Hello aus22,

You said............



I believe my KJB.......from cover to cover !
Only we also believe to.

[b] 2 Tim 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
/b]

We know we are not in time past ! Gen - Acts

And now we are in Romans - Philemon .........

To come - Hebrews - Revelation

We read all of the bible.......... the whole bible is to us.

But the whole bible is not for us !

Like we do not stone people to death any more !
There sure is a lot to the bible !

You wrote:But we all do works to this very day. Paul urges us to do good works though. ...

Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

But we also do evil works as well, albeit willingly, but not wilfully. We have to put an end to our evil works forever one of these days. The grace of YHWH for forgiveness of sin will one day end. In its place will be only righteousness. We are admonished to search for that righteousness now before we concern ourselves about anything else in this life.

Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of YHWH, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

But that can only be done with the Law in place otherwise we don't know what righteousness is.

But I know you don't believe this because of your dispensational beliefs.

But my original question of what you thought was meant by ...

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth

... you answered in a wide spectrum according to your beliefs and not specific to what you understood this verse to mean on its own. That's OK. I'm looking for something a bit more precise but didn't want to lead your answer. But I'm going to re-ask my question but be a bit more specific in doing so.

From Rom 10:4 do you understand that the Law is no longer in effect, that it is no longer required for anything in addition to its aspect of attaining righteouness for those who believe (the Messiah excepted)?

Lees your question is interesting. You ask I would like to know the answer to this myself. Perhaps those who call you a literalist could explain.As far as I can see you take a literal intrepretation of things like Being born again through faith but a symbolic intrepretation of other passages refering to the Eucharist.

I take a very literal intrepretation of words like "This is my Body"and "This is my Blood"I do believe that Christ change bread and wine to his Body and Blood. Surely this makes me a literalist.

As you can see by Grams and DCin C comments we all take a literal intrpretation on certain words like works. Surely it is best not to give people labels.

The answer is because how I or you define any one passage does not make you or me a literalist or one who interpretts allegorically.

How you approach the whole Bible; the rules you follow to govern your intepretation of the Bible, are what determines if you are a literalist or symbolical interpreter.

I interpret the whole Bible literally. Unless what is being said indicates in some way that it is symbolic or figurative, then I interpret it literally.

Just because what is said may involve supernatural cause, or miracles, does not mean I interpret it symbolically. Just because what is said may go against the scientific opinion or historical proofs known at this time, does not mean I interpret it symbolically. Just because what is said goes against what I think God should really be like, does not mean I interpret it symbolically. Just because I dont understand what is said, does not mean I interpret symbolically.

aus22: You said...

You mean actual human flesh and human blood? That contradicts with the Messiah saying to keep the Commanmdments which are His Father's and the commandments say don't eat blood or human flesh.

In fact all blood is "taboo" so you are taking a symbol and taking it literally but you don't take God's Commandments of not eating blood which is a literal Command, as "not literal".

The Apostles saw it was wine and they would never drink blood, so it couldn't be literally changed into blood. It's against YaHWeH's Commands.

And Christ can't change anything unless His Father does it for Him. Any miracle was done by the Father of the Messiah because the Messiah had the same power you or I have as being human. What then makes you thing YaHWeH would go against "His" own Command?

You said...

Labels always tell what the ingredients are and what the product is.

What your doing is taking synbols and turning them into a "literal" thing, and the literal you don't acknowlege as literal.

I would like to know on who's authority does the wine change into blood?

-thinker-

Lees, The poblem is still one of authority. When you say By whoses authority can you define certain passages as being symbolic. It can not be from the exact words in the Bible because rarely does it say this is a parable. Many of the passages you take as symbolic do not have any qualification in the Bible.

Therefore there must be some authority or expert that says this is what it means?

Thinker, I have answer this several times. You ask None of the explanation of this mystery say it looks or taste like human flesh and blood.

The authority is of course God. The fact that you do not accept that Jesus is divine does not change this.

I have quoted the words in the Bible. My authority is not just the words of the Bible but this is one authority.

Still? Interpretation never was about authority.

You say first that you are free to interpret in areas where the Church allows. Now you say you still have to answer to the Church. So, your not so free to interpret after all.

No matter how you come to a conclusion, either by yourself or another, a method of interpretation was applied to the Scripture. So, if your going to say you get your interpretation through those who have authority over you, then tell me their method of interpretation.

Lees, I afraid after weeks of discussion we come back where we started. You have seen to learn little about my church . What I said at the start is true , my church has define certain intrepreatations. There is plenty of sources on how the councils come to these conclusions.
My discussion was on those intrepretations not define by my church.
I have tried to explain how I intrepret these passages but you still come back to your original point.

What I have not learn is how your church or group of Born Again belivers has come up with your so call literal intrepretation and how it works in specific cases.

Sorry Aus, Im not buying your plea of ignorance. If you don't know it's because you haven't been paying attention.

Perhaps an example would help. Lets look at Hosea 13. God is saying He is going to destroy Israel. The infants will be killed. The pregnant women will be ripped up.

As a literalist, I believe this is true. I see no reason to interpret it symbolically or allegorically. I believe God did just as He said He would.

So, do you interpret this literally also. If not, why not? If not, how do you arrive at your interpretation?