The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[Tarsonis]

Wow that is depressing.

Catholicism is a lot darker and edgier than most people (including most Catholics) realize.

This is actually one of the things I like about Catholicism. To be clear, I don't believe they are correct in taking such a dark view of the afterlife. But I admire their courage in doing so.

Give me a religion of struggle against overwhelming odds rather than mushy
pop-Christianity claptrap any day.

Honestly, I don't see the concept of Purgatory dark, I see it as romantic.

[ThePeacekeepers]

1. There is no point for a person of any position in the church to have any fine clothing or jewelry. Because as the lord has said we are to be poor. If you have things of value that could be sold to help someone in need then any True follower of Christ would do so.
2. I agree, a person who leads a congregation should be true in faith.

Why are you on a computer then?

I assume you have a house as well? Pay for utilities like electricity? None of that is necessary to live, think of all the people you could help by forgoing that. Why are you so greedy for having these things? Shouldn't you sell all these things and give all your non-essential monies to the poor?

As I pointed out before, Judas was the one who chastised Christ for allowing someone to anoint Him with oil that cost "a year's wages" and told them to sell it to the poor, and Christ rebuked him.

1.I don't own this computer, I don't pay for any bills. Up until a month ago I was leaving for Europe with my pastor to preach the word of God with nothing but the clothes on our backs and the word of God. He died, now I am here until I find another person that either has the Gospel of truth or is willing and able to learn it.

2.I fully believe in giving everything I have to those in need. I wouldn't say it if I wasn't 100% sure about it.

3. As I pointed out before that is not the same thing. There is no purpose for wearing those robes normal everyday clothing serves the same purpose. I don't have anything expensive I own nothing I would not give up in a heartbeat to anyone who needs it. Christ rebuked him because it was a good work being done, there is no good work being done by wearing those robes if you want to glorify God do by making everything you do be done in service to the lord that is how you glorify him, not by wearing robes.

[ThePeacekeepers]

Sell all the works of art that have value and give it to those in need in secret. By doing this you will be rewarded in heaven. Keep the documents if you need them.

Cutting down on colorful art and spreading the wealth... Are you a Communist by chance?

Nope. Just a Christian.

[Salus Maior]

Wow that is depressing.

Catholicism is a lot darker and edgier than most people (including most Catholics) realize.

This is actually one of the things I like about Catholicism. To be clear, I don't believe they are correct in taking such a dark view of the afterlife. But I admire their courage in doing so.

Give me a religion of struggle against overwhelming odds rather than mushy pop-Christianity claptrap any day.

I don't know. I'd think that one earthly lifetime of struggling to be free of sin would be enough for God to allow one rest rather than pile on multiple earthly lifetimes of purging sin after finishing your earthly struggle.

Like going to college for a four year degree to get your dream job to find out after the fourth year there's 10 more years before you can graduate.

Which doesn't make sense to me anyway, because if you go to confession your earthly sins prior to that are absolved given it's a sincere repentance, right? So, given you're dedicated to your faith and confess regularly and sincerely, how can you purge sins that are forgiven?

[ThePeacekeepers]

Christ spoke against fancy and ornate clothing worn not just by the Scribes and Pharisees but by any man of the church. The money spent on these clothes would do a million times more good being given to the poor in whatever manner they have need. I know if I am hungry I want carrot or burger more than I want to look at some Priests fancy robe. This is a common feeling amongst the poor and hungry of the world.

I've been on the church council at my parish for the last several years, so I know exactly how we spend our money, and do you know how much money we've spent on those fancy Orthodox robes for the past few years?

Zero.

And yet our priest and deacon and the altar servers always wear beautiful robes for every service.

How is this possible? Easy: Those things are made to last. You only need to replace a set of vestments after 10-15 years. So if you divide the money spent on a set of fancy vestments by the number of years the church gets to use them, you arrive at a cost of maybe 40 or 50 dollars per year.

They're not expensive at all. That's why even the poorest Orthodox parishes can always afford vestments for their priests. Things like buying new chairs or paying the electric bill or cleaning the church are far bigger expenses.

If we're quibbling over the money spent on vestments and arguing that it should be given to the poor, then you might as well ask, why have a church building? Why pay for the electricity, the water, the cleaning and so on? Surely the money spent on these things could also be given to the poor, right? So why don't we sell all religious buildings and meet in the open air in a field somewhere? Why don't we give up all church expenses to help the poor?

Because there are so many other expenses that we could give up first, before we give up the beauty of the House of the Lord. Do we not have our own private homes? And do we not spend money on decorating them? Let us give up doing that first, before we give up decorating churches. Also, do we not have our own fancy clothes - maybe a nice suit, maybe a nice dress - that we wear on special occasions? Let us give up those first, before we give up the vestments for our priest.

Religious decorations are more important than secular decorations. He who says that we should give up religious decorations, but does not speak out against secular decorations first, is a hypocrite. Selling religious items to feed the poor should be the last resort, after we've already sold everything else.

1. Again there is no need for them to be ornate robes, sell them and just wear regular clothes or regular plain robes.
2. As my pastor and my bishop always said, start preaching the truth and you will have plenty of room in those churches. And if any people are left inside of them it would at best be one or two. Then you sell the church and just teach from home. Teaching outdoors is actually really nice I prefer it on nice days.
3. I don't decorate my home, I prefer a bare house outside of the essentials my pastor once told me a verse that pertained to decorations in the house once I remember it I will post it on here. Again if I ever have something that another person needs I will give it to them without hesitation. I do not have fancy clothes, I wear clothes from goodwill that I've been wearing since I was 15 years old and others that were handed down to me by my dad, when I go to churches I just wear my everyday clothes since dressing up is pointless do you really think Paul or any of the apostles were carrying around a bunch of nice clothes when they were walking through the dessert? Its highly unlikely since they left with nothing but the clothes on their back. That is our example we are to live completely modest lives with nothing but what we need to survive everything else is just things that weigh us down and take up the money that could better be spent somewhere else.
4. So yes sell your personal items of value, then the so called religious items give the money to the church and let the church use it for a cause that will actually do something of value to the Lord. Since helping those in need in the Lord's name brings him more glory that wearing clothes that look nice.

[Salus Maior]

I've been on the church council at my parish for the last several years, so I know exactly how we spend our money, and do you know how much money we've spent on those fancy Orthodox robes for the past few years?

Zero.

And yet our priest and deacon and the altar servers always wear beautiful robes for every service.

How is this possible? Easy: Those things are made to last. You only need to replace a set of vestments after 10-15 years. So if you divide the money spent on a set of fancy vestments by the number of years the church gets to use them, you arrive at a cost of maybe 40 or 50 dollars per year.

They're not expensive at all. That's why even the poorest Orthodox parishes can always afford vestments for their priests. Things like buying new chairs or paying the electric bill or cleaning the church are far bigger expenses.

If we're quibbling over the money spent on vestments and arguing that it should be given to the poor, then you might as well ask, why have a church building? Why pay for the electricity, the water, the cleaning and so on? Surely the money spent on these things could also be given to the poor, right? So why don't we sell all religious buildings and meet in the open air in a field somewhere? Why don't we give up all church expenses to help the poor?

Because there are so many other expenses that we could give up first, before we give up the beauty of the House of the Lord. Do we not have our own private homes? And do we not spend money on decorating them? Let us give up doing that first, before we give up decorating churches. Also, do we not have our own fancy clothes - maybe a nice suit, maybe a nice dress - that we wear on special occasions? Let us give up those first, before we give up the vestments for our priest.

Religious decorations are more important than secular decorations. He who says that we should give up religious decorations, but does not speak out against secular decorations first, is a hypocrite. Selling religious items to feed the poor should be the last resort, after we've already sold everything else.

1. Again there is no need for them to be ornate robes, sell them and just wear regular clothes or regular plain robes.
2. As my pastor and my bishop always said, start preaching the truth and you will have plenty of room in those churches. And if any people are left inside of them it would at best be one or two. Then you sell the church and just teach from home. Teaching outdoors is actually really nice I prefer it on nice days.
3. I don't decorate my home, I prefer a bare house outside of the essentials my pastor once told me a verse that pertained to decorations in the house once I remember it I will post it on here. Again if I ever have something that another person needs I will give it to them without hesitation. I do not have fancy clothes, I wear clothes from goodwill that I've been wearing since I was 15 years old and others that were handed down to me by my dad, when I go to churches I just wear my everyday clothes since dressing up is pointless do you really think Paul or any of the apostles were carrying around a bunch of nice clothes when they were walking through the dessert? Its highly unlikely since they left with nothing but the clothes on their back. That is our example we are to live completely modest lives with nothing but what we need to survive everything else is just things that weigh us down and take up the money that could better be spent somewhere else.
4. So yes sell your personal items of value, then the so called religious items give the money to the church and let the church use it for a cause that will actually do something of value to the Lord. Since helping those in need in the Lord's name brings him more glory that wearing clothes that look nice.

You say these things, yet the Catholic Church is the world's greatest provider of charity. And things like ornate Churches actually contribute to that.

[Luminesa]

Wow that is depressing.

Catholicism is a lot darker and edgier than most people (including most Catholics) realize.

This is actually one of the things I like about Catholicism. To be clear, I don't believe they are correct in taking such a dark view of the afterlife. But I admire their courage in doing so.

Give me a religion of struggle against overwhelming odds rather than mushy pop-Christianity claptrap any day.

YES. I'M FINALLY EDGY.

AFTER 10 YEARS OF LISTENING TO EMO MUSIC I'M FINALLY EDGY.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Why are you on a computer then?

I assume you have a house as well? Pay for utilities like electricity? None of that is necessary to live, think of all the people you could help by forgoing that. Why are you so greedy for having these things? Shouldn't you sell all these things and give all your non-essential monies to the poor?

As I pointed out before, Judas was the one who chastised Christ for allowing someone to anoint Him with oil that cost "a year's wages" and told them to sell it to the poor, and Christ rebuked him.

1.I don't own this computer, I don't pay for any bills. Up until a month ago I was leaving for Europe with my pastor to preach the word of God with nothing but the clothes on our backs and the word of God. He died, now I am here until I find another person that either has the Gospel of truth or is willing and able to learn it.

2.I fully believe in giving everything I have to those in need. I wouldn't say it if I wasn't 100% sure about it.

3. As I pointed out before that is not the same thing. There is no purpose for wearing those robes normal everyday clothing serves the same purpose. I don't have anything expensive I own nothing I would not give up in a heartbeat to anyone who needs it. Christ rebuked him because it was a good work being done, there is no good work being done by wearing those robes if you want to glorify God do by making everything you do be done in service to the lord that is how you glorify him, not by wearing robes.

And what good purpose did it serve to annoint him with such rich oil? It could have been done with any oil? It was for the glory of God, that is why it was a good act.

[Dylar]

Catholicism is a lot darker and edgier than most people (including most Catholics) realize.

This is actually one of the things I like about Catholicism. To be clear, I don't believe they are correct in taking such a dark view of the afterlife. But I admire their courage in doing so.

Give me a religion of struggle against overwhelming odds rather than mushy pop-Christianity claptrap any day.

YES. I'M FINALLY EDGY.

AFTER 10 YEARS OF LISTENING TO EMO MUSIC I'M FINALLY EDGY.

Now you gotta complete the cycle by posting edgy memes when necessary.

[ThePeacekeepers]

1. Not true that is the word of God we are given, all other traditions are subject to corruption and need thorough examination with comparison to the already full doctrine/gospel and traditions of Christ. There is no need for outside traditions since we already have the fullness of the Gospel and traditions within the Bible. So anything you practice must be completely in line with the word of God we are given which many of the things you preach and practice are not.

Except that's not a position the Church fathers ever held, as when the Church Fathers were there, there was no new testament Up until the late second century, there was no standardized NT. So to claim that the entirety of Christ's full doctrine and tradition is contained within the NT, is contrary to historical fact. That means for 100 years or so, the Church didn't have access to the full tradition of Christ. Your claim is illogical.

Secondly, and I don't mean to be arrogant, but your verses don't actually help you.

Romans 15:18-19
18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,
19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

Paul wrote these words, but what context are they in? When did Paul preach the Gospel in Full? In Romans? Why do we have the Gospels then? Paul didn't write them. This text in no way claims that the Epistles are in full, or the Bible is in full. Or even The letter to the Romans is in full. It just claims the Paul has gone from place to place and preached the gospel in full throughout his travels. You're applying that to the Bible, in a way that has no valid argument for application. You're deliberately twisting the meaning of the verse.

Also it's up for debate the nuances of what St. Paul means here. Is he saying that he's preached the full truth? Or is he's saying he's been completely truthful? Those are two different claims and I'm inclined to fall on the latter. Paul has been completely faithful in his preaching of Christ's gospel giving no false claims. But he's not saying he's preached the gospel of Christ in its entirety. After all there were many other teachers teaching other things, and Paul acknowledges their authority to teach such things. He wouldn't limit the vastness of the Gospel to just what he taught, he's not that arrogant.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-15
13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Read that underlined again. Either by word which means spoken, and epistle which means written. Paul is literally. saying hold fast to BOTH spoken AND written teachings. Which means even scripture is claiming that there is more valid authority than just what is written. Both spoken and written teachings have authoritative meaning, so there obviously is teaching beyond the Bible that have valid authority, according to the Bible. This verse supports me, not you.

Colossians 2:8
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

But you'd have to prove that that's the case that we are doing, which you've never been able to with any sort of accumen. Your positions have repeatedly been shown to be false or eccentric, and I've repeatedly proven that many times. The only one who refuses to accept that however, is you.

To say that the bible isn't the full word of God is pretty nonsensical to say the least.

Really? Cause the Bible says that.

John 21: 24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

The Bible acknowledges that no book could ever contain the full teachings of God. So you claiming the Bible is the full teachings of God, is in fact contrary to the Bible's own teachings. Odd. Maybe you should do a little research (you know, like the rest of us have done) and figure out why the people who decided these books should be in the bible, made that decision. What were the factors, the concerns, the theology, who were they, etc? Find out why for instance, the Gospel John was included, and not the Gospel of Thomas.

I mean you say the Bible is the full tradition. But, even that begs the question of which bible? The Catholic Bible? The Orthodox Bible? The Protestant Bible? Is there even a true bible? I can think of half a dozen Gospels that aren't included in the Bible off the top of my head. Why don't those have authority? Your position is wanting.

2. Everything you are saying is true, except for the beginning and the end. Its not overtly there because Christ doesn't have to list all the reasons why each thing is bad because we are intelligent enough to know why they are. He says not to do it in that specific case because as I have said it is a vain tradition that has no purpose.

Bringing Glory to God is not vain purpose, and to claim it is, is pretty blasphemous.

The money is better spent on those who need it not on fancy and expensive things. It puffs people up, maybe not all but some, so why not remove the problem even before it is one. That is exactly the point of what Christ is saying, beware these people not to be like them which the catholic church seems to want to do. There is nowhere in the new testament that says to do these things but again there are many that say not to.

Except you've never proven demonstrably that the New Testament makes this claim, it's always a stretch in meaning with you. You don't provide the connecting proposition, you just assume the connection. Which is why we've all been able to say no, because the text doesn't overtly say what you're trying to make it say.

However your position is explicitly rebuked: "8 But when the disciples saw it, they were angry and said, “Why this waste? 9 For this ointment could have been sold for a large sum, and the money given to the poor.” 10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? She has performed a good service for me. "

Money spent on the Glory of God, is not a waste. If you don't believe the liturgy brings glory to God, that is your opinion, but we are by no means bound to share in that opinion. The vestments, do not bring glory to the one who wears them but to the one who the Liturgy is to, God Almighty. Your position is little more than protestant propaganda rather than acute theological reasoning. No offense intended to protestants.

3. This is absolutely a condemnation of the practice itself, by saying beware those who do these things. If any man of Christ were to walk by your church today he would see the be show, the long ornate robes and the long prayers, then they would read what the lord has said heed his warning and leave. That is the point, you disobey the clear warning given by Christ and his people do not.

And yet Men and Women of Christ have been worshiping this way for 2000 years. Your logic fails here, it's an odd "no true scottsman fallacy."

Again, there's no explicit condemnation than the one you've invented. It talks about a specific group of people, and their motivations for doing things. In fact Christ even upholds the office of these people.


Matthew 23:2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.

Christ upholds the Scribes as valid teachers of the law, he maintains the authenticity of their office, and the Lawful vestments associated with said office. But he rebukes their personal motivations for holding said office. It's not the act of wearing long robes he rebukes, it's their motivation for wishing to do so. They wish to wear them for their own glory, and not for God's.

Now your argument of the potentiality of sin coming from this as a sufficient reason to remove vestments all together isn't ill conceived, but it's also by no means obligatory. As Christ has said, even if the person has become corrupt, the office is still valid.

Again, if you had even the smallest contextual knowledge of the Jewish religious customs and situation of the first century AD, you'd actually be able to understand who these scribes were and why Christ would rebuke them, the problems he would have with them and why he would have them, and how to properly apply them in a broader context. But you clearly don't, which is why you interpret the scripture so poorly, without any contextual basis.


And the worst of this is, you're so ignorant of all this information that people like me and other members of this thread have, yet you consider yourself wiser than us all. And Arrogance like that can be forgiven, but the way you apply it is incredibly asanine. You don't have any vested interest in learning anything. You come here, and espouse your nonsense, and just reject any contradicting argument as wrong without due evidence, or even valid reasoning.

Your position is essentially "I'm right, and all your positions are wrong, because they're not mine. And any evidence that proves me wrong, is just false." You presuppose your conclusion, and reject all other premises. That's not how any sort of logical discovery is conducted.

1. What wasn't written at the time was in spoken word that was written down and put into the bible. Which is the full Gospel and word of God that we are given.
2. Yes they are in full support of what I'm saying because I'm only saying what they say. You are deliberately ignoring what the verse is saying. He is saying he has come in the fullness of the Gospel the full gospel, now what we have written in the bible is that Gospel which Paul and the other apostles preached. Because if you heard Paul preach you heard peter, if you heard peter you heard john, if you heard john you heard Thomas, and so on and so forth since they each preached the same Gospel and had all things in common so Paul wasn't arrogant in saying he came in the full gospel because he did and so did each of the apostles.
2. That's right he acknowledges that many of the things he taught had yet to be written down, but eventually it was and that is what we have today in the form of the bible. So again it is still supporting what I am saying because again I am only saying what the bible says.
3. Now I don't want to point this out again but your claims have repeatedly been shown to be biased in catholic indoctrination and lies which have held no water when put against the truth.
4. Sorry I didn't notice I left this part out *the full word of God that we are given.* Sometimes I think faster than I type and sentences get lost.
5. The KJV is the most accurate one that we have today. I have limit on having fruitless discussions with someone about the same subject, so I won't elaborate any further.
6. No because as I've said your not bringing glory to God by doing this your in fact knowingly going against his wishes which is actually blasphemous.
7. This is always the problem with you, you can't just read the word of God and understand. You don't get how when its repeatedly saying in multiple places the same exact thing over and over again that is what it means. It says to beware those people for what they do is wrong, everything listed is wrong. Why? Because again that is what is says. It is that simple. You can try and say its not but it is. You can try to do like you were trained and equate it to Christ rebuking Judas but its not because that was a good work he was trying to prevent and this is doing things Christ specifically warns against doing which is a million times closer to a sin than something that brings any glory to God. Also i'm not a protestant as neither I nor my church was part of the catholic church at any time I'm apart of the Church of God that has been around outside of the Catholics and the protestants since the days of the Apostles. So no I've not bought into any protestant propaganda since I do not agree with them either. My beliefs are held in doctrine proved by the word of God.
8. First, before Christ's death and resurrection they were under the old law and to disobey those who held the power within the church and break the law under the old covenant was a sin against God. That is why he said that, he was not saying they were a shining beacon to every future Christian, they were a nation of vipers and hypocrites and he said as much.
Matt 12:34-39

34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

Matt 23:1-15

23 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

There are others but I would rather not have to list all the reasons why your wrong in excruciating detail.
Christ's opinion, which is God's opinion of those people is very clear and it is not one of pleasure or happiness. As to the vestments those people wore, again Christ is clear when he says to beware of those people. Be humble, wear modest clothing, live a modest life in service to the lord. That is one of the most basic and simple messages that the bible teaches us, one which even children can understand.
7. The office at the time was indeed still valid but since we are no longer under the old law there is no need to dress like those who were under that law. Now we are to do what the New testament says, what the Lord God Yahweh says which is live a modest life after the lord. Again there is no place in the New testament that disagrees with what I have said. You can throw whatever you want at me but in the end it will all wash away when put against the truth.
8. Now, I'm not here to brag but I have been learning about he history of the Jews and their customs and the bible and its origins since I was old enough to understand. So between you and me you are the lesser qualified in the field of Christian and Jewish history. Now your point about why he had a problem with them, he had a problem with them because they were vain, hypocrites, liars, greedy, lustful, and puffed up in their own knowledge. He hated them for the same reason God hated them, he hated them so much he warns us not to be like them to instead be humble and live poor and modest lives after the Lord.
9. Now I can see why you are upset. But again I have said repeatedly that I don't know it all, that I am still learning the word of God, I am not all knowing I know that I can study my whole life and still only know a fraction of the truth. And if your offended then that good because its every Christians job to offend many with the Lord's word( he says as much) so when you do call me names and hate me I know that I am on the right track. Also when I come on here I say the same thing time and time again show me the scripture to back up what you are saying and I will believe it. Its that simple, you choose to use your own words instead of the word of God which is why I can't accept what you say. Show me using the lord's word and I will accept it. That simple.
10. I come on here to find answers, perfect the knowledge I have already acquired, and hopefully learn more the true word of God. Every position you have taken has never been rooted in the word, every point you make doesn't come from the scripture and what verses you do put up for an argument either don't apply or you twist to make it mean something it doesn't. Out of the two of us, you are the one lacking both reason and a desire to learn the truth of God's word. Whatever it may be.

[ThePeacekeepers]

1. Again there is no need for them to be ornate robes, sell them and just wear regular clothes or regular plain robes.
2. As my pastor and my bishop always said, start preaching the truth and you will have plenty of room in those churches. And if any people are left inside of them it would at best be one or two. Then you sell the church and just teach from home. Teaching outdoors is actually really nice I prefer it on nice days.
3. I don't decorate my home, I prefer a bare house outside of the essentials my pastor once told me a verse that pertained to decorations in the house once I remember it I will post it on here. Again if I ever have something that another person needs I will give it to them without hesitation. I do not have fancy clothes, I wear clothes from goodwill that I've been wearing since I was 15 years old and others that were handed down to me by my dad, when I go to churches I just wear my everyday clothes since dressing up is pointless do you really think Paul or any of the apostles were carrying around a bunch of nice clothes when they were walking through the dessert? Its highly unlikely since they left with nothing but the clothes on their back. That is our example we are to live completely modest lives with nothing but what we need to survive everything else is just things that weigh us down and take up the money that could better be spent somewhere else.
4. So yes sell your personal items of value, then the so called religious items give the money to the church and let the church use it for a cause that will actually do something of value to the Lord. Since helping those in need in the Lord's name brings him more glory that wearing clothes that look nice.

You say these things, yet the Catholic Church is the world's greatest provider of charity. And things like ornate Churches actually contribute to that.

It can donate everything it has, but if it is still going against the word of God when it does it then it's still in sin. If people need a reason as base as a costly array to want to give to the church then they are not doing it for the right reasons.

[ThePeacekeepers]

1.I don't own this computer, I don't pay for any bills. Up until a month ago I was leaving for Europe with my pastor to preach the word of God with nothing but the clothes on our backs and the word of God. He died, now I am here until I find another person that either has the Gospel of truth or is willing and able to learn it.

2.I fully believe in giving everything I have to those in need. I wouldn't say it if I wasn't 100% sure about it.

3. As I pointed out before that is not the same thing. There is no purpose for wearing those robes normal everyday clothing serves the same purpose. I don't have anything expensive I own nothing I would not give up in a heartbeat to anyone who needs it. Christ rebuked him because it was a good work being done, there is no good work being done by wearing those robes if you want to glorify God do by making everything you do be done in service to the lord that is how you glorify him, not by wearing robes.

And what good purpose did it serve to annoint him with such rich oil? It could have been done with any oil? It was for the glory of God, that is why it was a good act.

I don't believe your getting the point.
1.Anointing Christ with rich oil: A good work unto the Lord.
2. Wearing ornate robes that were spoken out against by Christ: Not a good work glorifying God.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And what good purpose did it serve to annoint him with such rich oil? It could have been done with any oil? It was for the glory of God, that is why it was a good act.

I don't believe your getting the point.
1.Anointing Christ with rich oil: A good work unto the Lord.
2. Wearing ornate robes that were spoken out against by Christ: Not a good work glorifying God.

God didn't speak out against ornate robes for the clergy to wear while consecrating the Eucharist. He spoke against the scribes trying to usurp the honor of the priests, who actually were commanded to wear ornate robes.

[ThePeacekeepers]

I don't believe your getting the point.
1.Anointing Christ with rich oil: A good work unto the Lord.
2. Wearing ornate robes that were spoken out against by Christ: Not a good work glorifying God.

God didn't speak out against ornate robes for the clergy to wear while consecrating the Eucharist. He spoke against the scribes trying to usurp the honor of the priests, who actually were commanded to wear ornate robes.

1. There is no place in the New testament saying ornate robes are to worn while taking the Eucharist or where it says ornate robes are to be worn at all. In fact never does it say that taking the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, it actually give a whole warning about the ceremony saying to beware lest you eat and drink you own damnation if you are unworthy.
1 Corinthians 11:

20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

2. He said to beware of those wearing ornate clothing because the only reason someone would wear something of value is to show others that he has it. If it was only for the glory of God he wouldn't show it to anyone, he would wear it at home alone only in the company of the Lord. But even that makes no sense, because again if a man of the Lord owned it he would sell it because he would have no need of nice clothing, just like a woman would sell her jewelry since there would be no point it having it or wearing it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

God didn't speak out against ornate robes for the clergy to wear while consecrating the Eucharist. He spoke against the scribes trying to usurp the honor of the priests, who actually were commanded to wear ornate robes.

1. There is no place in the New testament saying ornate robes are to worn while taking the Eucharist or where it says ornate robes are to be worn at all. In fact never does it say that taking the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, it actually give a whole warning about the ceremony saying to beware lest you eat and drink you own damnation if you are unworthy.
1 Corinthians 11:

20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

2. He said to beware of those wearing ornate clothing because the only reason someone would wear something of value is to show others that he has it. If it was only for the glory of God he wouldn't show it to anyone, he would wear it at home alone only in the company of the Lord. But even that makes no sense, because again if a man of the Lord owned it he would sell it because he would have no need of nice clothing, just like a woman would sell her jewelry since there would be no point it having it or wearing it.

The people wearing the ornate robes don't own them.

The God of the Old Testament = the God of the New Testament.

[ThePeacekeepers]

1. There is no place in the New testament saying ornate robes are to worn while taking the Eucharist or where it says ornate robes are to be worn at all. In fact never does it say that taking the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, it actually give a whole warning about the ceremony saying to beware lest you eat and drink you own damnation if you are unworthy.
1 Corinthians 11:

20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

2. He said to beware of those wearing ornate clothing because the only reason someone would wear something of value is to show others that he has it. If it was only for the glory of God he wouldn't show it to anyone, he would wear it at home alone only in the company of the Lord. But even that makes no sense, because again if a man of the Lord owned it he would sell it because he would have no need of nice clothing, just like a woman would sell her jewelry since there would be no point it having it or wearing it.

The people wearing the ornate robes don't own them.

The God of the Old Testament = the God of the New Testament.

No, but the church does. So obviously the church would be the one selling them. Everything I said still applies.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The people wearing the ornate robes don't own them.

The God of the Old Testament = the God of the New Testament.

No, but the church does. So obviously the church would be the one selling them. Everything I said still applies.

And the Church is using them to make the worship of God beautiful, which God desires, as seen in the Old Testament, and in the New.

[ThePeacekeepers]

1. There is no place in the New testament saying ornate robes are to worn while taking the Eucharist or where it says ornate robes are to be worn at all. In fact never does it say that taking the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, it actually give a whole warning about the ceremony saying to beware lest you eat and drink you own damnation if you are unworthy.
1 Corinthians 11:

20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

2. He said to beware of those wearing ornate clothing because the only reason someone would wear something of value is to show others that he has it. If it was only for the glory of God he wouldn't show it to anyone, he would wear it at home alone only in the company of the Lord. But even that makes no sense, because again if a man of the Lord owned it he would sell it because he would have no need of nice clothing, just like a woman would sell her jewelry since there would be no point it having it or wearing it.

The God of the Old Testament = the God of the New Testament.

Yes.
Old Testament Law: Dietary, Ceremonial, Civil, Moral: Fulfilled by the Blood of Christ: Dietary, ceremoniall, Civil
New Testament Law: Moral Law, Laws Given by Christ, Laws given by the Apostles.
Same God, different laws.

[The of Japan]

No, but the church does. So obviously the church would be the one selling them. Everything I said still applies.

And the Church is using them to make the worship of God beautiful, which God desires, as seen in the Old Testament, and in the New.

it may better glorify Him, I guess.

[ThePeacekeepers]

No, but the church does. So obviously the church would be the one selling them. Everything I said still applies.

And the Church is using them to make the worship of God beautiful, which God desires, as seen in the Old Testament, and in the New.

Show one place in the New testament where he says we are to Glorify him by having nice and expensive things. And please I really don't want to go through the whole anointing Christ thing again. I can only explain how that doesn't apply here so many times.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And the Church is using them to make the worship of God beautiful, which God desires, as seen in the Old Testament, and in the New.

Show one place in the New testament where he says we are to Glorify him by having nice and expensive things. And please I really don't want to go through the whole anointing Christ thing again. I can only explain how that doesn't apply here so many times.

We have the Old Testament. The Law and the Prophets are still valid. They have been fulfilled, not destroyed.

[ThePeacekeepers]

Show one place in the New testament where he says we are to Glorify him by having nice and expensive things. And please I really don't want to go through the whole anointing Christ thing again. I can only explain how that doesn't apply here so many times.

We have the Old Testament. The Law and the Prophets are still valid. They have been fulfilled, not destroyed.

Leviticus 15:19-33
19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.
26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation.
27 And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.
29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the Lord for the issue of her uncleanness.
31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.
32 This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed goeth from him, and is defiled therewith;
33 And of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that hath an issue, of the man, and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is unclean.
Deuteronomy 23:13-21
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

If you want to be under the old law then these two are just a couple of the 613 laws of the old testament which you want to still be in effect. The point of Christ's coming is the old law is passed away. Its gone now. We have a new law. That was literally the point of Christ fulfilling Every Jot and Tittle of the Old law.
Matt 5:18
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

It why he is the Author and Finisher of the Faith.
Hebrews 12:2
2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Its a core concept of the Christian faith that the old passed away to make way for a better path to salvation.
We still have the prophets, there is still prophesy that must be fulfilled.

[United Muscovite Nations]

We have the Old Testament. The Law and the Prophets are still valid. They have been fulfilled, not destroyed.

Leviticus 15:19-33
19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.
26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation.
27 And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.
29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the Lord for the issue of her uncleanness.
31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.
32 This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed goeth from him, and is defiled therewith;
33 And of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that hath an issue, of the man, and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is unclean.
Deuteronomy 23:13-21
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

If you want to be under the old law then these two are just a couple of the 613 laws of the old testament which you want to still be in effect. The point of Christ's coming is the old law is passed away. Its gone now. We have a new law. That was literally the point of Christ fulfilling Every Jot and Tittle of the Old law.
Matt 5:18
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

It why he is the Author and Finisher of the Faith.
Hebrews 12:2
2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Its a core concept of the Christian faith that the old passed away to make way for a better path to salvation.
We still have the prophets, there is still prophesy that must be fulfilled.

Christ said the Law itself wasn't destroyed, but was fulfilled. Moreover, Christ Himself claimed the title of High Priest of Israel. Furthermore, where has it been said that God no longer wants His temples to be richly adorned?

You quote passages, but none of them have relevance to what we're arguing about.

[ThePeacekeepers]

Leviticus 15:19-33
19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.
26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation.
27 And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.
29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the Lord for the issue of her uncleanness.
31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.
32 This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed goeth from him, and is defiled therewith;
33 And of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that hath an issue, of the man, and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is unclean.
Deuteronomy 23:13-21
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

If you want to be under the old law then these two are just a couple of the 613 laws of the old testament which you want to still be in effect. The point of Christ's coming is the old law is passed away. Its gone now. We have a new law. That was literally the point of Christ fulfilling Every Jot and Tittle of the Old law.
Matt 5:18
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

It why he is the Author and Finisher of the Faith.
Hebrews 12:2
2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Its a core concept of the Christian faith that the old passed away to make way for a better path to salvation.
We still have the prophets, there is still prophesy that must be fulfilled.

Christ said the Law itself wasn't destroyed, but was fulfilled. Moreover, Christ Himself claimed the title of High Priest of Israel. Furthermore, where has it been said that God no longer wants His temples to be richly adorned?

You quote passages, but none of them have relevance to what we're arguing about.

1.Fulfilled meaning completed, finished, its done now. Yes he is a high priest after the Order of Melchisadec who spiritually went up to the alter before the Throne of God and sprinkled is blood as the sacrificial lamb for all mankind's sin. He was the last priest we had, we have bishops, pastors and deacons now it doesn't say we need priests only Yahshua the Christ. Furthermore all the money and the goods given to the church during the time of the Apostles were given to every man as they had need, it never gave any mention of them spending the money on anything other than the people within the church who needed it. And when we look at what Christ and the apostles taught we can clearly see that a simple and modest life is necessary to follow Christ. Nowhere in the New testament does it say we are to have any items of value to serve the lord and Glorify him. We Glorify him by spreading his word and keeping his statutes day in and day out.
2. Show one place in the new testament that says we need ornate robes and churches.
3. The first two passages were showing you what you have to follow if you want any part of the old law. Because you can't just have one of the laws you have to have all of it or none of it. Its either the old law or the new.
4. As I showed you every jot and tittle of the old law was fulfilled, Christ is the Author and the Finisher of our faith.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Christ said the Law itself wasn't destroyed, but was fulfilled. Moreover, Christ Himself claimed the title of High Priest of Israel. Furthermore, where has it been said that God no longer wants His temples to be richly adorned?

You quote passages, but none of them have relevance to what we're arguing about.

1.Fulfilled meaning completed, finished, its done now. Yes he is a high priest after the Order of Melchisadec who spiritually went up to the alter before the Throne of God and sprinkled is blood as the sacrificial lamb for all mankind's sin. He was the last priest we had, we have bishops, pastors and deacons now it doesn't say we need priests only Yahshua the Christ. Furthermore all the money and the goods given to the church during the time of the Apostles were given to every man as they had need, it never gave any mention of them spending the money on anything other than the people within the church who needed it. And when we look at what Christ and the apostles taught we can clearly see that a simple and modest life is necessary to follow Christ. Nowhere in the New testament does it say we are to have any items of value to serve the lord and Glorify him. We Glorify him by spreading his word and keeping his statutes day in and day out.
2. Show one place in the new testament that says we need ornate robes and churches.

1) If there is a High Priest, there must be a priesthood. Moreover, archeological evidence shows that ancient churches were pretty richly adorned.
2) As I have said before, we aren't restricted to the New Testament. It is the same God in the Old Testament. If He wants his priests an temples to be richly adorned in the Old Testament, if we have no conflicting evidence otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that He still wants that.

The Old Testament is still relevant. The Old Testament is fulfilled by the New Testament, not overwritten. Without the Old Testament, we would be lost, because we would not have known to look for our Christ.

As for your 4: God spoke to the prophets of the Old Testament, and the Holy Spirit continues to speak through the Church, as Christ promised.