Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:So in a way yes there is some connection, in another way maybe not. I do have a pretty big Jewish nose though...

Lol! I do as well, but as far as I know my ancestors are all from England, Scotland and Ireland. I do love smoked Salmon and cream cheese on bagels.

Okay, carry on.

FFC.. So you like bagels huh? See I told you had that Jewish connection.. Don't tell me you play with dreidels too...

G -

Gman wrote:FFC.. So you like bagels huh? See I told you had that Jewish connection.. Don't tell me you play with dreidels too...

G -

No, but I like the chocolate coins.

FFC wrote:

Gman wrote:So in a way yes there is some connection, in another way maybe not. I do have a pretty big Jewish nose though...

Lol! I do as well, but as far as I know my ancestors are all from England, Scotland and Ireland. I do love smoked Salmon and cream cheese on bagels.

Okay, carry on.

There were lots of Jews in those countries and many that hid their Jewishness for safety reasons.
But Jewishness is patrilinear according to the Bible. The rabbinic rabbis changed it to matrilinear. It is a big lie!
Ruth

Ruthrush,

There is only one new covenant, and it was fulfilled by Christ (Hebrews 8:6-13). In fact, all of the Old Testament Covenants pointed to Christ, including Adam's Covenant of Works.

See What is Covenant Theology?

Besides. I love ham for Christmas

ruthrush wrote: There were lots of Jews in those countries and many that hid their Jewishness for safety reasons.
But Jewishness is patrilinear according to the Bible. The rabbinic rabbis changed it to matrilinear. It is a big lie!
Ruth

Good point Ruth.. The fact of the matter is that Jews are never safe where ever they may live. Even here in the U.S.. As an example the hadith commands those to snuff them out where ever they may hide.. (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 52).

Or the kkk..

puritan lad wrote:Ruthrush,

There is only one new covenant, and it was fulfilled by Christ (Hebrews 8:6-13). In fact, all of the Old Testament Covenants pointed to Christ, including Adam's Covenant of Works.

See What is Covenant Theology?

Besides. I love ham for Christmas

It is not good for you. Paul said the Law was Holy, just and good. Pork is not good.
And Yeshua said you are to love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, mind, soul and strength.
John said to love Him, is to obey His Commandments and His Commandments are not burdensome.

Hebrews 8 uses the Septuagint's incorrect translation of Jer.31.
The New Covenant (NC) is correctly described in Jer.31.
Show me where Heb.8 says the NC was fulfilled by Yeshua.
Even though covenants might point to Yeshua, that is far from saying they are destroyed when the Messiah comes.
Paul said the Abrahamic covenant remained in effect even though God made the Mosiac Covenent. Also the Noahide Covenant is still in effect as we still have a rainbow in the sky.
Yeshua said not one jot or tittle of the Law would pass away until Heaven and earth pass away and they are both still here.
The NC contains "My Torah", the Mosaic Law, says YHVH in Jer.31.
The NC is made with the people whose forefathers came out of Egypt.
The NC cannot be in effect concurrent with the Great Commission.
Believers are saved through faith in Yeshua's sacrificial death not in membership in a NC.

Hebrews 8:13 and 9:1 do not have the word "covenant". They are talking about the prophesied destruction of the Temple and the cessation of the animal sacrifice system that is about to happen.
Ruth

ruthrush wrote:It is not good for you. Paul said the Law was Holy, just and good. Pork is not good.

And Paul says that this is a doctrine of devils (1 Timothy 4:1-5). I'll go with what Paul says.

Besides, recent research shows that pork is much better for people than has previously been taught. In any case, the Jewish Dietery laws were destroyed with the Old Covenant.

Yeshua said you are to love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, mind, soul and strength.
John said to love Him, is to obey His Commandments and His Commandments are not burdensome.

I agree.

ruthrush wrote:Hebrews 8 uses the Septuagint's incorrect translation of Jer.31.

Can you explain this further? Are you saying that the writer of Hebrews was in error?

"puritan lad"

ruthrush wrote:It is not good for you. Paul said the Law was Holy, just and good. Pork is not good.

And Paul says that this is a doctrine of devils (1 Timothy 4:1-5). I'll go with what Paul says.

1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the Word of God and prayer.

Where is pork consecrated by God in His Word? Where has God said he created pork to be received with Thanksgiving?
God told Noah that there were clean animals and unclean animals.
He listed them in the Torah. God told Israel that pork was abominable or disgusting, unclean, not to be eaten! Israel was to share God's Word with the nations.
Paul said God's commandments are good and God's commandments say that pork is disgusting so don't eat it!
Pigs were created good, but not good for food.
Ruth

Besides, recent research shows that pork is much better for people than has previously been taught. In any case, the Jewish Dietery laws were destroyed with the Old Covenant.

Show me where the Mosaic Covenant Law was destroyed. Yeshua said not one jot or tittle of the Law would pass away until Heaven and earth pass away. (Matthew 5:18) And whoever disobeys God's Law and teaches others to disobey them will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.(Matthew 5:19)
Peter, at least 10 years after the resurrrection, swore 3 times to God Almighty that he never ate anything unclean. Guess he didn't know the Law had been destroyed and I guess the other apostles never told him either.
Ruth

Ruth wrote:Yeshua said you are to love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, mind, soul and strength.
John said to love Him, is to obey His Commandments and His Commandments are not burdensome.

I agree.

[quote
"ruthrush"said: Hebrews 8 uses the Septuagint's incorrect translation of Jer.31.

Can you explain this further? Are you saying that the writer of Hebrews was in error?[/quote]

I would not go that far. It might be a scribal error that happened along the way. I do know that the Septuagint was used by some people to translate from Hebrew to Greek or when they needed to use Greek for Greek speaking readers. But the Septuagint has a wrong translation in that passage and the translation we have also has that same wrong translation in the quotation of Jer.31 in Hebrews 8 and 10. However most translations do correctly translate Jer.31 in the book of Jer.
Ruth

In my previous post, the smiling face is covering up an 8.

The Scripture is Matthew 5:18.

Sorry,
Ruth

Ruth wrote:Peter, at least 10 years after the resurrrection, swore 3 times to God Almighty that he never ate anything unclean. Guess he didn't know the Law had been destroyed and I guess the other apostles never told him either.
Ruth

Ruth, wasn't it God that told Peter to kill and eat the unclean creature that He lowered on the sheet. And didn't God tell Peter not to call anything common or unclean that He called clean?

Obviously the vision was an object lesson regarding the gentiles ability to be saved as well as the Jews, but nevertheless God at this point did tell Peter to kill and eat unclean creatures of all types and not to call them unclean.

Ruthrush,

As if it makes any difference, Peter's vision, as mentioned by FFC, showed the purpose of OT dietary laws. They were ceremonial in nature, and ALL Jewish ceremonial laws have been fulfilled by Christ, such as circumcision, animal sacrifices, ceremonial washings, dietary laws, temple worship, etc. Paul clearly taught that "everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." That alone consecrates ALL meats, pork and crab included.

These laws were to be performed when God's moral law was broken. We still keep the substance of those laws, but not the shadows, which is what you try to do.

Your comment on Hebrews tells us all we need to know about your position here. Since the writer is inspired by the Holy Spirit, I'll take his word over yours.

FFC wrote:

Ruth wrote:Peter, at least 10 years after the resurrrection, swore 3 times to God Almighty that he never ate anything unclean. Guess he didn't know the Law had been destroyed and I guess the other apostles never told him either.
Ruth

Ruth, wasn't it God that told Peter to kill and eat the unclean creature that He lowered on the sheet.

No! You need to read the passage. God lowered a sheet with all kinds of animals in it; both clean and unclean! And God said to Peter, "Rise, Peter, kill and eat." God did not say, "Kill and eat the unclean animals, Peter". Peter could have obeyed God by choosing one of the clean animals that were in the sheet.

So, why didn't he?
Because he thought that the clean animals were made ritually unclean by being near the unclean animals, similar to Jews becoming ritually unclean by being near a gentile. Understand the message? It took Peter awhile to get it too.
Peter said to God, I have never eaten anything unclean or common. "Common" means ritually unclean. That is something that was created as clean being made 'ritually' unclean by something. Like a person touching a corpse made them unclean for a time.
Ruth

And didn't God tell Peter not to call anything common or unclean that He called clean?

Obviously the vision was an object lesson regarding the gentiles ability to be saved as well as the Jews, but nevertheless God at this point did tell Peter to kill and eat unclean creatures of all types and not to call them unclean.

Someone like a Jew would have understood this Scripture but we gentile believers have not listened to Paul and been grafted into our Jewish Messiah's roots. So we have not been taught what we needed to know.
Ruth

puritan lad wrote: Ruthrush,

<snipped>

Your comment on Hebrews tells us all we need to know about your position here. Since the writer is inspired by the Holy Spirit, I'll take his word over yours.

I agree that the author is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The author could have told his scribe "Jer.31:31-33" and the scribe wrote from the Greek Septuagint instead of the Hebrew, Holy Scriptures of God.
You do agree that the Septagint is not the Holy Scriptures of God, right?

Or since we don't have the origional letter to the Hebrews, translators may have translated wrongly.

But if you look in most Bibles, you will see that they have Jer.31 written correctly. So either Jer.31 in the Hebrew Scriptures and the "OT" is wrong or the book of Hebrews' citiation of Jer.31 is wrong.
Ruth