Evidence for God from Science

so im curious about shaving in the bible, apparently we arent supposed to do it. im just making sure this is true, besides the Bible, this site made its implications clear.....

apparently i have to get rid of my undercut too since its a pagan thing, I have one. I dont mind cutting it but i was planning on growing my hair out long. guess i wont now....

http://www.seedofabraham.net/beard.html

i am also told the REAL Sabbath day is Saturday....so i guess that means every Christian who sees it as Sunday is going to Hell if they dont change that.

im also under the impression that we are still to follow the Law. a guy who has a program called The Prophetic Word was saying that Salvation is found in following the Law. He almost made it seem like Christ only forgives once and you cant screw up.

Ive also been doing some research and calling Yahweh "God" and Yeshua "Jesus" isnt appropriate because its not Their names.

ALSO back on the topic of blasphemy assuming the cussword with the word god attached to it isnt really blasphemy since we werent using His name. right? But if its true it is blasphemy and blasphemy is unforgivable which some still make it seem like that way, Im still waiting for the one priest to tell me I am certainly going to Hell and theres nothing I can do about it....

but I dont think theyll tell me that....I feel like a priest would tell me whatever to get me to join his congregation and tithe in his church so he can pay his bills ya know? They also make it seem like they are perfect and doing everything right and teaching everything the way its supposed to be.....but none of them are stoning gay people. and some of them look like they shave.....

I used to be a Christianity hating Antichrist, is there hope for me? I hated a world made religion of Christianity. I never hated or blasphemed the REAL Father or Messiah because the more I come to learn about all these new things that are apparently not being taught, one would assume I am only guilty of hateful language and practices.

I dont know anymore....the more I learn it seems like the less I know...I've been pleading with the Father for understanding and peace but its slow coming.

its always been interesting to me for a very good reason that Im curious as to how dogmatic some are being and if its right to be so dogmatic. i understand we are saved by grace and that works mean nothing to our salvation BUT should we follow the law so as to keep in step with Gods commands.

the whole issue with all my questions are....breaking it down simply anyways....

this group drew this conclusion, that group drew this one about how to live as a Christian.

while i recognize that NO ONE could possibly have all the answers, I am trying to find as many of the right answers as possible. i do realize i could be thinking too much about it but I dont want to think any less than I need too. its basically a thirst for knowledge and wisdom pertaining to our Father.

you see it in other arenas, people spin things and I am wondering if modern day American Christianity has spun so much of its religion into being out of accordance with Gods will.

http://www.aotcf.org/Welcome.html
http://www.seedofabraham.net/
http://christiananswers.net/

these are just a couple other sites im reading into, the latter of which i find a better read.

ya know ive always enjoyed Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron with the Way of the Master....

im just trying to make sense of a 2000 year old book that 90 million people have either interpreted correctly or gotten completely wrong....life made sense when I didnt believe in God....ha ha....and thats a very small humble ha ha.....

i want to talk to a pastor but that doesnt mean he knows what he's talking about....the whole false preachers thing has me really shook about who to turn too.....even just talking with you all has me a bit skeptic naturally....again...nothing makes sense and i dont know who to trust....i trust God but not myself to get it right

There is a reason the 10 commandments and the Levitical law are seperated. The Levitical law is for the Israelites living in covenant with Jehovah. The 10 are a revelation of God's holy character, which never changes.

You see these questions have been asked since the 1st century.
I would read all of Galatians 2.

6-As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—
The heart of the Levitical law was not about looking a certain way. It was a shadow of the things to come.

As far as obeying God, that is and always will be a matter of the heart. A heart for God loves God, and the natural by-product is obedience.
We don't obey the Law to gain favor with God, but because we HAVE favor with Him.

Regarding the Sabbath. Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. Again, this question had already come up in the 1st century.
If you really wanted to go overboard, you could discover that the Hebrew calender and the Roman calender don't jive. Saturday refers to the pagan God Saturn. Keeping the Sabbath on the roman calender Saturday could not be considered biblically faithful either.

There is nothing in scripture that abolishes the 10, including the Sabbath. One has to read into the scriptures what they want to come up with that. Most people read into Romans 14, which never mentions "Sabbath" by the way. But, the Sabbath and the other commandments are fulfilled in love. Romans 13:8-10
"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
As Jesus said, If you love me obey my commands.

Regarding His name. God is bigger than language. When I pray, 'Dear Lord,' I know in my heart who I am praying to. Jehovah, Adonai, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.
Can someone ignorant of the word g-o-d blaspheme? I don't know. I'm more concerned with what my heart knows than someone who is ignorant of the things of the Kingdom.

If someone says we are to institute the Levitical law in our lives to be saved, then I would say that they would have to discard the apostle Paul from their bible to accomplish that.
Any bible reference to salvation always points towards faith in Christ Jesus, and never on keeping the Levitical laws. Now the fruit of salvation is obedience. If there is no fruit, then there is likely no salvation. The good works we are to walk in were prepared "BEFOREHAND" by the Father. Eph 2:10 Good works and obedience are a product of abiding. John 15. He is us and us in Him.

I dont know anymore....the more I learn it seems like the less I know..

I heard that. That is you are to, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

jlay, what is your understanding of these four passages:

• 8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. ~ James 2:8-11

James says you have to keep the WHOLE law, and he quotes from both the Ten Commandments and "the rest of the law." If you break one point, you break it all. So how do you separate them in light of this passage?

Further:

• 19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. ~ Gal 3:19

Paul seems rather explicit here, doesn't he? The law came UNTIL Jesus came. Jesus has come, so doesn't that mean we are no longer under the law? Do you have any evidence in this passage that Paul really meant, "The law was added because of sins until Jesus came, after that, it was fulfilled. But not the Ten Commandments. That part of the law stays."? How do you take this verse?

Next:

• 10You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you. ~ Gal. 4:10

Is the Sabbath not a special day to be observed in the OT law? Were these Gentiles not keeping the special days (Sabbaths, feasts, etc.?), and does Paul not rebuke them for it? But if keeping the Sabbath is no longer necessary (sorry BW!), then what about the other Ten Commandments. Should we talk abotu The Nine Commandments?

and finally:

• Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. ~ Col. 2:16

Again, does not Paul explicitly say we are not to let anyone judge us for what we do with reference to the Sabbath day? But if the Ten Commandments are still in effect, then does that mean that we should not let anyone judge us for ANY sin (i.e, murder, lying, adultery, etc.)?

I can answer all of ratgibson's questions by simply saying that we are no longer under the law. Emphasis on that period. But you seem to want a part of the law, so I'm wondering how you take these verses.

Thanks much!

I guess it depends on how you define "under" the Law. We are certainly not captive under the law because Christ has freed us. But that isn't a green light to murder, steal, covet, worship false gods, blaspheme, etc.
The bigger issue that is behind these writings is the integration of Gentiles. Paul was vehemently opposed by many, who wanted Gentile Christians to become Jewish converts. That meant taking up the entire Levitical Law. There is a lot of good papers on the subject.

I'll have more later. I think we are closer than you suspect.


The Law is fulfilled in Christ.

Looking forward to your answer, jl. But do bear in mind that James was written to Jewish Christians, not Gentiles.

Sorry for the delay. Have been able to check in briefly because of end of the month stuff.

i'll look at these one bite at a time. Although I confess I don't specifically know what I can add. Addressing these scriptures could result in pages and pages of comments. Where possible I will link to certain articles that would explain without me posting some long diatribe.

I also assume there is some underlying point you are driving at in sighting these scriptures. I am assuming this involves the commandment, "Remember the Sabbath." So first we would need to understand the word Sabbath in the context in which it is used. The word Sabbath can refer to more than just the 7th day of rest mentioned in the 10. In the commandments it specifically means a THE day of rest to honor God. But in the old testament, the word sabbath could refer to a number of religious days, that were set apart, and no work was to be done.

You must remember that the observence of these "special days" involved something. SACRIFICE. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice and thus fulfilled what was a shadow of the thing to come. We know that Paul was battling a lot issues that involved imposing the Levitical laws on gentile converts.

In fact Paul does not say, we are not to let anyone judge us for what we do with reference to the Sabbath day. But "A" Sabbath day. Paul does in fact give advice for making judgments within the church. But contextually you can see that this involves a much different issue. This involves something that is going on with the Colossians.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/barnes/ntnotes ... i.xvi-p0.2

In regards to James 2:10. I think points out the wholeness of the Law. The Law reflects God's holy nature, which is unchanging. In this way the Law is unchanging and is one. In fact the Law itself is a prophetic glimpse at the one who would fulfill it.

In this context we can see that James is referring not to the Levitcal law, but the 10 commandments. We know this because he specifically refers to two of them. Just as Christ does in Matt 5. This Law is the righteousness that must be fulfilled to be worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven, and is only fulfilled in Christ. The address in James of "the 12 scattered tribes" is unique but in no way excludes the advice within to Jews only. No more than Paul addressing a letter to the church in Corinth would limit its application to those only in Corinth. In fact James says very early in the letter (v.19), "everyone". The greek word which means "all people."


More later.

You must remember that the observence of these "special days" involved something. SACRIFICE. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice and thus fulfilled what was a shadow of the thing to come. We know that Paul was battling a lot issues that involved imposing the Levitical laws on gentile converts.

The passage on special days was written to the Galatians, but sacrifice can only happen in the Temple, which was in Jerusalem. How could Paul have been castigating them for sacrificing when the very law they were being castigated for keeping forbid it?

In fact Paul does not say, we are not to let anyone judge us for what we do with reference to the Sabbath day. But "A" Sabbath day. Paul does in fact give advice for making judgments within the church. But contextually you can see that this involves a much different issue. This involves something that is going on with the Colossians.

It does not say "a" sabbath. It says "sabbaths "(plural). Thus, the distinction between "a sabbath" and "the sabbath" is nil. Bottom line: Paul says we don't have to keep the Sabbath law, which is one of the Ten Commandments.

In regards to James 2:10. I think points out the wholeness of the Law. The Law reflects God's holy nature, which is unchanging. In this way the Law is unchanging and is one. In fact the Law itself is a prophetic glimpse at the one who would fulfill it.

Exactly. Now be consistent, and don't let go of the wholeness of the Law. If the "ceremonial part" reflects God's holy nature just as well as the "moral part," then you can't get rid of one without getting rid of the other.

In this context we can see that James is referring not to the Levitcal law, but the 10 commandments.

However, his basis for quoting two of the Ten Commandments is from a commandment not in the 10 at all. There is, then, no way to separate the 10 from the rest of the Law.

While you are getting more, please consider this question:

Can you find me a single verse, NT or OT, that distinguishes between the Ceremonial, Moral, and Civic portions of the Mosaic Law? If not, on what basis do you argue that some parst were discarded and the others remain?

It's ridiculous to keep discussing a topic when I don't know what you are trying to discover. You can't simply take a verse here or there out of context to arrive at a point.

Observances called for the setting aside of offerings, tithes, etc. So that most definately could have been the case. It was the norm for jews of the dispersion to return to Jerusalem from the observance of these days. No question this church was being influenced to do some things that irked Paul.

It does not say "a" sabbath. It says "sabbaths "(plural). Thus, the distinction between "a sabbath" and "the sabbath" is nil. Bottom line: Paul says we don't have to keep the Sabbath law, which is one of the Ten Commandments.

That's not true. It does matter. Spefically in the Greek. That's like saying there is no difference in saying "a lord," and "the Lord." The word sabbath could refer to a number of different Jewish observences.

There is, then, no way to separate the 10 from the rest of the Law.

Of course there is. That's why Duet and Exodus do just that. They are seperated from the rest of the law. This isnt some flippant theological position i've made up here.

In fact James 2 and Colossians 2 are contextually completely different.

but sacrifice can only happen in the Temple,

Was there no sacrifice between the time of Moses and Solomon?

Can you find me a single verse, NT or OT, that distinguishes between the Ceremonial, Moral, and Civic portions of the Mosaic Law? If not, on what basis do you argue that some parst were discarded and the others remain?

For the most part it is fairly obvious. Especially when Jesus specifically mentions parts of the 10. Matt 5. The encounter with the rich young ruler. The encounter with the teacher of the Law.
He didn't say, "you have heard it said of old, thou shall not eat the rock badger."

It's ridiculous to keep discussing a topic when I don't know what you are trying to discover. You can't simply take a verse here or there out of context to arrive at a point.

I already told you what I am trying to discover. I want to know your take on the verses I suggested, because I take your implications throughout this thread to contradict those passagse. Further, the contexts of the passages speak for themselves. That is why I asked for you take on them. Obviously you, like I, must appeal to the context to know what they mean, so feel free to do so.

Observances called for the setting aside of offerings, tithes, etc. So that most definately could have been the case. It was the norm for jews of the dispersion to return to Jerusalem from the observance of these days. No question this church was being influenced to do some things that irked Paul.

Paul wasn't writing to Jews in Galatia. It was a Gentile church. Further, they didn't return every sabbath day, and yet Paul castigated them for observing the Sabbath.

That's not true. It does matter. Spefically in the Greek. That's like saying there is no difference in saying "a lord," and "the Lord." The word sabbath could refer to a number of different Jewish observences.

I referred explicitly to the Greek. You are factually wrong. This is not a matter of interpretation. Here, I will provide it for you:

μη ουν τις υμας κρινετω εν βρωσει και εν ποσει η εν μερει εορτης η νεομηνιας η σαββατων
me oun tis humas krinetw in brosei kai en posei e en merei heortes e neomenias e sabbaton.

The word in question is the last one: sabbaton. That is a plural word. The other words in the list are singular, which tells us that the plural sabbath was specific. Still further, you cannot take the lack of an article as proof positive that the word is indefinite. There are plenty of instances in the NT where an article is definite without the article. (examples available if you insist--I just don't feel like looking them up right now)

Of course there is. That's why Deut and Exodus do just that. They are seperated from the rest of the law. This isnt some flippant theological position i've made up here.

Not so. Then 10 commandments in Ex 20 are immediately followed by civil law. And I hardly think you want to appeal to the "10 commandments" in Deut, as it is not a true parallel, and it includes a law about boiling a goat in its mothers milk. Are we still under THAT one?

Again, there is no textual basis to separate the two. If you do so, it is on strictly theological bases.

In fact James 2 and Colossians 2 are contextually completely different.

Yes, of course. I never said that the two verses make the same point. I brought them both up because they bring up different points, both of which I see your general argument to violate.

Was there no sacrifice between the time of Moses and Solomon?

The sacrifices took place in the Tabernacle, which the Temple replaced. Do you want to suggest to me that the Galatians built their own Tabernacle in defiance to the Temple? I'm sure not. Therefore, your argument about sacrifice being condemned rather than sabbath observance is false.

For the most part it is fairly obvious. Especially when Jesus specifically mentions parts of the 10. Matt 5. The encounter with the rich young ruler. The encounter with the teacher of the Law.
He didn't say, "you have heard it said of old, thou shall not eat the rock badger."

On the contrary, there is nothing in the text that says that Jesus thought anything different from the 10 than any others. He simply cited them as an example. How does that validate you making an entire distinction that is nowhwere made in Scripture?

Let me put it differently:

Paul was clearly very interested in the relationship between Law and Grace. He wrote extensively about it. So do people today. Now, today, we spend a LOT of time talking about the differneces in the parts of the Law, some fulfilled, some not. That is a major premise for much of our apologetic. Consider your own responses to ratgibson. But if that point is SO important, why did Paul never make it? Indeed, you find Paul nowhere make the distinction at all. Rather, he ALWAYS simply said, "We aren't under the Law." Thus, there is no reason to make a break that Paul himself never made.

In short, you are making a theological point, which is fine. But where is your textual evidence for said point?

Jac3510 wrote:Can you find me a single verse, NT or OT, that distinguishes between the Ceremonial, Moral, and Civic portions of the Mosaic Law? If not, on what basis do you argue that some parst were discarded and the others remain?

No need to. It's simple. The 10 are the only words written by the finger of God.
.(besides "MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN" in Dan. 5:25 and in John 8:6-8)
They were also the only law put in the ark of the covenant.

I guess it is God Himself that has separated them.
.
.

Paul wasn't writing to Jews in Galatia. It was a Gentile church. Further, they didn't return every sabbath day, and yet Paul castigated them for observing the Sabbath.

No he didn't. Point out to me one place in Galatians where he says anything about the Sabbath. I seriously doubt that the gist of Paul's letter was because they were taking a day of rest.
And there is absolutely no way you can say there weren't Jews in the galatian church. More than likely there were. And that was what created the point of contention that Paul is dealing with. No? Circumcision is a much more central theme of this letter.

Then 10 commandments in Ex 20 are immediately followed by civil law.

That doesn't mean they aren't seperate. In fact the text is very clear in doing so. It is obvious in the reading that there is a distiction from the 10.
And that would require ignoring Deut 5:22 "These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me."

And then the Lord specifically states in v. 30 and 31, " Go, tell them to return to their tents. 31 But you stay here with me so that I may give you all the commands, decrees and laws you are to teach them to follow in the land I am giving them to possess." That being the civil, etc.

I'm sorry, but that seems crystal clear to me.

The sacrifices took place in the Tabernacle, which the Temple replaced. Do you want to suggest to me that the Galatians built their own Tabernacle in defiance to the Temple? I'm sure not. Therefore, your argument about sacrifice being condemned rather than sabbath observance is false.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. And actually its colossians regarding those scriptures.
Paul includes the issue of food, right there in the mix. The observances of special days included setting asside offerings and tithes. What did they do with those? At the proper times, they would go to the priest to present them. Some for sacrifice, some for consumption. Not to mention the issue of food would relate to what was permitted in the levitical laws.

I'm still not sure what theological point we are debating. And am definately not clear on where you think my statements contradicted those scriptures. I have never stated that "keeping" the Law earns salvation.

How does that validate you making an entire distinction that is nowhwere made in Scripture?

Sorry, but considering that Jesus specifically points out the 10, puts the burden of proof elsewhere.

Rather, he ALWAYS simply said, "We aren't under the Law."

And I agree. If we have received salvation by faith, we are no longer "under" the law. What's your point?

jlay wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Rather, he ALWAYS simply said, "We aren't under the Law."

And I agree. If we have received salvation by faith, we are no longer "under" the law. What's your point?

Some people simply don't get that God's Law is eternal as is His Word. What's true of "you shall not murder" is also true of "Remember...for in 6 days God..." It's not about keeping the law for salvation, it's about keeping the law BECAUSE of salvation. The Sabbath law was NEVER instituted for salvation...The law serves ONLY those that can keep it PERFECTLY...it is a sentence of DEATH to those that cannot...hence why "We arent' under the Law".

I don't see what's so difficult. Everyone endeavors to keep 9 of 10. Why?? If we are no longer under law? Do you endeavor to not take the name of God in vain?? If so, why? There is no civil law against this in society. If you do, then you're a legalist just like you claim a Sabbatarian is.
.
.

I think it's a question of the heart. I endeavour to keep God's law (commandments and teachings) because I love God and want to obey him. I find myself in a position where I don't want to disobey the law or go against the teachings of the bible because I know to do so would hurt God and be a real source of emotional pain for myself. I find that the desire to not disobey or hurt God drives me to learn more about him and to align my views to his. Obviously I fail, and I'm sure that my lifestyle frequently goes against God's will without me even realising it (but hopefully a little less as each day goes by).

The more I get filled with the Holy Spirit and the more time I spend focusing and submitting to God, the more I find myself wanting to stick to his laws and wanting to remove the habits and behaviours in my life that go against his will. To attempt to keep the law without loving God is the same as being in a loveless marriage. You stay in it out of duty, but your heart wishes it could be free of it and your vows become a chain round your neck. In a loving marriage, however, you choose to keep your vows because you love your partner and want them to be happy. Your vows then becomes a source of joy for you because you know that keeping them brings joy to the other partner.