Charles Spurgeon's Sanity Litmus Test (are you insane?)

[Stranger]

GodsGrace

(Gen. 3:5) "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

(Gen. 3:6-7)"...she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her husband...and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened...."

Eves eyes were opened when she ate. After giving to her husband to eat, both their eyes were opened.

Eve was as responsible as Adam. (Gen. 3:3) She knew the command that was given. It was not that she did not know, it is that she was deceived.

After Eve ate and before Adam ate, I believe Eve was in the most dangerous place a human being has ever been in. For she was fallen but her head, Adam, was not fallen. I believe Adam by all rights could have said to God, this woman has sinned against you. And I am not going to sin against you. Get me another woman. For, the human race had not yet fallen in Adam.

I believe Adam knew that Eve was fallen. And I don't believe Adam wanted another woman, he loved this one. And because he knew God, he knew that if he went with her into a fallen condition, God would get him back, and what ever it took for God to get him back would get Eve back also. I believe that is why he ate.

And, if any disagree with this scenario, you must at least admit, that is exactly what happened. (Eph. 5:23-25) Did not the Last Adam leave a sinless condition and become sin for us? For His wife? So that when God the Father raised Him from the dead we were raised with Him? (2 Cor. 4:14)

I am a man not a woman, so no, I have never had a baby. The woman is still the weaker vessel. (1 Peter 3:7) And the woman is easier to deceive then the man. (1 Tim.2:14)

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

For she was fallen but her head, Adam, was not fallen.

better to understand that the two were "one flesh" imo.

 

[Richard_oti]

No. Take it or leave it means I don't think we should argue this forever.

Ok, so it only means "Shut up" <chuckle>.

It has nothing to do with salvation or the nature of God and that's what I'm willing to debate.

Can not a little leaven leaven the whole lump? IOW: If we have something little in our understandings that is not quite Kosher, can that not also effect the bigger picture?

Eve was removed from the Garden because by then sin had entered into the world and God cannot stand sin so they both had to leave the Garden so that they could not eat of the Tree of Life and never die and live forever in a sinful state.

According to what you have stated and what you say below, no "sin" could have been imputed to Eve, so there was no reason to remove her from the Garden.

I'm sure you know about the Covenants. Some are unconditional.

And some are perpetual.

The Edenic Covenant was condition. On their obedience to what God had commanded --- do not eat of the one tree. They disobeyed.
Covenants with conditions have blessings and curses.

"They" disobeyed? You have clearly stated that IYO it was only between Adam and "God".

<snip>

According to the N.T. sin cannot be imputed without law.
Romans 5:13

The "command" have have clearly stated was between Adam and "God", thus Eve can not have been accountable unless she also knew. Thus, she also is guilty.

<snip>

If we were held personally responsible for such a serious sin, any baby dying would have to go to hell.

Would you care to explain how my last sentence would not be true of you were correct??

Huh? Apparently we have a breakdown in communication. Huh, who woulda thunk dat ta be possible.

I think you're just giving me a difficult time!

Perhaps, perhaps not. <whistles and looks around>

 

[Richard_oti]

Paragraph 2.
I can only accept part of the OC, of which we really only keep 9,

So then, "God" does not demand that we keep the ten?

because Jesus abolished the ceremonial and civil law.

Who gets to decide what is what, which is which? Love you neighbor comes from Leviticus 19. This is a part of the "slicing and dicing" that I spoke of before. Of the 10. we are now down to 9. So even the 10 are being "sliced and diced".

It was decided between Paul and Peter that Christians did not have to become Jewish FIRST before becoming Christian. I mean gentiles of course. And that Christians did not have to be circumcised.
Jesus never spoke of circumcision in an important way or it would have been made part of the gospel.
John 7:21-23 would have been His opportunity to say that it was necessary.

Acts 15:1
Acts 15:5
Acts 15:9-10

The only reason for a Gentile believer to become circumcised, would have been to have partaken of the Passover while the temple stood. The issue, was circumcision unto salvation.

Yet, they were in fact given 4 items to start with in Acts 15:20. Are those written of within haTorah?

What do you make of Acts 15:21?

Gentiles and new Christians were also allowed to eat all animals.

Even according to the four things listed in Acts 15:20, that is not entirely true. However, were not they also to seek and learn the way of "God"? Or were they done the moment that "believed".

So basically, you are telling me that "God" not only changes, but also has a double standard. That "God" didn't really sssssssay: There shall be one law for both the foreigner and the native born.

This is the ceremonial law which was abolished. Also animal sacrifices.

So how is it that upon the ark with Noah, there were two of each animal of the "unclean" variety, and seven of those which were "clean"?

In 2 Cor 6:17, what does it mean, touch no "unclean" thing?

With regard to the "New Jerusalem" (cf Rev 21) nothing "unclean" is allowed to enter in.

If what you are saying is truly the case, then after the death of Jesus, there could not be an "abomination of desolation" under the second "little horn" (cf Dan 7).

Do you know what the "abomination of desolation" was that was committed by the first "little horn" of Daniel 8?

As far as the Sabbath.
It's stated in the N.T. that the first day of the week was kept for celebrating the breaking of bread, or communion.
Acts 20:7

Actually no. Not according to that verse. They met upon the first day, they broke bread, but it doesn't specifically it was kept for that in Acts 20:7. That just happens to be one of the three so called "proof" verses that are referred unto with regard to that. That verse does nothing to nullify shabat.

Also, Jesus has become our day of rest.

So in Hebrews, you are telling me that 'Elohim rested in Jesus? Tis hard to get around the phrase: "As God did from His". Of course, there are those who dismiss it as the letter was written to "Hebrews". Of which, you do know that it is the husbands job to make the morning coffee. "God" said so: "He-brews".

However, this is not a command.

Huh? So, you are telling me that God "demands" we uphold the 10, but one of those, is not really a command. IOW: God didn't really mean it when he ssssssiad: "Remember the Shabat".

Exo 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days YHVH made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Paul taught that we can worship when we feel it is right and not to hold anyone back.

So IOW, you are telling me that Paul was the anti-christ. Or, that Paul was the one spoken of in Daniel 7, who thought to attempt to change the set times and the law. Is that what you are telling me?

IF, as so many believe that Daniel is still future, what set times or law is that one going to attempt to change? Seems to me from what you are telling me, they have all been changed already.

It does seem to me that the day of resting has been changed.

Indeed. Now here's the question: By whom?

P.S. as far as Eve standing right there with God...
I could be standing right near someone who steals something.
That does not make ME responsible for that sin.

Of course not. However, you are setting up a false scenario in your statement.

Yes, I know I am a pain. And yes, I know that I have introduced a lot into this. The purpose, is to perhaps demonstrate how one little change, can cascade until the original intent has become no longer visible.

 

[GodsGrace]

So then, "God" does not demand that we keep the ten?




Who gets to decide what is what, which is which? Love you neighbor comes from Leviticus 19. This is a part of the "slicing and dicing" that I spoke of before. Of the 10. we are now down to 9. So even the 10 are being "sliced and diced".




The only reason for a Gentile believer to become circumcised, would have been to have partaken of the Passover while the temple stood. The issue, was circumcision unto salvation.

Yet, they were in fact given 4 items to start with in Acts 15:20. Are those written of within haTorah?

What do you make of Acts 15:21?




Even according to the four things listed in Acts 15:20, that is not entirely true. However, were not they also to seek and learn the way of "God"? Or were they done the moment that "believed".

So basically, you are telling me that "God" not only changes, but also has a double standard. That "God" didn't really sssssssay: There shall be one law for both the foreigner and the native born.




So how is it that upon the ark with Noah, there were two of each animal of the "unclean" variety, and seven of those which were "clean"?

In 2 Cor 6:17, what does it mean, touch no "unclean" thing?

With regard to the "New Jerusalem" (cf Rev 21) nothing "unclean" is allowed to enter in.

If what you are saying is truly the case, then after the death of Jesus, there could not be an "abomination of desolation" under the second "little horn" (cf Dan 7).

Do you know what the "abomination of desolation" was that was committed by the first "little horn" of Daniel 8?




Actually no. Not according to that verse. They met upon the first day, they broke bread, but it doesn't specifically it was kept for that in Acts 20:7. That just happens to be one of the three so called "proof" verses that are referred unto with regard to that. That verse does nothing to nullify shabat.




So in Hebrews, you are telling me that 'Elohim rested in Jesus? Tis hard to get around the phrase: "As God did from His". Of course, there are those who dismiss it as the letter was written to "Hebrews". Of which, you do know that it is the husbands job to make the morning coffee. "God" said so: "He-brews".




Huh? So, you are telling me that God "demands" we uphold the 10, but one of those, is not really a command. IOW: God didn't really mean it when he ssssssiad: "Remember the Shabat".

Exo 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days YHVH made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.




So IOW, you are telling me that Paul was the anti-christ. Or, that Paul was the one spoken of in Daniel 7, who thought to attempt to change the set times and the law. Is that what you are telling me?

IF, as so many believe that Daniel is still future, what set times or law is that one going to attempt to change? Seems to me from what you are telling me, they have all been changed already.




Indeed. Now here's the question: By whom?




Of course not. However, you are setting up a false scenario in your statement.

Yes, I know I am a pain. And yes, I know that I have introduced a lot into this. The purpose, is to perhaps demonstrate how one little change, can cascade until the original intent has become no longer visible.

Yes, you have posted a lot and the easy answer would be that I'm a Christian not a Jewish person. I always repeatedly say that God has not changed.

However, some of His laws had changed.
When Jesus says You Have Heard it Said,
But I Say To You, He is about to change something.
But not because God changed, because MAN changed something of God's law and now Jesus is bringing back to how God want it.
Divorce comes to mind. Moses allowed Certificates of Divorce, but God does not.

Re your very last paragraph.
If you're going to be such a pain, re Adam and Eve, then how about YOUR version???


Your post is going to have to wait till later...
And you may not like my answer.

 

[GodsGrace]

Ok, so it only means "Shut up" <chuckle>.




Can not a little leaven leaven the whole lump? IOW: If we have something little in our understandings that is not quite Kosher, can that not also effect the bigger picture?




According to what you have stated and what you say below, no "sin" could have been imputed to Eve, so there was no reason to remove her from the Garden.




And some are perpetual.




"They" disobeyed? You have clearly stated that IYO it was only between Adam and "God".

<snip>



The "command" have have clearly stated was between Adam and "God", thus Eve can not have been accountable unless she also knew. Thus, she also is guilty.

<snip>



Huh? Apparently we have a breakdown in communication. Huh, who woulda thunk dat ta be possible.




Perhaps, perhaps not. <whistles and looks around>

Oops.
I almost missed this.
You still want to discuss Adam and Eve?
OOOOKAY.
But later.

 

[GodsGrace]

Ok, so it only means "Shut up" <chuckle>.

Can not a little leaven leaven the whole lump? IOW: If we have something little in our understandings that is not quite Kosher, can that not also effect the bigger picture?

Depends what it is.
So what do I believe that is not quite Kosher?

According to what you have stated and what you say below, no "sin" could have been imputed to Eve, so there was no reason to remove her from the Garden.

Impute means to make personally responsible. God cannot hold us responsible for a sin we did not commit. However, that sin, commited by the head of all mankind, can be transmitted to every human being born after him. It's not imputed to man, it's propogated to man.
It's passed on to us, and we now have the sin nature, but we did not PERSONALLY commit the sin.

If you have a different idea, please show it.
I have said that believing that the first sin is imputed to man is a valid understanding of O.S.

And some are perpetual.

All covenants are perpetual. I can't think of one off-hand that was abolished. They can be improved, or added to, or made better in some way, but no covenant can be abolished. It would mean God changed His mind.

"They" disobeyed? You have clearly stated that IYO it was only between Adam and "God".

It's not in my opinion.
Who do YOU think the Edenic covenant was for?
Adam AND Eve? Where is her name mentioned in the discussion between God and Adam?
Genesis 2:15-17

Eve was not even formed yet.
THEN in Genesis 2:18 God says that it is not good for man to be alone.

Please show how Eve was involved in the Edenic Covenant.

They both disobeyed. Eve had been told not to eat of the Tree.
But the fall is attributed to Adam.

The "command" have have clearly stated was between Adam and "God", thus Eve can not have been accountable unless she also knew. Thus, she also is guilty.

You're getting commands mixed up with Covenants.
I can't help you with that.
They were BOTH commanded not to eat.
But the Covenant was with Adam.
This cannot be disputed.

Huh? Apparently we have a breakdown in communication. Huh, who woulda thunk dat ta be possible.

Enough here without going back to discover what the break-down was about.

Perhaps, perhaps not. <whistles and looks around>

Perhaps YES!
Time for you to put forth the theory you believe to be correct.

 

[DicipleofJesus]

that also presumes that that is what you want to reflect, i guess.

If the pope does a good deed, doesn't it cover many sins, Phoneman?[/QU There are humans who would think so. For me it depends on which pope one is speaking of. But there will be a coming day when people will say to Jesus "Lord Lord! we did miracles and casted out demons in your name." Jesus stated that he would say "Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.

 

[GodsGrace]

So then, "God" does not demand that we keep the ten?

Who gets to decide what is what, which is which? Love you neighbor comes from Leviticus 19. This is a part of the "slicing and dicing" that I spoke of before. Of the 10. we are now down to 9. So even the 10 are being "sliced and diced".

Where in Leviticus 19 does it say to love your enemy?
Jesus said we are to love our neighbor, that's in Lev 19.
But He also said to love our enemy.
In the OT, many times, it says to hate the enemy.
Psalm 18:40
Deuteronomy 33:27

Why is that sliced and diced if Jesus said to love our enemies also?
Has God changed here? One moment we're to hate our enemies and the next to love them??

The only reason for a Gentile believer to become circumcised, would have been to have partaken of the Passover while the temple stood. The issue, was circumcision unto salvation.

I don't understand circumcision unto salvation.
Circumcision was the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham.
If a gentile wanted to be a part of Abraham's tribe, then he had to be circumcised first. Whether or not he would be saved is a different matter. Not everyone who was circumcised was saved.

Yet, they were in fact given 4 items to start with in Acts 15:20. Are those written of within haTorah?

What do you make of Acts 15:21?

Don't know what you're getting at.
God always meant for outsiders, gentiles, to be grafted into the vine.
There is now no Jew nor gentile.
Galatians 3:28

Acts 15:20-21
James is saying that a letter will be sent to the non-Jewish telling them to do the following if they want to become Christian:
Do not become involved with idols
Keep marriage sacred
Do not eat food that would be offensive to Jews
(blood, for instance)
The above was preached by Moses for centuries as the Jews kept the Sabbath.

Even according to the four things listed in Acts 15:20, that is not entirely true. However, were not they also to seek and learn the way of "God"? Or were they done the moment that "believed".

It is true that Christians were allowed to eat anything.
Acts 15 was specifically for the purpose of not offending.
This is true even today. If there's a new Christian present, we should abstain from doing anything that might confuse that person.
For instance, I may not feel like going to a service, but for the sake of the new Christian I would go with him.

So basically, you are telling me that "God" not only changes, but also has a double standard. That "God" didn't really sssssssay: There shall be one law for both the foreigner and the native born.

How do you understand from this that God has a double standard?
Ceremonial law has been abolished.
I'm not Jewish and am not required to NOT eat crustacians or blood sausage or anything else.
Jesus said that it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles, not what goes into the mouth.
Mathew 15:11

So how is it that upon the ark with Noah, there were two of each animal of the "unclean" variety, and seven of those which were "clean"?

In 2 Cor 6:17, what does it mean, touch no "unclean" thing?

With regard to the "New Jerusalem" (cf Rev 21) nothing "unclean" is allowed to enter in.

Re Noah: Je ne sais pas. I don't know what connection you're making --
The ark held animals.
The unclean thing that is not to be touched in 2 Corinthians 6:17 is the unclean in the world, IOW, anything that would be not to God's liking.
Those that believe should not mix with those that do not. Or it could be anything one might deem to be unclean. Smoking, Drugs, etc.

If what you are saying is truly the case, then after the death of Jesus, there could not be an "abomination of desolation" under the second "little horn" (cf Dan 7).

Do you know what the "abomination of desolation" was that was committed by the first "little horn" of Daniel 8?

Not only do I not know, I really don't care to know.
I've said many times that I know nothing of eschatology...
except that the end is coming.
(I wouldn't mind being informed, but I'm not about to study it)

Actually no. Not according to that verse. They met upon the first day, they broke bread, but it doesn't specifically it was kept for that in Acts 20:7. That just happens to be one of the three so called "proof" verses that are referred unto with regard to that. That verse does nothing to nullify shabat.

The question becomes:
Were they gathered together the first day of the week and so they broke bread (which means communion)
or
Did they specifically gather together the first day of the week to break bread.
From the previous verses it would seem to me that since they had celebrated the Passover in Phillipi and then went back to Traos.
It would seem to me, that the specifically met the first day of the week, which would be Sunday. The Didache also speaks to this...

Saturday or Sunday?
Many commentators are quick to see this as an early reference to Christian veneration of the first day of the week. This is how it is rendered in the Apostolic Constitutions: “On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is, the Lord’s day” (7.30). The evidence may not be that clear-cut. The appearance of “the day of the Lord” in the Didache is the first witness of the title. The phrase “the Lord’s day” (tekuriake hemera) does appear one time in the New Testament in the book of Revelation, but no designation is given as to which day it refers. “It is not until the second century CE that unequivocal references to weekly Sunday worship can be found” and the phrase “the Lord’s Day” is directly connected to the first day of the week. [1] Furthermore, in the New Testament, Sunday is always referred to as “the first day of the week.”
Source: The Day of the Lord

The actual Didache, which is very short, can also be found on the internet. It's an instructional manual for Christians left by the Apostles.

So in Hebrews, you are telling me that 'Elohim rested in Jesus? Tis hard to get around the phrase: "As God did from His". Of course, there are those who dismiss it as the letter was written to "Hebrews". Of which, you do know that it is the husbands job to make the morning coffee. "God" said so: "He-brews".

LOL Too bad my husband won't read the bible!

Christians say that Jesus is our rest. He completed all the commands and kept them in a perfect way. Since Going to service is a ceremonial law, I guess that has been abolished.
If it were not, would we be commiting a sin different from lying or stealing??
Do you see a difference?

Huh? So, you are telling me that God "demands" we uphold the 10, but one of those, is not really a command. IOW: God didn't really mean it when he ssssssiad: "Remember the Shabat".

Exo 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days YHVH made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

All the decalogue is a command.
So if I steal something, I'm going to hell?
Please explain what you believe better.
I'm not very clear on the Sabbath so I find it difficult to engage in any debate over it. I just know that Jesus will fill in the gaps where we're wrong.

So IOW, you are telling me that Paul was the anti-christ. Or, that Paul was the one spoken of in Daniel 7, who thought to attempt to change the set times and the law. Is that what you are telling me?

IF, as so many believe that Daniel is still future, what set times or law is that one going to attempt to change? Seems to me from what you are telling me, they have all been changed already.

Sorry. You're talking about Daniel.
Je ne sais pas.

Indeed. Now here's the question: By whom?

As I've said, the day was changed from Saturday to Sunday because it was believed that Jesus resurrected on a Sunday. This is questionable.
But He did say "This temple will be raised in 3 days".
Of course, do we know for sure He died on Friday at 3 pm?
That would have made Sunday the 3drd day. By Jewish timing.
I don't know enough about this to make intelligent comments.

Of course not. However, you are setting up a false scenario in your statement.

Yes, I know I am a pain. And yes, I know that I have introduced a lot into this. The purpose, is to perhaps demonstrate how one little change, can cascade until the original intent has become no longer visible.

Are you saying the change is in the story of Adam and Eve?
How does celebrating on Sunday change everything?
What was the original intent?
And how is it no longer visible?
Your Turn...[/QUOTE]

 

[Marymog]

Agreed.
small c.
Church -- the Body of Christ (all believers)
church -- the bldg. and administration, magesterium, whatever it's called for each denomination.

Hi GG,

I'm confused! All believers (big C) are people.

The administration and magisterium of a Church (little c) is made up of people also. They are believers also.

How can little c and big C be different if both are made up of people who believe?

Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

one needs money, the Other does not, for starters

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GG,

I'm confused! All believers (big C) are people.

The administration and magisterium of a Church (little c) is made up of people also. They are believers also.

How can little c and big C be different if both are made up of people who believe?

Mary

How do you know the administrators of a specific church are all believers? This is not necessarily true.

Of course there are persons in a church also. It cannot run itself.

This is not a mystery. You could look it up on the internet.

Church is the persons who make up the Body of Christ. WE are the Church of God. All believers, everywhere. The Bride. Individual persons.

church is a bldg or an administration. It's where you go to service or to Mass. This is NOT the Body of Christ nor His bride.

The Church is made up of people.
The church is made up of bricks.

The distinction has been made so that when we speak of the church we could know whether we mean the Body or the bldg.

This is known in both Protestantism and Catholicism.

 

[Marymog]

How do you know the administrators of a specific church are all believers? This is not necessarily true.

Of course there are persons in a church also. It cannot run itself.

This is not a mystery. You could look it up on the internet.

Church is the persons who make up the Body of Christ. WE are the Church of God. All believers, everywhere. The Bride. Individual persons.

church is a bldg or an administration. It's where you go to service or to Mass. This is NOT the Body of Christ nor His bride.

The Church is made up of people.
The church is made up of bricks.

The distinction has been made so that when we speak of the church we could know whether we mean the Body or the bldg.

This is known in both Protestantism and Catholicism.

Hi GG,

Good point. Not ALL administrators are believers. I think we can both agree the vast majority (95% or more) of ANYONE that works for a church are believers? Your splitting hairs!!

Based on that FACT: How can little c and big C be different if both are made up of people who believe?

Which Church or church do I go to when I have to settle a difference with my brother (Matthew 18:17)?

If I go to a little c church (admin., magisterium, denomination) I have thousands of different denominations to choose from. Which do I choose?

If I go the big C Church (all believers) I have billions of people to choose from. Do I go to you to settle the difference with my brother? One of the mods on this website? Who?

Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GG,

Good point. Not ALL administrators are believers. I think we can both agree the vast majority (95% or more) of ANYONE that works for a church are believers? Your splitting hairs!!

Based on that FACT: How can little c and big C be different if both are made up of people who believe?

Which Church or church do I go to when I have to settle a difference with my brother (Matthew 18:17)?

If I go to a little c church (admin., magisterium, denomination) I have thousands of different denominations to choose from. Which do I choose?

If I go the big C Church (all believers) I have billions of people to choose from. Do I go to you to settle the difference with my brother? One of the mods on this website? Who?

Mary

Mary,
What you ask is rather complicated for me.
If I have a problem with a friend, I go directly to them.
If it's not a friend, I just keep away from the person.
If I have to work with them (which has happend and in a church setting) then I'm just as nice as I could be and still keep away.
If the problem includes others, then we should go to the head of our church. Maybe the priest, maybe the pastor, whoever is the head of that particular local church.

That person is in charge of everyone who goes there and should be able to handle any personal problems that come up.

It almost sounds like you don't have a church but I doubt that.
....do you? You certainly cannot go to the Church. As you said, WHO would you go to??!

I'm surprised you've never heard of this before.

 

[DicipleofJesus]

Where in Leviticus 19 does it say to love your enemy?
Jesus said we are to love our neighbor, that's in Lev 19.
But He also said to love our enemy.
In the OT, many times, it says to hate the enemy.
Psalm 18:40
Deuteronomy 33:27

Why is that sliced and diced if Jesus said to love our enemies also?
Has God changed here? One moment we're to hate our enemies and the next to love them??


I don't understand circumcision unto salvation.
Circumcision was the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham.
If a gentile wanted to be a part of Abraham's tribe, then he had to be circumcised first. Whether or not he would be saved is a different matter. Not everyone who was circumcised was saved.


Don't know what you're getting at.
God always meant for outsiders, gentiles, to be grafted into the vine.
There is now no Jew nor gentile.
Galatians 3:28

Acts 15:20-21
James is saying that a letter will be sent to the non-Jewish telling them to do the following if they want to become Christian:
Do not become involved with idols
Keep marriage sacred
Do not eat food that would be offensive to Jews
(blood, for instance)
The above was preached by Moses for centuries as the Jews kept the Sabbath.


It is true that Christians were allowed to eat anything.
Acts 15 was specifically for the purpose of not offending.
This is true even today. If there's a new Christian present, we should abstain from doing anything that might confuse that person.
For instance, I may not feel like going to a service, but for the sake of the new Christian I would go with him.


How do you understand from this that God has a double standard?
Ceremonial law has been abolished.
I'm not Jewish and am not required to NOT eat crustacians or blood sausage or anything else.
Jesus said that it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles, not what goes into the mouth.
Mathew 15:11


Re Noah: Je ne sais pas. I don't know what connection you're making --
The ark held animals.
The unclean thing that is not to be touched in 2 Corinthians 6:17 is the unclean in the world, IOW, anything that would be not to God's liking.
Those that believe should not mix with those that do not. Or it could be anything one might deem to be unclean. Smoking, Drugs, etc.


Not only do I not know, I really don't care to know.
I've said many times that I know nothing of eschatology...
except that the end is coming.
(I wouldn't mind being informed, but I'm not about to study it)


The question becomes:
Were they gathered together the first day of the week and so they broke bread (which means communion)
or
Did they specifically gather together the first day of the week to break bread.
From the previous verses it would seem to me that since they had celebrated the Passover in Phillipi and then went back to Traos.
It would seem to me, that the specifically met the first day of the week, which would be Sunday. The Didache also speaks to this...

Saturday or Sunday?
Many commentators are quick to see this as an early reference to Christian veneration of the first day of the week. This is how it is rendered in the Apostolic Constitutions: “On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is, the Lord’s day” (7.30). The evidence may not be that clear-cut. The appearance of “the day of the Lord” in the Didache is the first witness of the title. The phrase “the Lord’s day” (tekuriake hemera) does appear one time in the New Testament in the book of Revelation, but no designation is given as to which day it refers. “It is not until the second century CE that unequivocal references to weekly Sunday worship can be found” and the phrase “the Lord’s Day” is directly connected to the first day of the week. [1] Furthermore, in the New Testament, Sunday is always referred to as “the first day of the week.”
Source: The Day of the Lord

The actual Didache, which is very short, can also be found on the internet. It's an instructional manual for Christians left by the Apostles.




LOL Too bad my husband won't read the bible!

Christians say that Jesus is our rest. He completed all the commands and kept them in a perfect way. Since Going to service is a ceremonial law, I guess that has been abolished.
If it were not, would we be commiting a sin different from lying or stealing??
Do you see a difference?


All the decalogue is a command.
So if I steal something, I'm going to hell?
Please explain what you believe better.
I'm not very clear on the Sabbath so I find it difficult to engage in any debate over it. I just know that Jesus will fill in the gaps where we're wrong.


Sorry. You're talking about Daniel.
Je ne sais pas.


As I've said, the day was changed from Saturday to Sunday because it was believed that Jesus resurrected on a Sunday. This is questionable.
But He did say "This temple will be raised in 3 days".
Of course, do we know for sure He died on Friday at 3 pm?
That would have made Sunday the 3drd day. By Jewish timing.
I don't know enough about this to make intelligent comments.



Are you saying the change is in the story of Adam and Eve?
How does celebrating on Sunday change everything?
What was the original intent?
And how is it no longer visible?
Your Turn...

[/QUOTE]

 

[DicipleofJesus]

[/QUOTE]
The word "hate" does not necessarily mean to despise intensely. In the original language of the writing of the OT hate would mean to love less.

 

[bbyrd009]

You certainly cannot go to the Church. As you said, WHO would you go to?

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already.
Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?

 

[KBCid]

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?

Because the cares of the world that is passing away are more important.

BB this point you make has so much meaning in it and most don't comprehend it. This is one of the major give away points for why certain Christian cults do not and have not had God as their foundation. When a Church collects money God intended to feed the poor / homeless and widows and uses it to create ornate physical structures in this world that allows for more money collection, then they are not following God.
When Christian cults collect money to pay for physical actions against other peoples, they don't have God as their foundation. They are thinking worldly. (protect yourself rather than let God defend you)
When Christian cults collect money and put it in coffers to the point of having billions, they don't have God as their foundation. They are thinking worldly. (amass power for yourself instead of depend on God's power)

 

[GodsGrace]

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already.
Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?

LOL
Because not everybody is a Christian!
When Christianity was new, they lived as a family.
One would never sue someone in their own family.
Today, this has changed.

 

[bbyrd009]

LOL
Because not everybody is a Christian!
When Christianity was new, they lived as a family.
One would never sue someone in their own family.
Today, this has changed.

then you gotta wonder why the verse would even be relevant back then, i guess?

Which Church or church do I go to when I have to settle a difference with my brother (Matthew 18:17)?

If I go to a little c church (admin., magisterium, denomination) I have thousands of different denominations to choose from. Which do I choose?

If I go the big C Church (all believers) I have billions of people to choose from. Do I go to you to settle the difference with my brother? One of the mods on this website? Who?

the point being
"what difference is this that you have?
Wouldn't you rather be cheated?"

although even that wouldn't cover every eventuality, i guess