RE: I need some opinions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics



Message

solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (6/30/2008 10:15:03 PM)

1) no one has addressed the fact that when Paul stated that all scripture is profitable - he was referring to the OT - no NT had yet been written in its present form.

2) I do not believe there are two types of laws - the Bible itself teaches that to be true - in exactly the way I have stated. Please stop referring to what I have written as my ideas - they seem to be God's ideas as they are in the Bible

3) Moral law does not refer to teaching on how to love God or one another.
It has to do with our conduct to the world around us and each other.
The word moral means a code of conduct that is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong - not a love code

4)Love is described in the NT - we call it, in fact, the Love Chapter - I Cor. chapter 13

5)You refer to 'the right thing to do' but, according to your points, the right thing to do is what you think is right as per Romans 14 - In fact, the right thing to do, according to Jesus, is to obey God.

6) No one has addressed the fact that Romans 14 was meant to address a specific situation in Rome - In fact the whole book of Romans was written for that congregation. You cannot possibly use Romans 14 for moral conduct when it was written to call attention to matters pertaining to the ceremonial law -again, which is the law that was done away with.
If you study OT law - not peruse through it - but actually study it, you will find all that I am writing here and a far larger wealth of information that will actually help you to better understand exactly what Jesus did in doing away with the Law - it is not a doing away with the 10 C's - Jesus is the fulfillment of the 10 C's - how do you explain the scripture where Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law and that not one tiny part of it would be done away with until heaven and earth pass away? Heaven and earth have not passed away.

7) I never talked about a yoke of the law - that is what you are saying because I do not think you understand what I am discussing. And as a matter of fact, the yoke is related to the ceremonial law so yes, we are all free of it.

8) The way tatoos were done in the culture(s) of the time of the law being given was through cuttings - they did not have the lovely little tools so readily available to the tatoo artist/recipient of this day and age
So, cutting was done to insert the ink. Make more sense now? So maybe the original Hebrew does not contain the word tatoo - they would not have had to as everyone would have known what was really meant. A translation is not a word for word exchange - we would not even actually be able to understand good portions of our Bibles if that were so - a translation must, by its very nature, make use of the words used by its intended readership - there are many things no longer in cultural vogue in this day and the translator must be true to the original meaning.

If scholars - that is those who are actual students and experts in the original languages - have translated the verse with the word cutting and tatoo it is because that was the intent of the original.


Now, as my points are never addressed with scripture - to prove or disprove, but only what people think or feel, I really do not see any use in continuing the discussion.

Again, tatoos should not be any issue for a Christian - they should not even have to think about getting one. You don't have to agree, but you cannot prove it from scripture - not that I have seen.

This is not meant as a challenge - I just really am done with this. If someone would like to discuss it further, pls just pm me
Thank you



MrFribbles -> RE: I need some opinions (6/30/2008 10:20:55 PM)

quote:

I do not believe there are two types of laws - the Bible itself teaches that to be true - in exactly the way I have stated.


Where in Scripture is this stated?
Where, also, is it stated that the moral law, in its entirety, is to be kept by the Christian?
Where, thirdly, do we learn that tattoos are part of this "moral law"?



phosadaud -> RE: I need some opinions (6/30/2008 10:23:25 PM)

solarflare -

Did you even read what I posted? [8|]



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (6/30/2008 10:34:59 PM)

Yes, I did. Twice and referred to it while I was writing my response.


I did not make up what I have written. Any decent Bible college will teach the very same things - I just am tired of going round and round.

Please try and answer the points I made - you have not so far - we are not discussing feelings or what someone thinks - I am discussing what is in the Bible.

Really, what do you say about Romans 14 after I explained the context in which it was written? That is just one item.

It is bedtime where I am - quite late actually. So, like I said, I am done posting - tomorrow is another day.



phosadaud -> RE: I need some opinions (6/30/2008 10:37:29 PM)

I asked a simple question and you won't give me an answer. And I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing with you on some of your points as I have never addressed them. That's why I have no idea if you are reading my posts. I ask a simple question and give you some background into what I believe regarding the law and such and you take it as a personal attack. Good grief! I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from. [&:]



thedivabrat -> RE: I need some opinions (6/30/2008 10:40:03 PM)

We are all a bit frustrated--my last word on this--Gal 3:23-25 and Gal 5:14-15. It's been fun. See you in another thread sometime.



Qtman -> RE: I need some opinions (6/30/2008 10:40:50 PM)

First let me say I don't like tattoos. Therefore I have no tattoos. I also don't like piercings on men so I don't have any of the either. I have not taken a stand for nor against tattoos. I have simply pointed out that the original text di not mention tattoos nor any thing that could be translated as tattoos. That has not been refuted. All I have seen is a repeat of someone opinion. I deal in fact and not opinion. And solarflare your entire logic is flawed and predudicial. On one hand you say we must take Lev. 19:27 word for word as it is written then say we cannot rely on Romans 14. The reason you give is because Paul was talking to a particular about a particular problem. Well that is exactly what Lev 19:27 is doing. If read in context with the rest of the verses a reasonable berson would come to the conclusion that it is talking to a particular people, the Isarealites, about a particular problem, joining in pagan practices. I think you may need to do further study and decide which way you want it.



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (6/30/2008 10:46:10 PM)

No. I simply quoted scripture. Not logic. That, is why you do not understand me.



thedivabrat -> RE: I need some opinions (6/30/2008 10:47:46 PM)

so scripture is illogical?



MrFribbles -> RE: I need some opinions (6/30/2008 10:48:22 PM)

quote:

No. I simply quoted scripture. Not logic. That, is why you do not understand me.


Careful solarflare, that seems to be edging towards and attack on character. To say one cannot understand Scripture is a pretty serious accusation.



Qtman -> RE: I need some opinions (6/30/2008 10:50:12 PM)

O.K. if we cannot have a conversation or discussion or debate with this kind of thing happening then I will just go about my merry way and let y'all have it.



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (6/30/2008 10:54:07 PM)

CEREMONIAL LAW: relates specifically to Israel's worship. The main purpose of this aspect of the law was to point forward to Jesus. These laws are no longer in effect. While we are no longer bound by them, the principles behind them, to love and worhship God in His holiness, still apply.

CIVIL LAW: Dictated Israel's daily living - for the sake of simplicity I previously only wrote about the two as this particular part has not been a part of the discussion. At times, Paul asked Gentile Christians to follow some of these laws - not because they had to, bu to promote unity.
ie Romans

MORAL LAW: Pertains to the direct command of God - the Ten Commandments, for example. It reveals the nature and will of God. It is still applicable today. This does not earn our salvation. It means we live a life that is pleasing to God. We obey Him, because we love Him.

Romans chapter 14 has nothing to do with the Moral Law - it is ceremonial, or more explicitly, civil

I have not made this up. If you ever really study OT law, and how it pertains to Jesus, you will actually find what I have written here.

Now, I am done - not just for tonight, but for the thread.

Discussing is one thing, being insulted and accused is another. Apparently, another verse applies to what is really going on here.



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (6/30/2008 10:58:26 PM)

quote:

On one hand you say we must take Lev. 19:27 word for word



Can you show me where I said that we MUST take Lev. 19:27 word for word? No, you cannot. The reason you cannot, is that I never said that.
You are saying I said that to confuse what I really did say.



saraimay75 -> RE: I need some opinions (7/1/2008 3:52:58 AM)

I believe the OP has already decided what to do. So any arguments at this point are...More 'us' then the OP.



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/1/2008 9:58:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

quote:

No. I simply quoted scripture. Not logic. That, is why you do not understand me.


Careful solarflare, that seems to be edging towards and attack on character. To say one cannot understand Scripture is a pretty serious accusation.



I stated that you did not understand me - not scripture - you seem to be using logic - as per your statement - I was using scripture, not logic - that, is what I meant

A lack of understanding in any case, would not be an attack on someones' character - it would be simply a matter of further study - character is not on issue in that statement. Character has to do with a person's qualities - not level of understanding.

There is no attack here [8|]



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/1/2008 10:44:13 AM)

quote:

so scripture is illogical?


Actually, this is what the Bible itself has to say regarding understanding:

As human beings, we have a finite understanding. We cannot understand the Word of God through our intellect alone. The Bible teaches that without the Spirit of God indwelling (inside) of us, the Bible will make no sense.
The Spirit (Holy Spirit) searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God , for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment. For who has known the mind of the Lord that he many instruct him? (OT reference Isaiah 40:13) But we have the mind of Christ. I Cor.2:10-16
And there are many other scriptures that reveal that we cannot understand the Bible with our own intellect. We need spiritual understanding as per the verses I just quoted. These are not my words, they are the words of Paul found in the NT - and notice, he is quoting OT scripture to back up what he is saying - the NT had not been canonized - Paul did not have the NT for reference like we do - he used the OT. The OT is as valid as the New. One does not do away with the other.

Here are a few other points to consider when studying - and there are more - but this is just a sample - again, this is the accepted - by that I mean proven and valuable - way to study.

1. There is a meaning to the text - which may not be what we think it is.
We cannot just read into Scripture whatever we want - we have to know why it was written, to whom it was written, and when. It also helps to know customs of the day. Each passage of scripture has a meaning put into it by the author. If we fail to understand that, we may very easily put a wrong interpretation into the passage.

2. The main thing to keep in mind, is that the Bible is different from any other book in the world. "Prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke FROM God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. II Peter 1:21

3. You cannot read or study Scripture in isolation from the rest of the Bible. When people forget that, they tend to look for verses to back up what they think - it should be the other way around - the Bible should bring a person's mind around to obedience in Christ - that is, if they have the Spirit of God - otherwise, it is just not going to happen.

I have repeatedly quoted scripture and pointed out what the Bible has to say - if I try to be logical, I will fall short of what the Bible actually says -
logic is not in question here - understanding and correctly interpreting the word of God is what is at stake here. Don't take my word for it - consult with your Pastor - write several Bible colleges or universities - mind you, they should be believers - some people professing Christ are not Christians and only study study study - and never understand because they are not born again.
Anyone can get online and address these threads - not everyone knows what they are talking about - again, I have quoted scriptrue to back up everything I have said. If anything is still unclear, I will be happy to explain further.



MrFribbles -> RE: I need some opinions (7/1/2008 1:27:30 PM)

quote:

Any decent Bible college will teach the very same things


Well, I double-checked with the head of my former school's Bible Department, who has a doctorate from DTS, and I was right. Apparently, the Bible college I attended wasn't decent, since he agrees with me that Scripture makes no distinction between the Law. Any lines we draw, be it moral, ceremonial, or civil, are put there by man. And they're not entirely a bad thing - it can be helpful for the purpose of studying, just to categorize different elements of the Law and make it easier to sort by us. But there's nothing that suggests a biblical mandate dividing the Law, and commanding Christians to follow certain parts of the Law.
However, there are certain elements of the Law that are repeated and reinforced by Christ during His earthly ministry, or during Acts and the Epistles, and these must be followed. Tattoos does not fall into that category.

quote:

No one has addressed the fact that Romans 14 was meant to address a specific situation in Rome - In fact the whole book of Romans was written for that congregation.


So I guess Romans 3:23 is saying that all the people in the Roman congregation have sinned - not really all of mankind, right? After all, it was written for a specific purpose to specific people.
Or, I suppose Ephesians 5 teaches that it's OK to get drunk by tequila, since it only forbids drunkenness by wine.
An absurd conclusion, of course. However, to limit Romans 14 in the same way is, in my opinion, equally absurd.

There, now someone has addressed it. ; )



Norny -> RE: I need some opinions (7/1/2008 2:17:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: saraimay75

I believe the OP has already decided what to do. So any arguments at this point are...More 'us' then the OP.


that would be correct....but i like the arguing im learning a lot from both points of view although i wont lie a lot of it i dont understand ( ill just go ahead and chalk that up to inexperience)



faroukfarouk -> RE: I need some opinions (7/1/2008 8:43:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: solarflare

1) no one has addressed the fact that when Paul stated that all scripture is profitable - he was referring to the OT - no NT had yet been written in its present form.

2) I do not believe there are two types of laws - the Bible itself teaches that to be true - in exactly the way I have stated. Please stop referring to what I have written as my ideas - they seem to be God's ideas as they are in the Bible

3) Moral law does not refer to teaching on how to love God or one another.
It has to do with our conduct to the world around us and each other.
The word moral means a code of conduct that is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong - not a love code

4)Love is described in the NT - we call it, in fact, the Love Chapter - I Cor. chapter 13

5)You refer to 'the right thing to do' but, according to your points, the right thing to do is what you think is right as per Romans 14 - In fact, the right thing to do, according to Jesus, is to obey God.

6) No one has addressed the fact that Romans 14 was meant to address a specific situation in Rome - In fact the whole book of Romans was written for that congregation. You cannot possibly use Romans 14 for moral conduct when it was written to call attention to matters pertaining to the ceremonial law -again, which is the law that was done away with.
If you study OT law - not peruse through it - but actually study it, you will find all that I am writing here and a far larger wealth of information that will actually help you to better understand exactly what Jesus did in doing away with the Law - it is not a doing away with the 10 C's - Jesus is the fulfillment of the 10 C's - how do you explain the scripture where Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law and that not one tiny part of it would be done away with until heaven and earth pass away? Heaven and earth have not passed away.

7) I never talked about a yoke of the law - that is what you are saying because I do not think you understand what I am discussing. And as a matter of fact, the yoke is related to the ceremonial law so yes, we are all free of it.

8) The way tatoos were done in the culture(s) of the time of the law being given was through cuttings - they did not have the lovely little tools so readily available to the tatoo artist/recipient of this day and age
So, cutting was done to insert the ink. Make more sense now? So maybe the original Hebrew does not contain the word tatoo - they would not have had to as everyone would have known what was really meant. A translation is not a word for word exchange - we would not even actually be able to understand good portions of our Bibles if that were so - a translation must, by its very nature, make use of the words used by its intended readership - there are many things no longer in cultural vogue in this day and the translator must be true to the original meaning.

If scholars - that is those who are actual students and experts in the original languages - have translated the verse with the word cutting and tatoo it is because that was the intent of the original.


Now, as my points are never addressed with scripture - to prove or disprove, but only what people think or feel, I really do not see any use in continuing the discussion.

Again, tatoos should not be any issue for a Christian - they should not even have to think about getting one. You don't have to agree, but you cannot prove it from scripture - not that I have seen.

This is not meant as a challenge - I just really am done with this. If someone would like to discuss it further, pls just pm me
Thank you


You make good points, but I want to ask: what about the fact that in the Leviticus passage which is sometimes referred to in relation to tattoos it also says about men not trimming their beards. Are you going to argue that having a bushy beard is also normative for today: am I supposed to stop shaving?

Take care.



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/1/2008 11:26:53 PM)

Hey farouk - I am just on for a few minutes - noticed your post.

Men not trimming their beards would not be part of the moral law.
I hope to get more info up when I have time - this is not a small subject and is (contrary to some people's beliefs) absolutely accepted by (most, not all apparently) Christian colleges, teachers, pastors, Bible expositors etc. There are, to be sure, those who say "Away with the Law" - the opposite of that expression that goes "To the Law and the prophets"

I would also like to point out, that we cannot live by the law - Christians are saved by grace - not law or deeds. Thanks

Please - do keep shaving [;)]



MrFribbles -> RE: I need some opinions (7/1/2008 11:31:05 PM)

quote:

Men not trimming their beards would not be part of the moral law.


But getting a tattoo is? You would think God would at least put the different parts of the law in different sections. It's a bit confusing, having them right next to one another.



Ps103 -> RE: I need some opinions (7/1/2008 11:33:11 PM)

Actually, I thought the "moral law" "ceremonial law" distinction was an SDA thing.

The Law is the Law.



faroukfarouk -> RE: I need some opinions (7/2/2008 8:07:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ps103

Actually, I thought the "moral law" "ceremonial law" distinction was an SDA thing.

The Law is the Law.


Hence my example about trimming beards, mentioned in the same Leviticus passage. Doesn't it refer to Jews in the land under the Old Testament law?



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/2/2008 10:09:50 AM)

quote:

Actually, I thought the "moral law" "ceremonial law" distinction was an SDA thing.


Well I don't even know what SDA stands for, so, I guess it is not "just an SDA thing".

Yes, the law is the law and Jesus said not even the tiniest part of it will be done away with until heaven and earth pass away." So that is what we
ALL have to deal with. I never said we live under the law - salvation is by grace alone.



Ps103 -> RE: I need some opinions (7/2/2008 10:12:43 AM)

SDA=Seventh-Day Adventist.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI