I aplogogize if that's how it sounded.
No need to apologize. I was merely pointing out the way such could be taken. And thank you, for using the proper syntax. Years ago, I participated upon a forum in which one person loved to get into it with me and refused proper syntax. I always had to spend time in each reply restructuring the correct attribution. It is easier here than it was there. In this reply, I shall spend some extra time in the formatting and quoting to be inclusive as to what you were replying unto as well. However, when you go to reply, since it will not be retained, it is worthless. However, it will also allow you to see how much easier it is in discussion. So I do understand.
If this forum would quote back one more set of quotes as default, it would be easier. I always open a second window, so that I can refer back to the previous reply as I am replying.
OTOH: If the forum allowed one more set of quotes in the attribution from previous posts, it would require us to also <snip> as necessary. And since there are more lazy posters in my experience than those who spend the time to try and keep the attribution correct, perhaps this method is for the best in some ways.
If I didn't think it wise to be here, I wouldn't be here. I have a sick husband that requires attention. If he's watching documentaries, then I'm a free woman !
I'm also on another forum I have difficulty leaving, but I like it here too...so...
My condolences. But, glad to see you around!
I know that is one of the popular takes upon this. However the author of Hebrews offers one of the strongest warnings in striving against sin, to the shedding one's own blood. And we know that sin is transgression of the law. Further, the author of Hebrews also states that there remains a sabbatismos unto the people of "God", "as God did from His". Those hardly strike me as a warning against returning to Judaism. Not laying the foundation of "repentance", from dead works. Would you account the ten as "dead works"? And upholding the 10, is not laying a foundation of repentance.
I agree with what you said about Hebrews, and in every other letter Paul makes mention of being in Christ and not being lawless. Many miss these verses of his, but I happen to catch everything, the good and the bad. Sabbatismos must mean Sabbath. So are you saying that we can REST from our works?
According to some, shabat is not a native Greek word, but is of Hebrew origin, thus, a Hebrew loanword to the Greek language. Sabbatismos has renderings depending upon to whom you listen. A "sabbath-rest" if you will. And yes, I am saying that we can. For the phrase "as God did from His" is not something that I can get around. In fact, this is the only one of the ten, where you and I disagree. And I am fine to agree to disagree upon it.
I don't want to address returning to Judaism. That was not my intent. Judaism did not work. But God does expect good deeds from us. Ephesians 2:10 would be perfect for this. He does expect us to work FOR HIM. NOT for our salvatiion.
Concurred.
And our "obedience" shall be as naught if we are like unto:
Rom 9:32a Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works.
Luke 18:9 And he spake also this parable unto certain who
trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and set all others at nought:
And, to set others as naught, is a dangerous thing as well.
So basically, we agree en main, just not completely with regard to many things.
Not all of the 613 would be applicable to you anyway. As Hillel the Great once said: "the rest are the explanation".
Looks like some are the explanation.
Exodus 23:19 comes to mind and I wouldn't know how to categorize that - boiling a kid in the mother's milk (a goat) - but it's not important to me. I said the 613 did not apply to me. Only the ten - and Jesus did not add any new commands. He also just explained.
Such as that which you quote: Perhaps that is something that would be offensive to "God", that which became our nourishment, to cook it in the very thing that was intended for it's nourishment.
The two are out of the OT. The ten are out of the OT. The difference, is that one was written on tablets of stone, and the other is written upon tablets of flesh, upon the heart.
Yes. This is the difference.
Hey, something we agree upon.
Not really. Was it not intended as such from the beginning? If that was the manner in which it was intended, then it has not changed.
OK. I hate these quote things. Can't we just talk? I don't know to what you're saying "Not really."
What you're referring to "Not really" is when I stated that the Law to be followed is the same (God's Law) BUT HOW we follow it has changed.
It is the "how" to which I stated "not really". For wasn't it intended to be that way from the beginning.
Regrettably, on this forum, without doing a lot of reconstruction, it is hard to leave that one extra set of quotes so that we can easily see the previous response as well. That is what I am used to, that extra set. But then we also have the 10k cap, which with another set of quotes, could also severely limit a response. In fact, lets see if this post makes it under the 10k cap.
And while you hate the quote things, it does make it easier for me in response, because I don't have to re-construct your post with proper syntax / attribution. Now if you could hit reply, and it would keep the one extra set of quotes, it would make it much easier for you to see what you are responding unto. But again, it might require a little extra effort to <snip> and also maintain proper attribution. For myself, I am used to such, but occasionally, I would also screw it up.
You're saying this is not true.
Why not? It was not possible to keep the Law before..
I am saying, that if it was intended that way from the beginning, then the "how" has not changed. Been "corrected" perhaps, but not changed.
Why do you suppose it's possible now? Is it not precisely because it has moved from the tablet of stone into our heart? (Jeremiah, Ezekiel)
What has made it move into our heart?
We both know what Ezekiel and Jeremiah said upon that. Thus the question between you and I, would be the extent to which it was done. Or, the extent to which we allow such.
Perhaps the love we have for the One who died for us, to save us?
Our love for Jesus makes it POSSIBLE for us to follow the Law, which is impossible otherwise.
Does this mean we will never sin? No. But our sin nature is kept under submission and no longer rules.
You confuse me. I never know whether we agree or not.
But it's all good.
We agree and disagree <chuckle>. We almost always agree in part, just not in full. Which, is not an uncommon thing with me. <grin>
