[Faith-talk] The Bible and the Law.

Wed May 28 12:02:46 UTC 2014

Mostafa,

I think you are quite right here. Jesus himself said he did not come to replace the law:

Matthew 5:17-18

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Make of it what you will.

Not to be crass, but perhaps Peter just really wanted some pork. :)

--
Brandon

www.EscapeTheDream.org: Put an End to Suffering and Return to Joy

Latest blog post: The Illusion of Choice

Facebook: Brandon.Olivares
Twitter: @devbanana

On May 28, 2014, at 1:32 AM, Mostafa Almahdy via Faith-talk <faith-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:

> Hello.
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate everyone trying to explain.
> 
> You all sound genuine in your attempts to express your point, and I
> quite appreciate that.
> 
> Let us not forget that the text of Matthew is uttered by Jesus, whilst
> the text of acts is uttered by others.
> 
> My question to Brandon was, can somebody else abrogate what Jesus said
> he comes to fulfill?
> 
> I want now to comment on the point that sister Linda articulated,
> because it is a quite interesting one.
> 
> Thank you so much Linda for conveying your contribution, I really appreciate it.
> 
> I believe I competently comprehend English.
> 
> I never heard of  replace being the synonym of fulfill.
> 
> I am not sure though, do we write  English properly here?
> 
> Fulfill is interpreted as replace?
> 
> I am afraid but I believe that such interpretation is lingually incorrect.
> 
> It does not work from even the metaphorical standpoint.
> 
> Fulfillment is to bring an action into completion and fruition.
> 
> Whilst replacement is the permutation of something by what equates it
> in either its value or significance.
> 
> Without being offensive, but I think we need to interpret things in
> according to the common sense.
> 
> I never claimed I am expert in the Bible.
> 
> I am just countenancing my rational standards to determine the
> sequential relationship among concepts and their based statements.
> 
> If the Mosaic laws were abrogated by the teachings of Jesus, does that
> include the condemnation and the decisively prescribed penalty of
> lapidation regarding the trespass of homosexuality?
> 
> So to be really crystal clear;
> 
> Is that dietary tradition which is abrogated or the whole covenant?
> 
> I believe we have instigated  a valuable scrutiny, and I am certainly
> intrigued to carry on.
> 
> I so much enjoy and I quite benefit from constantly interacting on the
> faith talk list.
> 
> I attentively follow the daily articles of brother Paul, and I learn
> quite a lot from the well written essays he posts.
> 
> I like the level of English he uses there.
> 
> I have been a member of the  list since last August.
> 
> I have been tremendously exposed to the Christian devotion and
> earnestness about their faith.
> 
> I believe we will continue to wholeheartedly disagree on the core of
> what we believe.
> 
> I hope we continue to do so, whilst showing empathy, honor and respect
> to each other.
> 
> I suggest that we may schedule  a regular meeting on Skype, in which
> we can discuss faith related subjects.
> 
> We may seek for mutually agreed upon subjects to begin with.
> 
> I am sure we can think of many.
> 
> It is faith that brought us together.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Peace, blessings, and much respect from me.
> 
> Mostafa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/28/14, debby phillips <semisweetdebby at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi! Well, you make some interesting points.  First of all, in the
>> Acts of the Apostles, Peter has a vision where he is told to eat
>> of all that is shone him.  (I'm paraphrasing).  He says, I can't
>> do that, I've never eaten anything unclean.  He has the vision a
>> couple more times.  Then Peter is told by the Lord that there are
>> people waiting for him, Gentiles.  At that time, Jews were not
>> supposed to even enter the house of a Gentile.  Then, as Paul
>> begins preaching to the Gentiles, it comes down to the first
>> Church Council and the decision is that Gentiles do not need to
>> follow Jewish law, dietary or otherwise.  You can head all of
>> this in Chapter 15 of Acts, also in Galatians where Paul tells
>> the Gentiles not to let the Judaizers, (that is, those Jewish
>> Christians who think that they need to make all Christians follow
>> Jewish Law) from destroying them.  That's the beginning, I would
>> say.  I'm sure POPPA Bear or someone will articulate this much
>> better.    Peace,    Debby
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> (Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it is a
> shoreless ocean.)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Faith-talk mailing list
> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Faith-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/programmer2188%40gmail.com