Christian Discussion Thread V

[Efraim-Judah]

This was added by the Latin Vulgate. It does not actually appear in the original Greek documents

Source?

You'll note that Bible Hub has no word for 'though not being under' they have actually changed the meaning

[United Russian Soviet States]

It may make you anti-Christian. A pro-Christian person defends Christianity.
The movie Frozen promotes sin and defiance of God. One of the villains is a devout Christian. The movie Dogma is also quite anti-Christian. It mocks the whole Christian belief system.

The movie fiddler on the Roof has the Tsar as a villain... he was Christian... is Fiddler on the Roof an anti-Christian movie?

It may be.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law.

The people under the law are Jews, obviously, and those not under the law were Gentiles, or as you prefer, Pagan.


This is enumerated many times by Paul that Christians are released from the law. Messianic Judaism is reconcilable with Pauline Christianity. Now if you want to reject Paul, well I suppose that is your right, and you'd have plenty of company.

Aha! You take from words that truly aren't there but are additions! Truly when people add words they change the message! They attempt to twist Paul's message!

It is an addition, but a universally recognized one. Mostly because it comes from the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (the basis for virtually all Modern Translations), and is added as a clarification.

A simple text criticism shows why, as Paul distinguishes himself from the Jews. It's an implication that would be understood by the audience (the Christians at Corinth) an not by modern readers. Obviously since you have made the mistake of thinking Paul still thought himself bound to the Mosaic Law.

Paul has made it painfully clear here and in other verses, that Christians are not bound to the Mosaic law as the Mosaic Covenant was fulfilled.

Romans 7:6
Heberews 8:13
Ephesians 2:11-21
Philippians 3:9
Romans 10:4

etc

[Menassa]

Source?

You'll note that Bible Hub has no word for 'though not being under' they have actually changed the meaning

They have a concordance reference to it.

[Menassa]

Aha! You take from words that truly aren't there but are additions! Truly when people add words they change the message! They attempt to twist Paul's message!

It is an addition, but a universally recognized one. Mostly because it comes from the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (the basis for virtually all Modern Translations), and is added as a clarification.

A simple text criticism shows why, as Paul distinguishes himself from the Jews. It's an implication that would be understood by the audience (the Christians at Corinth) an not by modern readers. Obviously since you have made the mistake of thinking Paul still thought himself bound to the Mosaic Law.

Paul has made it painfully clear here and in other verses, that Christians are not bound to the Mosaic law as the Mosaic Covenant was fulfilled.

Romans 7:6
Heberews 8:13
Ephesians 2:11-21
Philippians 3:9
Romans 10:4

etc

Hail the conquering hero.

[Efraim-Judah]

Aha! You take from words that truly aren't there but are additions! Truly when people add words they change the message! They attempt to twist Paul's message!

It is an addition, but a universally recognized one. Mostly because it comes from the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (the basis for virtually all Modern[background=][/background] Translations), and is added as a clarification.

A simple text criticism shows why, as Paul distinguishes himself from the Jews. It's an implication that would be understood by the audience (the Christians at Corinth) an not by modern readers. Obviously since you have made the mistake of thinking Paul still thought himself bound to the Mosaic Law.

Paul has made it painfully clear here and in other verses, that Christians are not bound to the Mosaic law as the Mosaic Covenant was fulfilled.

Romans 7:6
Heberews 8:13
Ephesians 2:11-21
Philippians 3:9
Romans 10:4

etc

All of these are easily explained away! For example Romans 7:6 is in reference to made made law the law of sin...not Torah! The context is Jeremiah 31:31-34, what is "near to disappearing" is the sinful nature of man that breaks Torah, not the standard of Torah. Remember that we broke Torah, not YHWH. YHWH did not drop the standard of Torah because Israel chose disobedience; rather, He installed a Renewed Covenant to write Torah upon the heart through the work of the Ruach haKodesh, according to Mashiyach.
The fact of the matter is that in Mashiyach, YHWH raised the bar; He magnified Torah; see Isaiah 42:21. Because mankind broke Covenant, YHWH requires complete renovation on our part, not YHWH's part of the Covenant. This verse in its twisted form, became one of the "crown jewels" of Torahless Christianity which teaches that Torah is decaying and is near to disappearing, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

Shall I continue?

[Menassa]

It is an addition, but a universally recognized one. Mostly because it comes from the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (the basis for virtually all Modern[background=][/background] Translations), and is added as a clarification.

A simple text criticism shows why, as Paul distinguishes himself from the Jews. It's an implication that would be understood by the audience (the Christians at Corinth) an not by modern readers. Obviously since you have made the mistake of thinking Paul still thought himself bound to the Mosaic Law.

Paul has made it painfully clear here and in other verses, that Christians are not bound to the Mosaic law as the Mosaic Covenant was fulfilled.

Romans 7:6
Heberews 8:13
Ephesians 2:11-21
Philippians 3:9
Romans 10:4

etc

All of these are easily explained away! For example Romans 7:6 is in reference to made made law the law of sin...not Torah! The context is Jeremiah 31:31-34, what is "near to disappearing" is the sinful nature of man that breaks Torah, not the standard of Torah. Remember that we broke Torah, not YHWH. YHWH did not drop the standard of Torah because Israel chose disobedience; rather, He installed a Renewed Covenant to write Torah upon the heart through the work of the Ruach haKodesh, according to Mashiyach.
The fact of the matter is that in Mashiyach, YHWH raised the bar; He magnified Torah; see Isaiah 42:21. Because mankind broke Covenant, YHWH requires complete renovation on our part, not YHWH's part of the Covenant. This verse in its twisted form, became one of the "crown jewels" of Torahless Christianity which teaches that Torah is decaying and is near to disappearing, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

Shall I continue?

Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

What twist will you put on this? God made the first covenant obsolete so there is no reason to keep the Torah anymore.

[Efraim-Judah]

All of these are easily explained away! For example Romans 7:6 is in reference to made made law the law of sin...not Torah! The context is Jeremiah 31:31-34, what is "near to disappearing" is the sinful nature of man that breaks Torah, not the standard of Torah. Remember that we broke Torah, not YHWH. YHWH did not drop the standard of Torah because Israel chose disobedience; rather, He installed a Renewed Covenant to write Torah upon the heart through the work of the Ruach haKodesh, according to Mashiyach.
The fact of the matter is that in Mashiyach, YHWH raised the bar; He magnified Torah; see Isaiah 42:21. Because mankind broke Covenant, YHWH requires complete renovation on our part, not YHWH's part of the Covenant. This verse in its twisted form, became one of the "crown jewels" of Torahless Christianity which teaches that Torah is decaying and is near to disappearing, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

Shall I continue?

Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

What twist will you put on this? God made the first covenant obsolete so there is no reason to keep the Torah anymore.

The context is Jeremiah 31:31-34, what is "near to disappearing" is the sinful nature of man that breaks Torah, not the standard of Torah. Remember that we broke Torah, not YHWH. YHWH did not drop the standard of Torah because Israel chose disobedience; rather, He installed a Renewed Covenant to write Torah upon the heart through the work of the Ruach haKodesh, according to Mashiyach.
The fact of the matter is that in Mashiyach, YHWH raised the bar; He magnified Torah; see Isaiah 42:21. Because mankind broke Covenant, YHWH requires complete renovation on our part, not YHWH's part of the Covenant. This verse in its twisted form, became one of the "crown jewels" of Torahless Christianity which teaches that Torah is decaying and is near to disappearing, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

[Menassa]

Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

What twist will you put on this? God made the first covenant obsolete so there is no reason to keep the Torah anymore.

The context is Jeremiah 31:31-34, what is "near to disappearing" is the sinful nature of man that breaks Torah, not the standard of Torah. Remember that we broke Torah, not YHWH. YHWH did not drop the standard of Torah because Israel chose disobedience; rather, He installed a Renewed Covenant to write Torah upon the heart through the work of the Ruach haKodesh, according to Mashiyach.
The fact of the matter is that in Mashiyach, YHWH raised the bar; He magnified Torah; see Isaiah 42:21. Because mankind broke Covenant, YHWH requires complete renovation on our part, not YHWH's part of the Covenant. This verse in its twisted form, became one of the "crown jewels" of Torahless Christianity which teaches that Torah is decaying and is near to disappearing, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

You use the term mankind and Israel interchangeably. You have also provided no practical difference between the two covenants.

According to you, Israel broke the covenant by not keeping the Torah so God sent Jesus many hundreds of years after Israel broke this covenant to make sure everyone keeps the Torah?

[Efraim-Judah]

Now, good night. This is beginning to get to be to much for me to handle.

[Efraim-Judah]

The context is Jeremiah 31:31-34, what is "near to disappearing" is the sinful nature of man that breaks Torah, not the standard of Torah. Remember that we broke Torah, not YHWH. YHWH did not drop the standard of Torah because Israel chose disobedience; rather, He installed a Renewed Covenant to write Torah upon the heart through the work of the Ruach haKodesh, according to Mashiyach.
The fact of the matter is that in Mashiyach, YHWH raised the bar; He magnified Torah; see Isaiah 42:21. Because mankind broke Covenant, YHWH requires complete renovation on our part, not YHWH's part of the Covenant. This verse in its twisted form, became one of the "crown jewels" of Torahless Christianity which teaches that Torah is decaying and is near to disappearing, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

You use the term mankind and Israel interchangeably. You have also provided no practical difference between the two covenants.

According to you, Israel broke the covenant by not keeping the Torah so God sent Jesus many hundreds of years after Israel broke this covenant to make sure everyone keeps the Torah?

The New Covenant is a higher standard.

[Menassa]

You use the term mankind and Israel interchangeably. You have also provided no practical difference between the two covenants.

According to you, Israel broke the covenant by not keeping the Torah so God sent Jesus many hundreds of years after Israel broke this covenant to make sure everyone keeps the Torah?

The New Covenant is a higher standard.

What does that mean? How is it a higher standard?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

The movie Frozen promotes sin and defiance of God. One of the villains is a devout Christian. The movie Dogma is also quite anti-Christian. It mocks the whole Christian belief system.

CALLED IT

CALLED IT

FUCK
ING
CALL
ED
IT

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It is an addition, but a universally recognized one. Mostly because it comes from the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (the basis for virtually all Modern[background=][/background] Translations), and is added as a clarification.

A simple text criticism shows why, as Paul distinguishes himself from the Jews. It's an implication that would be understood by the audience (the Christians at Corinth) an not by modern readers. Obviously since you have made the mistake of thinking Paul still thought himself bound to the Mosaic Law.

Paul has made it painfully clear here and in other verses, that Christians are not bound to the Mosaic law as the Mosaic Covenant was fulfilled.

Romans 7:6
Heberews 8:13
Ephesians 2:11-21
Philippians 3:9
Romans 10:4

etc

All of these are easily explained away! For example Romans 7:6 is in reference to made made law the law of sin...not Torah! The context is Jeremiah 31:31-34, what is "near to disappearing" is the sinful nature of man that breaks Torah, not the standard of Torah. Remember that we broke Torah, not YHWH. YHWH did not drop the standard of Torah because Israel chose disobedience; rather, He installed a Renewed Covenant to write Torah upon the heart through the work of the Ruach haKodesh, according to Mashiyach.
The fact of the matter is that in Mashiyach, YHWH raised the bar; He magnified Torah; see Isaiah 42:21. Because mankind broke Covenant, YHWH requires complete renovation on our part, not YHWH's part of the Covenant. This verse in its twisted form, became one of the "crown jewels" of Torahless Christianity which teaches that Torah is decaying and is near to disappearing, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

Shall I continue?

Please try, considering you're responding to verses I haven't mentioned.

You only responded to one, Romans 7 which your argument is laughably false, considering he specifically mentions the Law, by referring to the Jews "those that know the law" (a pagan doesn't know the law, a Jew does). He is referring to Mosaic Law.

Now I specifically referenced romans 7:6

... Now we can serve God, not in the old way of obeying the letter of the law, but in the new way of living in the Spirit.

A jew does not obey the "law of Sin" to serve God, a jew obeys the Mosaic Law.

Your argument is neither relevant, or anything close to accurate.

Since you brought up Jeremiah 31 lets look at it shall we? It says nothing about nearly disappearing. What it does say, is that this "New Covenant" will not be the same covenant as the Mosaic Covenant. "The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband,[g] says the Lord."
So your "rehashing" theory doesn't hold up either. Also neither does your argument for the Pharisees as they reject Jesus based on this very passage. Since as you say the Law will be engraved on our hearts and then we will sin no more and usher in the messianic age. This hasn't happened as Paul says "all have sinned" so in the Pharisees eyes Jesus wasn't the messiah.


Also Isaiah 42:21 isn't really relevant as I'm sure menassah has already brought up.


So the simple fact of the matter is, you're inventing things, drawing connections where none exists, and deflecting to explain away the damning evidence that proves the Christians are "released" from the Law. as Paul has said, word for word.


Also 1 corinthians 9:20 is hardly a crown jewel in any form of Christianity. It took me 20 minutes to find commentary that even addressed it.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

STOP TALKING TO RUSSIA! STOP FEEDING HIM!

[Menassa]

[...] Also neither does your argument for the Pharisees as they reject Jesus based on this very passage. Since as you say the Law will be engraved on our hearts and then we will sin no more and usher in the messianic age. This hasn't happened as Paul says "all have sinned" so in the Pharisees eyes Jesus wasn't the messiah.
[...].

There we go.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I dislike a movie that has been denounced by many and that makes me anti-Christian? Tell me, what is your definition of pro-Christian?

It may make you anti-Christian. A pro-Christian person defends Christianity.

which films and what themes, specifically?

The movie Frozen promotes sin and defiance of God. One of the villains is a devout Christian. The movie Dogma is also quite anti-Christian. It mocks the whole Christian belief system.

The director of Dogma is a practicing Catholic who was questioning aspects of the belief system, and challenging others.

[The Alexanderians]

It may make you anti-Christian. A pro-Christian person defends Christianity.
The movie Frozen promotes sin and defiance of God. One of the villains is a devout Christian. The movie Dogma is also quite anti-Christian. It mocks the whole Christian belief system.

The director of Dogma is a practicing Catholic who was questioning aspects of the belief system, and challenging others.

And it's a favorite of both my Priest and my Father who is a convert and practicing Christian.

[Idzequitch]

The director of Dogma is a practicing Catholic who was questioning aspects of the belief system, and challenging others.

And it's a favorite of both my Priest and my Father who is a convert and practicing Christian.

If we don't challenge our beliefs, or at least question them, how can we ever legitimately express confidence in them? If we refuse to face and address challenges to our beliefs, they really aren't worth anything.

[The Alexanderians]

I dislike a movie that has been denounced by many and that makes me anti-Christian? Tell me, what is your definition of pro-Christian?

It may make you anti-Christian. A pro-Christian person defends Christianity.

which films and what themes, specifically?

The movie Frozen promotes sin and defiance of God. One of the villains is a devout Christian. The movie Dogma is also quite anti-Christian. It mocks the whole Christian belief system.

Having a Christian villain doesnt mean the movie is anti-Christian, look at the Hunchback of Notre Dame .

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It may make you anti-Christian. A pro-Christian person defends Christianity.
The movie Frozen promotes sin and defiance of God. One of the villains is a devout Christian. The movie Dogma is also quite anti-Christian. It mocks the whole Christian belief system.

Having a Christian villain doesnt mean the movie is anti-Christian, look at the Hunchback of Notre Dame .

Nine. Pages.

[The Alexanderians]

Having a Christian villain doesnt mean the movie is anti-Christian, look at the Hunchback of Notre Dame .

Nine. Pages.

Are you implying I'm taking on a brick wall?

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

It may make you anti-Christian. A pro-Christian person defends Christianity.
The movie Frozen promotes sin and defiance of God. One of the villains is a devout Christian. The movie Dogma is also quite anti-Christian. It mocks the whole Christian belief system.

Having a Christian villain doesnt mean the movie is anti-Christian, look at the Hunchback of Notre Dame .

Not to mention, religion isn't referenced once in Frozen so it doesn't even have a Christian villain anyway.

(well, I suppose given the setting of the movie, one can logically assume all the characters in the movie are Christians, but it is utterly irrelevant to the story)

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Having a Christian villain doesnt mean the movie is anti-Christian, look at the Hunchback of Notre Dame .

Not to mention, religion isn't referenced once in Frozen so it doesn't even have a Christian villain anyway.

(well, I suppose given the setting of the movie, one can logically assume all the characters in the movie are Christians, but it is utterly irrelevant to the story)

Frozen is set in an Norweigan culture setting, and the religion of Norway is Lutheranism. Given the setting, one can assume the characters in Frozen are Lutherans. Oh my gosh, a Protestant animated film! Frozen is anti-Catholic!

(There you go......)

[Idzequitch]

Not to mention, religion isn't referenced once in Frozen so it doesn't even have a Christian villain anyway.

(well, I suppose given the setting of the movie, one can logically assume all the characters in the movie are Christians, but it is utterly irrelevant to the story)

Frozen is set in an Norweigan culture setting, and the religion of Norway is Lutheranism. Given the setting, one can assume the characters in Frozen are Lutherans. Oh my gosh, a Protestant animated film! Frozen is anti-Catholic!

(There you go......)

I wouldn't necessarily classify Protestantism as a whole as anti-Catholic. Many of the central tenets are the same, even if there is disagreement in some key areas.