Search results

Question - do you think Jesus (in this sermon) and Paul had the same audience?

It would appear that you don't know jack squat about Judaism, but somehow have hatred for the Jews anyway.

I'm not confused at all. The Law remains for those who swear to Moses' covenant of the Law. Those grafted in do no such thing... being adopted under Abraham, who is before the Law. Jesus did not disannul Moses' covenant for those who are part of it. But he did change the priesthood thereof...

Mainstream Judaism doesn't believe in a hell. Judaism is all about THIS life.

I held my nose to vote for Trump. Don't like him, but Harris was worth voting against.

Uh... no? The question is a little confusing since Jewish is both a nationality and a religion. I don't think all Christians agree on this. There are zionist factions in Christianity that strongly support Israel, while there are others who believe that the church replaces Israel as God's...

Yeah, add. The Greek word there is pleroo - to add a missing part, or to fill up. The etymological root of our word plural. :) And contextually, that's what He does in the chapter... 'you've heard it said, but I say to you...' and then he adds something to the law that makes it stricter.

The NIV stinks on this... "Don't think that I've come to release [you] from the Law or the Prophets. I haven't come to unbind, but to ADD to them."

I think this is the crux of the matter. Yes - this means that we all have to 'do the work' to determine the right interpretation. Or at least rely on some person to do it for us. But I don't find that problematic. We all rely on the translators, and our own teachers and pastors anyway...

Unfortunately true - the Democratic party has been hijacked. The real Dems are now registered Republican. o_O

No. Allowing people who make no positive contributions to society to vote is the mistake. Originally only land-owners could vote, but I think if everyone who held down a job could vote, that would be quite an improvement.

Is there a threshold for literality? I think there was a literal flood in the past that the Bible story is re-counting. But, stories that comes from pre-history... they aren't history... because there was NO history yet. So the story must belong to a different literary genre (epic...

Yes, the idea that the devil has been defeated is certainly defensible from Scripture. A few verses are below that say so pretty cleanly. Hebrews 2:14-18 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He [Jesus] also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death...

We have very different worldviews. My understanding of things is that the devil was defeated long ago. People still do bad things because they want to, not because they are deceived.

I don't think that one's gonna work. Have you seen the state of Biblical academia?

Ok. I mean... that isn't my purpose, here. I'm really just trying to have a dialogue and talk through some things with others.

Well, it wasn't a literal physical death within a literal day. So much for a literal Genesis

Ummm... did you read the chapter? Psalm 40? It's not about David repenting of sin. This subforum is marked out as a place where people can discuss unorthodox theology. If they ignore the warning sign on the door, they don't get to complain about what's in the room.

You might be giving her too much credit.... she's just a puppet for someone else. I'm not sure she has any ideas of her own.

Yes, that's the contradiction we're talking about. Leviticus certainly requires sacrifices, while the prophets specifically say otherwise: Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast Thou not required. I'm sensitive...