Murder,kill,destroy

[eik]

Welcome to the Biblical and Theology Section of 1Faith

[Raise a Debate] @ 1faith
Your post will be answered shortly
Raise a Debate - by posting bait !

No, I have explained that the knowledge of good and evil exists apart from the written code, and began with Adam eating from the tree. The moral law is written on the conscience also, and learnt from others, just as Paul says in Roms 1 & 2. You do seem to want to ignore absolutely everything I say.

  but I am speaking of the law given to Israel through Mose what other nations had for laws is of no interest for this discussion       St Paul had this to say

          Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression           
So the other nations did not have Gods law only Israel and only Israel could brake the law           

Yes, but we were talking about Noah. Noah did not have the written code, but still God judged mankind according to sin, and Adam also. God was positing laws throughout the period of the OT.

There has always been God's "law." Are you denying it? You seem to be. The Israelite laws were for a nation, which didn't exist until the people was created. Before then people had the moral law.

You also seem to be reducing the bible to absurdity in taking things completely out of context and putting them in another context.
Appearances are less important than what God says, and here he spoke directly to Noah. Who are you to quibble?
No, the tense is present "Whoso sheddeth" not "Whoso will shed at some point long into the future..."
I don't accept that what you say is God's word, because it doesn't conform to what is written. It might conform to your own theory, but that's "your own word."

I may have taken them out of your contex but they work great in mine everything I say is based in scripture and on the creation account in Genesis and it works great for me.
Whats your interpretation of Genesis       

An evolving system of law and morality, faith and sacrifice, down the lineage of Adam, ending in the Messiah. Essentially a history book but a true and accurate one (unlike Enns' view), although all the names have been Hebrewized or Grecized, so difficult to map onto archaeological findings.

Anyway, I still look forward to you adducing just one other human being on the entire planet whom agrees with you. You must grasp that you are very unlikely to be correct if you alone can see things aright. God also has a remnant, even 7000, who don't bow the knee to Ba'al Rom 11:4; but 7000 is not 1 (i.e. you)

      I have jest bought a book by Peter Enns & Jared Byas where they say that the creation account in Genesis is the history  of Israel in miniature I have not finished the book yet and they do not say everything I do but it is interesting  that they view the creation account differently the books called Genesis for normal people         

He sounds wierd; but at least I'm beginning to understand now why you're on such a different wavelength to me.

I'm getting it that you're actually heavily into this Enns bloke. I can't find any critique of that particular book, but here is a critique of another of Enns' books, doubtless with the same themes, and let me tell you its bad.

"Dr. Enns indicates Christians should use the Bible to help them get to know God, but at the same time he tells them to disregard the parts they don?t like. Of course, Peter Enns is not the first learned man to deny the truth of God?s Word even while claiming (and likely even intending) to defend it. The Bible offers an excellent example of this sort of thing in an account of Jesus with the Pharisees. Jesus Christ accused the Pharisees (Mark 7:7?13) of replacing God?s truth with man?s fallible notions. In doing this, He said they rendered God?s Word ineffectual (Mark 7:13). And that is exactly what Dr. Enns? approach to the Bible does
.
.
.
Though the New Testament is clear that the historical events recorded in the Old Testament scriptures are preserved there for our learning and hope (Romans 15:4), Dr. Enns maintains that the Old Testament writings were recorded to create a national myth for Israel. From the beginning of his book he demonstrates his acceptance of the so-called Documentary Hypothesis?the idea that the historical accounts in the Old Testament were written centuries later than the writers claim in order to make it appear that God was with the nation and that He had even sent prophets to predict the things that had happened to His people. This notion has long been discredited by evangelical scholars. Nevertheless, by choosing to believe the Old Testament writers simply made up a bunch of stories and legends that included both fact and fabrication, Enns can conveniently ignore any parts he wishes..
.
.
.
For instance, Dr. Enns says he found himself unable to see how a God of love could order the Israelites arriving in the Promised Land to slaughter people. His solution to the problem is to simply say that God did not tell them to do that, claiming instead that the Israelites could only understand a warrior God and that those crafting a national myth for Israel, many years down the road, saddled God with the blame, or rather the credit. Dr. Enns writes, ?God never told the Israelites to kill the Canaanites. The Israelites believed that God told them to kill the Canaanites.?
.
.
.
Dr. Enns, however, rather than accepting the veracity of the history in God?s Word?including the fact that a holy and just God used the nation of Israel and the tools of sword and war as instruments of His judgment on a land full of idolatry and vile practices (Leviticus 18:24?30)?adopts the discredited notion that the leaders of the nation of Israel, many centuries later, wanted their nation to have a good national myth on par with those of other nations. So they made up a warrior God to justify their takeover of their neighbor?s land. In other words, Dr. Enns? solution to the uncomfortable truths of history?truths that taken in the context of the whole of Scripture teach a great deal about the character of God, the wickedness of man, and the nature of holiness, sin, justice, and mercy?is to pretend they never happened.
.
.
.
The bottom line is that Dr. Enns has a very low view of Scripture. He places man?s fallible opinions, especially those of secular evolutionary scientists, above the Word of the very God he says he worships. He disregards most of the miracles and prophecy in the Bible. He treats the Bible as no more than a work of man that God decided to somehow use in a mysterious and ever-changing way to help people groping to grow in their relationships with Him.

Yet astonishingly, after over 200 pages of writing that the Bible is a product of imaginative people trying to create an inspirational history for Israel, he still concludes, ?The Bible is God?s Word.?14 This conclusion is at odds with the entire premise of the book. When he then advises, ?Don?t try to explain it. Just accept it,?15 he seems to be advising Christians to check their brains at the door."
https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/books/critique-peter-enns-book-the-bible-tells-me-so/

I'm already thinking that Enns is a simpleton. He was fired from his position at Westminster Theological Seminary after his views on scripture were deemed to be too liberal. Presumably that's why he went to USA.
https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Has-defending-scripture-made-us-unable-to-read-it-Peter-Enns-David-Instone-Brewer

His thought line is unimaginative and unscholarly, very criticial of the bible, akin to Jesus and the sacred mushroom, which posited that Jesus was influenced by the potent hallucinogen Amanita muscaria.
https://medium.com/omgfacts/this-religious-scholar-thought-jesus-was-a-mushroom-ab27d134c1f4

I honestly don't think I would have the time to wade through his rubbish. It's like in everything he says he's just raising one issue after another.  You could make him your focus of attention, but you'd probably spend your life critiquing him (just as I seem to spend so much time critiquing you).

As far as I am concerned, there are far better scholars out there., e.g. Rohl for a start. I'm not sure Enns is a true believer.

What are "you" doing regurgitating this stuff? Trying  to convert the world to liberalism?

As far as I am concerned, you should not really be preaching his brand of "theology" as truth. It's just one man's opinion, and Enns is no great scholar in the Christian world. I'd be very wary of trusting anything coming out of the USA these days, anyway.

My verdict: "uninspired by the Holy Spirit / doesn't actually believe the bible / not a fundamentalist Christian."

In the US, there are a lot of liberal theologians trying to make money out of the bible by teaching heresy.

Here is another view of Enns, clearly showing he rejects the Old Testament.
"In Inspiration and Incarnation, Enns asserted the following falsehoods about the Word of God: 1.) the Old Testament contains myths, particularly in its earliest chapters; 2.) there is theological diversity, even contradiction, in the Old Testament; and 3.) New Testament writers handled Old Testament passages in inconsistent ways, and offered different and conflicting opinions about Old Testament teachings.3"
http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/articles/?articleid=66780&columnid=5438

=================================================================


Now let's talk about Jared Byas.

"In full disclosure, I am a Christian who supports gay marriage. An evangelical even. I?m also a professor of philosophy & ethics. That means, at least in part, I?d like to think I think pretty logically. So when I hear some of the arguments from Christians as to why they are against gay marriage, I often scratch my head. These are 3 arguments that, if taken to their logical conclusion, end in inconsistency, at best, and hypocrisy, at worst. At least, in my opinion."
https://www.jaredbyas.com/tag/gay-marriage/

He is an outright heretic. Do you support gay marriage? Are you that way inclined? Is this why you're into these theologians?

Also I wonder if you see "7000" as literal here? Surely the number is symbolic?
Christ said nothing about "returning as a man." The context is "my (i.e. Christ's) day." He was referring to himself, the man, the human being. His day. Not the future, as in "Christ ascending to where he was before."John 6:62. He said nother about coming back down again. He talked about returning to collect the harvest, but it be the angels who gather it Matthew 13:39 (not Christ himself in person).

  that numbers in scripture can be symbolic is not in dispute but it dose not mean that all numbers are symbolic   
 And when the bible says       and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years            then you can bet your bottom dollar thats what will happen   

I think you are very mistaken if you think Christ is going to return as a human being.
The context is that is comes down from the new heavens to the new earth.
The "word of God" is mistranslated if you don't recognize idioms. I have asked you to account for what "1000 generations" means in the OT. Why does the number "1000" appear so frequently and in so many different contexts? Does it mean circa 15,000-20,000 years or does it mean a very large number of generations? You have yet to answer. Please stop evading the issue.

   when have I said Christ will return as a human being when Christ returns united with his bride he will be a spiritual being what he will look like I have absolutely no Idea
  As for the number question just because one number is symbolic dose not mean  all numbers are symbolic each number must be looked at in its own context         

It seems to me than numbers with 1000 in them, or just 1000, are usually symbolic. 3, 7, 12, 1000 are the symbolic numbers, with 1000 being the most non-literal number in the bible. Sorry I can't share you view of the "millennium." Jesus won't be coming to earth with a spiritual body either. Spiritual bodies belong in heaven, not earth.

https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/books/critique-peter-enns-book-the-bible-tells-me-so/
https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Has-defending-scripture-made-us-unable-to-read-it-Peter-Enns-David-Instone-Brewer
https://medium.com/omgfacts/this-religious-scholar-thought-jesus-was-a-mushroom-ab27d134c1f4
http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/articles/?articleid=66780&columnid=5438
https://www.jaredbyas.com/tag/gay-marriage/

[davetaff]

Hi eik
Thank you for your reply you said

      Yes, but we were talking about Noah. Noah did not have the written code, but still God judged mankind according to sin, and Adam also. God was positing laws throughout the period of the OT.

There has always been God's "law." Are you denying it? You seem to be. The Israelite laws were for a nation, which didn't exist until the people was created. Before then people had the moral law       

If what you say is right why did Paul say

     For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Romans 4:15 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/rom.4.15.ESV         

I don't think  God destroyed everything in the flood be cause men sinned which they did but because angels came down and contaminated his creation so he had to begin again.

      An evolving system of law and morality, faith and sacrifice, down the lineage of Adam, ending in the Messiah. Essentially a history book but a true and accurate one (unlike Enns' view), although all the names have been Hebrewized or Grecized, so difficult to map onto archaeological findings         

For me it has nothing to do with evolution its the story of Gods creation which began with Noah and ended with Christ what happened before the flood was destroyed except for everything on the ark.

As for Peter Enns I resent you making assumptions about me I am not heavily into him up to a few days ago I did not know who he was I just bought his book because the title interested me I have not even finished the book you keep asking me who else thinks like me so I said Mr Enns has similar views to me on some things.
I get the impression that you believe you are the only one who is right about everything and everyone else is wrong but the truth is the only one who is right is God and his word so lets stick to his word which says.

        3  And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God         

So God will dwell here on earth with us or are you saying the bible is wrong.

Love and Peace
Dave

https://bible.com/bible/59/rom.4.15.ESV

[eik]

Hi eik
Thank you for your reply you said

If what you say is right why did Paul say

     For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Romans 4:15 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/rom.4.15.ESV         

Wrath came before the written code. Are you denying it? What about Adam and Noah? Don't grasp your point.

I don't think  God destroyed everything in the flood be cause men sinned which they did but because angels came down and contaminated his creation so he had to begin again.

Only if you disbelieve what the bible says. Clearly he didn't begin again, because everything remained created. The system righted itself after the flood. The people continued to breed. The law remained in place, perhaps enhanced by the recognition that now all homo sapiens were to be regarded as in God's image, whereas before it was only Adam's lineage.

For me it has nothing to do with evolution its the story of Gods creation which began with Noah and ended with Christ what happened before the flood was destroyed except for everything on the ark.

Only because your bible teachers tell you to believe that Adam and Eve are essentially mythical. Can't accept it, neither did Christ or the apostles. Adam and Eve are fundamental to apostolic theology.

As for Peter Enns I resent you making assumptions about me I am not heavily into him up to a few days ago I did not know who he was I just bought his book because the title interested me I have not even finished the book you keep asking me who else thinks like me so I said Mr Enns has similar views to me on some things.

Clearly he does, and he has written other books on a similar line. Personally I wouldn't buy any of his books except to vigorously refute them. If you choose to see his books as credible, I regard it as an error. I would think more highly of your theology if you found it within yourself to critique him. I guess my theology is more developed and comprehensive than your's, as it encompasses the whole bible in one single system, except some redundant books like Esther.

It seems that you share a largely sceptical approach to the Old Testament, deeming it not particularly relevant, especially whatever pertains to what came before the written code of Israel.

For Enns, essentially the Old Testament starts with the nation of Israel, as he makes Adam and Eve out to be of no account. Seeing the Old Testament as about the nation of Israel ties in with your millennialism. Millennials are obsessed with Israel. I see the nation of Israel as only a temporary episode in the journey of faith on earth. The Old Testament is far more than about Israel, whilst the New Testament transcends the physical Israel, teaching only a spiritual Israel and a spiritual new Jerusalem.

I get the impression that you believe you are the only one who is right about everything and everyone else is wrong but the truth is the only one who is right is God and his word so lets stick to his word which says.

On the contrary, there are thousands of people who agree with me, which is the school of biblical literalism. There are millions of people whom will regards Enns as a heretic, that is, if they had heard of him. I have never heard of him before now. His brand of secular religion or sceptical Christianity is not one I am attracted to, but has been promulgated since the year "dot." See the espistle of Jude.

What I find especially offensive about Enns and his co-author is that they both proclaim themselves to be "normal i.e. orthodox Christians."  They are anything but.

        3  And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God         

So God will dwell here on earth with us or are you saying the bible is wrong.

For at least the third time, correlating this with Rev 21:1,2 shows that this is referring to the New Heavens and New Earth with the New Jerusalem.

https://bible.com/bible/59/rom.4.15.ESV

[davetaff]

Hi eik
Thank you for your reply you said

Wrath came before the written code. Are you denying it? What about Adam and Noah? Don't grasp your point.       

the only law Adam broke was eating from the tree of Knowledge and the penalty for that was death which happened and Adam was no more
but from Noah to Moses there was no Tree and there was no Law

Only if you disbelieve what the bible says. Clearly he didn't begin again, because everything remained created. The system righted itself after the flood. The people continued to breed. The law remained in place, perhaps enhanced by the recognition that now all homo sapiens were to be regarded as in God's image, whereas before it was only Adam's lineage.       

I have stated many times the only thing not on the ark was Man in the image of God and this was the only thing God needed to Create

perhaps enhanced by the recognition that now all homo sapiens wbut ere to be regarded as in God's image, whereas before it was only Adam's     

Where in scripture dose it say this

Only because your bible teachers tell you to believe that Adam and Eve are essentially mythical. Can't accept it, neither did Christ or the apostles. Adam and Eve are fundamental to apostolic theology.     

I don't have a teacher except the bible itself and I have never denied the existence of Adam and Eve and that were created in the Image of God what I have Said is that they were not one man and one woman  but were created in the same way as Christ and His Church.

 

It seems that you share a largely sceptical approach to the Old Testament, deeming it not particularly relevant, especially whatever pertains to what came before the written code of Israel.     

How on earth can you accuse me of something like that I believe the OT is vital for our understanding of Scripture of who God is and what he has done and what he is doing and what he will do in the future.

On the contrary, there are thousands of people who agree with me, which is the school of biblical literalism. There are millions of people whom will regards Enns as a heretic, that is, if they had heard of him. I have never heard of him before now. His brand of secular religion or sceptical Christianity is not one I am attracted to, but has been promulgated since the year "dot." See the espistle of Jude.     

If its just a question of the number of People that believe there are much larger groups than yours all believing different things that's why I say throw out everything that men say and get back to what God says.

 

For at least the third time, correlating this with Rev 21:1,2 shows that this is referring to the New Heavens and New Earth with the New Jerusalem.     

And for the the third time I say the new Heaven and earth and the new Jerusalem will be here on this Planet.

Love and Peace
Dave

[eik]

Hi eik
Thank you for your reply you said

the only law Adam broke was eating from the tree of Knowledge and the penalty for that was death which happened and Adam was no more
but from Noah to Moses there was no Tree and there was no Law

Of course there was law, but just not the written code. What about when God wiped out so many in the flood?

You're adopting a wantonly contentious attitude to the meaning of law, which has a far greater scope in the bible that just the written code, as in every legal system. Thus the "law of love" certainly existed long before Moses. Also natural law. Also common law.

As someone who has studied law at degree level, I can assure you that the meaning of "law" itself is far wider than mere "statutory law," which is what you posit.

In fact this is so inarguable that I would regard it as a heresy to deny the existence of law before Moses. What about the law of "one in flesh?"

The laws against murder and adultery were established long before Moses ever arrived on the scene, and throughout the ancient world.

I have stated many times the only thing not on the ark was Man in the image of God and this was the only thing God needed to Create Where in scripture dose it say this

It's unsupportable from scripture. I only just quoted you the passage: Genesis 9:5,6 "Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. ... "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."

I don't have a teacher except the bible itself and I have never denied the existence of Adam and Eve and that were created in the Image of God what I have Said is that they were not one man and one woman  but were created in the same way as Christ and His Church.

Can I suggest to you that you might want to find some plausible teachers whom aren't notorious liberal theologians, for it wasn't even given to Christ to work out everything himself (he sought the company of the teachers of the law at the temple). Try discovering a theologian's reputation before you read his works, because so many aren't worth the effort.

How on earth can you accuse me of something like that I believe the OT is vital for our understanding of Scripture of who God is and what he has done and what he is doing and what he will do in the future.

Neither Enns nor his co-author believe any such thing. The despise the OT. In fact they despise Christianity.

If its just a question of the number of People that believe there are much larger groups than yours all believing different things that's why I say throw out everything that men say and get back to what God says.

It's not a question of finding the largest common denominator but of finding a plausible school of orthodox theology that one can espouse. My personal preference is for Anglican / Presbyterian scholars of the latter end of the 19th century, such as Albert Barnes, Farrar and similar, and in the Expositor's Bible written towards the end of the 19th century. I try to avoid 20th century theologians like the plague. Exceptionally I find good ones on you tube, and on their web sites. But let me tell you that you're never going to discover the profundity of the bible without learning from others, and you won't learn anything from a liberal or a heretic except unbelief, because they only believe in themselves.

As for understanding the OT on a scientific, archaeological and historical basis, there are many great believing scholars such as Rohl. If you want to grasp that it is entirely historical, read his books.

And for the the third time I say the new Heaven and earth and the new Jerusalem will be here on this Planet.

2 Peter 3:10 "But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar, the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and its works will be laid bare. "

[davetaff]

Hi eik
Thank you for your reply you said

    Of course there was law, but just not the written code. What about when God wiped out so many in the flood?       

There may have been mens laws but there weren't any laws given by God except not to eat from the tree of knowledge with the flood God wiped the slate clean and began again that there was evil in the world before the flood is not in question.
But from Noah to moses  there was no law from God as attested to by St Paul.

     You're adopting a wantonly contentious attitude to the meaning of law, which has a far greater scope in the bible that just the written code, as in every legal system. Thus the "law of love" certainly existed long before Moses. Also natural law. Also common law   

The words law of love dose not appear in scripture although I use that expression to explain what our Lord said.

      30  And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

 31  And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these     

But these two laws dose not negate the law give to Moses it just gives us the best way to fulfil them.

    The laws against murder and adultery were established long before Moses ever arrived on the scene, and throughout the ancient world       

You will need to prove this statement from scripture the law given to Moses was given to Israel who is man in the image of God no one else and it is also applied to Chist and there is much more to the law as we can see from these verses.

      Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. View more

Mat 5:18 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 

         Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me       

It seams to me the law is a type of prophecy that has to be fulfilled

     It's unsupportable from scripture. I only just quoted you the passage: Genesis 9:5,6 "Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. ... "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man       

I have answered this this is speaking about man in Gods image which are Israel and Christ Israel killed Christ And Israel was killed by Rome.
We know that Christ is the last Adam so who is his Eve is it one woman or is his Eve his bride the church consisting of thousands of individuals if its the church then it stands to reason that one human man can not be in the image of God.

    Can I suggest to you that you might want to find some plausible teachers whom aren't notorious liberal theologians, for it wasn't even given to Christ to work out everything himself (he sought the company of the teachers of the law at the temple). Try discovering a theologian's reputation before you read his works, because so many aren't worth the effort     

I think Christ sought the teachers to teach them he did not need anyone to teach him I have the best teacher there is the word of God

    2 Peter 3:10 "But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar, the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and its works will be laid bare     

Can't see the relevance of this verse in dose not mean the earth will disappear jest means that everything will be open to our Lord.

Love and Peace
Dave

[eik]

Hi eik
Thank you for your reply you said

There may have been mens laws but there weren't any laws given by God except not to eat from the tree of knowledge with the flood God wiped the slate clean and began again that there was evil in the world before the flood is not in question.
But from Noah to moses  there was no law from God as attested to by St Paul.

Paul didn't attest that there was "no law" because he acknowledged the existence of sin. If there had been no law at all, there would have been no sin.

The law Paul is referring to in Rom 5:12 is the law that brings justification for obedience, and death for disobedience, i.e. the law of Moses. He is contrasting it with the position before this legal code, where sin still existed.

Rom 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

What he means by this is that there was no prescribed or imputed penalty for sin under a legal code, before the legal code came into existence. Yet there was still "sin" and there was still death, because there was still law.

The words law of love dose not appear in scripture although I use that expression to explain what our Lord said.

Gal 5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

      30  And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

 31  And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these     

But these two laws dose not negate the law give to Moses it just gives us the best way to fulfil them.

The law given to Moses was fulfilled in Christ, and has been replaced by the law of Christ (Gal 6:2), which is essentially the moral law found in the law of Moses, as you have indicated.

You will need to prove this statement from scripture the law given to Moses was given to Israel who is man in the image of God no one else and it is also applied to Chist and there is much more to the law as we can see from these verses.

Before I answer you will have to prove from scripture that "Israel  is man in the image of God no one else"

      Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. View more

Mat 5:18 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 

         Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me       

It seams to me the law is a type of prophecy that has to be fulfilled

I have answered this this is speaking about man in Gods image which are Israel and Christ Israel killed Christ And Israel was killed by Rome.

It seems that you have ignored at two clear biblical statements given to, or stated of, Adam and Noah that mankind itself is made in God's image, which it seems you repudiate, which effectively is a repudiation of the pre-Israelite OT.

We know that Christ is the last Adam so who is his Eve is it one woman or is his Eve his bride the church consisting of thousands of individuals if its the church then it stands to reason that one human man can not be in the image of God.

What you say is easily disproved by Heb 1:3, where just one man, Christ, was described as the facsimile of God's being.

I think Christ sought the teachers to teach them he did not need anyone to teach him I have the best teacher there is the word of God

That's not the point. The point is that as you are fallible, so your interpretations may be too, as are your teachers.

Can't see the relevance of this verse in dose not mean the earth will disappear jest means that everything will be open to our Lord.

Fire does usually destroy. May be you just can't accept what you find in the bible. It's quite common today.

[davetaff]

Hi eik
Thank you for your reply that sin has been in the world from the beginning until now is not in question all Paul is saying with

    Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. View more

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law       

Were there is no law there is no transgression of the law or in other words you cannot brake the law unless you you know what the law says.

    17  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

 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         

Seams to me the law is alive and kicking

    Before I answer you will have to prove from scripture that "Israel  is man in the image of God no one else         

         Hos 12:13 And by a prophet the LORD brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved   

          Mat 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son     

Both Christ and Israel were called out of Egypt and both are God's sons Israel in the flesh Christ in the Spirit and as such they are the image of the Father.

       3  Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high       

Man in the image of God is man and woman united

  24  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh         

         Fire does usually destroy. May be you just can't accept what you find in the bible. It's quite common today   

I believe every word of scripture I may not understand them all as for fire

        Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire     

So maybe Gods fire has a good purpose

Love and Peace
Dave