understand that there many laws that are for these people that don't fit with others, like the laws for the Priest that work in the Temple, don't fit for the average person. Can we agree on that with out going into every detail on it?
also when it comes to sacrifices. The Torah is clear that they are to given only on the alter of Yahovah. As there is no Temple, the laws for this can't be followed. One must keep in mind that a gentile is not allowed into the inter court, where said sacrifices are made. that being as it is, a gentile has no means of keeping that aspect of the Torah. So it stands to reason that it doesn't apply to gentiles. Are we in agreement?

 

[romans113336]

To use Torah as a teacher is what we should do yes. That in no way is saying we must keep ever detail of it. As it seems you understand this, I won't get into the details of pointing out ever passage in Torah. I am sure you understand that there many laws that are for these people that don't fit with others, like the laws for the Priest that work in the Temple, don't fit for the average person. Can we agree on that with out going into every detail on it?
also when it comes to sacrifices. The Torah is clear that they are to given only on the alter of Yahovah. As there is no Temple, the laws for this can't be followed. One must keep in mind that a gentile is not allowed into the inter court, where said sacrifices are made. that being as it is, a gentile has no means of keeping that aspect of the Torah. So it stands to reason that it doesn't apply to gentiles. Are we in agreement?

It seems we agree on the definition of "under Law"--"God defines good and evil, and we walk thereby--infracting His Law is sin, lawlessness, and keeping It is righteousness. We will not do the evil God prohibits, we will do the good God enjoins us to do."

 

[Rainrider]

some people think the subject at hand isn't worth it because they know it so well. in other words, a waste of time. it's similar to scientists: they don't want to talk to anyone unless the person is an éclat. others, for no reason, just don't want to respond. still others don't want to use their time up. lastly, as you mentioned, people talk big but know little.

I am not here for anyone that sees any study as a wast of time. If they see this that way, why bother to even post anything on this thread?
I am here to seek the truth, no matter how it turns out. Just as we are told by Paul, STUDY to show thy self approved. He didn't say only study what you like, or only what you don't know. He said STUDY.

 

[NightTwister]

And yet when faced with opposing views, the truth must be a bit different than both sides hold. Their is only one truth correct? I know that I don't know everything, yet it seems that unless one concedes to the others point of view, with out question, they must be wrong. The Word also tells us it is not open to personal interpretation. So would we not be better off to seek the only truth there is, the one that comes not mans mind, but rather from the Word it's self?

There is only one truth. Sincere Christians seek it out, but we are imperfect in our understanding and wa

Now do you know that, when you have yet to enter into a debate? Unless you have read other threads I have opened on here, and seen that I am willing to place The Word out there for all to see, and hold my-self and others to what it truly has to say. As well as correct the misunderstanding I see in their teachings. However that is not personal interpretation.

I base that on your comment here. Let me ask you, are you opposed to creeds and confessions?

 

[Rainrider]

It seems we agree on the definition of "under Law"--"God teaches good and evil, and we walk thereby."

Ok if I may. I think we just found a point we need to look at a bit closer. UNDER THE LAW. It is true Paul used that phrase often, yet do we really understand it's meaning, and intent? I really don't think we do. Even what I think is not impotent, what Paul was think is however. As we know Paul also said the Law is good, holy and just. Or something like that. let me post just passage where it is said.
Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
So let's look at the meaning of the phrase under the law if we can. As it seems that Paul is saying to follow the Torah is bad. Now I will consed this to a point, however as an outright fact that the has been removed I can't. My understanding of this comes from a study I once did on Paul, and the times in which he lived.
At that time the Torah was being misused by many people. In fact even the interaction between Yeshua, and the teachers of the law, it is clear. Without going into a whole new study on that topic, let me ask this. Is it posible that Paul was speaking of the perverted teachings of the law?
If so does it show that Paul seen the law as removed? Keeping in mind that he has many times said the law was a good thing. He he also said it didn't lead to salvation. Yet he did say we are not under the law, yet made it still did the same thing as it always has, it shows us when we are in sin.

 

[Rainrider]

There is only one truth. Sincere Christians seek it out, but we are imperfect in our understanding and wa
I base that on your comment here. Let me ask you, are you opposed to creeds and confessions?

Not knowing what credds you furred to I can't give an honest to that. I mean if I say I do, and I am thinking of Torah as teh creed, you may be seeing a creed as something I would not think of. So if you will make clear what creed you ask about then I can give a clear and honest answer.
Now as to confession. It would be hard to say I oppse what we are commanded to do in the Word, yet say I do my best to live by every word it holds. What I do stand in opposition to, is the idea that we must confess our sins to a man. The Word is clear are to confess our sin to the father, and only the Father can forgive our sin on a spiritual level. Does that answer your question?

 

[NightTwister]

Not knowing what credds you furred to I can't give an honest to that. I mean if I say I do, and I am thinking of Torah as teh creed, you may be seeing a creed as something I would not think of. So if you will make clear what creed you ask about then I can give a clear and honest answer.
Now as to confession. It would be hard to say I oppse what we are commanded to do in the Word, yet say I do my best to live by every word it holds. What I do stand in opposition to, is the idea that we must confess our sins to a man. The Word is clear are to confess our sin to the father, and only the Father can forgive our sin on a spiritual level. Does that answer your question?

For me, I hold to the Apostles', Athanasian, and Nicene creeds, and the Westminster Confession of Faith (excepting RPW). I believe these are an accurate representation of the Scriptures, and a summation of my beliefs. I see no reason to reinvent the wheel.

 

[posthuman]

Being as the Law was already brought up, lets look at that. The Torah is after all foundation on which the whole of the Wrod is built.
As we are using the Law here, lets look at a passage that has been used to remove it by many. Just so noone trys to use translation as an argument, lets all use the KJV.
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.
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.
I will also ask that we stay with just the above passages until we find the answer to this simple question. If we look at this as a whole, how can it be that the Law has been removed? Keep in mind we only looking at the given, if it sound to say Yesuah has removed the law, and the above are offten used to try and make that point, then it should be clear. However if this passage doesn't back that thinking, then any passage used to show the law has been removed, must be understood as well. After all, there can be no contrudictions in any part of the Word, it must up hold the whole of scripture, or our understanding is wrong.

That's easy.

two things to note:

• the word "fulfill"
  • He came to fulfill
  • He did not say the Law would never pass away; He said the Law would not pass away until fulfillment
• the fact that a dead man is not liable to the Law whatsoever, and our salvation is brought about by our having died with Christ.
  • see Romans 6-8 for detailed description

 

[Rainrider]

For me, I hold to the Apostles', Athanasian, and Nicene creeds, and the Westminster Confession of Faith (excepting RPW). I believe these are an accurate representation of the Scriptures, and a summation of my beliefs. I see no reason to reinvent the wheel.

Then I would have to say most likely not. It has always been my goal to look only the sound teachings of the Word.

 

[Rainrider]

That's easy.

two things to note:

• the word "fulfill"
  • He came to fulfill
  • He did not say the Law would never pass away; He said the Law would not pass away until fulfillment
• the fact that a dead man is not liable to the Law whatsoever, and our salvation is brought about by our having died with Christ.
  • see Romans 6-8 for detailed description

Yet how do you remove the fact that he said not to think that? After all not all has been fulfilled as yet. Also if we look at 18 we find that the havens and earth are still here, so once more does this not negate the idea that it was removed?

 

[Rainrider]

I have some house work to do, so I may be tomorrow getting back to this. Or it may real late tonight, so give up on me, I will return.

 

[posthuman]

Yet how do you remove the fact that he said not to think that? After all not all has been fulfilled as yet. Also if we look at 18 we find that the havens and earth are still here, so once more does this not negate the idea that it was removed?

by saying He came to fulfill the Law - which is His own word - i have not in any way removed anything.

but if you ignore that He came to fulfill the Law, and you ignore that i have died and my life is hid in Christ, what have you attempted to remove?

 

[GaryA]

For me, I hold to the Apostles', Athanasian, and Nicene creeds, and the Westminster Confession of Faith (excepting RPW). I believe these are an accurate representation of the Scriptures, and a summation of my beliefs. I see no reason to reinvent the wheel.

But, that is exactly what the 'creeds' do - attempt to reinvent the wheel.

The 'wheel' is the Scriptures. And, that is all you need. Trying to "remake" the Scriptures very quickly leads to error. And, people then often "replace" the Scriptures with the man-made creed. This is dangerous.

If people will/would just use the 'wheel' - as it is - without trying to reinvent it - they will be better off...

 

[posthuman]

But, that is exactly what the 'creeds' do - attempt to reinvent the wheel.

The 'wheel' is the Scriptures. And, that is all you need. Trying to "remake" the Scriptures very quickly leads to error. And, people then often "replace" the Scriptures with the man-made creed. This is dangerous.

If people will/would just use the 'wheel' - as it is - without trying to reinvent it - they will be better off...

that is not what the creeds historically are.

they came about from. discussions, debates and councils between opposing views which both were very well versed and studied in the scriptures.

their purpose is not 'reinvention of the wheel' but easily remembered, easily comminicated, brief statements of faith 100% grounded in scripture that immediately rebuke heresy.

so we can have a 200 page fruitless argument that has already been settled 2,000 years ago by wiser men, or we can say 'the chief end of man is to worship God and enjoy Him always'

 

[Nehemiah6]

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.

The answer to this is rather simple.

1. Christ came to fulfill the Law. And He did so in many ways. In fact the entire epistle to the Hebrews is devoted to this.

2. Christ also came to usher in and establish the New Covenant. Therefore the Law could not remain in place.

3. There is a huge difference between "destroying" something and replacing
it with something better. And that is exactly what Paul says in 2nd Corinthians and Hebrews.

4. Christ presented His blood as "the New Covenant in His blood". Which meant that His blood ratified the New Covenant. Therefore the blood of animals was now null and void. The entire sacrificial system of the Old Covenant became null and void.

5. So Paul says that the Old Covenant was ABOLISHED OR DONE AWAY WITH. That is not "destroying" but replacing.

 

[NightTwister]

Then I would have to say most likely not. It has always been my goal to look only the sound teachings of the Word.

Which is exactly what those creeds and confessions do. You have your own, they just don't have names.

 

[NightTwister]

But, that is exactly what the 'creeds' do - attempt to reinvent the wheel.

The 'wheel' is the Scriptures. And, that is all you need. Trying to "remake" the Scriptures very quickly leads to error. And, people then often "replace" the Scriptures with the man-made creed. This is dangerous.

If people will/would just use the 'wheel' - as it is - without trying to reinvent it - they will be better off...

No, that's not what they do. Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms are an aid, that's all. When people ask what I believe, I can point to them. I don't have to exegete every Scripture from scratch every time. No one who uses these sincerely believes they replace the Bible.

 

[romans113336]

Ok if I may. I think we just found a point we need to look at a bit closer. UNDER THE LAW. It is true Paul used that phrase often, yet do we really understand it's meaning, and intent? I really don't think we do. Even what I think is not impotent, what Paul was think is however. As we know Paul also said the Law is good, holy and just. Or something like that. let me post just passage where it is said.
Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
So let's look at the meaning of the phrase under the law if we can. As it seems that Paul is saying to follow the Torah is bad. Now I will consed this to a point, however as an outright fact that the has been removed I can't. My understanding of this comes from a study I once did on Paul, and the times in which he lived.
At that time the Torah was being misused by many people. In fact even the interaction between Yeshua, and the teachers of the law, it is clear. Without going into a whole new study on that topic, let me ask this. Is it posible that Paul was speaking of the perverted teachings of the law?
If so does it show that Paul seen the law as removed? Keeping in mind that he has many times said the law was a good thing. He he also said it didn't lead to salvation. Yet he did say we are not under the law, yet made it still did the same thing as it always has, it shows us when we are in sin.

What do you understand "under the Law" to mean?

 

[GaryA]

I know thats true many. However it does bring up a question. One that I hunted an answer to for years. Does it not become clear when one looks at all the different teachings coming from the same written Word, that something is wrong?

Clear for some - not so much for others...

And, it is not a mystery.

1 Peter 5:

8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

The devil is always looking for ways to deceive people and throw them off of the path of truth.

And - weak humans that we are - we too easily fall for it.

What is lacking the most is good discernment.

And, none of us actually "have a lock on that"...

But, if we are 'sober' and 'vigilant' - we do well.

 

[GaryA]

The Word also tells us it is not open to personal interpretation.

Yet it seems that's exactly what you are doing.

Are these the verses of scripture that you are thinking of?

2 Peter 1:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I think that these verses are probably misinterpreted and misused more-than-not.

The 'private interpretation' is not with regard to those who read the Bible today; rather, it is with regard to the authors of the prophecy.

To attempt to apply this to anyone today is taking it completely out-of-context.