Adam James

@osasisHERESY The movement ignores that unbelievers in Christ cannot be saved

There are a total number of 0 verses in the new testament that states that the land of Canaan (Israel today) is promised to the Jewish people Does that mean I want the jews to be cast out of Israel? Of course not I don't really care Don't be silly I'm merely pointing out the fact that the doctrine zionists hold so dearly to their hearts is not reiterated in the new testament and there's a reason for that The new testament has plenty of verses where the Bible makes it clear that these promises are now fulfilled in Christ with different meanings Zionists will say people who believe what the Bible teaches overspiritualize the new testament but the new testament consistently teaches that the promises are now spiritual in Christ like many other principles based on the Spirit The new testament is all about the Holy Spirit that God has given us That's the only way for a follower of Christ to live is by the power of the Holy Spirit Zionists today teach zionism like its some huge important doctrine for Christians and it's actually not It's not taught anywhere in the new testament

@BilltheCatGuy1 Funny, Christ says the opposite

@TrueMessiahMin We no longer have to keep the Law of Moses. If you understood the New Testament you'd already know that.

“We should walk as Jesus walked.” Christians: “yes” “So we should keep the Law of Moses?” Also Christians: not in that way!

@JarrinJackson @PromoNationwide “Should is a model verb to indicate obligation, advisability, expectation or probability.” It has a semantic range of obligation. Very similar to God saying you shall or shalt not.

@TrueMessiahMin @PromoNationwide Also, “should” is not a term of obligation. It is a term of discretion. By accepting your framing of “should”, the entire debate is predicated on choice. I don’t think you want me to expose that in real time

@JarrinJackson @PromoNationwide I showed you, Matthew 5:17-20 and Matthew 23, you just don’t find Christ’s words at this point authoritative to you. So the Law is the issue, you agree, the topic should be: Christians should keep the Law of Moses. Me affirmative, you negative.

@TrueMessiahMin @PromoNationwide Nah, the law is the issue. If two testaments, then commands can be identified as existing in one or the other or both. If you cannot find where the New Testament commands Christians to obey Old Testament dietary laws then you should teach it or burden others to obey it.

The dietary instructions are a part of the issue, but the issue is the Law should be kept by Christians. Again, take it or leave it. That’s what we have been arguing about even though you seem want to hyper focus on the dietary instructions. If not, no worries, I wouldn’t want to take the negative position either.

@TrueMessiahMin @PromoNationwide The New Testament commands Christians to obey Old Testament dietary laws. You affirm. I negate. That’s the issue. Should be simple to show the command if if exists. Same crux issue as a few days ago.

@JarrinJackson @PromoNationwide The topic. Christians should keep the Law of Moses. Me affirmative and you negative. Can you not defend your position or do you just not want to?

@TrueMessiahMin @PromoNationwide “I affirm there is an old and New Testament.” Awesome. Debate topic: the New Testament commands Christians to obey Old Testament dietary laws.

@BennyRocinante I just stated directly that salvation comes from Christ, not the Law. Are you arguing with me or someone else?

@TrueMessiahMin Are you suggesting that salvation is through the law?

@JarrinJackson @PromoNationwide You’re arguing with a strawman. I affirm there is an old and new testament and covenants. We disagree on what that means for believers. You say Christians shouldn’t keep the Law of Moses, I say they should so that is the disagreement.

Christians don’t exist without the New Testament. If you cannot affirm that the New Testament is not the Old Testament then it is unfruitful to discuss Christians’ obligations. You conflate the two and draw no distinction. That’s the debate. Why should I grant a bad presumption when you cannot affirm the existence of a New Testament?

@JarrinJackson @PromoNationwide So we don’t disagree that Christians should keep the Law of Moses? Because that’s been the entire argument so far. So if you agree then there’s nothing to debate.

@TrueMessiahMin @PromoNationwide No, the most basic is affirming that the New is not the Old. We disagree on that, so that’s the issue.

Don’t forget, it was a point of salvation. Be circumcised and the whole Law TO BE SAVED. That was the issue. Salvation comes from Christ, not the Law. The issue is that the working definition for sin is transgression of the Law 1 John 3:4. We shouldn’t sin even though we have grace through Christ and the Father.

Yes- circumcision and the whole law. That was the issue. Yes- strangled and blood were also opposed. Excellent! Glad you found those. -and yes, loving God and your neighbor is still there as well. Now I'm wondering why you asked the initial question? It seems you already know the answer

Have to be circumcised and obey the whole Law of Moses to be saved is the dissenting point. Not if they have to be circumcised, if they have to be circumcised to be saved. You also forgot about things strangled and blood. Clearly this isn’t a complete list, honor thy father and mother is absent.

@TrueMessiahMin If you wanna discuss these things, you should read the Bible. In discussions of those who wanted Christians to have to be circumcised, etc. the decision was made: Avoid sexual immorality, don't eat food sacrificed to idols, and stay away from idolatry. Start with "Acts."

@JarrinJackson @PromoNationwide It’s as basic as it could be, it’s a literal yes or no question that you have answered. You should be able to defend your answer.

@TrueMessiahMin @PromoNationwide It’s more basic than that. Is the New Testament the Old Testament?

@BennyRocinante State any instance where an apostle teaches believers to abandon the law. Explicitly, not with your interpretive lens.

@TrueMessiahMin Correct. Not in that way. His apostles agreed.

@JarrinJackson @PromoNationwide The issue Christians should keep the Law of Moses. I’m affirmative you’re the negative.

@TrueMessiahMin @PromoNationwide This convo has shown the issue: is the New Testament the Old Testament? If you agree to that proposition then I’m game.

I deny Christ how exactly? Because I don’t accept lawlessness which insults the spirit of Grace? Romans 14 In the context of eating meat or eating only vegetables, or eating or not eating on certain days (fast days). Mentions nothing about forbidden animals, again thats you adding to the text, which is a common theme with you. You have a great day, Jarrin. If you ever want to have a moderated debate, I’m all for it.

Yes. The teachers of the Old Testament put themselves in the seat of Moses. Here, you obligate Christians to obey the Old Testament. That chapter shows the hypocrites missing the weightier matters of the law bc they’d focus on straining gnats and measuring their spices. The plain text of the New Testament says meat doesn’t commend man to God. Plain text says Christ delivered Christians from the Old Testament. You use the Pharisees’ theology to deny Christ while claiming Him. Bizarre

Jesus: “Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses. 3 Therefore, whatever they tell you, do and comply with it all, but do not do as they do; for they say things and do not do them.” You just deny clear teachings of Jesus for your manmade theology.

Christ’s New Testament doesn’t obligate Christians to the Old Testament and so if you follow Christ then you aren’t obligated to obey the Old. Teaching others to obey the Old Testament obligates them to a law that doesn’t exist. The heavens and earth passed (Matt 5, Matt 24, Rev 21). The old is gone. The new has come.

@CovenantReform2 @The_LFB Jesus taught to do and teach even the least of the commandments in the Law and prophets and Paul affirms Christ’s teachings. It is you who choose to ignore them both for traditions of men…

@The_LFB @TrueMessiahMin

I don’t obligate anything, Christ does and I’m just following His teachings. And Paul’s teachings by reproving your beliefs with scripture. Again, it’s plainly written scripture versus your interpretation of other passages to come to a position that is in conflict with other verses. If your interpretation is incongruent with even one passage, it’s wrong and should be discarded.

Paul wrote it, then you ignored what it said and twist to suggest I misuse bc I point out that neither of us understand Greek. When Jesus taught Matt 5, the New Testament didn’t exist. It now exists. Christ excepts Christians from the Old Testament (you miss this), and so Christ’s teaching of teaching the smallest commands is disobeyed by you bc you obligate Christians to obey laws they are not subject to. The New Testament is not the Old Testament. This is the crux of our disagreement and the foundation of your error.

No, you’re just ignorant, but that’s ok you’re allowed to learn and grow. 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Where is the other party to be put to death? Parameter not met. 6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. Where are the two witnesses? Parameter not met.

@TrueMessiahMin calling me ignorant is just a cop out so you dont have to backup what you say with scripture. because you cant.

Paul wrote it, then you misused what he wrote to fit your theology, is that doing a service to the text in your opinion? Jesus explicitly states to do and teach even the least of the commandments in the Law and prophets. Paul explicitly states that all scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction. This includes the Law. Your arguments require you interpreting texts, mine are plainly written.

Paul did speak Greek. He revealed God’s word and God said His words are understood by all languages. Paul was an agent used by God to communicate. God sanctifies people through His words (John 17:17). It is a disservice to re-route a discussion about God to a language none of its participants understand. Makes us appeal to men who tell us what words mean instead of listening to God. Here, Jesus began a New Testament. It is not the Old. You ignore this for favor of a language you don’t speak. The definition of sin you cite (1 John 3:4) came from the testament you ignore as being different than the one you obligate others to obey. That same new testament says its members are delivered from the Old Testament and specifically cites the 10 commandments. Coveting is not sin bc of the OT, but because of the new. Think in right categories.