BibleForums Christian Message Board

Love your neighbor as yourself

guess Jesus didnt get the memo.

Jesus didn't come to destroy the Law but to uphold it.

He is addressing Jews and brings up the original command and then upholds it. The Jews who were listening to Him teach out of the Law understood perfectly He was teaching on the original command God gave to the twelve tribes in the desert.

Jesus taught the Hebrew people from out of their Law. Mixed heritage Jews of Jew-Gentile descent was also included in the covenants because they were still Abraham's seed. Like the Samaritan woman. She was a daughter of Abraham.

Even under the Misaic Law a gentile could convert and become a child of the Covenant.

Silly people. 

Matzoh ball soup and latkkes make you Jewish…. At least the ones made by Mrs Fenris have that power…

Any non-Hebrew Gentile can become allies with the commonwealth of Israel but never included in any of the Hebrew covenants.

The Abraham Covenant is between God, Abraham, and extended to Abraham's seed.

The Mosaic Covenant is between God and the children of Israel made when the Hebrews were in the desert at the time of the Tabernacle.

The New Covenant is between God and the House of Israel (ten northern kingdom tribes). and the House of Judah (two southern kingdom tribes.)

There are no non-Hebrew Gentiles included in any of these three Hebrew covenants.

Truly incredible how "all Scripture" isn't meant to mean "all Scripture" but "just the Scripture Paul was aware of".

Or like, "all" can mean "all" regardless of Paul's immediate context, so it would naturally follow that all Scripture refers necessarily to all Scripture, regardless of Paul's particular awarenesses.

"All Scripture" refers to the oracles of God in possession of the Hebrew people and these are Genesis to Malachi which are the Law, Psalms, and the Prophets.

In another thread, Fenris said (some) Christians have been haters of other people and this could determine if that person was a real Christian.
Does conduct have any bearing on whether someone is Jewish?

Genesis 12, 15, and 17, describe what's known as the Abrahamic Covenant. God promises Abraham and his seed, a people later to be identified as the children of Israel, many things such as land, blessings, etcetera.

Later, God builds upon the Abrahamic Covenant and makes a New Covenant through Moses with the twelve tribes of Israel (Jacob.) Here, God gives the twelve tribes He delivered from the bondage in Israel His Law in order for them to live according to God's Laws. This is called the Mosaic Covenant and there are three parts covering daily living for the Hebrew people. The Moral Laws (Ten Commandments), the Social Laws, and the Ceremonial Laws. These Law lay out God's expectation of this people living under His commandments.

Later, through the sacrifice of His Son, the lamb of God, Jesus Christ offers Himself to atone for the sins of the Hebrew people who are under the Law and this included All of Abraham's offspring through Isaac, then Jacob, then through Jacob's twelve sons and their offspring.

Anyone who is born of Abraham is a Hebrew/Jew. This includes the offspring of the promised Isaac, and then the inheritance of the Abraham covenant is inherited by Jacob (who God changed his name to "Israel"), and through Jacobs twelve sons and their offspring.

It is impossible for any non-Hebrew Gentile to become a Jew.

I believe free will in man (or angel) is an illusion.

I also no longer believe in a "Fall" of man, a "Fall" which is tied to the man and woman's act of eating from the forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Scripture clearly teaches that sin comes from sinner and holiness comes from Holy. Sin cannot come from someone who is Holy as 1 Corinthians 15 makes distinction between "earthy", created matter (man), and the Lord from heaven - Holy child becoming a Holy man: Jesus.

The question of "free will" in man touches several major doctrines in Scripture, one of which is "Was man created holy or was man created sinful?" If man was created holy, then there is no free will to exercise for every act and thought would come from a sinless being, such as is that of "the Lord from heaven" (Christ.)

If man were created sinful then every act and thought would be "continually evil."
Sin would come from sinner.

And why I don't believe in a "Fall" of man is mainly that the act of eating from the forbidden Tree was not man's fist sin. It was his second: lying.

      6       Add thou not unto his words,
      Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
      Proverbs 30:6.

By adding to God's Word "neither shall ye touch it [the Tree]" the man and woman prove themselves as liars and lying is a sin and sin comes from sinner.
Besides this the command "Thou shalt not" also proves that man was created sinful. But before you who read this go off the deep end, I want to make clear the definition of "sin" comes from Strong, who defines the word "sin" as "missing the mark." Now I ask, what is this "mark" that was "missed"?
The glory of God, or the glory that is God.

God Himself is the standard by which everything and everyone is judged against. Isaiah mentions three foundational truths about God. He says, "There is only ONE God, there is NONE like Him, and He gives His glory to NO ONE."

If these three things about God is true - and they are - then the created 'makeup' of man is that he was created "missing the mark" of the glory of God. Sinlessness is a glory of God. It is His Nature, His Deific Attributes of Being. Thus, God cannot sin because His Nature is Sinlessness. And since Isaiah says God gives His glory ["Sinlessness"] to no one, then man by default was created sinful, or missing the mark of the glory of God. Man sinned; Jesus did not. One was sinful, the other was Sinless. Man sinned and so he has a sinful nature and one that needs to be redeemed in order to maintain the "image of God," not the image of Adam. As born-again believers we are being conformed into the image of Christ, not the image of Adam. One is of the earth, earthy; the other is the Lord from heaven, Sinless, neither was guild found in His mouth. And since the leopard cannot change his spots, neither can man change his nature, his DNA. And as such on both counts, the leopard by nature will eat meat, while the chicken by its nature will only eat seed. The leopard will not eat seed, and the chicken will not eat meat. Their natures are set and set with a sin nature.

Man was not created sinless else he would not have sinned. The last/second Adam (Christ) proves this. Christ was Sinless, Christ was Holy, Christ was Righteous, and He did no sin. Man, on the other hand sinned thus proving God did not reduplicate His glory of sinlessness in man nor did God create man as eternal. These are Attributes of God and He shares nor gives none of His glory to man.

So, if Christ is Holy, then Christ by Nature cannot sin. If man is sinful, then if follows that he will sin.

13 As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked:
1 Samuel 24:13.

is the same as sin comes from sinner. Sin cannot come from that or He that is Holy. Therefore, if man was created sinful, or missing the mark of the glory of God, then it follows that he is a sinner and [free] will sin. Man, sins because he is a sinner; he is not a sinner because he sins. The latter destroys the Doctrine of Imputation.

I think that's all for now. We have no free will. We have a sin nature we were created with and based upon that nature, we sin and will always sin, that's why God gave the "Thou shalt not" in the Garden. If there is no Law, then there is no sin according to Saul. It is the existence of "Thou shalt not" that proves man was a sinner before he disobeyed God and ate from the Tree. And the Tree did not change the man. It was just a regular tree. But God used it to give the man the KNOWLEDGE of his sinfulness. And it worked.

What I found interesting was the fact that he comes out of the Augustinian Order. He's still Catholic but before the vote I thought to myself if they would have the boldness to choose one from the Augustinian Order. Augustine is held up by both Protestants and Catholics as one of their main theologians, but to Protestants Augustine was studied by Calvin and is one whose theology was closest to the Bible.

I wonder if he was chosen to facilitate the merging together of the E.C.T. movement of the past couple of decades, a merging fully supported by (surprise!) J.I. Packer before his death, support that was greatly challenged by most big-name Evangelicals. ECT stands for "Evangelicals and Catholics Together."

Welcome Jer. I'm lovin on your avatar my friend.

Hello Parson. The good thing is there's more out there for you to choose from. See you on post.