Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, Explain the difference between the letter that kills and the spirit that gives life. Know this, one is more glorious than the other, one brought death the other gives life, one is written in stone, one is written on the heart. Fire away.
Paul was certainly taught these rules in the School of Hillel by Hillel's own grandson Gamliel. When we examine Paul's writings we will see that they are filled with usages of Hillel's Seven Rules (several examples appear below). It would appear then that the Seven Rules of Hillel are at least part of what Paul was speaking of when he spoke of "rightly dividing the Word of truth."
[/SIZE][SIZE=4]The Seven Rules of Hillel are:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] 1. Kal Vahomer (Light and heavy)
Ok, Explain the difference between the letter that kills and the spirit that gives life. Know this, one is more glorious than the other, one brought death the other gives life, one is written in stone, one is written on the heart. Fire away.
Now then, would like to know how strong an angel is that can toss a millstone like a pebble?
Paul was certainly taught these rules in the School of Hillel by Hillel's own grandson Gamliel. When we examine Paul's writings we will see that they are filled with usages of Hillel's Seven Rules (several examples appear below). It would appear then that the Seven Rules of Hillel are at least part of what Paul was speaking of when he spoke of "rightly dividing the Word of truth."
[/SIZE][SIZE=4]The Seven Rules of Hillel are:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] 1. Kal Vahomer (Light and heavy)
Compliments to a chief shepherd.
Pinacled, your reference explains only how to study or understans passages of scripture or how to address the letter. It does not address the question of the spirit as opposed to that letter. In other words, even if you understand the meaning of a passage you still need to look at how it reflects the nature of God as taught by Jesus.
"Now then, would like to know how strong an angel is that can toss a millstone like a pebble?"
Obscure references or puzzles don't really help communication. Would you like to explain what you are asking for those who don't study the "code" you find so fascinating?
The question we have asked of others who claim the Spirit. Our answer is and has always been by comparing the characteristics to what Jesus taught about the Spirit as well as our own encounters. When the experience confirms a concern for the well-being of everyone in any situation how far wrong can we be?
Clearness in discussing any situation with people whom we know to be led by the Spirit is often helpful.
The Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts, (and the Apocalypse), is the Spirit of the Messiah, because the Messiah is the Word of the Father, and the Testimony of the Messiah is Spirit as he himself says in John 6:63. And the Word of the Father begins with the Torah, the beginning, Genesis. If therefore your heavenly Father is not the same Father of the Primary Covenant, ("the Old Testament"), then what is His Name? If you say he has no name then you do not believe the Testimony of His Son who calls Him ABBA and ABIY, as it is written in the Prophet Jeremiah: see Jeremiah 3:4 and 3:19, where YHWH plainly states that He desires that we call Him by that name, "my Father", which is Abiy, and this is what the Master says in Matthew 26:42, "my Father", (which in Hebrew would have been Abiy), and Mark 14:36, (Abba).
Without the Primary Covenant one cannot even have "the Messiah" according to the scripture because therein, (Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms and Writings), are all things foretold in writing concerning the Messiah, so that when he did come, the people might know that it was him indeed. Claiming the name of the Messiah without upholding what is written concerning him means that the Messiah whom such a one proclaims may be any Messiah from any other culture and its writings with nothing more than a mere changing of the names. For example, what would be the difference between "Jesus" and "Krishna" in such a stance? Essentially there would be no difference. However, with deeper inspection and investigation, the claims made by each of those two names within their respective writings are not the same claim, (despite what mainstream Christianity says that Jesus claimed about himself). The very phrase, "my Father", is therefore a direct reference to the One who has said that He desires for all His people to call Him by that name, (and this was typical of the Hasidim sect of the Perushim or Pharisees).
daqq, your Torah presents a developing picture of the nature of God even just within the first book. Some of the things in the rest of the book haved been abandoned in Jewish religion as not being physical requirements (partly because there is no temple, but why would that make a difference as to whether they are necesssary?) but to be understood as spiritual requirments at least partly fulfiled by prayer alone.
The rest of Tanach presents even more widely divergent pictures from a tribal wae God to the God concerned with social justice seen in Jeremiah, Isaiah and Micah. Don't try to turn the whole thng into a unified whole and set that against the revelation of Jesus which is the culminationof the development indicated in those 3 books noted.
daqq, your Torah presents a developing picture of the nature of God even just within the first book. Some of the things in the rest of the book haved been abandoned in Jewish religion as not being physical requirements (partly because there is no temple, but why would that make a difference as to whether they are necesssary?) but to be understood as spiritual requirments at least partly fulfiled by prayer alone.
The rest of Tanach presents even more widely divergent pictures from a tribal wae God to the God concerned with social justice seen in Jeremiah, Isaiah and Micah. Don't try to turn the whole thng into a unified whole and set that against the revelation of Jesus which is the culminationof the development indicated in those 3 books noted.
Those are your opinions. It is a unified whole and none of it is "abolished" if one understands that he or she is the miqdash-temple-sanctuary-chapel of Elohim. Your opinions do not agree with the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts; and neither do they agree with the writings of the Prophets, nor even Paul. Be careful you do not end up with "leprosy" in the "walls of your house", (Leviticus 14, lol), for the Father Himself will put it there to see if you indeed will come to His Kohen, that is, if you claim to believe and follow His Kohen, (after the order of Melki-Tzedek).
Pinacled, your reference explains only how to study or understans passages of scripture or how to address the letter. It does not address the question of the spirit as opposed to that letter. In other words, even if you understand the meaning of a passage you still need to look at how it reflects the nature of God as taught by Jesus.
"Now then, would like to know how strong an angel is that can toss a millstone like a pebble?"
Obscure references or puzzles don't really help communication. Would you like to explain what you are asking for those who don't study the "code" you find so fascinating?
I would suggest you put that mask down and not even attempt to lie to me.
You have done nothing but scurmish behind the curtails of a murderer.
daqq, your Torah presents a developing picture of the nature of God even just within the first book. Some of the things in the rest of the book haved been abandoned in Jewish religion as not being physical requirements (partly because there is no temple, but why would that make a difference as to whether they are necesssary?) but to be understood as spiritual requirments at least partly fulfiled by prayer alone.
The rest of Tanach presents even more widely divergent pictures from a tribal wae God to the God concerned with social justice seen in Jeremiah, Isaiah and Micah. Don't try to turn the whole thng into a unified whole and set that against the revelation of Jesus which is the culminationof the development indicated in those 3 books noted.
7Now if the ministry of death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at the face of Moses because of its fleeting glory,…
As in the plagues visited on the the house of pharoah, a hardened heart like the one you attempt to carry in your purse. And just as your script is obvious to the Holy Spirit. It is obvious to everyone that reads in this forum.
And what was it Moshe said of what was to come?
Life and Death?
A letter of death, a certificate of divorce for the hardness of their hearts. The drunken ***** everyone is watching stupor with filthy language and telling everyone how gracefull she is.
The Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts, (and the Apocalypse), is the Spirit of the Messiah, because the Messiah is the Word of the Father, and the Testimony of the Messiah is Spirit as he himself says in John 6:63. And the Word of the Father begins with the Torah, the beginning, Genesis. If therefore your heavenly Father is not the same Father of the Primary Covenant, ("the Old Testament"), then what is His Name? If you say he has no name then you do not believe the Testimony of His Son who calls Him ABBA and ABIY, as it is written in the Prophet Jeremiah: see Jeremiah 3:4 and 3:19, where YHWH plainly states that He desires that we call Him by that name, "my Father", which is Abiy, and this is what the Master says in Matthew 26:42, "my Father", (which in Hebrew would have been Abiy), and Mark 14:36, (Abba).
Without the Primary Covenant one cannot even have "the Messiah" according to the scripture because therein, (Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms and Writings), are all things foretold in writing concerning the Messiah, so that when he did come, the people might know that it was him indeed. Claiming the name of the Messiah without upholding what is written concerning him means that the Messiah whom such a one proclaims may be any Messiah from any other culture and its writings with nothing more than a mere changing of the names. For example, what would be the difference between "Jesus" and "Krishna" in such a stance? Essentially there would be no difference. However, with deeper inspection and investigation, the claims made by each of those two names within their respective writings are not the same claim, (despite what mainstream Christianity says that Jesus claimed about himself). The very phrase, "my Father", is therefore a direct reference to the One who has said that He desires for all His people to call Him by that name, (and this was typical of the Hasidim sect of the Perushim or Pharisees).
Glory. Peace
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
