The biggest blunder in the church for years!! The Paul Deception!

You continually contradict yourself. The death penalty under the old testament law was a law just like all the other laws. You can't remove the death penalty laws and still claim to be obeying the Law of Moses. You break the Law of Moses by removing death penalty laws from it.

Christians are "under a law", but it is not the Law of Moses. It is the New Covenant law. It is not the same as the old covenant law, the Law of Moses.

In the new covenant law, God is merciful does not remember people's sins. Like the bible says:


12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
-- Hebrews 8:12-13

How can you tell people to read closely: "Until heaven and earth pass, not the smallest letter or least stroke of the pen shall disappear from the LAW until all is accomplished"? You seem to think plenty of letters and strokes of the pen have disappeared from the LAW.

Is the LAW fully intact or have various parts gone void? You can't have it both ways! Stop contradicting yourself!

I haven't contradicted myself at all. Do you know what a covenant is ? You're not making any sense. He doesn't remember your sins only if you ask for forgiveness. Thats grace. Grace replaced death in the law.

God's commandments are eternal if you hadn't noticed.

The law will exist regardless if nobody followed it. It defines what sin is. You're confusing God's commandments with condemnation.

The Mosaic covenant requires sacrifices and executions, it's the LAW. Right? So how can you say "THOSE LAWS HAVE CHANGED", then a couple of minutes later say "NO LAWS HAVE CHANGED"?

Make up your mind! Has any part of the Law of Moses changed? Has any part of the Law of Moses gone void? Yes or no?

"The mosaic law required sacrifices" NO SHIT. Why do you think Jesus is called the lamb of God ??? Lambs were used in sacrifices. And he was executed. He fulfilled those parts of the law and replaced it with grace.

The sacrificing is fulfilled until the millennial kingdom. It was only to cover sins. That has nothing to do with idolatry, fornication, murder etc. Those are commandments

...


Matthew 5:18 for truly I say to YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away+ than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place.+"

Jesus was born an Israelite and as such was under Law, and that included the Sabbath law. It was not until after Jesus’ death that the Law covenant was taken away.

True, Jesus did say: “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17) But what does the expression “to fulfill” mean? To illustrate: A builder fulfills a contract to complete a building, not by ripping up the contract, but by finishing the structure. However, once the work has been completed to the client’s satisfaction, the contract is fulfilled and the builder is no longer under obligation to it. Likewise, Jesus did not break, or rip up, the Law; rather, he fulfilled it by keeping it perfectly. Once fulfilled, that Law “contract” was no longer binding on God’s people.


(Colossians 2:13 Furthermore, though YOU were dead in YOUR trespasses and in the uncircumcised state of YOUR flesh, [God]* made YOU alive together with him.+ He kindly forgave us all our trespasses+ 14 and blotted+ out* the handwritten document*+ against us, which consisted of decrees+ and which was in opposition to us;+ and He has taken it out of the way by nailing+ it to the torture stake.*+ 15 Stripping the governments and the authorities+ bare, he exhibited* them in open public as conquered,+ leading them in a triumphal procession+ by means of it.*

16 Therefore let no man judge+ YOU in eating and drinking+ or in respect of a festival+ or of an observance of the new moon+ or of a sabbath;*+ 17 for those things are a shadow+ of the things to come, but the reality*+ belongs to the Christ.+ 18 Let no man deprive+ YOU of the prize+ who takes delight in a [mock] humility* and a form of worship* of the angels, “taking his stand on”* the things he has seen, puffed up without proper cause by his fleshly frame of mind, 19 whereas he is not holding fast to the head,+ to the one from whom all the body, being supplied and harmoniously joined together+ by means of its joints and ligaments, goes on growing with the growth that God gives.+]

You said-
"""If everything was fulfilled, he wouldn't be returning for a second time."""-


The word pa·rou·si;a, “presence,” is different from the Greek word e;leu·sis, “coming,” which occurs once in the Greek text, in Ac 7:52, as e·leu;se·os (Lat., ad·ven;tu). The words pa·rou·si;a and e;leu·sis are not used interchangeably. TDNT, Vol. V, p. 865, noted that “the terms [pa′rei·mi and pa·rou·si;a] are never used for the coming of Christ in the flesh, and never has the sense of return. The idea of more than one parousia is first found only in the later Church [not before Justine, second century C.E.] . . . A basic prerequisite for understanding the world of thought of primitive Christianity is that we should fully free ourselves from this notion [of more than one parousia].”

Concerning the meaning of this word, Israel P. Warren, D.D., wrote in his work The Parousia, Portland, Maine (1879), pp. 12-15: “We often speak of the ‘second advent,’ the ‘second coming,’ etc., but the Scriptures never speak of a ‘second Parousia.’ Whatever was to be its nature, it was something peculiar, having never occurred before, and being never to occur again. It was to be a presence differing from and superior to all other manifestations of himself to men, so that its designation should properly stand by itself, without any qualifying epithet other than the article,—THE PRESENCE.

“From this view of the word it is evident, I think, that neither the English word ‘coming’ nor the Latin ‘advent’ is the best representative of the original. They do not conform to its etymology; they do not correspond to the idea of the verb from which it is derived; nor could they appropriately be substituted for the more exact word, ‘presence,’ in the cases where the translators used the latter. Nor is the radical [root] idea of them the same. ‘Coming’ and ‘advent’ give most prominently the conception of an approach to us, motion toward us; ‘parousia’ that of being with us, without reference to how it began. The force of the former ends with the arrival; that of the latter begins with it. Those are words of motion; this of rest. The space of time covered by the action of the former is limited, it may be momentary; that of the latter unlimited . . . .

“Had our translators done with this technical word ‘parousia’ as they did with ‘baptisma,’—transferring it unchanged,—or if translated using its exact etymological equivalent, presence, and had it been well understood, as it then would have been, that there is no such thing as a ‘second Presence,’ I believe that the entire doctrine would have been different from what it now is. The phrases, ‘second advent,’ and ‘second coming,’ would never have been heard of. The church would have been taught to speak of THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD, as that from which its hopes were to be realized, whether in the near future or at the remotest period,—that under which the world was to be made new, a resurrection both spiritual and corporeal should be attained, and justice and everlasting awards administered.”

Also, Bauer, p. 630, states that pa·rou·si;a “became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp[ecially] of kings and emperors visiting a province.” In Mt 24:3, as well as in other texts such as 1Th 3:13 and 2Th 2:1, the word pa·rou·sia refers to the royal presence of Jesus Christ since his enthronement as King in the last days of this system of things. [link to wol.jw.org]

Last Edited by chauchat on 08/19/2013 10:38 PM

The sacrifices are also commandments.

Jesus said NOTHING would be removed from the Law of Moses, didn't you post that earlier? So how can you say "sacrifices have been removed from the Law of Moses"? How can you say "a couple of parts of the Law of Moses were fulfilled and are now void", but also say "nothing will ever go void from the Law of Moses"?

Please provide a list saying exactly what changes were made to the Law of Moses, when the changes were made, and who made the changes. Then read what you quoted before where Jesus said "NO CHANGES TO THE LAW OF MOSES". Then you might understand the contradictions in what you are saying.

...



The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21).

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9,10)

Those references are all from the mosaic law. Sin is sin, God does not abolish sin

If the law was done away with, why is Paul quoting from it to tell you who won't inherit the kingdom of God ?

I don't think you're understanding. I may have to break it down slowly.

First we need to establish what is sin? Does sin apply to everyone ? I need you to define sin for me before going forward.

Sacrifices weren't removed. We're using Jesus as our sacrifice.

Galations 5:13 YOU were, of course, called for freedom,+ brothers; only do not use this freedom as an inducement for the flesh,+ but through love slave for one another.+ 14 For the entire Law stands fulfilled+ in one saying, namely: “You must* love your neighbor as yourself.”+ 15 If, though, YOU keep on biting and devouring one another,+ look out that YOU do not get annihilated by one another.+

16 But I say, Keep walking by spirit+ and YOU will carry out no fleshly desire at all.+ 17 For the flesh is against the spirit+ in its desire, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, so that the very things that YOU would like to do YOU do not do.+ 18 Furthermore, if YOU are being led by spirit,+ YOU are not under law.+

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest,+ and they are fornication,*+ uncleanness,* loose conduct,*+ 20 idolatry, practice of spiritism,*+ enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects,* 21 envies, drunken+ bouts, revelries, and things like these. As to these things I am forewarning YOU, the same way as I did forewarn YOU, that those who practice+ such things will not inherit God’s kingdom.+

22 On the other hand, the fruitage+ of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness,+ faith, 23 mildness, self-control.+ Against such things there is no law.+ 24 Moreover, those who belong to Christ Jesus impaled* the flesh together with its passions and desires.+

What about executions? You already said they were removed. Are you sticking to that?

Jesus was executed for our sins. Checkmate.

I have always detected that Paul represented a departure from Jesus' teaching. Paul is harsh, very objective and law oriented. Jesus is reflective, subjective, and guiding by way of principles.

Again, Paul is talking about a different law. Because he clearly quotes from the mosaic law multiple times and agrees with it.

You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth. (Genesis 7:2-3)

Noah was aware of Clean and Unclean animals before Moses existed.

Jesus isn't subjective. It's made clear in scripture God does not change, therefore he is and always has been objective.

What does the Law of Moses say about priests? Priests have to be descended from Aaron right?

Bible says:

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
-- Hebrews 3:1

Is that valid under the Law of Moses?

Priests are from the tribe of Levi. Jesus is above the priests because he is God technically.

The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew verb ha·wah, “become,” and actually means “He Causes to Become.” This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises. Thus he always brings his purposes to realization. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name. [link to wol.jw.org]

Last Edited by chauchat on 08/19/2013 11:01 PM

Holy Scripture is inerrant.

Father Melvin has the gift of healing and hears from Our Lord
in contemplative prayer. His parish is on Prince Edward
Island, the only place in Canada where abortion is outlawed.

[link to www.ourladyofpei.com]

August 13, 2013

”Believe the words preached to you in My Church, My brother Melvin and all My brothers and sisters who have accepted Me as your Savior. Saint Paul worked hard to spread the good news of the Gospel in many countries, and many came to believe and to follow Me. You know that I am the Son of God born of Blessed Virgin Mary. I came into the world by taking upon Myself human nature through My Blessed Mother so I could teach you and suffer and die for your salvation. I agreed to suffer and die for you because I love you. You know that I suffered terribly and I died a horrible death nailed to the cross. Yet three days afterwards, I came back from the dead never to die again. After forty days with My Apostles after My resurrection, I ascended into heaven and now I sit at the right hand of My Heavenly Father as the King of the Universe. I have all power to help you and to guide you. So come and believe in Me and I will be your friend on earth and one day welcome you in heaven. I love you all.”

Well, it seems you have a problem because "Hayah" in Hebrew means to "exist or become".

Here's a link to a woman saying God's name in Yiddish which is closely related to Hebrew (First 15 secs). Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh. (In hebrew it's Hayah Asher Hayah).

Ehyeh is pronounced "A'hayah"
[link to www.youtube.com]

There is no word for "I AM" in hebrew. I AM THAT I AM does not equal Jehovah.

HAYAH הָיָה

to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
b) to come about, come to pass
2) to come into being, become
a) to arise, appear, come
b) to become
1) to become
2) to become like
3) to be instituted, be established
3) to be
a) to exist, be in existence
b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
d) to accompany, be with
b) (Niphal)
1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about
2) to be done, be finished, be gone

Jehovah does not come from hayah or Hawah. Hayah = Hawah, different spelling.

Yes he is. He gave us guidelines to live life. From those, we have to make decisions of how to act and relate to people. If he spelled out each and every possible way we are to react to each and every possible human contact, he'd be creating LAWS. He gave us the tools to make subjective calls.

Jesus is not from the tribe of Levi. Jesus is the High Priest now. This is proof that the new covenant law is not the Law of Moses, as the bible says.

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
-- Hebrews 7:11-14

Thank you, that was a good reply.

Hebrews 7 For this Mel·chiz;e·dek, king of Sa;lem, priest of the Most High God,+ who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him+ 2 and to whom Abraham apportioned a tenth from all things,+ is first of all, by translation, “King of Righteousness,” and is then also king of Sa;lem,+ that is, “King of Peace.” 3 In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days+ nor an end of life, but having been made like the Son of God,+ he remains a priest perpetually.+

4 BEHOLD, then, how great this man was to whom Abraham, the family head,* gave a tenth out of the chief spoils.+ 5 True, the men from the sons of Le;vi+ who receive their priestly office have a commandment to collect tithes+ from the people+ according to the Law, that is, from their brothers, even if these have issued from the loins of Abraham;+ 6 but the man who did not trace his genealogy+ from them took tithes from Abraham+ and blessed him who had the promises.+ 7 Now without any dispute,* the less is blessed by the greater.+ 8 And in the one case it is men who are dying that receive tithes,+ but in the other case it is someone of whom it is witnessed that he lives.+ 9 And, if I may use the expression, through Abraham even Levi who receives tithes has paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins+ of his forefather when Mel·chize·dek met him.+

11 If, then, perfection+ were really through the Levitical priesthood,+ (for with it as a feature* the people were given the Law,)+ what further need would there be+ for another priest to arise according to the manner* of Mel·chiz;e·dek+ and not said to be according to the manner of Aaron? 12 For since the priesthood is being changed,+ there comes to be of necessity a change also of the law.+ 13 For the man respecting whom these things are said has been a member of another tribe,+ from which no one has officiated at the altar.+ 14 For it is quite plain that our Lord has sprung up out of Judah,+ a tribe about which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.

15 And it is still more abundantly clear that with a similarity* to Mel·chiz;e·dek+ there arises another priest,+ 16 who has become such, not according to the law of a commandment depending upon the flesh,+ but according to the power of an indestructible* life,+ 17 for in witness it is said: “You are a priest forever according to the manner of Mel·chiz;e·dek.”+

18 Certainly, then, there occurs a setting aside of the preceding commandment on account of its weakness+ and ineffectiveness.*+ 19 For the Law made nothing perfect,+ but the bringing in besides of a better hope+ did, through which we are drawing near to God.+ 20 Also, to the extent that it was not without a sworn oath, 21 (for there are indeed men that have become priests without a sworn oath, but there is one with an oath sworn by the One who said respecting him: “Jehovah* has sworn+ (and he will feel no regret), ‘You are a priest forever,’”)+ 22 to that extent also Jesus has become the one given in pledge of a better covenant.*+ 23 Furthermore, many had to become priests [in succession]+ because of being prevented by death+ from continuing as such, 24 but he because of continuing alive forever+ has his priesthood without any successors.* 25 Consequently he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead* for them.+

26 For such a high priest as this was suitable for us,+ loyal,+ guileless,+ undefiled,+ separated from the sinners,+ and become higher than the heavens.+ 27 He does not need daily,+ as those high priests do, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins+ and then for those of the people:+ (for this he did once+ for all time when he offered+ himself up;) 28 for the Law appoints men high priests+ having weakness,+ but the word of the sworn oath+ that came after the Law appoints a Son, who is perfected*+ forever.

Last Edited by chauchat on 08/19/2013 11:17 PM

He wasn't from Israel so your argument is flawed. He was a priest in his land. Not Israel's.

You keeping forgetting Jesus is God. So why wouldn't the person who gave the laws to Israel & Levi be above them ?

2 Peter was written after the death of Peter. It was most likely written by Paulian disciples while trying to build a church.

The bible says right there that the laws have changed:

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
-- Hebrews 7:12

We already know that there were no changes at all made to the Law of Moses, (see Matthew 5:18). Therefore the only possibility is that the new covenant has an entirely new set of laws.

The new covenant law is not a modified Law of Moses. The sacrifice laws in the Law of Moses didn't get changed from "make these sacrifices every day" to "sacrifice Jesus once". The execution laws didn't get changed from "execute the person who breaks these laws" to "execute Jesus". The priesthood laws didn't get changed from "priests must be Levites descended from Aaron" to "Jesus Christ is High Priest and all Christians are priests". The new covenant laws are NEW.

Like Jesus said:

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
-- John 13:34

New commandment for a new covenant. New commandments can't be added on to the Law of Moses. The new covenant has a completely new set of laws.

Even though you're not making any sense. Is idolatry, fornication, murder etc ok now ? Why did Paul mention it ?

Does sin no longer exist ? If there's only 2 commandments now given from Jesus ?