Originally posted by FabianFnaswith all due respect oh great teacher, the Bible itself states it was written by Moses, the reference i gave is in the post above, nor have I any reason to doubt its authenticity. there are literaly hundreds of references, from the Bible, both Hebrew and Greek scriptures which testify to this. internal Biblical chronology can testify to it date of authorship, and i would like to see any other contemporary Law, which has a moral code akin to that of the Law given to Moses, if it is reflective of the 'Laws', at the time.
In my sources, the author is unknown, also the dating of when it's actually is written. What is your source?
I say it's written of some dignitary, writing the present laws and rules of that time. If it was written by Moses, it should be red The lord said to me, but instead it says The Lord spoke to Moses. Comments?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, then we have a circular proof. If Darwin writes he is right, is this in itself a proof that evolution theory is correct? Of course not.
with all due respect oh great teacher, the Bible itself states it was written by Moses, the reference i gave is in the post above, nor have I any reason to doubt its authenticity. there are literaly hundreds of references, from the Bible, both Hebrew and Greek scriptures which testify to this. internal Biblical chronology can testify to it date of a ...[text shortened]... l code akin to that of the Law given to Moses, if it is reflective of the 'Laws', at the time.
If we can read in the bible that the bible is correct...? No, don't use this circular argument. You know better than this, my dear pupil.
If you dispute this, then I write that I'm right, and therefore I'm right because I just write so, and I am right, am I not? Right? 🙂
No, let's be serious again.
We don't know when and by whom the Leviticus was written.
'These are the commandments that Jehovah gave Moses as commands to the sons of Israel in Mount Sinai'. Right, okay.
...to the sons of Israel. But I'm not son of Israel, you're not, the jews claims they are but cannot confirm it, so was this a message to me, to you, or to whom?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieScholarly consensus does however contest the tradition of Mosaic authorship of the Torah.
with all due respect oh great teacher, the Bible itself states it was written by Moses, the reference i gave is in the post above, nor have I any reason to doubt its authenticity. there are literaly hundreds of references, from the Bible, both Hebrew and Greek scriptures which testify to this. internal Biblical chronology can testify to it date of a ...[text shortened]... l code akin to that of the Law given to Moses, if it is reflective of the 'Laws', at the time.
I would like to correct the misunderstanding of some that the Bible teaches that a homosexual person cannot have eternal redemption. But this will be brief.
All manner of sins will be forgiven men and women. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sins. Therefore whether a thief, a kidnapper, an extortioner, a fornicator, an adulteror, a drunkard, etc. all may be redeemed by Jesus Christ for eternal life.
Having said that (briefly) three times Paul warns the Christians that disciples who persist in certain sins will not inherit the kingdom of God. These three passages are Galatians 5:19 - 21; 1 Corinthians 1:6-9; Ephesians 5:5.
Without going into a verbose post, my understanding of these three passages has long been and remains until convinced otherwise, of these points:
1.) Christians who are not delivered in thier characters from these (PLURAL) sins (of which homosexuality is just one mentioned among many), are in a condition which will preclude them from reigning with Christ when He returns to establish the earthly manifestation of His kingdom.
Remember, the prayer Jesus taught "Your kingdom COME, your will be done on earth even as it is in heaven". There is the kingdom "in heaven" and the kingdom which we pray will COME to be "on earth"
2.) A sinner may be saved from eternal perdition yet not allowed to gain the reward to reign with Christ in that earthly portion of His kingdom. Some Christians will not receive this reward but nonetheless will be saved "yet so as through fire".
"If anyone's work which he has built upon the foundation remains, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is consumed, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, YET SO AS THROUGH FIRE" (1 Cor. 3:14,15)
4.) The New Testament teaches that I may be saved from eternal perdition and receive the gift of eternal life, yet lose the reward of reigning with Christ on earth in the kingdom of God. I could "suffer loss" but myself be saved "yet so as through fire".
The kingdom of God as a reward to developed and matured followers of Jesus is temporary, lasting 1000 years. The new heaven and new earth and New Jerusalem is not temporary but eternal.
Basically what I am saying is that Christians who are defeated by (or being):
habitual fornication,
habitual uncleaness,
habitual greediness,
habitual idolator, (As per Eph. 5)
habitual fornication
habitual idolatry
habitual adultery
habitual homosexuality
habitual thiefs
habitual coveteousness
habitual drunkards
habitual revilers
habitual rapaciousness (as per 1 Cor. 6)
habitual fornicators
habitual uncleaness
habitual lasciviousness,
habitual idolators
habitual sorcerers
habitual persons with enmities
habitual giveness to strife
habitual giveness to jealousy
habitual giveness to outbursts of anger
habitual proneness to creating factions
habitual propensity to be divisive
habitual weakness of sectarianess
habitual giveness to envy
habitual weakness for bouts of drunkeness
habitual carouser
and "THINGS LIKE THESE" (per Galatians 5)
will cause a eternally saved Christian to be punished, disciplined, chastized, or otherwise corrected by God for a period of not more than 1,000 years while Christ rewards His overcoming saints with the millennial kingdom on the earth.
I use the word "habitual" because I don't think the Apostle meant falling into a sin once or twice as a weakness. I think he means failing to allow Jesus to foundamentally transform one from these continued habits.
Originally posted by jaywillinteresting concept. any source books for that? I would be interested in further study.
I would like to correct the misunderstanding of some that the Bible teaches that a homosexual person cannot have eternal redemption. But this will be brief.
All manner of sins will be forgiven men and women. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sins. Therefore whether a thief, a kidnapper, an extortioner, a fornicator, an adulteror, a drunkard, ...[text shortened]... to allow Jesus to foundamentally transform one from these continued habits.
Originally posted by duecerThe King and the Kingdom of the Heavens Watchman Nee
interesting concept. any source books for that? I would be interested in further study.
The Judgment Seat of Christ D.M. Panton
The Life Study of Matthew Witness Lee
The Kingdom Witness Lee
God's Plan for the Overcomers Watchman Nee
Robert Govett on Ephesians Robert Govett
Robert Govett on Galatians Robert Govett
Reward According to Works Robert Govett
Write me an email and I can send you a copy of The Judgment Seat of Christ by D.M. Panton. I have two copies. I'd be glad to send you one free.
Originally posted by FabianFnasno its not circular reasoning, you have stated that you do not know who wrote the scriptures, i have stated that it was Moses, citing the Bible as my authority, you have not cited any source, you have asserted that it was reflective of the Laws of the time, yet you have produced no evidence that there was any other contemporary Law which was akin to the mosaic Law in nature, in fact, to do so, you will also need to find a contemporary law which included the moral precept that homosexuality should be a capital offence, until you do so, dear teacher, the onus of proof rests with you, for you have, as yet, not substantiated one of your claims.
Well, then we have a circular proof. If Darwin writes he is right, is this in itself a proof that evolution theory is correct? Of course not.
If we can read in the bible that the bible is correct...? No, don't use this circular argument. You know better than this, my dear pupil.
If you dispute this, then I write that I'm right, and therefore I'm right claims they are but cannot confirm it, so was this a message to me, to you, or to whom?
Originally posted by Conrau Kthankyou, it is a very salient point however scholarly consensus is generally unreliable and often conflictual or unfounded or substantiated on the flimsiest of precepts, i prefer to cite the Bible as my authority.
Scholarly consensus does however contest the tradition of Mosaic authorship of the Torah.
Originally posted by jaywillPaul states Jaywill , as you are very well aware, that persons desiring to live in harmony with divine principles, need to be 'washed clean in the blood of the lamb'.
I would like to correct the misunderstanding of some that the Bible teaches that a homosexual person cannot have eternal redemption. But this will be brief.
All manner of sins will be forgiven men and women. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sins. Therefore whether a thief, a kidnapper, an extortioner, a fornicator, an adulteror, a drunkard, ...[text shortened]... to allow Jesus to foundamentally transform one from these continued habits.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI wrote "We don't know when and by whom the Leviticus was written.", not that I don't know. With 'we' I mean of course the humankind. I don't know, you don't know, noone knows.
no its not circular reasoning, you have stated that you do not know who wrote the scriptures, i have stated that it was Moses, citing the Bible as my authority, you have not cited any source, you have asserted that it was reflective of the Laws of the time, yet you have produced no evidence that there was any other contemporary Law which was akin to ...[text shortened]... r, the onus of proof rests with you, for you have, as yet, not substantiated one of your claims.
Please, don't use retorical tricks. That's not serious. Then I can easily quit this lesson, dear pupil, and you will not learn anything.
It's circular resoning, or self-referenting system. I showed you examples of circular reasonings, didn't you read it? You should do it. Reread what I did write, and we can go further. That's the homework until you answer this posting as a confirmation that you have understood my words.
You don't seem to want my teaching, because you aregue against my teaching. This is not serious behavious by a pupil. Do you want me to continue, or don't you?
Originally posted by FabianFnasi want evidence, so far, i am looking at a centre of a doughnut! if you want me to remain in Fabians school for exceptionally gifted theologians then you better make with the readies, substantiate your claims or at very least, refute mine, both of which amount to the same thing! or if you think i am being irreverent, give me a punishment exercise.
I wrote "We don't know when and by whom the Leviticus was written.", not that I don't know. With 'we' I mean of course the humankind. I don't know, you don't know, noone knows.
Please, don't use retorical tricks. That's not serious. Then I can easily quit this lesson, dear pupil, and you will not learn anything.
It's circular resoning, or self-referen is is not serious behavious by a pupil. Do you want me to continue, or don't you?