Sabbath Observance: 3 Views

[Guest]

I am certainly no defender of homosexuality. But I do take issue with the Online Bible's definition of "porneia" which Homer quoted.

NIV Theological Dictionary:

porneuo, porne, pornos, porneia
"This word group describes various extramarital sexual modes of behavior insofar as they deviate from accepted social and religious norms (.e.g., homosexuality, promiscuity, pedophilia, and esp. prostitution)."

Theological Dictionary, Kittel (abridged):

"Later Judaism (prior to Christ) shows how the use of porneia broadens out to include not only fornication or adultery but incest, sodomy, unlawful marriage, and sexual intercourse in general."

Paidion, it makes discussion with you difficult when you have your own personal lexicon that disagrees with most all those we have access to (as in aionios). You can argue 'till the cows come home and we can never prove you wrong!

[Guest]

Hello dmatic,

Now I'm curious again. Do you keep kosher?

Michelle

Hi MicheleM,
If by "kosher", you are referring to God's instructions as to what we should eat....the answer would be yes! Thanks for asking .

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Thank you STEVE7150 for the list, but after a quick look, I am not aware of any that are in disagreement with anything from the law of Moses. I'm not sure I understand your point, in other words.

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Homer, If i may, I'd like to continue my answer to your previous post regarding your opinion that the Law of Moses has been put away, or otherwise abolished.

I think I answered your dilema of the "food" laws.

As mentioned previously, the word translated into "ordinances" in Eph.2:15 is from the greek word "dogma", #1378 Strong's, which according to Strong's primarily denotes an opinion, or judgment (of men?), hence, an opinion expressed with authority, a doctrine, ordinance, decree.

It can be seen that this probably is speaking of the many man-made teachings and traditions that were common then and still are today. we see that this agrees with Jesus' confrontation of the teaching of the Pharisees and others who were teaching as doctrine the commandments of men, and making the commandments of God of none effect. So, what was abolished at the cross was these teachings and doctrines of men, and replaced with the true teachings of God, which had been left behind, as they also seem to have been today! The whole system of separation and enmity betweeen "Jeww" and "Gentile" was abolished, therefore! A Huge deal by the way! Certainly, the Law of God was not abolished!

Now, to your final objection concerning divorce, and marriage and remarriage. Certainly, God hates divorce, and it is a hard thing, but according to Jesus, God allowed it, due to the hardness of hearts. breaking vows is also not a good thing. Nor is swearing falsely a good thing. I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest, however, by pointing to Jesus' commentary regarding these laws. He simply explained that divorce was not God's intention. Nor was it God's "intention" for His people to eat unclean animals. But sin and hardness of heart happened.

If I may again question the translation from which you quoted, I would point out that it is wrong, because it seems not to make a distinction between "putting away a wife with a certificate of divorcement" and putting away a wife without a certificate of divorcement". These are two very different things. One is "legal" the other is not. The word #630 in Strong's indicates the putting away...but the word #647 is the "writing, or bill, of divorcement". Jesus was saying that putting away a wife without a certificate of divorce, is wrong, and that to marry one so "put away" who had not a writing of divorcement is to be committing adultery. But, to marry a woman that had been legally divorced, was not wrong!

If everyone were keeping God's commandments, there would be no need for divorce. But, since we do not yet see everyone keeping them, it is evident that God's laws have not yet passed away, nor have they been fulfilled, yet.

It was a nice try, Homer. If you think I've erred in this post or the previous one, please bring it to my attention.

thanks again,

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Allyn, I wrote:

I do not claim to have any understanding of the history you have incurred, while interacting with Paidion; nor do I know either of you very well, but your comments to him were out of line and I think you should seek reconciliation, by apologizing to him for your crassness. He has taken the "high" road here, in my view, and will welcome your humble contrition and submission to your own stated views of loving.

Just wondering if you have apologized yet, to Paidion?

God bless you,
dmatic

[Guest]

dmatic,

The main problem I see with what you are advocating is that it merely leads to regulated and controlled behavior....

Thank you Troy for sharing what you see. May I ask you what you think I am advocating? If I have been unclear, your answer may help me to try to become better at verbalizing my views.

I advocate obedience to God, obedience to his commandments. Do you advocate disobedience to His commandments?

If so, I am astounded! that would be like advocating that children not obey their parents, so i can't reasonably think that you disagree with that. of course, if you think that the foolishness that is bound up in the hearts of children should be fostered and allowed to grow into adult expressions, maybe you do so advocate?

May i suggest that obedience to God yields righteousness, which yields holiness, which yields eternal life? (Romans 6:16)

You mentioned your opinion that the law

doesn't give you the ability to comply.

This is something i have always, I think, stated. The ability to keep God's commandments comes from Him. The Law also comes from Him. So, both of these things...the commandments, and our ability to keep them, comes from Him!

Those, who in false humility and piosity, lie, suggesting that God is unable to bring us into compliance need to be exposed for the deceivers that they are! Some of these deceivers are subtle like a snake. others are masquarding as sheep, though they are wolves, and others are simply obtuse.

I pray, Troy, that God will give you "eyes" to truly see, and to perceive the many 'anti-Christs' who lurk among us, to deceive and mislead.

You wrote

If you are interested in understanding more of where I am coming from, check out the book called "Silent Killers of Faith: Overcoming Legalism and Performance Based Religion by Dr. Stephen Crosby

I am interested in understanding more of where you are coming from, however, if your Dr. Crosby was more interested in overcoming illegalism, I may be more inclined to read his perspective. Obedience to God does not kill faith, it proves it!

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

This is very good Sean!

Being under grace does not allow us freedom to sin. Instead it teaches us to live righteous lives. Since you ask about Bishop Gene Robinson, I'd say he's not "under grace" because grace would teach him otherwise, since sexual activity "outside of marriage" (defined as a husband and a wife) is not acceptable per Jesus or Paul.

you are right! the bishop, by violating the teachings of grace, shows that he is still "under law" and will be held accountable by it. Grace teaches us to keep the Law!

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Allyn, I wrote:

I do not claim to have any understanding of the history you have incurred, while interacting with Paidion; nor do I know either of you very well, but your comments to him were out of line and I think you should seek reconciliation, by apologizing to him for your crassness. He has taken the "high" road here, in my view, and will welcome your humble contrition and submission to your own stated views of loving.

Just wondering if you have apologized yet, to Paidion?

God bless you,
dmatic

I am to apologize to Paidion because you were offended? Do I have that right?

[Guest]

Well, If you insist, you may apologize to me, and I will relay your apology to Paidion. Then, i'll relay his forgiveness to you! (That's if he grants it!)

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Homer, I lugged my copy of Strong's to the library so that I could share with you page 15 of the Hebrew Lexicon, Strong's number 398.."akal"
"Akal means "to eat, feed, consume, devour." (1) essentially, this root refers to the "consumption of food by man or animals." In Gen 3:6, we read that Eve took of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and "ate" it. (2) The function of eating is presented along with seeing, hearing, and smelling as one of the basic functions of living (Deut. 4:28). (3) "Eating", as every other act of life, is under God's control; He stipulates what may or may not be eaten (Gen. 1:29) (3a) After the Flood, man was allowed to "eat" meat (Gen 9:3). (3b) But under the Mosaic covenant, God stipulated that certain foods were not to be "eaten" (Lev. 11; Deut. 14) while others were permissible. This distinction is certainly not new, inasmuch as it is mentioned prior to the Flood (Gen 7:2;cf. Gen 6:19). A comparison of these two passages demonstrates how the Bible can speak in general terms, with the understanding that certain limitations are included. Hence, Noah was commanded to bring into the Ark, two of every kind (Gen 6:19), while the Bible tells us this meant two of every unclean and fourteen of every clean animal (Gen 7:2). Thus, Gen 9:3 implies that man could "eat" only the clean animals."

Hope this helps you sort this out!

Peace, dmatic