Isnt it amazing....

[creativemechanic]

https://www.gotquestions.org/temple-veil-torn.html

 

Here it is

[missmuffet]

1 hour ago, daughterofGrace said:

Oh, yes!  We can all twist the Word of God to justify our own sins, eh?  Been there, done that. 

I have also noticed that some people like to say "God told me this" to people who are in disagreement with them.  I think they use it as a conversation-stopper.  They're saying, "You can't argue with me because God told me to do this and if you continue arguing with me then, really, you're arguing with God.  So you better just stop and leave me alone."

And yet, they can be doing and saying things completely opposite to God's Word so we know they aren't hearing from God.

Has anybody else noticed that?

 

That is true to justify their own actions. But God knows everyone's heart. They will be judged for that in the end.

[PlanetChee]

1 hour ago, creativemechanic said:

 Ok with reference to the things being passed away,  Hebrews 8 :13  is one such verse referring to the passing of the old covenant and certain things related to it. Ill find the rest and add asap.

Bu your line of thinking is basically over complicating simple issues- its the same line of thinking that people use to justify sins such as homosexuality- paul wasnt talking about homosexuals, if u check the historical context they men male prostitutes etc.

 Remember 2 Timothy 3:16. all scripture. If some verses were only applicable to a particular people and a particualr time , why would they be included without a specification.

Mentalities like that erases the pick up and understand simplicity of the Bible that allowed  millions of people over the centuries to learn and understand it.

 

 

Hebrewa 8:13

Pagan male temple prostitutes were homosexual. And they cross dressed. 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, creativemechanic said:

 Ok with reference to the things being passed away,  Hebrews 8 :13  is one such verse referring to the passing of the old covenant and certain things related to it. Ill find the rest and add asap.

The Old Covenant became obsolete.   But we still have the same elements that it contained.   The Old Covenant is not the law.  The law did not pass away or become obsolete.  Rather what we have a better priesthood a better High Priest, better blood and a better sacrifice, if you read Hebrews correctly.    We have a better, new covenant, but it still contains all of the elements that were under the older covenant.  They are simply better because they are expressed in Christ.  

As for Gentiles, they were never under the OC to start with.  Hebrews is written to Jewish people, not Gentiles.

Quote

Bu your line of thinking is basically over complicating simple issues- its the same line of thinking that people use to justify sins such as homosexuality- paul wasnt talking about homosexuals, if u check the historical context they men male prostitutes etc.

No, they don't use my line of thinking at all.   My line of thinking does not lead to the conclusions they draw.  I am familiar with their line of thinking and they employ a completely different line of reasoning that begins with denying the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture.   From there, they misrepresent the Greek and Hebrew words and assign false meanings in an attempt to exploit the fact that most in their audience don't know enough to fact check their misuse of the original languages.    They make up cultural facts that are not true; basically they lie.

So their line of thinking isn't like mine, at all and you are apparently lacking in understanding of their line of thinking.

Quote

Remember 2 Timothy 3:16. all scripture. If some verses were only applicable to a particular people and a particualr time , why would they be included without a specification.

All Scripture is relevant, but not all Scripture is applicable.  There are things like the "holy kiss" that are not applicable in our day.  There is a difference between applicability and relevance.   The OT sacrifices are relevant to us, but they are not applicable to us.  

If all Scripture is applicable, then should you cut off your and/or dig your eye out of it's socket when you sin, like Jesus commanded, or is their a better way to understand that commandment?   Do you think Jesus meant for us to cut off our body parts when we sin and walk around maimed?   

All Scripture is relevant to us because their are spiritual lessons we can glean even if every part of Scripture isn't meant to be applicable to all people.

Quote

Mentalities like that erases the pick up and understand simplicity of the Bible that allowed  millions of people over the centuries to learn and understand it.

There is simplicity in the Bible, but the Bible is not simple-minded.   The Bible is simple, but it is meant to be studied and searched out.  Your approach doesn't take into account the cultural and historical aspects of the text of Scripture.   God did not circumvent those things when He inspired Scripture.

[creativemechanic]

 

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

The Old Covenant became obsolete.   But we still have the same elements that it contained.   The Old Covenant is not the law.  The law did not pass away or become obsolete.  Rather what we have a better priesthood a better High Priest, better blood and a better sacrifice, if you read Hebrews correctly.    We have a better, new covenant, but it still contains all of the elements that were under the older covenant.  They are simply better because they are expressed in Christ.  

As for Gentiles, they were never under the OC to start with.  Hebrews is written to Jewish people, not Gentiles.

No, they don't use my line of thinking at all.   My line of thinking does not lead to the conclusions they draw.  I am familiar with their line of thinking and they employ a completely different line of reasoning that begins with denying the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture.   From there, they misrepresent the Greek and Hebrew words and assign false meanings in an attempt to exploit the fact that most in their audience don't know enough to fact check their misuse of the original languages.    They make up cultural facts that are not true; basically they lie.

So their line of thinking isn't like mine, at all and you are apparently lacking in understanding of their line of thinking.

All Scripture is relevant, but not all Scripture is applicable.  There are things like the "holy kiss" that are not applicable in our day.  There is a difference between applicability and relevance.   The OT sacrifices are relevant to us, but they are not applicable to us.  

If all Scripture is applicable, then should you cut off your and/or dig your eye out of it's socket when you sin, like Jesus commanded, or is their a better way to understand that commandment?   Do you think Jesus meant for us to cut off our body parts when we sin and walk around maimed?   

All Scripture is relevant to us because their are spiritual lessons we can glean even if every part of Scripture isn't meant to be applicable to all people.

There is simplicity in the Bible, but the Bible is not simple-minded.   The Bible is simple, but it is meant to be studied and searched out.  Your approach doesn't take into account the cultural and historical aspects of the text of Scripture.   God did not circumvent those things when He inspired Scripture.

suuuureee it does.Well this is going in circles. Until led otherwise i willtake the scripture at face value. Whatsoever it commands unless  specified in scripture as being  passed eg old covenant and sacrificial system of worship I'll try to obey including  Paul's letters. Following that  logic a huge chunk of scripture  is today inapplicable. 

[Guest shiloh357]

5 hours ago, creativemechanic said:

 

suuuureee it does.Well this is going in circles. Until led otherwise i willtake the scripture at face value.
 

Really?   Face-value?  So when Jesus says to cut your hand off when you sin, you're going to do that?    When Paul says to greet one another with a holy kiss, you're going to go kiss all the men at your church?

Taking Scripture at face value is what leads to false doctrine and incoherent theology.  A face value approach isn't the same as taking the Bible literally.   It is a wooden subjective approach to the Bible that leads to an abuse of Scripture and legalism, as well.   These groups that control how long your hair is, that say that it is a sin to wear a wedding ring or jewelry, that say it is a sin to wear cologne, or that force women to wear only certain kinds of clothing, that make it a sin to listen to music their leaders don't like, are the ones taking the Bible "at face-value."   They are the ones steeped in legalism, that won't let their church members take medicine 'cause it's "sorcery."  

Yeah, your face-value approach is really a nonsensical legalistic approach to the Bible that is both shallow and not subject to the moving of the Holy Spirit.  You will be led by "A" spirit, but it won't be the Holy Spirit.

Quote

Whatsoever it commands unless  specified in scripture as being  passed eg old covenant and sacrificial system of worship I'll try to obey including  Paul's letters.

Yeah, well let me know how the men at your church feel about you giving them, and/or their wives a kiss.

Your approach is irresponsible, internally inconsistent,  and impossible to actually carry out, given a shallow understanding of what biblical interpretation is.

Quote

Following that  logic a huge chunk of scripture  is today inapplicable. 

Only the parts that are not doctrinal in nature, which is what you don't understand.   You still  don't understand the difference between what is applicable and what is relevant. 

[creativemechanic]

By face value I mean taking  the bibles commands as the word of God which must be obeyed whether  figuratively (if th right hand offend thee)or literally  (thou shalt not commit adultery).

While I have to check up on the meaning of a holy kiss. What you are doing is different. You're basically taking someone's else's perspective  (whatever theories you were taught in hermeneutics) and using them to say which parts of scripture  must be disregarded. Sounds alot like the whole philosophies of men which we were warned about.  

22 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The Old Covenant became obsolete.   But we still have the same elements that it contained.   The Old Covenant is not the law.  The law did not pass away or become obsolete.  Rather what we have a better priesthood a better High Priest, better blood and a better sacrifice, if you read Hebrews correctly.    We have a better, new covenant, but it still contains all of the elements that were under the older covenant.  They are simply better because they are expressed in Christ.  

As for Gentiles, they were never under the OC to start with.  Hebrews is written to Jewish people, not Gentiles.

No, they don't use my line of thinking at all.   My line of thinking does not lead to the conclusions they draw.  I am familiar with their line of thinking and they employ a completely different line of reasoning that begins with denying the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture.   From there, they misrepresent the Greek and Hebrew words and assign false meanings in an attempt to exploit the fact that most in their audience don't know enough to fact check their misuse of the original languages.    They make up cultural facts that are not true; basically they lie.

So their line of thinking isn't like mine, at all and you are apparently lacking in understanding of their line of thinking.

All Scripture is relevant, but not all Scripture is applicable.  There are things like the "holy kiss" that are not applicable in our day.  There is a difference between applicability and relevance.   The OT sacrifices are relevant to us, but they are not applicable to us.  

If all Scripture is applicable, then should you cut off your and/or dig your eye out of it's socket when you sin, like Jesus commanded, or is their a better way to understand that commandment?   Do you think Jesus meant for us to cut off our body parts when we sin and walk around maimed?   

All Scripture is relevant to us because their are spiritual lessons we can glean even if every part of Scripture isn't meant to be applicable to all people.

There is simplicity in the Bible, but the Bible is not simple-minded.   The Bible is simple, but it is meant to be studied and searched out.  Your approach doesn't take into account the cultural and historical aspects of the text of Scripture.   God did not circumvent those things when He inspired Scripture.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, creativemechanic said:

By face value I mean taking  the bibles commands as the word of God which must be obeyed whether  figuratively (if th right hand offend thee)or literally  (thou shalt not commit adultery).
 

LOL, then you're not taking it at face value. Clearly you don't understand how to apply the terms you are using, in a theological setting.   I realize that we need to obey the commands given to us in Scripture.   

But it is a theological fact, that Paul is writing to two audiences.  He is writing to the original audience that had questions and he answered their questions.   But he also has a greater audience that includes us.   We are not living in Corinth.  We don't face the same unique  challenges they faced.   So naturally, some of Paul's advice to them is not going to apply to us given we are not living in their situtation.  That  is just common sense.

Quote

While I have to check up on the meaning of a holy kiss. What you are doing is different. You're basically taking someone's else's perspective  (whatever theories you were taught in hermeneutics) and using them to say which parts of scripture  must be disregarded. Sounds alot like the whole philosophies of men which we were warned about.  

I never said that there is any part of the Bible should be disregarded.  I said that all of the Bible is relevant, but we cannot apply all of it to our lives, as it addresses problems that we are not facing and situations that are not part of our current experience.   We can and should study the whole Bible and learn from all of it, but not every physical command was meant for all people.   Sometimes, there are commands that only apply to original audience.  That is something every competent theologian will tell you.

As for the holy kiss, it was customary in the first century for men to kiss each other on the cheek in greeting.   Today, you would probably get punched or at least severely reprimanded if you tried that in a church today.