# Why no new prophets?



## Denton (Feb 13, 2014)

I went to see "The Book of Morman" in Atlanta the other day (hilarious), and I was wondering why so few prophets have emerged in history.  

Is it that people are no longer isolated for long enough to allow a nascent religion time to strengthen to the point where it can feed itself new believers?   

My follow up question is then, why are new prophets rejected?  

Just looking at the Abrahamic religions, each new prophet created a schism.  Jesus came and split the jews.  Mohammed came and split off some christians and jews.  Much later the Mormans broke apart.  

Correct me if I'm wrong, each time the new group was able to isolate itself long enough to gain strength.  Once they reach critical mass though, they do a wonderful job of keeping young upstarts down. For example, it was only the opening of the West that allowed Mormans to flourish.  

So why are prophets followed, how does a new faith flourish, and why are most others rejected?


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 13, 2014)

Denton said:


> I went to see "The Book of Morman" in Atlanta the other day (hilarious), and I was wondering why so few prophets have emerged in history.
> 
> Is it that people are no longer isolated for long enough to allow a nascent religion time to strengthen to the point where it can feed itself new believers?
> 
> My follow up question is then, why are new prophets rejected?




When Jesus said, "It is finished", He meant it.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 13, 2014)

Don't know that I agree with this, but most consider that if it came from antiquity, then it is validated....... Rethinking.... Nope, that don't hold water. Thinking of Enoch... or others. Actually the book of Revelations was rejected by most until a certain time period, then it somehow became the norm. I think of how close we were to having the "apocolisp". LOL, that aint right. I need to learn to spell. Funny that the King James original had the apocosomething. Somehow, it got dropped. Good, but thinking of how close we came to it being considered part of the bible. Edit, the word is apocrypha


----------



## PappyHoel (Feb 13, 2014)

David Koresh was a profit.


----------



## Denton (Feb 13, 2014)

PappyHoel said:


> David Koresh was a profit.



I know you mean this in jest but lets think about it...if his group had been left alone by the ATF for several hundred years could a religion have emerged from that group's devotion to him?


----------



## Denton (Feb 13, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Don't know that I agree with this, but most consider that if it came from antiquity, then it is validated....... Rethinking.... Nope, that don't hold water. Thinking of Enoch... or others. Actually the book of Revelations was rejected by most until a certain time period, then it somehow became the norm. I think of how close we were to having the "apocolisp". LOL, that aint right. I need to learn to spell. Funny that the King James original had the apocosomething. Somehow, it got dropped. Good, but thinking of how close we came to it being considered part of the bible. Edit, the word is apocrypha



So basically if enough people believe in it for long enough it will become "truth"? Not just that it is old, but there has to be that feedback loop of restating to each other their own version of "truth"?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 13, 2014)

Denton said:


> So basically if enough people believe in it for long enough it will become "truth"? Not just that it is old, but there has to be that feedback loop of restating to each other their own version of "truth"?


Basically, and sadly, that is typical. The trinity for example, was not birthed until the third century. But now if you don't believe it so then your a heritic. Edit, correction, the 4th century


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 13, 2014)

Denton said:


> So basically if enough people believe in it for long enough it will become "truth"? Not just that it is old, but there has to be that feedback loop of restating to each other their own version of "truth"?



How did you identify yourself under your previous membership to this GON forum?
.


----------



## BT Charlie (Feb 13, 2014)

Notned?


----------



## Denton (Feb 13, 2014)

"notned" would have been a better moniker but no, this is my first and only membership. 

Why do u ask? Would this be a better discussion via private message?


----------



## Big7 (Feb 13, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> When Jesus said, "It is finished", He meant it.



There you go!


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 13, 2014)

Denton said:


> "notned" would have been a better moniker but no, this is my first and only membership.
> 
> Why do u ask? Would this be a better discussion via private message?



Nope.


----------



## Denton (Feb 13, 2014)

so why ask?


----------



## Denton (Feb 13, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> When Jesus said, "It is finished", He meant it.



Let's just skip the part that a good christian knows that mohammed and joseph smith are false prophets. 

Why did these two men above all others become prophets in their own religions after a foundation in christianity?


----------



## Israel (Feb 14, 2014)

Denton said:


> Let's just skip the part that a good christian knows that mohammed and joseph smith are false prophets.
> 
> Why did these two men above all others become prophets in their own religions after a foundation in christianity?



All you see, all you perceive, all you encounter "here", that is _of the world_ is the simple process of men always improving upon what has been.

No one can improve upon the cross. Many try, all fail.


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 14, 2014)

Israel said:


> All you see, all you perceive, all you encounter "here", that is _of the world_ is the simple process of men always improving upon what has been.
> 
> No one can improve upon the cross. Many try, all fail.


I can not speak for the "all", not even for the "many"...but... in my restlessness with Rest... I fail constantly... in my useless attempt at improving upon Perfection...Himself.


----------



## Denton (Feb 14, 2014)

Israel said:


> All you see, all you perceive, all you encounter "here", that is _of the world_ is the simple process of men always improving upon what has been.
> 
> No one can improve upon the cross. Many try, all fail.



Why do they seek to improve on religion in the first place?  And back to the OP, why do people follow them?


----------



## formula1 (Feb 14, 2014)

*Re:*



Denton said:


> Why do they seek to improve on religion in the first place?  And back to the OP, why do people follow them?



Man has been making 'improvements' to religions since the dawn of time.  Why? Because they didn't like what God had to say and what He expected of us all so they created their own. And to your second question, they follow them because they provide what their itchy ears and minds want to here, and folks just don't want to take the responsibility to search scriptures for the truth. And many have decided, my truth will sustain me and it's all I need!

So some 2000 years ago, they say a God-man came from God, knowing that we were bound in a never ending cycle of sin, following all the wrong voices, and became sin for us such that God could accept us again into His Kingdom again. No other God in all other religious thought anywhere in this world ever did that for anyone else. His name you know--Jesus Christ. And He proved God's love by dying on a tree to satisfy the wrath of God for each one of us. And further proved it by being ressurrected from the dead as this was witnessed by over 500 people. 

And His message, believe, receive, love, follow me! The tree His messages rests upon still bears much fruit!

And I know, it's just a book, just a bunch of nomads, just a bunch of primitives!  They just told stories of things passed down through the ages. There is no basis in fact. There is no proof!

We have so much more enlightenment these days don't we. We save whales and puppies and kill children! We empower other men to control us. We strive for success at the expense of all who get in our way. And we kill and maime and lie just because we can. And we turn blind eyes on the needy, prefering to make one more scientific advance to show just how advanced our wisdom has become! But we are enlightened!

Oh well, it doesn't matter!  It's just another 'religion', isn't it! 

Tick, Tock, Tick Tock! I wonder how many ticks we have left?

I truly hope that you are sincerely searching and also, that you will sincerely find!


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 14, 2014)

Denton said:


> Why did these two men above all others become prophets in their own religions after a foundation in christianity?



They were better salesmen than most.


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 14, 2014)

Denton said:


> I went to see "The Book of Morman" in Atlanta the other day (hilarious), and I was wondering why so few prophets have emerged in history.
> 
> Is it that people are no longer isolated for long enough to allow a nascent religion time to strengthen to the point where it can feed itself new believers?
> 
> ...



It can be argued that those new to the faith are seekers and those endeared to it are even more so. All born again to repentance and forgiveness,  for the spirit that unites them to God,  we all continue at the first, especially, to be carnal minded.

Even made perfect souls by the restoration that is available in Jesus, we all must live in a world still filled with sin, ours' and the sins of the greater community of man. Christians must work out their life of repentance and forgiveness all of their lives. In this they are in need of teachers and helpers, both individuals and in institutions as corporate bodies.

Therefore saints being seekers of heavenly things and earthly things and how these should marry according to divine directions and separated and separate the things that would cut saints off of what man was designed to be. It is natural therefore that saints would follow those who claim Jesus' name in helping them learn and mature.

Now carnal Christians by definition will sometimes rally in the right barns, but for being reprobate still they will drink and eat of the spirits of the world, more so than the simple table Jesus set out for all. Therefore some saints will cleave to prophets and to follow them quite content with their maturity--which is a work to not mature at all.

Christians are born again one at a time, but need each other to work out the Lord's design He has set for them and which they have accepted. So they need leaders and teachers.

All Christians are prophets being heirs to the prophet David and kin for the Lordship that animated him. Now, some Christians are so surprised by their books of prayers and personal revelations that they take themselves to be exceptional prophets as per the line of Moses for example, but in prophecy saints are to the line of David and not to Moses' line---And our priesthood is in Christ---and of the order of Melchizedek.

 Some saints just get carried away and some unknowingly carry them away. Now combine this to the heady experience that is the born again experience and the need to be fed both milk at first and meat latter---and what you see today is what you get.

Hope this helped and did not confuse even more. peace bros.

Now why are new prophets rejected?

Simply there are breaches in the ministry of false prophets that the armies of the Lord are by love drawn to. You see it is the will of God to raise up his servant and set him or her to turning off our wicked ways.

The Hebrews cried of their injustice and they were heard and they were freed. This cry was heard for the man that oppressed his brother. I cannot speak for others, but I am drawn to the cries of the oppressed and those who oppress them. Perhaps false prophets are always oppressive to some degree--and that is their breach.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Feb 14, 2014)

Moses was the normative prophet of the Old Covenant.  Later prophets were rightly judged regarding whether or not they agreed with Moses.  As Isaiah wrote, "To the law and to the testimony, if they do not speak according to this word, then they do not have the light of dawn."

Jesus is the normative prophet of the new covenant.  Agreement with his teachings is key to testing new purported "prophets."  There are to be no new normative prophets until Christ's return.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 14, 2014)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Moses was the normative prophet of the Old Covenant.  Later prophets were rightly judged regarding whether or not they agreed with Moses.  As Isaiah wrote, "To the law and to the testimony, if they do not speak according to this word, then they do not have the light of dawn."



What do we do when the Apostle Paul writes something that doesn't agree with what Moses wrote?


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 14, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> What do we do when the Apostle Paul writes something that doesn't agree with what Moses wrote?




Pray.


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 14, 2014)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Moses was the normative prophet of the Old Covenant.  Later prophets were rightly judged regarding whether or not they agreed with Moses.  As Isaiah wrote, "To the law and to the testimony, if they do not speak according to this word, then they do not have the light of dawn."
> 
> Jesus is the normative prophet of the new covenant.  Agreement with his teachings is key to testing new purported "prophets."  There are to be no new normative prophets until Christ's return.




Yea.... !!!!

However, Luke writes that Peter said in quote, "Their sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men shall see visions,  and your old men shall dream dreams."

But I know what your saying, and I thank you for saying it in such few words.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 14, 2014)

gordon 2 said:


> Pray.



Pray for what specifically?

Perhaps, pray for the Holy Spirit to assist me in attaining an accurate understanding God's word?


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 14, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Pray for what specifically?
> 
> Perhaps, pray for the Holy Spirit to assist me in attaining an accurate understanding God's word?




Perhaps.  Perhaps pray that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Perhaps that  would cover for all your all possibilities...

I have found that in such cases as you describe where for example Paul seems at odds with Moses---that the oddity is not one of them, --it is I. Maybe?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 14, 2014)

gordon 2 said:


> Perhaps.  Perhaps pray that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Perhaps that  would cover for all your all possibilities...
> 
> I have found that in such cases as you describe where for example Paul seems at odds with Moses---that the oddity is not one of them, --it is I. Maybe?



Do you believe it to be God's will that we attain an accurate understanding of the word He provided us?


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 14, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Do you believe it to be God's will that we attain an accurate understanding of the word He provided us?





 Ah!!! "accurate" is a big man's word. I think maybe, although I would never speak for Him, "understanding" without the qualifier would suffice. 

Even Paul writes that he speaks with uncertainty on some subjects--yet most credit him with very good understanding.

What a great subject for a new tread, " True or False, Is it God's will that we attain an accurate understanding of His word."

I know that for myself, knowing to do God's word accurately is a very complicated mind-soul matter. For example, a client refuses to pay a laborer for his work on a item of the clients property. They have a contract that if labor is not paid the property belongs to the laborer. The laborer takes hold of the property as payment and sells it as compensation.  Many yrs later, the client wants to pay for labor and wants "his property" back and threatens to go to court and have charges levied  on  the laborer for theft. 

Now what does the laborer do? Does he settle out of court? As per what is seemingly said in Mathew's gospel? Or does he advocate for the right of the laborer to be paid his wages for his work in due time? as per Timothy's, "The laborer deserves his wages."

So do we go to court to make Timothy's point or settle the point as in Mathew? 

Contradictions seem to be everywhere and thus my need for prayer.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Feb 14, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> What do we do when the Apostle Paul writes something that doesn't agree with what Moses wrote?



We realize that Jesus declared all foods clean and we move forward in faith realizing that the Old Covenant was never intended to remain normative beyond the scope of Israel prior to the Messiah.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 14, 2014)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> We realize that Jesus declared all foods clean and we move forward in faith realizing that the Old Covenant was never intended to remain normative beyond the scope of Israel prior to the Messiah.



So, when Moses wrote that the Laws were permanent, for all future generations, forever, etc., it was an honest mistake?


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Feb 14, 2014)

gordon 2 said:


> Yea.... !!!!
> 
> However, Luke writes that Peter said in quote, "Their sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men shall see visions,  and your old men shall dream dreams."
> 
> But I know what your saying, and I thank you for saying it in such few words.



Absolutely!  Here's a book that describes the New Testament ministry:

http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/gord...-to-your-lips/paperback/product-18635431.html


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> So, when Moses wrote that the Laws were permanent, for all future generations, forever, etc., it was an honest mistake?


Hey friend, forgive me for being lazy and not searching out the verses that you are ferring to, but could you give an example of a verse about the laws being specifically said to be forever.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 14, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey friend, forgive me for being lazy and not searching out the verses that you are ferring to, but could you give an example of a verse about the laws being specifically said to be forever.



Sure.  In the following scriptures you will find it stated in various ways.  The same teminology (permanent, lasting,  for all future generations, etc.) is used for observing the Sabbath as is used for sacrificing burnt offerings.

Exodus 12:17	
Exodus 12:24 
Exodus 27:21	
Exodus 28:43	
Exodus 29:9
Exodus 29:28	
Exodus 29:42	
Exodus 30:8
Exodus 30:10	
Exodus 30:21	
Exodus 30:31
Exodus 31:13	
Exodus 31:17	
Leviticus 3:17 
Leviticus 7:36	
Leviticus 10:9	
Leviticus 10:15
Leviticus 11:11
Leviticus 16:29
Leviticus 17:7
Leviticus 23:14
Leviticus 23:21
Leviticus 23:31
Leviticus 23:41
Leviticus 24:3	
Numbers 15:21
Numbers 15:38
Numbers 18:23
Numbers 19:21
Numbers 35:29
Deuteronomy 12:32	
Deuteronomy 17:18-20
Deuteronomy 29:15


----------



## hummerpoo (Feb 14, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Do you believe it to be God's will that we attain an accurate understanding of the word He provided us?



I don't know who "we" is, but for "them", including many prophets and rightous men, the answer is clear.

Mat. 13:
11 Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. 12 For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 [e]In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

‘[f]You will keep on hearing, [g]but will not understand;
[h]You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;
15 For the heart of this people has become dull,
With their ears they scarcely hear,
And they have closed their eyes,
Otherwise they would see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart and return,
And I would heal them.’

16 But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. 17 For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 14, 2014)

hummerpoo said:


> I don't know who "we" is, but for "them", including many prophets and rightous men, the answer is clear.
> 
> Mat. 13:
> 11 Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. 12 For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 [e]In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
> ...



Some people interpret this to pertain specifically to the disciples and the Pharisees of that day.


----------



## hummerpoo (Feb 14, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Some people interpret this to pertain specifically to the disciples and the Pharisees of that day.



whatever.


----------



## Israel (Feb 14, 2014)

Denton said:


> Why do they seek to improve on religion in the first place?  And back to the OP, why do people follow them?


I suppose if one imagined Jesus came to "start" a new religion, then it's an open invite to tune it up, add some turbo, grease some bearings and repaint periodically what can degrade over time.
If however, Jesus has brought the truth of all things in himself, that is newness of life...always...maybe the best we can hope to do is see what has been from the beginning...and never ages.


----------



## hawglips (Feb 17, 2014)

Denton said:


> I went to see "The Book of Morman" in Atlanta the other day (hilarious), and I was wondering why so few prophets have emerged in history.
> 
> Is it that people are no longer isolated for long enough to allow a nascent religion time to strengthen to the point where it can feed itself new believers?
> 
> ...



Prophets have always been rejected by the religious mainstream of their day.

It's the same today.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 17, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Sure.  In the following scriptures you will find it stated in various ways.  The same teminology (permanent, lasting,  for all future generations, etc.) is used for observing the Sabbath as is used for sacrificing burnt offerings.
> 
> Exodus 12:17
> Exodus 12:24
> ...


Wow, lots of them. Working backward, basically trying to make something fit, I wonder.... where it says in Hebrews, "through whom he created the ages" [you will not see the word "ages" used often. Translators would rather force Jesus to be the creator than translate properly. Most will say something like world/ universe, etc. This is just corruption. The word is clearly ages. Anyway, wonder if the new "age", it having come, nulifies the old age.??? I'm thinking of a verse in hebrews that uses an example of how a woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if he dies, she is released...... nope wrong one, in regards to a will, it is only .... I better go look this up.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 18, 2014)

I think its important to note that Moses never says that these Laws are to be obeyed until the Messiah comes.  Moses, who spoke face-to-face with God never indicated any belief that burnt offerings would someday be replaced with a perfect sacrifice.


----------



## hawglips (Feb 18, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> I think its important to note that Moses never says that these Laws are to be obeyed until the Messiah comes.  Moses, who spoke face-to-face with God never indicated any belief that burnt offerings would someday be replaced with a perfect sacrifice.



Everything in the Law of Moses was an indication of the coming last and perfect sacrifice.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 18, 2014)

hawglips said:


> Everything in the Law of Moses was an indication of the coming last and perfect sacrifice.



That is the interpretation after the fact.  Moses used the words permanent, lasting, for all future generations, etc. which he got from talking face-to-face with God.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 18, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> That is the interpretation after the fact.  Moses used the words permanent, lasting, for all future generations, etc. which he got from talking face-to-face with God.



Before Moses, there was Abraham.  Read Galatians 3.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 18, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Before Moses, there was Abraham.  Read Galatians 3.



I'm very familiar with Paul speaking contrary to Moses.  

The question is this:

Was Moses accurate in what he wrote?


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 18, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> I'm very familiar with Paul speaking contrary to Moses.
> 
> The question is this:
> 
> Was Moses accurate in what he wrote?



Yes, as was Paul.  There is no contradiction.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 18, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> I'm very familiar with Paul speaking contrary to Moses.
> 
> The question is this:
> 
> Was Moses accurate in what he wrote?





centerpin fan said:


> Yes, as was Paul.  There is no contradiction.




When Moses states that God said that the Law is permanent, lasting, for all future generations, etc., is that a true and accurate statement?

When Pauls says that the Law is NOT permanent, lasting, for all future generations, is that a true and accurate statement?


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 18, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> When Moses states that God said that the Law is permanent, lasting, for all future generations, etc., is that a true and accurate statement?
> generations, is that a true and accurate statement?



Does Moses ever say that the law supersedes God's promise to Abraham?




HawgJawl said:


> When Pauls says that the Law is NOT permanent, lasting, for all future generations, is that a true and accurate statement?



That's not exactly what Paul writes in Galatians.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 18, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Does Moses ever say that the law supersedes God's promise to Abraham?
> 
> No.  Moses states that God talked to him face-to-face and said that the Laws are permanent, lasting, forever, from generation to generation, etc.
> 
> ...



Regardless of what God told Abraham and what Paul wrote in Galatians, the two statements regarding the Law being permanent are in direct conflict with each other.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 18, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Regardless of what God told Abraham ...




How does what God told Moses face-to-face trump what God told Abraham face-to-face?


_When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty[a]; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”

3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram*; your name will be Abraham,[c] for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come ...*_*


-- Gen. 17*


----------



## hawglips (Feb 18, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> That is the interpretation after the fact.  Moses used the words permanent, lasting, for all future generations, etc. which he got from talking face-to-face with God.



Most of the verses you cited are specifically talking about Aaron and his sons (the Levites).  And we know from Malachi 3:3 that after Christ's glorious 2nd coming the sons of Levi will offer sacrifices in righteousness.  I've always taken that to mean they will resume to some extent after that time.


----------



## hawglips (Feb 18, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Regardless of what God told Abraham and what Paul wrote in Galatians, the two statements regarding the Law being permanent are in direct conflict with each other.



I don't see them in conflict.  I think it's a lack of understanding of what all those verses in the OT are saying.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 18, 2014)

hawglips said:


> I don't see them in conflict.  I think it's a lack of understanding of what all those verses in the OT are saying.




The Apostle Paul wrote this concerning things that Moses said came directly from God to be permanent, lasting, forever, for all future generations, etc.

Colossians 2:20-23
Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules:  “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”?  These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings.  Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.


When Moses said that the Law was directly from God, do you believe it was from God or that it was merely human commands and teachings?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 18, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> How does what God told Moses face-to-face trump what God told Abraham face-to-face?
> 
> 
> _When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty[a]; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”
> ...


*

When you have to argue over which covenant trumps which, it tends to undermine the assertion that there is ONE plan and ONE message from a God who knows the future and does not change.*


----------



## StriperAddict (Feb 18, 2014)

hawglips said:


> I don't see them in conflict. I think it's a lack of understanding of what all those verses in the OT are saying.


 
Agreed. 
The perfect Man (Christ) fulfilled the inperfect (law),
as the keeping the law could never bring man to God's righteousness...
only the God-Man, Christ the Lord, could.

Also, according to OT, the law is now wrtten in the hearts of believers in Christ,
so there is no conflict in its purpose... to expose our sin,
and see the need of a Saviour to break the chains of that law which could never impart life


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 18, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> When you have to argue over which covenant trumps which, it tends to undermine the assertion that there is ONE plan and ONE message from a God who knows the future and does not change.



I'm not arguing about who trumps whom.  God made a covenant with Abraham.  That has never changed.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 18, 2014)

StriperAddict said:


> Agreed.
> The perfect Man (Christ) fulfilled the inperfect (law),
> as the keeping the law could never bring man to God's righteousness...
> only the God-Man, Christ the Lord, could.
> ...



Who created the imperfect law?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 18, 2014)

Whether the covenant with Abraham is still in effect or not does not affect the following.



HawgJawl said:


> When Moses states that God said that the Law is permanent, lasting, for all future generations, etc., is that a true and accurate statement?
> 
> When Pauls says that the Law is NOT permanent, lasting, for all future generations, is that a true and accurate statement?






HawgJawl said:


> The Apostle Paul wrote this concerning things that Moses said came directly from God to be permanent, lasting, forever, for all future generations, etc.
> 
> Colossians 2:20-23
> Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules:  “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”?  These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings.  Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
> ...


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 18, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Whether the covenant with Abraham is still in effect or not does not affect the following.



It absolutely affects the following.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 18, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> It absolutely affects the following.
> 
> You're missing the forest for the trees.




I understand that if you pull far enough away, the contradiction goes out of focus, but that does not make the contradiction disappear.

Moses says it is permanent and Paul says it is not permanent.

Moses says it is directly from God and Paul says it is not from God.

They can't both be right, no matter how much Abraham you try to apply to the contradiction.


----------



## dawg2 (Feb 18, 2014)

PappyHoel said:


> David Koresh was a profit.


He was "for profit."


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 18, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> I understand that if you pull far enough away, the contradiction goes out of focus, but that does not make the contradiction disappear.
> 
> Moses says it is permanent and Paul says it is not permanent.
> 
> ...



_Seeming_ contradiction.


----------



## hobbs27 (Feb 18, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> _Seeming_ contradiction.



Agreed! When any of us take our eyes off Christ , scripture doesnt connect. Lets see if this makes any sense, Christ did not destroy the law but fufilled it, so the Law survives through Christ. Christ is forever therefore the Law is forever, yet mans control of the Law in which Paul rebuked is gone and done away with. Faith in Christ is following the law.

Galations 3


16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.


John 12:34

34 The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?


Ephesians 3:21

21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.


----------



## Israel (Feb 18, 2014)

Jesus himself said this:

Mat 5:18  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 
Mat 5:19  Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 
Mat 5:20  For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. 


Please think on the words in red. It does not say you are excluded...but least.

This may be a useless example to everyone...except me.

Pablo Picasso was known primarily for his work in cubism. To some it looks bizarre, by some it is greatly appreciated.
If all one knows of his work is this, one may, depending upon their artistic tastes, say "hmmm, not for me, I like Rockwell and Wyeth"
One might even say, "this guy is weird, he sure doesn't know what people look like"

But his early work...is quite different.

See, Picasso had, in great measure..."mastered" the basics, he had "fulfilled" the requirements of form, color, shadow, hue and stroke. Whether he found these confining and moved on...or was just captivated by the thrill of exploring, I really don't know.
But I do know that no one has the right to dislike his work on this basis..."this guy couldn't paint a face if his life depended upon it"

I don't know that Picasso later had disdain for fundamentals.
And I know we shouldn't.
The law has its place and purpose...regarding the flesh.
We, of all people should know this better than anyone.
And, one not born of the spirit is going to discover the law is just as potent today as ever it was...it remains holy and good.
But...we, thankfully are not bound by the rudiments of this world...if we are alive in the spirit.
Taste not, touch not...can bring nothing to perfection...nor were they ever meant to.
But, if and when we could be inclined to live by something other than the royal law, the superior covenant, the covenant of eternal life and peace in Christ...by a faith which works through love...well...we will also discover...the flesh is no less bound as ever it was by ordinances and judgment.


----------



## hummerpoo (Feb 18, 2014)

Mat. 5:
21.  "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'
 22.  "But I say to you…”

27.  "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY';
28.  but I say to you …”

31.  "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE';
 32.  but I say to you …”


33.  "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.'
 34.  "But I say to you …”


38.  "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'
39.  "But I say to you …”


43.  "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
 44.  "But I say to you …”


Did Jesus nullify or interpret these laws?
He interpreted them.
Sure looks like a pattern to me.


----------



## Israel (Feb 18, 2014)

hummerpoo said:


> Mat. 5:
> 21.  "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'
> 22.  "But I say to you…”
> 
> ...



yes.
the flesh says this:
I have not put my hand in my neighbors pocket, I have not slept with my neighbor's wife...I am an "innocent" man.

But,
The law is spiritual, and the flesh can never understand it...it's a completely foreign language...and by that I expressly mean...it's not even a language the flesh could ever hope to understand or interpret...regardless of labors and diligence.

Likewise, as you rightly show...who is not guilty?
Guilty of lust, or coveting...or murder...as Jesus says precisely is committed?

What to do? Where is hope? 
First...for mercy for what we've already done.
Inclusive of a new way "to be" that will deliver from the old way of lusting and hostility?
Without the promise of both...all men are irrevocably condemned.
Jesus wisely...and truly...cuts away all and any hope except in what he has promised to provide in and through himself...only...

mercy, and a new and living way.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 18, 2014)

"the Law and the Prophets" was a phrase used by Jews for the Old Testament so yes Jesus did fulfill what was  prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus didn't contradict the Law but added to it. Jesus was redefining the teaching from the Law and the Prophets. He added the "Law of Christ" which  was more spiritual or from ones heart. It was actually a higher standard than external conformity to a set of rules. A Christian could no longer be a good Christian by showing outward rule following as God now expects you to be a Christian inwardly or spiritually. Jesus gave the examples of Moses' Law and His Law. No longer can you appear to be Holy to others, you must now be Holy for real. The outward show is over.


----------



## hummerpoo (Feb 18, 2014)

Israel said:


> yes.
> the flesh says this:
> I have not put my hand in my neighbors pocket, I have not slept with my neighbor's wife...I am an "innocent" man.
> 
> ...



Amen


----------



## hummerpoo (Feb 18, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> "the Law and the Prophets" was a phrase used by Jews for the Old Testament so yes Jesus did fulfill what was  prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus didn't contradict the Law but added to it. Jesus was redefining the teaching from the Law and the Prophets. He added the "Law of Christ" which  was more spiritual or from ones heart. It was actually a higher standard than external conformity to a set of rules. A Christian could no longer be a good Christian by showing outward rule following as God now expects you to be a Christian inwardly or spiritually. Jesus gave the examples of Moses' Law and His Law. No longer can you appear to be Holy to others, you must now be Holy for real. The outward show is over.



Really, Isaiah 1:10-17 among others.
I'm saying I don't see change, I see clarification.


----------



## Big7 (Feb 19, 2014)

Denton said:


> Let's just skip the part that a good christian knows that mohammed and joseph smith are false prophets.
> 
> Why did these two men above all others become prophets in their own religions after a foundation in christianity?



Don't forget Calvin, Luther,  John Smyth, Ron Hubbard or the rest of them.. They are all in the same boat..


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 19, 2014)

hummerpoo said:


> Really, Isaiah 1:10-17 among others.
> I'm saying I don't see change, I see clarification.



I think Jesus was saying nobody will be judged by Mosaic precepts as much as about what's in their hearts.

Something changed as this verse indicates.

Hebrews 8:13
When God speaks of a "new" covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and will soon disappear.

Maybe Jesus condensed it by giving us the commandments of Love. Regardless it became more inward than outward.
That's the way I see Jesus explaining it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 19, 2014)

Regardless of what purpose the law is to us we are dead to the law. That was why Jesus died. 

Romans 7:4-6
4Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 19, 2014)

I understand the concept of Jesus fulfilling, interpreting, expounding upon, the Law.  Jesus never even insinuated that the Law was not God's Law.



HawgJawl said:


> The Apostle Paul wrote this concerning things that Moses said came directly from God to be permanent, lasting, forever, for all future generations, etc.
> 
> Colossians 2:20-23
> Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules:  “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”?  These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings.  Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.



Was Paul accurate in saying that the Law was merely human commands and teachings?


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 19, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Was Paul accurate in saying that the Law was merely human commands and teachings?



Was Jesus wrong to pick Paul as His "chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel"?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 19, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> I understand the concept of Jesus fulfilling, interpreting, expounding upon, the Law.  Jesus never even insinuated that the Law was not God's Law.
> 
> 
> 
> Was Paul accurate in saying that the Law was merely human commands and teachings?



I'm not sure Colossians 2:20-23 is about the Law of God.


----------



## Israel (Feb 19, 2014)

Deu_25:4  Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. 


1Co_9:9  For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 


1Ti_5:18  For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. 

Jesus...who is the man of the spirit, was to that time, the only man who understood the law.

"Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk"...in the hands of man becomes "don't eat dairy and meat together".
Some men have made amazingly huge doctrines and practices about plates, washings, separations...while the command has nothing to do with that.

It has to do with respecting life...even the life of that which you take for food. Especially, one could say, the life that you take for food.

The "end of the law", the fulfillment of the law, is not to stop at either frustration or self glory...though it may easily be mistaken as ending there. 
Only Jesus can appear to help with either.


----------



## hawglips (Feb 19, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Was Paul accurate in saying that the Law was merely human commands and teachings?



I think he was talking about all those rules added to the Mosaic Law that were not part of it.


----------

