"For the letter killeth, but the spirit gives life", 2 corinthians 3:6

[Studyin'2Show]

The things to come of which the reality is found in the body of Christ. Why do you move beyond that part of the passage to some future thing as though it were not yet here?

It's really useless to get into this since you hold to some form of preterism. It's obvious that we look at certain prophesies differently. That's okay as it is not a salvational issue. This is an area where it really would be best to simply agree to disagree!

God Bless!

[diffangle]

The things to come of which the reality is found in the body of Christ. Why do you move beyond that part of the passage to some future thing as though it were not yet here?

Paul is telling the believers who observed the Sabbath and Feasts to not let others judge them for doing so b/c they are shadows of things to come. Some of the shadows have been fulfilled with His first coming... some have not been fulfilled as we can tell by the abscence of His second coming.

If the Feasts and Sabbaths were nailed to the cross then why were the Apostles gathered together for Pentecost? Pentecost was after the cross. Why does Paul say in Acts 18:21, "I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem", if they were nailed to the cross? Why did Paul in Acts 20:16 want to hurry to be a in Jerusalem for Pentecost if it was nailed to the cross? Why does Paul say "Therefore let us keep the feast" in 1 Corinthians 5 if they were nailed to the cross?

[Mograce2U]

Paul is telling the believers who observed the Sabbath and Feasts to not let others judge them for doing so b/c they are shadows of things to come. Some of the shadows have been fulfilled with His first coming... some have not been fulfilled as we can tell by the abscence of His second coming.

If the Feasts and Sabbaths were nailed to the cross then why were the Apostles gathered together for Pentecost? Pentecost was after the cross. Why does Paul say in Acts 18:21, "I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem", if they were nailed to the cross? Why did Paul in Acts 20:16 want to hurry to be a in Jerusalem for Pentecost if it was nailed to the cross? Why does Paul say "Therefore let us keep the feast" in 1 Corinthians 5 if they were nailed to the cross?

I would guess that as long as the physical temple was standing the law had not completely faded from view or from practice.

[Studyin'2Show]

I would guess that as long as the physical temple was standing the law had not completely faded from view or from practice.

There's no need to 'guess' with so much scripture and with the discernment of the Holy Spirit. God's Perfect Law does not fade.

Psalm 119:44-45
44 So shall I keep Your law continually,
Forever and ever.
45 And I will walk at liberty,
For I seek Your precepts.

Amazing! Liberty is not extinguished by seeking His precepts!

God Bless!

[diffangle]

I would guess that as long as the physical temple was standing the law had not completely faded from view or from practice.

But according to TT, the Feasts were all nailed to the cross but you're saying the Feasts and Sabbath were done away with at the destruction of the Temple?

[thethinker]

Paul is telling the believers who observed the Sabbath and Feasts to not let others judge them for doing so b/c they are shadows of things to come. Some of the shadows have been fulfilled with His first coming... some have not been fulfilled as we can tell by the abscence of His second coming.

No Diff. Paul was telling those who did not observe the sabbath not to allow others pass judgment on them. He was in essence telling those who did not observe the sabath to make a defense to their accusers. You say that some of the shadows were fulfilled and some were not. But's that's not what Jesus said. He said this:

"Not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law til all be fulfilled" Matt. 5:18).

There you have it. If a part of the law has passed then all is fulfilled. This is clear as a bell!

If the Feasts and Sabbaths were nailed to the cross then why were the Apostles gathered together for Pentecost? Pentecost was after the cross. Why does Paul say in Acts 18:21, "I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem", if they were nailed to the cross? Why did Paul in Acts 20:16 want to hurry to be a in Jerusalem for Pentecost if it was nailed to the cross? Why does Paul say "Therefore let us keep the feast" in 1 Corinthians 5 if they were nailed to the cross?

Diff,
The apostles including Paul had not been taught by the Holy Spirit about the full meaning of the cross yet. Paul observed the Days of Purification inwhich an amimal sacrifice was to be offered for sin (Acts 21:26). This shows that the apostles did not understand yet for Paul denounced such a thing by the time he wrote Galatians. He said that to do such things makes him a "transgressor".

Revelation was progressive to the apostles. So their observance of those things do not prove that they were not nailed to the cross. They observed those things because they did not understand the meaning of the cross yet . This was revealed to them progressively. And until they received revelation from God they were bound to live by the revelation they had. Thus Paul offered an animal sacrifice in Acts. But after receiving revelation he denounced such things.

But according to TT, the Feasts were all nailed to the cross but you're saying the Feasts and Sabbath were done away with at the destruction of the Temple?

It was all done away at the cross but was progressively revealed during the course of the first generation of Christians. The destruction of the temple was only the physical "sign" that all had been done away.

"The Holy Spirit signifying that the way into the Holy of Holies was not yet REVEALED while the first tabernacle was still standing. It was symbolic for the present time inwhich gifts and sacrifices are offered...." [Heb. 9:8-9]

It was all done away AT the cross but was revealed progressively. The destruction of the temple was only the physical "sign" that revelation had been completed.

[Studyin'2Show]

Really, it is pointless to continue this dialog at this point because both Robin(MoGrace2U) and you (thethinker) are preterists. There are some major fundamental issues with which we disagree that literally have us arguing apples and oranges in each other's eyes. Let's leave this on a point with which we ALL agree. The 'letter' killeth, but the spirit gives life! We can't go wrong when we tke away all interpretation and simply speak the word of God!

God bless and thank you all for a great discussion free of the personal insults found so often on topics like this one.

[Brother Mark]

Ask Paul! Good to see you, BTW!

It was a fair question that I asked S2S. If the law never brought righteousness, then how can it be the end of righteousness by the law that Paul was speaking about. I don't believe he was speaking to righteousness coming by the law being ended. Righteousness never has come by the law so there was never a beginning nor an end to such a thing. He must have been referring to something else.

You and I agree in this... God's eternal law never faded away. It still stands. I just think he used the physical i.e. the letter, to illustrate the spiritual. When the spiritual was revealed, the letter was no longer necessary. So the physical part of the law no longer stands. But the spirit behind the law, well that's always been and always will be.

One celebrates the Passover when one gets saved. If we still wish to celebrate God's feast physically, by all means we should do so! But when one gets saved, the real passover is celebrated.

[valleybldr]

Really, it is pointless to continue this dialog at this point because both Robin(MoGrace2U) and you (thethinker) are preterists.

I've not followed this real closely but I missed the preterist connection. I see the hyper-dispensationalist bent and my blood pressure can only take so much of that. todd

[diffangle]

[quote]

No Diff. Paul was telling those who did not observe the sabbath not to allow others pass judgment on them. He was in essence telling those who did not observe the sabath to make a defense to their accusers. You say that some of the shadows were fulfilled and some were not. But's that's not what Jesus said. He said this:

"Not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law til all be fulfilled" Matt. 5:18).

There you have it. If a part of the law has passed then all is fulfilled. This is clear as a bell!

That Scripture proves that the Law has not passed away b/c not all has been fulfilled yet(ie. second coming, heaven and earth passed away).

Diff,
The apostles including Paul had not been taught by the Holy Spirit about the full meaning of the cross yet. Paul observed the Days of Purification inwhich an amimal sacrifice was to be offered for sin (Acts 21:26). This shows that the apostles did not understand yet for Paul denounced such a thing by the time he wrote Galatians. He said that to do such things makes him a "transgressor".

Revelation was progressive to the apostles. So their observance of those things do not prove that they were not nailed to the cross. They observed those things because they did not understand the meaning of the cross yet . This was revealed to them progressively. And until they received revelation from God they were bound to live by the revelation they had. Thus Paul offered an animal sacrifice in Acts. But after receiving revelation he denounced such things.

That's some creative thinking and twisting in order to get the Scriptures to mean what you want them to mean. I guess our Messiah wasn't a very good teacher to Paul and the other Apostles, huh? I guess He failed to tell them anything about the evil observance of the Feasts of YHWH during the 40 days He hung out with them after the cross.

It was all done away at the cross but was progressively revealed during the course of the first generation of Christians. The destruction of the temple was only the physical "sign" that all had been done away.

Proof that the Sabbath still stands is Isaiah 66 which has yet to be fulfilled...

Isa 66:22¶For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith YHWH, so shall your seed and your name remain.

Isa 66:23And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith YHWH.

Evidentally, when He says forever... He means forever.

"The Holy Spirit signifying that the way into the Holy of Holies was not yet REVEALED while the first tabernacle was still standing. It was symbolic for the present time inwhich gifts and sacrifices are offered...." [Heb. 9:8-9]

It was all done away AT the cross but was revealed progressively. The destruction of the temple was only the physical "sign" that revelation had been completed.

According to your "progressive" theory.

[Studyin'2Show]

It was a fair question that I asked S2S. If the law never brought righteousness, then how can it be the end of righteousness by the law that Paul was speaking about. I don't believe he was speaking to righteousness coming by the law being ended. Righteousness never has come by the law so there was never a beginning nor an end to such a thing. He must have been referring to something else.

You and I agree in this... God's eternal law never faded away. It still stands. I just think he used the physical i.e. the letter, to illustrate the spiritual. When the spiritual was revealed, the letter was no longer necessary. So the physical part of the law no longer stands. But the spirit behind the law, well that's always been and always will be.

One celebrates the Passover when one gets saved. If we still wish to celebrate God's feast physically, by all means we should do so! But when one gets saved, the real passover is celebrated.

I thought it was a fair suggestion! Let's ask him when we get there. But seriously, because the Law never ACTUALLY brought righteousness does not change the fact that for the Jew it was the vehicle they used to attempt to gain their own righteousness. In fact, go ask Fenris. It's still their means to attain righteousness (in their eyes). Paul wrote that it was the end of that impossible pursuit where the follower of God was on a spiritual treadmill so to speak. Always running, running, running but never getting to that place of complete righteousness that was desired. Anyway, that's my take on the scripture. Do you have a different one? I'm always interested in hearing what revelation others have received on such things. Many times it will give me deeper understanding, so please share your view of the verse.

God Bless!

I've not followed this real closely but I missed the preterist connection. I see the hyper-dispensationalist bent and my blood pressure can only take so much of that. todd

It wasn't made clear in this thread but it has been in others which explains alot and makes this dialog a never-ending circle and edifies no one. Which is my reason for fellowshipping here; to edify and to be edified.

[Brother Mark]

I thought it was a fair suggestion! Let's ask him when we get there. But seriously, because the Law never ACTUALLY brought righteousness does not change the fact that for the Jew it was the vehicle they used to attempt to gain their own righteousness. In fact, go ask Fenris. It's still their means to attain righteousness (in their eyes). Paul wrote that it was the end of that impossible pursuit where the follower of God was on a spiritual treadmill so to speak. Always running, running, running but never getting to that place of complete righteousness that was desired. Anyway, that's my take on the scripture. Do you have a different one? I'm always interested in hearing what revelation others have received on such things. Many times it will give me deeper understanding, so please share your view of the verse.

They were never OK because of the Law and Paul wrote that repeatedly. For that reason, I don't think he was saying here that something that had never started was now ending, though I do agree with you he was writing to get folks off that treadmill. I also believe he was writing about the fullness of what had been completed in Christ. There never has to be a blood sacrifice offered ever again. That sacrifice was made in Christ. The end of the letter of the Law has arrived.

Hebrews called it the regulations of the law.

Heb 8:13-9:1

13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

9 Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary.
NASB

The letter is obsolete. The first covenant, which was also a covenant of faith and letter, is now obsolete. The first covenant regulations are gone. The end of the Law for righteousness was no longer. Salvation always came by faith. But James teaches us that righteousness also has a component of obedience to it. We no longer obey the letter of the Law because that has been ended. There is no need to "obey the letter of the Law for righteousness" as was the case in the past. Even in justification by faith, there is a work that reveals that fail. That use to be expressed in the regulations of the old covenant. Now we express it in the regulations of the new covenant.

Instead of offering a grain offering that has been salted, we offer ourselves salted with the grace of God. We become that grain of wheat that has died. It is all about the Spirit of the Law as the letter is not what we live by any more.

God is searching for those that will worship him in Spirit and in truth. To me, that doesn't include the letter as it use to. We still need to be priest to God, but we don't do that in an earthly temple.

[Jesusinmyheart]

They were never OK because of the Law and Paul wrote that repeatedly

Wrong! They were never OK because: the Law was not written in their HEART, and the scriptures, Yeshua, and the apostles, all tried to drive that point home repeatedly.

Do you see the distinction i'm making Brother Mark?

Shalom,
Tanja

[Studyin'2Show]

They were never OK because of the Law and Paul wrote that repeatedly. For that reason, I don't think he was saying here that something that had never started was now ending, though I do agree with you he was writing to get folks off that treadmill. I also believe he was writing about the fullness of what had been completed in Christ. There never has to be a blood sacrifice offered ever again. That sacrifice was made in Christ. The end of the letter of the Law has arrived.

Hebrews called it the regulations of the law.

Heb 8:13-9:1

13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

9 Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary.
NASB

The letter is obsolete. The first covenant, which was also a covenant of faith and letter, is now obsolete. The first covenant regulations are gone. The end of the Law for righteousness was no longer. Salvation always came by faith. But James teaches us that righteousness also has a component of obedience to it. We no longer obey the letter of the Law because that has been ended. There is no need to "obey the letter of the Law for righteousness" as was the case in the past. Even in justification by faith, there is a work that reveals that fail. That use to be expressed in the regulations of the old covenant. Now we express it in the regulations of the new covenant.

Instead of offering a grain offering that has been salted, we offer ourselves salted with the grace of God. We become that grain of wheat that has died. It is all about the Spirit of the Law as the letter is not what we live by any more.

God is searching for those that will worship him in Spirit and in truth. To me, that doesn't include the letter as it use to. We still need to be priest to God, but we don't do that in an earthly temple.

I agree with the majority of what you say here but you seem to contradict yourself. I bolded the portion that seems to contradict. What you've written here seems to be exactly what I said and you seemed to disagree with. I just said it with less words.

God Bless!

[Brother Mark]

I agree with the majority of what you say here but you seem to contradict yourself. I bolded the portion that seems to contradict. What you've written here seems to be exactly what I said and you seemed to disagree with. I just said it with less words.

God Bless!

Let me clarify, no need to obey the letter, as we did in the past, but we still obey the spirit of the law. What I meant to say was that we obey and that is evidence of our righteousness as James teaches.

However, where we differ, is that I will say the regulations of the old covenant are not with us any more. The letter is no longer needed. We no longer worry about eating pork but instead make sure that we eat Christ and not the enemy and thereby become defiled by our thinking. We no longer minister to God through a temple made with hands, but instead, we are priest that minister through one not made with hands on a spiritual level.

There is no longer any need for the physical portion that God shadowed for it was fulfilled in Christ. We can still honor the feast and keep them physically if we so desire. But the command is a spiritual one and not a physical one. All who do not keep the passover will die just as those in Egypt died. However, we do not physically eat the lamb nor put blood over our door posts, nor do we have to physically keep the passover meal. But we dog gone better do it spiritually or we end up in hell.