forgiven1

You don't seem to have gotten the context of what the guy was saying. He wasn't a Jew hater, he was just pointing out some aspects of how Israel operates on political and covert levels mainly. Do you think Israel is as pure as the driven snow. Of course they aren't, no government is. The Massad is as notorious as any other covert agency. Also he pointed out that according to the intelligence at the time, those Kurds in Halabja were collateral damage of the war with Iran because both sides were using chemical weapons at the time and there was a battle in the Halabja area and the Kurds got gassed. He said the condition of the bodies showed the kind of gas used and it was actually Iranian gas of a kind Iraq did not have. The investigation was never pursued. Now, I can't prove that but I would hope this man being the CIA political analyst for Iraq at the time would have a whole lot better intelligence on the matter than you or I would and those were his conclusions after having seen the intelligence for the matter. Anyway, it's common knowledge where Saddam got most of his chemical weapons to fight Iran with, America. Anti semetic is much too loose a term these days if it means you are not to criticise the government of Israel. The war is mainly about geo-political advantage, oil, and protecting Israel. I don't think that's any secret.

How so? What I'm asking you is, if you don't believe in democracy, why do you think Iraq and Afghanistan need it and also pointed out that it is basically being forced on them. Well, Bush is wrong and the war is wrong so I would say yes, it's wrong, especially for Christians who should be folowing Christ not worldly governments and their wars in pursuit of hegemony. I didn't bash anybody, just beliefs, ideas, and actions. If you want to see that as personal that's up to you.

Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? You don't believe in democracy? No, I don't. I think democracy works ONLY if the people hold to a moral basis. If they hold to an immoral basis, then democracy is worthless. A perfect example is Palestine where a majority of the people voted for a terrorist organization. Majority does not equal "right." So, if democracy doesn't work, why cram it down people's throats at the point of a gun? Is that the morals you are speaking about?

Check out what this CIA political analyst for Iraq, who received all the intelligence at the time, has to say about Halabja. It's a ways into the movie. Saddam had lots of enemies in the region that he had to fight against as any government would but answer me this. If it was Wrong for Saddam to invade Kuwait, why was it ok for America to invade Iraq when Iraq was absolutely no immediate threat to the US? Doesn't that fact make the US a rogue nation. That's not even mentioning the countless other invasions and covert opperations to undermine other governments that were no immediate threat. Freedom and democracy are not excuses to do wickedly or you are no better than any other wicked and power hungry government.

And Saddam posed a threat to the United States in 2003 how? Hi Forrest, My point was not the legitimacy or not of the invasion. Saddam posed a threat to the region and possibly the world, just as Iran does now, and we had the excuse of 9/11 to take him out so we acted on it. In general the region is better without him than with him, although we can debate that. I personally don't think it was a good idea, BUT it did happen. My point was that we did our military job back in 2003, after that we put ourselves in the midst of a Nation Building exercise in the middle of a civil war, not something that is a wise thing. The bizarre thing is I am so surprised that conservatives would be so happy with nation building; it is something that they specifically spoke of not wanting to do anymore and I think many conservatives including myself are still against this sort of forign entanglement. We couldn't solve Haiti's problems; we sure as heck are not going to solve the problems of the various people who live in Iraq. I say let them fight it out. If Iran gains too much power we can go back in and deal with them later but I don

Here's a truthful account of one marine. http://www.archive.org/details/JoelOyer_MarineInIraq The truth is, there is much more to the war in Iraq than the buzz words of freedom and democracy. This war is actually making the world a much more dangerous place. The country was much more peaceful under Saddam, all the schools were open then, things were stable, the price of oil was stable, the world was a much more peaceful, there was no Al queda operating in Iraq, Sunni and Shia lived at peace. The country did not threaten America at all, that was a farce. This was a self serving war but it has blown back in America's face. It's so obviously about oil and domination it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Russia and China will not allow American domination of the world's resources to go unchallenged and even now all sides are gearing up for a big fight that'll make Iraq look like kid's play. It won't be long now, the endtime is unfolding according to prophecy.

Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? You don't believe in democracy?

We are unworthy in ourselves. It's only Jesus' forgiveness that makes us worthy, not ourselves. I think that's what people mean when they say unworthy.

You know, just because Elizabeth is Christian (if she is) doesn't mean she's right. I think most people in the world see more validity to Rosie's arguments than the pro Bush, pro war, flag waving patriotism, and anti Muslim bent of most of the religious right. There are plenty of loud and rude proponents of the religious right as well, such as Anne Coulter. I don't agree with Rosie on lifestyle but I think some of what she says has merit. This isn't an attack, just an observation. I'm not looking for a fight. I hope Elizabeth doesn't frequent this board or I'm in big trouble.

I don't know but she seems very republican.

Well it looks like this is how the law IS being characterized in that verse. What else could "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" be? It's pretty clear that it's the law being called "the ministration of death" which it says was "abolished" by Christ. I would tell her that Christ and a life of service to Him is the answer and that witchcraft would not make her happy or fill her need like Christ can. It's clear that witchcraft is not serving to God and is not submission to God through the Holy Spirit. David's frame of reference may have been the old law, but I can easily look at the Psalm in terms of the new law.

Verses 3 and 7 are direct references to the the 10 commandments so they are definitely talking about the law. Here's some more scriptures: Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Boy, you are really hung up on this animal sex thing aren't you. Your argument is really quite redundant though because that isn't likely to happen. But answer me this, if someone was to do that, do you think they should be stoned for it? That is most likely what the law would say. Yes....and no. We already do things quite contrary to many aspects of the Torah as Christians because they just don't apply any longer. Does anyone still consider their wife unclean if she have an issue of blood? Stoned any sinners lately? Do you eat bacon? Got any graven images around the house? Matthew 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. The Pharisees thought this contradicted God's Word but Jesus said they were in error. Contradiction of God's Word could mean different things to different people as is quite evident by the various doctrinal positions of believers. In actuality, no, the Spirit would never would never contradict God's word, but it might seem like that to some people, especially legalists. 2 Corinthians 3:1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? 2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; 6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. 12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. 17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. This sounds pretty antagonistic to the Torah to me, more proof it is done away. All of the above.

To have sex with an animal? Why wouldn't the Spirit? After all, if He leads me away from having sex with the animal, He's upholding the Law. So why would he object to me doing something that isn't forbidden in the New Testament? Well, the Spirit has led people to do some pretty funny things I guess! I never said there was no law or that there aren't any similar concepts in the new law, but the law in the old testament was very different in many ways and it was necessary that the law be changed. The difference now is that it is the Holy Spirit in us that teaches us to walk in God''s ways.

Wow! So would this include Christian conversion? It just might, in which case it would be an antichrist law.

The verses you were looking for are in Acts 15 and it is correct that they were trying to not offend the Jewish believers who thought they had to keep the laws of Moses. I agree with the others who said it is impossible to get all blood out of meat and I don't really think that is what is meant. When you bleed an animal it is mainly the blood in the circulatory system that is bled off. The meat has blood still. I believe what makes a meat Kosher is more in how it is prepared and Kosher meat still has some blood in it. In actuality, Kosher meat isn't different than non Kosher, it's just that it has been prepared according to the law and certified as such and isn't a forbidden meat such as pork or whatever. Eating brined meat all the time could also be very bad for your health being very high in sodium. I think as long as the meat is well cooked and any impurities in the blood present is killed, you are ok. I definitely wouldn't recommend eating raw meat or drinking blood.

I had too many quotes so I switched to color to do the quotes. Ummm, that's probably not a good idea apothanein! Well, do you think the Spirit would lead believers to do such a thing? Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Well thanks for proving that the commandment (law) concerning the Priesthood was changed. Duh? That is what we've been saying all along in this thread....The law concerning the priesthood has changed. That is all the passage is showing. The priesthood changed because Christ fulfilled the law proving that only God is righteous so we don't need the old law for righteousness anymore, because we have Christ's righteousness. Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Jesus - 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Paul - Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. Jesus did fulfill the law, he accomplished the task, so now the law can pass away, or I should say has. It hadn't yet been accomplished when Jesus spoke this as he had not yet been sacrificed. We establish the new law through faith in Christ's righteousness. 19And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. 26Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. What was happening here is that they were worried about the concision so they talked Paul into not doing anything that would offend them and it was for the same reason they counseled the gentiles in this manner. They were afraid of persecution. This part shows that: Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses for they will hear that thou art come Do therefore this that we say to thee: Why would they need to counsel Paul if He was already odedient to the law? He would already be doing these things. If you notice, the protest was not whether Paul was teaching Gentiles to disobey the law, but whether he was teaching jews to. But why would he counsel anyone to if the law was still in effect? "the spirit" of the Law is what is important. How can that be if the Law is void? Jesus said that the Holy Ghost would lead us into all truth, it would teach us all things, it would be IN us, in our minds and hearts. Think about that! The point I am making is that the terms "Torah" and "Covenant" are not interchangable and the Bible does not use the interchanably. You might try to use them that way, but the Bible does not. Right! The Torah does not contain the Covenant, but the Covenant did contain the Torah. The Mosaic Covenant was an conditional covenant unlike other covenants such as the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant, which are unconditional. The Mosaic Covenant was conditional in that it provided the conditions which were necessary for the children Israel to enjoy the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant. Right, but Christ is also the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant and all believers in Christ are children of the covenant. The New Testament brings all believers into the Abrahamic covenant. God is renewing His covenant with the houses of Israel and the Judah, but it will not be like the one made before. Right, it's called the New Covenant and they don't have to keep the law for righteousness, they just need to believe on the Messiah and His righteousness. This is the point all along. For you to expand the meaning to the entire Torah, is not hermeneutically sound and violates basic rules of sound biblical interpretation. Christ said the Spirit would teach us and be in us so biblical interpretation does not depend on hermenuetics, it depends on the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of the law itself. That's our teacher and guide, not a bunch of commandments from the old testament.

Whoa! Long thread! I'm new to the thread so I really can't go through all this but I will state my position. I would say going by just these two choices, I would be 80% Arminian and 20 % Calvin. Didn't agree with Arminian over the possibility to lose salvation, I agree more with Calvin on eternal security, but not on the other points. Since there are 5 points in each position, giving each point 20% is how I arrived at my decision. Unfortunately, there wasn't the 80/20% option in the poll so I didn't vote.

Point out one that says they're not. I already did, but here's another: Hebrews 7:11-12 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. that says the law concerning the priesthood has changed. Your point is? I could have almost predicted a response like this. You know it's talking about THE law. The changing of the priesthood is a done deal, it has been changed already in this verse, and it says that makes a change of the law necessary also. It's also pointing out how Christ's priesthood was not according to the law signifying a big change of the law. The change of priesthood is indicitive of the law being changed. Hebrews 7:14 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. Hebrews 7:16 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. Hebrews 7:18-19 18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Point out one that says they're not. I already did, but here's another: Hebrews 7:11-12 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

No, that is not what it says. It says the new covenant that God will be make will not be like covenant made with the fathers. It does not say that the Torah will be different. It says God will write the commandments on their hearts, which is more of an esoteric way of saying that the power to keep God's commandments will come from within, in other words it alludes to the power of the Holy Spirit enabling the believer to live out the commandments. No, it is not "tit for tat." You are off subject by bringing up Christian Zionism. That is not the subject under discussion. If you want to complain about Christian start another thread. Well, what did God mean by "they continued not in my covenant" or whatever. He was saying they are not obeying the law and doing what they were supposed to do. I don't see how you can talk about the covenant without including the law as a part of it. I'm not complaining, just pointing out that if you can say that's what I'm doing, free speech runs both ways. Here's what you said and then let's leave it at that. Please post a definitive scripture from the new testament pointing out that the old law is still in effect, not one that has to be interpreted to mean that but speaks plainly.

Well, that's just a little old tit for tat. In the earlier discussion I was told much the same thing so it was just a little reminder that Christian Zionism is not immune to such temptations. What New testament scriptures say the Torah as it was passed down is still the law for believers today? Something definitive and not interpretive. The law written in the heart is not definitive but interpretative because as I pointed out, scripture says the law written in the heart is not according to the one given to Moses.

So if the law is so good and righteous and everlasting, how come so many aspects of it no longer apply. What you are really saying is that we now have a new revised edition, but in fact it is no longer the same Torah. The New testament does not in fact teach that the Torah is still in effect. That is in fact an interpretation to fit the Zionist doctrine. What the Bible teaches is that we now have a New Covenant established on better promises with new commandments of love. John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. It does mean the same thing in the original language, a new commandment.

Whether the point being made concerns atonement or not, the word used is covenant and the implication is that the new covenant does away with the old. It means what it says. I totally understand the atonement, but there is more to the change of covenant than just that. I think this sums it up. Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. If we are no longer under the schoolmaster (law) then it is in fact null and void. Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; Meaning what? Love fulfills the law! Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Therefore love IS the law now and takes precedence over the old law.

Right, but if you notice just before that He says "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers" and also before that "finding fault with them". It also says " because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. " So if God found the law faulty and nobody obeyed it and He said He would change the covenant, why would He just repeat the old by leaving it the same and writing it in our hearts that way? It says a new covenant and the old vanishes away. It's really very plain. Well this is really just an interpretation. It looks to me like it is talking about more than just atonement because it says covenant. Read it again because if you take what I posted literally, it means what it says, the old vanishes away You are misquoting me here because I never said to throw out 2 thirds of the Bible. The Torah is mainly the first five books but there is also the prophets, psalms, proverbs, and the whole New testament so I don't think the Torah even comprises 2 thirds. The old law is contained in the Torah but not all the Torah is exclusively law. There is a lot of good history and reference there such as the creation story, Tower of Babel, tthe flood, etc; and we can learn lots of things from it. The only thing I said passed away is the law and the covenant but even those are useful as historical reference. Jesus said all the law and teachings of the prophets is fulfilled by love. It's the law of Christ that God has written in our hearts not the old law that was flawed.