Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Do you keep the Sabbath? (poll)
- By Studyman
- Sabbath and The Law
- 224 Replies
I can see how a person might make this mistake, But the Biblical Truth is that Paul calls the promoters and followers of the "Jews religion" the Circumcision, "made with hands". I posted the Scriptures, but perhaps you didn't read them. He also called men who didn't follow the "Jews Religion", the "uncircumcision". He also called the Body of Christ, the True Circumcision and that Jesus was "a Minister of this circumcision", "The truth of God". I posted the Inspired Words of God showing His Truth here as well, but you didn't acknowledge these verses either, I'm not sure why.
The implication of this teaching is that the disciples would go up to a man, pull his pants down to see of his foreskin was still intact, and if it was would declare, "Paul, this ones for you", and if it wasn't, they would declare, "Peter, this ones for you".
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of "the uncircumcision" was committed unto me, as the gospel "of the circumcision" was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, (Non-Jews) and they unto the circumcision. (Jews)
Consider the meaning of the following scripture, viewed through the prism of this popular religious philosophy you are promoting.
1 Cor. 7: 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
If I view this through the prism you are promoting, that every mention of "circumcision" is a reference to God's LAW, then this verse would mean:
19 God's Commandments mean nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
I don't believe this is what Paul was teaching, even though this world's religious system imply that it is.
But if I view this scriptures though the prism of Paul's teaching, this verse would mean,
Circumcision (Jew) is nothing, and uncircumcision (Gentile) is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Again, there wasn't a LAW against eating with unbelievers, if that was true, Israel would have been condemned in Egypt, as they were unbelievers as well. And Caleb and Joshua would have had to separate themselves from 598,000 Israelites, who God Himself, Paul and Jesus said were not believers. The Prophets would not have been allowed to rebuke and warn the Israelites, who were unbelievers.
And the Galatians Paul is speaking to here, had already received the Spirit of God as Paul clearly points out in the beginning of chapter 3. This means they had already "repented, turned to God, and were bringing works worthy of repentance" as Paul teaches both Jew and Gentile. Also, they had already obeyed God because Peter and the Holy Spirit both testified that the Holy Spirit is a Spirit "whom God hath given to them that obey him."
So the popular religious philosophy you are promoting, that Peter was sitting with "unbelievers" in Gal. 1 cannot be true, unless I reject both his, and Paul's teaching. Not only that, but there is nowhere in the Text where Paul, Peter or God calls the Galatians in question, "Unbelievers". You injected this word into the text. That is a simple Biblical fact. Why would you do that?
Whose ways? Where in the bible is it written that the Pharisees obeyed God's Ways? They might have obeyed a couple, even satan obeys some of God's laws from time to time. Jesus even said of these "children of the devil" HE called hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."
Your entire premise is founded on 2 things.
#1. God's Laws were against Jesus, Paul and the Body of Christ.
#2. The Pharisees were trying to earn Salvation by obeying God's Laws.
Both philosophies, though popular, are not supported by Paul's teaching, nor that of Jesus, nor the Law and Prophets. This teaching in wrought in the heart of man, not God, according to my understanding of the Scriptures that I have posted for our examination and discernment. Scriptures I might add, that you refuse to even acknowledge.
As Paul teaches:
Rom. 2: 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
For there is no respect of persons with God.
Yes, if Salvation relied on a circumcision, "made with hands", and only given to men born with Jewish DNA, and only given to men who adopt this world's religious system, then truly Jesus died in vain. But the Book of the LAW commands that we abstain from doing all these things. Why aren't you teaching this truth.
1 John 3: 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness "is righteous", even as he is righteous.
If you take Galatians, separate it from the rest of the entire Bible, ALL of Jesus' Words and actions defining the "Jews Religion" and all of Paul's other letters, then create religious doctrines based on it alone, then your statement might have some merit.
Until you would have to deal with finding the LAW that was ADDED 430 years after Abraham, that was ADDED "Because of transgression of God's Laws", and that was only to be force until the Christ came. You are preaching that this Law Paul is speaking to included "Circumcision". And the 10 Commandments, and the Judgments concerning Clean animals and the Feasts of the Lord.
I can show you in Scriptures where God's Law of Circumcision, Adultery, murder, Clean and unclean animals and God's Holy Sabbath, and I would argue even Passover, was known and honored by Noah and Abraham long before Moses. And to deny that the Pharisees didn't promote their version of the Levitical Priesthood in Paul's time is foolishness, in my view. Do you think Noah or Abraham butchered a pig for dinner, or fired up the grill on Sabbath morning and fried up some sausage and bacon for breakfast? I think not. But I know one thing for sure, they didn't take a goat to the Levite Priest and kill it for their sins, as that LAW wasn't added until 430 years after Abraham. Levi wasn't even born until after Abraham died. Why can't you accept these undeniable Biblical Truths?
I addressed specifically your philosophy. I posted both Jesus' and Isaiah description of the Jews who were bewitching the Galatians. A beseeched you to consider their words. I asked you question after question. You know I did, and yet now you say I didn't.
But neither Titus *** was compelled to be circumcised:
I addressed this specifically, and yet you accuse me of not addressing it. Why would you do such a thing?
Live as what Jews? Those Jews "Bewitching the Galatians"? Or the Jews who had "Yielded themselves servants to obey God"? I addressed this specifically, and yet you preach to others that I didn't.
And yet you accuse me of not addressing these things. What Law of God is that?
I specifically addressed this, and asked you a question, that you refused to answer. And yet you preach to the world that I didn't address it.
Your sermon on Galatians has raised many questions from me that I asked you specifically about. And how many did you answer Sir? Not One.
Upvote
0
Kiwi in Tokyo – what’s the view from your window this morning?
- By PloverWing
- The Kitchen Sink
- 2 Replies
I'm in New Jersey. It's late autumn here. This week has seen clouds and drizzly rain. We haven't had our first hard freeze of the season yet, so some of the plants are still bravely flowering -- including my azaleas and my tomato plants, improbably. Gray weather tends to make me sad, but the stubbornly blooming plants cheer me up.
This is the tree that I see out my front window.
This is the tree that I see out my front window.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
RFK jr.
- By DaisyDay
- American Politics
- 80 Replies
Note the asterisk.This is disgraceful (changed earlier this month), but what else should have been expected with an anti-vaxxer in charge of HHS?
Looks to me like someone is going to get a lot of people killed. And, they don't care.
Vaccines do not cause Autism*
Pursuant to the Data Quality Act (DQA), which requires federal agencies to ensure the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information they disseminate to the public, this webpage has been updated because the statement "Vaccines do not cause autism" is not an evidence-based claim. Scientific studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines contribute to the development of autism. However, this statement has historically been disseminated by the CDC and other federal health agencies within HHS to prevent vaccine hesitancy.* The header "Vaccines do not cause autism" has not been removed due to an agreement with the chair of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that it would remain on the CDC website.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
