PDA

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



thethinker
Mar 19th 2008, 04:21 PM
"FOR THE LETTER KILLETH, BUT THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE", 2 Corinthians 3:6

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Back in the 1980's when I was a student at the Moody Bible Institute I was assigned a ministry in a prison. We had to do ministry related work for graduation requirements. I was teamed up with another man who was a student at a Bible school in Indiana. I do not remember his name.

On one occasion after we had delivered the Word to prisoners I noticed that the brother appeared to be quite distressed. So I asked him what was the matter. He replied saying,

"The pastor at my church has been saying that we sin when we do not tithe. He said that the inability to tithe is not an excuse. But I don't have the money to tithe".

I told the brother that tithing was abolished with the Levitical priesthood for it was an integral part of the Levitical priesthood. He asked me where the Bible says this.

"Those who are the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law....However, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that ANOTHER PRIEST should rise according to the order of Melchizidek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed of neseccity there is also a CHANGE IN THE LAW" Hebrews 7.

The sons of Levi had a "commandment" to receive tithes from the people. But that priesthood was abolished and Christ our Priest RECEIVED NO SUCH COMMANDMENT. Ergo, tithing is an old covenant ordinance!

The brother told me that his conscience had been set free. I felt good because the brother lifted his face in assurance that he is guilt free.

Since I came to this board I have noticed that a lot of Christians here are carrying over their old covenant baggage into their new covenant relationship with God and even requiring others to do so. So you need to think about backing off because,

"The letter killeth, but the spirit gives life".

NOTE: I originally posted Hebrews 8. But the correct chapter is 7.

Friend of I AM
Mar 19th 2008, 04:27 PM
"FOR THE LETTER KILLETH, BUT THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE", 2 Corinthians 3:6

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Back in the 1980's when I was a student at the Moody Bible Institute I was assigned a ministry in a prison. We had to do ministry related work for graduation requirements. I was teamed up with another man who was a student at a Bible school in Indiana. I do not remember his name.

On one occasion after we had delivered the Word to prisoners I noticed that the brother appeared to be quite distressed. So I asked him what was the matter. He replied saying,

"The pastor at my church has been saying that we sin when we do not tithe. He said that the inability to tithe is not an excuse. But I don't have the money to tithe".

I told the brother that tithing was abolished with the Levitical priesthood for it was an integral part of the Levitical priesthood. He asked me where the Bible says this.

"Those who are the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law....However, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that ANOTHER PRIEST should rise according to the order of Melchizidek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed of neseccity there is also a CHANGE IN THE LAW" Hebrews 8.

The sons of Levi had a "commandment" to receive tithes from the people. But that priesthood was abolished and Christ our Priest RECEIVED NO SUCH COMMANDMENT. Ergo, tithing is an old covenant ordinance!

The brother told me that his conscience had been set free. I felt good because the brother lifted his face in assurance that he is guilt free.

Since I came to this board I have noticed that a lot of Christians here are carrying over their old covenant baggage into their new covenant relationship with God and even requiring others to do so. So you need to think about backing off because,

"The letter killeth, but the spirit gives life".

Amen. Living in Christ we have fulfilled the law, it's within our hearts.

menJesus
Mar 20th 2008, 01:08 AM
thethinker said: "Since I came to this board I have noticed that a lot of Christians here are carrying over their old covenant baggage into their new covenant relationship with God and even requiring others to do so. So you need to think about backing off because,

"The letter killeth, but the spirit gives life".

Well, I must just ask you this: if I give every dollar I make to God, really, of what concern is it to you? Its my money, after all...

stillforgiven
Mar 20th 2008, 02:00 AM
"FOR THE LETTER KILLETH, BUT THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE", 2 Corinthians 3:6

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Back in the 1980's when I was a student at the Moody Bible Institute I was assigned a ministry in a prison. We had to do ministry related work for graduation requirements. I was teamed up with another man who was a student at a Bible school in Indiana. I do not remember his name.

On one occasion after we had delivered the Word to prisoners I noticed that the brother appeared to be quite distressed. So I asked him what was the matter. He replied saying,

"The pastor at my church has been saying that we sin when we do not tithe. He said that the inability to tithe is not an excuse. But I don't have the money to tithe".

I told the brother that tithing was abolished with the Levitical priesthood for it was an integral part of the Levitical priesthood. He asked me where the Bible says this.

"Those who are the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law....However, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that ANOTHER PRIEST should rise according to the order of Melchizidek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed of neseccity there is also a CHANGE IN THE LAW" Hebrews 8.

The sons of Levi had a "commandment" to receive tithes from the people. But that priesthood was abolished and Christ our Priest RECEIVED NO SUCH COMMANDMENT. Ergo, tithing is an old covenant ordinance!

The brother told me that his conscience had been set free. I felt good because the brother lifted his face in assurance that he is guilt free.

Since I came to this board I have noticed that a lot of Christians here are carrying over their old covenant baggage into their new covenant relationship with God and even requiring others to do so. So you need to think about backing off because,

"The letter killeth, but the spirit gives life".

I'm not saying you're wrong, please believe me. And I'd love to be free from what can be bondage. But, what if this you're wrong? What if we are robbing God when we withhold our tithes?

ravi4u2
Mar 20th 2008, 02:49 AM
I'm not saying you're wrong, please believe me. And I'd love to be free from what can be bondage. But, what if this you're wrong? What if we are robbing God when we withhold our tithes?Live in the love of God and be fear free!

stoomart
Mar 20th 2008, 03:20 AM
Amen brother, great post. My understanding of the old covenant law is that is was set up to show us that no matter how hard we try, we cannot uphold the whole law. We also learn that anyone who offends any one point of the law is guilty of the whole law. The law kept a person in bondage because in it, there was no mercy, no grace, no hope, only condemnation. For this reason, Jesus said that He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. In Jesus' death, He showed how the law kills by being put to death by the very people how claimed to live by the law.

In His death and resurrection, He put to death the old covenant and made a new one with those who believe on His name. This new covenant releases us from our iniquities and bondage, thereby allowing for true atonement, making us pure and holy, able to stand in our Fathers glorious presence and be counted worthy.

As for the law, the new covenant doesn't mean that we shouldn't still do anything that the law prescribes, it just means that we are no longer bound to it.

Now, in regard to not tithing being a sin, if the Holy Spirit convicts you to do so and you are able, yet you do not, you may want to meditate on this verse a little:

James 4:17: - Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

Personally, I have found much blessing when I have tithed, both spiritually and financially. If you find yourself compelled to tithe, do so. If not, do not give grudgingly or out of duty.

2 Corinthians 9:7 - So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver.


In Christ's love, stoo

stillforgiven
Mar 20th 2008, 03:24 AM
Amen brother, great post. My understanding of the old covenant law is that is was set up to show us that no matter how hard we try, we cannot uphold the whole law. We also learn that anyone who offends any one point of the law is guilty of the whole law. The law kept a person in bondage because in it, there was no mercy, no grace, no hope, only condemnation. For this reason, Jesus said that He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. In Jesus' death, He showed how the law kills by being put to death by the very people how claimed to live by the law.

In His death and resurrection, He put to death the old covenant and made a new one with those who believe on His name. This new covenant releases us from our iniquities and bondage, thereby allowing for true atonement, making us pure and holy, able to stand in our Fathers glorious presence and be counted worthy.

As for the law, the new covenant doesn't mean that we shouldn't still do anything that the law prescribes, it just means that we are no longer bound to it.

Now, in regard to not tithing being a sin, if the Holy Spirit convicts you to do so and you are able, yet you do not, you may want to meditate on this verse a little:

James 4:17: - Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

Personally, I have found much blessing when I have tithed, both spiritually and financially. If you find yourself compelled to tithe, do so. If not, do not give grudgingly or out of duty.

2 Corinthians 9:7 - So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver.


In Christ's love, stoo

I'm going to really be thinking and praying about what you've said, to see if I'm trying to live up to someone else's conviction or if it's really from God. There are times I cannot tithe. My whole paycheck sometimes goes to rent, and to write a tithe check would be to write a hot check, and I know that's not right. But I feel condemned for not tithing, because my church teaches that not tithing is a sin, and even teaches that it's a cause of my financial troubles.

Slug1
Mar 20th 2008, 03:30 AM
I'm going to really be thinking and praying about what you've said, to see if I'm trying to live up to someone else's conviction or if it's really from God. There are times I cannot tithe. My whole paycheck sometimes goes to rent, and to write a tithe check would be to write a hot check, and I know that's not right.Read this also as you seek God on this:

2 Cor 9:6-8

6Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.

Give when you can with a happy heart.

Also this: Mark 12:43-44

43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."

It doesn't take 10%, it takes sacrifice... any amount... and God will bless your offers even when they are a few pennies.

stoomart
Mar 20th 2008, 03:41 AM
Dear Stillforgiven,

Following Christ should not be a burden, but something you delight in, just as a son finds delight in pleasing his father, so should our relationship with our heavenly Father be, to please Him and bring Him honor.

Matthew 11:28-30

28 - Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 - Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
30 - For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

Another thing that I've learned from experience is that we can never be able to out-give God. If all you can spare is the change in the bottom of your pocket, He sees your heart in doing so and will reward you the same as if you could give %100 of everything you have. Again, it's not the quantity, it's the heart.


In Christ's love, stoo

stillforgiven
Mar 20th 2008, 03:43 AM
Read this also as you seek God on this:

2 Cor 9:6-8

6Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.

Give when you can with a happy heart.

Also this: Mark 12:43-44

43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."

It doesn't take 10%, it takes sacrifice... any amount... and God will bless your offers even when they are a few pennies.




Thanks for the scriptures. I know I can come up with something to put into the plate, even it it's not a full 10% some weeks. I can see where this should be a state of my heart and not something that I feel I have to do to make God love me.

stillforgiven
Mar 20th 2008, 03:46 AM
Dear Stillforgiven,

Following Christ should not be a burden, but something you delight in, just as a son finds delight in pleasing his father, so should our relationship with our heavenly Father be, to please Him and bring Him honor.

Matthew 11:28-30

28 - Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 - Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
30 - For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

Another thing that I've learned from experience is that we can never be able to out-give God. If all you can spare is the change in the bottom of your pocket, He sees your heart in doing so and will reward you the same as if you could give %100 of everything you have. Again, it's not the quantity, it's the heart.


In Christ's love, stoo

I think I was typing when you posted this, and I missed it. Thanks for the encouragement. I really have a feeling of peace I have about it now.

My thanks to thethinker for starting the thread, and to the rest of you for answering my questions.

Mograce2U
Mar 20th 2008, 04:02 AM
Read this also as you seek God on this:

2 Cor 9:6-8

6Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.

Give when you can with a happy heart.

Also this: Mark 12:43-44

43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."

It doesn't take 10%, it takes sacrifice... any amount... and God will bless your offers even when they are a few pennies.
The first example is a collection that Paul was taking up for the persecuted saints in Jerusalem. And the 2nd was a widow under the old system who would have been taken in and supported by it. Which was a rule that was passed on to the NT churches too. So it seems that if this is what your church is collecting funds for, then it would be good to tithe.

Which is not to say that supporting the pastor is not warranted too because it is. That is where the 1/10 works well in a synagogue which required 10 men for it to be formed. That would make everyone of equal substance. Christian giving is not governed by such rules however, rather a generous spirit is our rule. And if one has that, then there ought not be any guilt over having sinned based on one's "tithe".

Show me a NT storehouse that exists for distribution to the saints and I will change my mind!

Especially when guys like Greg Laurie are able to collect $14,000,000 in "tithes" for new buildings which HE then owns...

losthorizon
Mar 20th 2008, 04:25 AM
"FOR THE LETTER KILLETH, BUT THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE", 2 Corinthians 3:6

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Back in the 1980's when I was a student at the Moody Bible Institute I was assigned a ministry in a prison. We had to do ministry related work for graduation requirements. I was teamed up with another man who was a student at a Bible school in Indiana. I do not remember his name.

On one occasion after we had delivered the Word to prisoners I noticed that the brother appeared to be quite distressed. So I asked him what was the matter. He replied saying,

"The pastor at my church has been saying that we sin when we do not tithe. He said that the inability to tithe is not an excuse. But I don't have the money to tithe".

I told the brother that tithing was abolished with the Levitical priesthood for it was an integral part of the Levitical priesthood. He asked me where the Bible says this.

Of course Christians are not bound by the Law of Moses which was “nailed to the cross” but Christians are by command and example under the NT to “lay by him in store” to support the ministry and help the poor “upon the first day of the week”. Christians are not limited by a “tithe” – they can give more or they can give less as long as they do it with a “cheerful heart” – “for God loveth a cheerful giver…”
Acts 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

1 Corinthians
16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
16:3 And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.

2 Corinthians 9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

TrustGzus
Mar 20th 2008, 11:22 AM
Greetings Mograce2U,
Especially when guys like Greg Laurie are able to collect $14,000,000 in "tithes" for new buildings which HE then owns...How do you know how much is collected at a Greg Laurie event and what proof do you have that Greg Laurie owns any such buildings?
17The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “Workers deserve their wages.” 19Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning. 21I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.

The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. 2005 (1 Ti 5:17-21). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.Are you personally a witness to this? If the answer is yes, then you need at least another witness. If you aren't a witness, then you need some decent proof.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

TEITZY
Mar 20th 2008, 11:50 AM
There were actually 3 separate tithes in the OT, two were collected annually (Lev 27:30-33; Deut 14:22-27) and the third was collected every 3 years (Deut 14:28-29, 26:12) for the poor. So on average that's at least 23% plus you also had all the feast & free will offerings on top of that (Ezra 3:5). So if you want to be Biblically consistent, 10% doesn't even get you half there and double tithing still pulls up a bit short as well.

One needs to consider that Israel, unlike the Church, was a nation and tithes functioned in a similar way as taxes do today (eg. help run the country, social welfare etc.).

Whle personally I have nothing against tithing, those who insist people must pay a tenth are being legalistic, end of story.

Cheers
Leigh

Slug1
Mar 20th 2008, 12:28 PM
Whle personally I have nothing against tithing, those who insist people must pay a tenth are being legalistic, end of story.

Cheers
LeighI agree. Everyone should give what they are led to give and if a person is obedient to this, they will have a happy heart.

Here's a story... last year I had saved up $1000 to go buy an M4. I'm a gun enthusiest and I've been wanting to own an M4 for many years. So over a period of a year I had saved this money for myself to purchase the rifle. I began to have second thoughts and began to pray on why I was so hesitant and just held the money in the bank.

Time passed and many times I went to the gun shop and looked over the M4's... all I had to do was pull out my debit card and the rifle would be mine but I had a nagging feeling. Not that buying it was a stupid thing to do but a feeling that it wasn't the right time. So I waited.

Then I was driving home from work one day and while listening to the radio... KLOVE... they where doing their fund drive. This was the first year I'd been listening to the station and I didn't know they did a fund drive to keep the station on the air. I knew at that very moment that this was what I was waiting for and once I realized it my heart was... just filled with JOY. I gave a years worth pledge in a lump sum and like it says in scripture, give with a happy heart and giving all that money was such a blessing for me. I praised God that day for the joy I was filled with once I realized why I held onto that money for so long.

Even if I had given only a single dollar and that was what God willed for me to give... my happiness and joy would have been just as great and my praises to God just as strong.

end of story, hahaha...

That scripture I posted above about giving with a happy heart has been important to me for many years and convicts me that 10% isn't what God may will for us, instead listen to what God wills for you to give... and if you're obedient to this, you will have a happy heart.

valleybldr
Mar 20th 2008, 12:47 PM
Whle personally I have nothing against tithing, those who insist people must pay a tenth are being legalistic, end of story.

Obviously, your value system and theirs differ. If "they" insist people stay "sexual pure" until marriage you probably won't call that "legalistic." So it depends on what values you adopt and which ones you reject. todd

Slug1
Mar 20th 2008, 12:56 PM
Obviously, your value system and theirs differ. If "they" insist people stay "sexual pure" until marriage you probably won't call that "legalistic." So it depends on what values you adopt and which ones you reject. toddI don't understand... staying sexually pure is remaining sin free and SHOULD be demanded... while not giving 10% is also being sin free cause not giving 10% isn't a sin. Man makes it a sin when they follow their greed and demand 10% from their congegation.

valleybldr
Mar 20th 2008, 01:00 PM
That scripture I posted above about giving with a happy heart has been important to me for many years and convicts me that 10% isn't what God may will for us, instead listen to what God wills for you to give... and if you're obedient to this, you will have a happy heart. I agree with this to a point but thee are plenty of "Christians" who are content to "live together" prior to marriage so I'm not going always trust my emotions, feelings and "heart" apart from what I can prove via scripture. todd

thethinker
Mar 20th 2008, 01:12 PM
Of course Christians are not bound by the Law of Moses which was “nailed to the cross” but Christians are by command and example under the NT to “lay by him in store” to support the ministry and help the poor “upon the first day of the week”. Christians are not limited by a “tithe” – they can give more or they can give less as long as they do it with a “cheerful heart” – “for God loveth a cheerful giver…”

LH,
I whole heartedly agree with you. Christians ought to give as you say but out of a thankful heart to Jesus for their salvation and not out of REQUIREMENT. Paul said that we should not give out of "necessity" (or requirement).

But the 10% requirement was old covenant. Hebrews clearly says that the Levite priests were commanded to collect tithes from the people. But when the priesthood changed THE LAW ALSO CHANGED. Our Priest Jesus has not been commanded to collect 10%. And whenever I hear a preacher make the tithe a new covenant law, which it clearly is not, I challenge him from Hebrews 7.

A preacher ought not to harm the consciences of Christians who can't spare 10%. The preacher sins in my opinion when he does this. We should give sparingly. But this is matter of conscience too.

valleybldr
Mar 20th 2008, 01:23 PM
I don't understand... staying sexually pure is remaining sin free and SHOULD be demanded... while not giving 10% is also being sin free cause not giving 10% isn't a sin. Man makes it a sin when they follow their greed and demand 10% from their congegation. I would not assume the leadership of all tithe paying congregations are motivated by greed. "Sin" is defined by each individual congregations understanding of Scripture. If the individual disagrees and they are unable live in peace they should go somewhere that's more harmony with their doctrinal checklist. todd

valleybldr
Mar 20th 2008, 01:29 PM
I don't understand... staying sexually pure is remaining sin free and SHOULD be demanded... while not giving 10% is also being sin free cause not giving 10% isn't a sin. That's my point. It's up to each congregation/individual to live out biblical principles according to their understanding of Scripture. I feel no need to call someone "legalistic" just because someone holds to a different opinion regarding biblical values. People are "saved," in part, by the outreach of others (in many cases paid by the tithes of Christians). So tithing, in and of itself, does not "kill" though some atttitudes assocated might on occasion. todd

thethinker
Mar 20th 2008, 03:10 PM
I feel condemned for not tithing, because my church teaches that not tithing is a sin, and even teaches that it's a cause of my financial troubles.

Your church tells you that you sin in not tithing and that is the "cause of your financial troubles"? Wow! They think they have the inroads to God's mind.

In other words, "God is going to punish you if you don't tithe". Sounds like modern day scribes and pharisees, don't you think?

So what is then the difference between the old covenant God and the new covenant God? And what is the difference between your church and the scribes and pharisees of Jesus' day?

stoomart
Mar 20th 2008, 04:07 PM
I agree with this to a point but thee are plenty of "Christians" who are content to "live together" prior to marriage so I'm not going always trust my emotions, feelings and "heart" apart from what I can prove via scripture. toddNot to get too far off topic, but I feel compelled to respond to this statement. I have been a Christian since childhood but at the end of my senior year, I drew away from God, the church, and other believers and chose to live in the world. Shortly after this, I got into an intimate relationship with a girl, who ended up moving in with me a year and a half later. We lived together for about 3 years before we finally got married. Let me tell you, those years in sin and turning my back on God were the darkest years in my life, I've never felt so far away from Him. I don't think any self-respecting Christian with any understanding of sin can live like that and not feel the weight of their sin in the form of guilt. This is why after I was able to get out of this sin, that I felt so free, and was then able to draw close to our Father.
Even though God has blessed our relationship and we are now both growing in Christ, there have certainly been consequences for our sins that we have had to deal with.


In Christ's love, stoo

intricatic
Mar 20th 2008, 07:33 PM
The old covenant with Israel was by no means put to death. If it had been, the Law would be put to death with it, as an integral part of the whole. The Law does not change, as by it we have knowledge of sin, and a knowledge of the need for grace. By that same token, not all of the Law is actually Law in the sense of inward inflection, or the heart of man, or the spirit of man. Outward ordinances are put to death in Christ because they cannot cleanse a man's heart (they were given to keep Israel from being defiled by surrounding tribes and religions). If the law itself were put to death, there would be no need for salvation. If the first covenant were done away with, God would be made a liar for calling it an eternal covenant in Jeremiah 33, and 31.

At the same time, tithing is an outward ordinance meant to support the Levitical priesthood, and since there can be no such ordinance without a physical temple, there is no longer a purpose for it.

TrustGzus
Mar 20th 2008, 10:24 PM
Greetings Todd,
That's my point. It's up to each congregation/individual to live out biblical principles according to their understanding of Scripture. I feel no need to call someone "legalistic" just because someone holds to a different opinion regarding biblical values. People are "saved," in part, by the outreach of others (in many cases paid by the tithes of Christians). So tithing, in and of itself, does not "kill" though some atttitudes assocated might on occasion. toddBy this quote, it appears to me that you've eliminated legalism by making it unidentifiable. All one has to do is claim that they have a different opinion regarding biblical values. Tithing is either for today or not for today. If it is not for today, then one can practice it if they light. But if it is not for today, when they push it on others, calling it legalism is accurate.

Based on your comment, when Paul withstood Peter to his face, all Peter needed to claim was he held to a different opinion regarding biblical values. Right?

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

valleybldr
Mar 20th 2008, 11:40 PM
Greetings Todd,By this quote, it appears to me that you've eliminated legalism by making it unidentifiable. All one has to do is claim that they have a different opinion regarding biblical values. Tithing is either for today or not for today. If it is not for today, then one can practice it if they light. But if it is not for today, when they push it on others, calling it legalism is accurate.

Based on your comment, when Paul withstood Peter to his face, all Peter needed to claim was he held to a different opinion regarding biblical values. Right?

Grace & peace to you,

Joe "Legalism" is a matter of the heart. Each community defines it's standards. Where I attend, some tithe and others don't but each answers to God. If a faith community wants to make that a defining doctrine that's up to them.

Paul rebuked Peter for hypocrisy. I would not equate hypocrisy and differences over tithing.

todd

TEITZY
Mar 21st 2008, 12:14 AM
Obviously, your value system and theirs differ. If "they" insist people stay "sexual pure" until marriage you probably won't call that "legalistic." So it depends on what values you adopt and which ones you reject. todd

Well every Christian's value system will differ in some or even many ways depending on their background and personal convictions. In short, legalism, as I've used the term above, is the enforcement of laws upon Christians that are not explicitly commanded in the NT. Your example above of sexual purity for believers is clearly commanded in the NT, so to insist upon it is certainly not legalism as you rightly point out. Both the confusion & strong conviction that people have about tihing today stems from the fact that it is explicitly commanded in the OT and there is also a strong tradition of tithing in certain denominations.

If tithing is a personal conviction that God has laid on a person's heart then I don't see any problem with this, but I hope when people do decide to tithe that they clearly understand the Biblical background and requirements and that the basis of their decision is not because of some guilt trip initiated by their Pastor's personal conviction on the matter.

As a general rule, pushing your values or preferences (even if they are correct) down people's throats is not a great philosophy for ministry. It's better just to preach the Word and let the Spirit do the convicting and the application of Biblical principles in the lives of your hearers.

Cheers
Leigh

thethinker
Mar 21st 2008, 12:15 AM
That's my point. It's up to each congregation/individual to live out biblical principles according to their understanding of scripture. I feel no need to call someone "legalistic" just because someone holds to a different opinion regarding biblical values. People are "saved," in part, by the outreach of others (in many cases paid by the tithes of Christians). So tithing, in and of itself, does not "kill" though some atttitudes assocated might on occasion. todd

Did Christ live according to His own subjective "understanding of the scripture"? No! Truth was ABSOLUTE for Jesus.

Paul said that we should serve "according to the NEWNESS of the spirit and not the oldness of the letter" (Rom. 7:6).

Frequently our Biblical interpretations of Scripture are not based on our own understanding of the Scripture. It is based on childhood baggage or old covenant baggage that we carry over in to God's new covenant rule.

valleybldr
Mar 21st 2008, 12:20 AM
Did Christ live according to His own subjective "understanding of the scripture"? No! Truth was ABSOLUTE for Jesus.

Tolerance and subjective truth are two different things. Each faith community is capable of defining their own "absolutes." Unless the evidence is clear to the contrary, I'm not going to impute motives to someone that disagrees with me. The tithing debate is valid and understandable on several levels. todd

stillforgiven
Mar 21st 2008, 01:49 AM
Your church tells you that you sin in not tithing and that is the "cause of your financial troubles"? Wow! They think they have the inroads to God's mind.

In other words, "God is going to punish you if you don't tithe". Sounds like modern day scribes and pharisees, don't you think?

So what is then the difference between the old covenant God and the new covenant God? And what is the difference between your church and the scribes and pharisees of Jesus' day?

Yes, this is taught at my church, but I'm now set free from these laws. I'm not going to leave, because God has made it doubtless that I am to be there. My pastor is just teaching what he was taught, but in many things his eyes are being opened to the truth in the Word instead of what religion says. I will keep this particular area in my prayers for his enlightenment. He really does love God, and it's not greed that he is motivated by. He doesn't even take a salary from our church. He sincerely believes what he's teaching is true, and in his eyes, he would be wrong to not teach it.

I won't give his name, but if you would pray for him with me, I would appreciate it. Call him Brother G. :)

thethinker
Mar 21st 2008, 01:56 AM
Tolerance and subjective truth are two different things. Each faith community is capable of defining their own "absolutes." Unless the evidence is clear to the contrary, I'm not going to impute motives to someone that disagrees with me. The tithing debate is valid and understandable on several levels. todd

It is those who require the observance of tithing and other old covenant laws that are not tolerant.

I confess my own intolerance. But it is toward those who beat the consciences of the sheep with old covenat laws. The man in my true story was distressed because his pastor said that those who don't tithe sin. The man did not have the wherewithal to give 10%.

It was his pastor who had sin. He brought his own childhood baggage and old covenant baggage in to the pulpit inflicting harm on Christ's sheep. Shame on him!

SIG
Mar 21st 2008, 02:55 AM
It is human nature to make a list of rules, try to live by them, and feel we're doing OK. It is Spirit nature to be led by the Spirit.

When we observe Jesus in the Gospels, we see Him living as an observant Jew, so that all should be done correctly. So we should be living as observant Christians. This means being led by the (indwelt) Spirit as only post-Pentecost people can.

In all things, we give with a free and loving heart, as God leads. If we are not prompted to give, we are not condemned, and refrain from giving with a free and loving heart.

This of course is a matter of conscience, and is quite apart from outright sin, in which we have no choice.

It is hard to live in the Spirit of the Law, and apart from the letter of it. We will all wrestle with that distinction as long as we're this side of Heaven.

ravi4u2
Mar 21st 2008, 06:04 AM
There are more 'yield' signs than 'stop' signs, in our journey with the Lord.

valleybldr
Mar 21st 2008, 08:41 AM
It is hard to live in the Spirit of the Law, and apart from the letter of it. We will all wrestle with that distinction as long as we're this side of Heaven.
So I can murder but not hate? No lust but extra-marital sex is fine? This makes no sense and we should wrestle and reject such a notion. todd

valleybldr
Mar 21st 2008, 08:44 AM
It is those who require the observance of tithing and other old covenant laws that are not tolerant. You make God's instructions to his people sound oppressive. I thought He gave His divine revelation at Sinai as a part of their ticket out of slavery. Guess He really "set them up" huh? todd

Brother Mark
Mar 21st 2008, 09:10 AM
So I can murder but not hate? No lust but extra-marital sex is fine? This makes no sense and we should wrestle and reject such a notion. todd

If you keep the spirit of the law, there will be no sin. Apart from lust, there is no extra-marital sex.

The spirit of the law will always keep one from sin but the letter of the law will not. The spirit gives life while the letter kills.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 21st 2008, 10:13 AM
If you keep the spirit of the law, there will be no sin. Apart from lust, there is no extra-marital sex.

The spirit of the law will always keep one from sin but the letter of the law will not. The spirit gives life while the letter kills.I agree with what you say here contrasting the spirit and the letter but where I believe I differ with most who have posted already is that I do not believe that 'the law' has changed, only how we perceive it. What was once only on hard, cold, unfeeling stone has now been written onto soft, willing, feeling hearts. No longer do we feel forced to merely make the appearance of walking righteously. Now it is our desire to walk completely in the righteousness Yeshua died to impart to us. No longer do we need to fear being banished from His table because we have erred. Now, we know that we have been adopted as sons, and a son does not fear the way a servant does. ;)

God Bless!

thethinker
Mar 21st 2008, 04:15 PM
You make God's instructions to his people sound oppressive. I thought He gave His divine revelation at Sinai as a part of their ticket out of slavery. Guess He really "set them up" huh? todd

Why did God change the law then? If the Levitical order that required tithing was sufficient, then why did God transfer the priesthood to Christ who was NOT a Levite?

"Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood...what further need was there that another Priest should come?" [Heb. 7:11]

The transferrance of the Priesthood from the Levitical to Christ implies the INFERIORITY of the Levitical. A good business man does not make a change if all is going well.

The old saying, "If it ain't broke don't fix it" applies here. If the Levitical was not broke, then why did God "fix it"?

The command to tithe under the Levitical priesthood did not create pure hearts. The people surrendered the tenth because they were required. But Christ's priesthood creates the purity of heart that God required from the beginning. So Paul said,

"Let us give NOT out of necessity" (or requirement).

stillforgiven
Mar 21st 2008, 11:16 PM
You all probably have no idea just how much this thread has set me free. Nothing has changed for me financially since I first posted, but it's all different on the inside now. I used to dread not only the tithe/offering time at church, but then when any opportunities to give came, I felt horrible. How could I give a few dollars there when I wasn't even paying my tithes to my church? Now, I'm actually excited about all these opportunities that I will have to give, even if it's just a dollar.

Thanks again for starting this thread and for all who have helped.

stoomart
Mar 21st 2008, 11:48 PM
Praise God for the freedom His spirit brings!


In Christ's love, stoo

thethinker
Mar 22nd 2008, 05:31 PM
You all probably have no idea just how much this thread has set me free. Nothing has changed for me financially since I first posted, but it's all different on the inside now. I used to dread not only the tithe/offering time at church, but then when any opportunities to give came, I felt horrible. How could I give a few dollars there when I wasn't even paying my tithes to my church? Now, I'm actually excited about all these opportunities that I will have to give, even if it's just a dollar.

Thanks again for starting this thread and for all who have helped.

Stillforgiven,
Though we are free to give according to conscience now we still should have the right priorities. I believe that those who deliver the Word of God to us and our families week in and week out should be at the top of our priorities.

I exhort you to keep first in mind your pastor's needs and the needs of other minister's of the Word at your church.

We are all being fed by the pain staking hard work of those who study the Word.

valleybldr
Mar 22nd 2008, 08:04 PM
The transferrance of the Priesthood from the Levitical to Christ implies the INFERIORITY of the Levitical. A good business man does not make a change if all is going well. That's what I said "He set them up (for failure)" by giving them an inferior way. :o Do you allow for the destruction of the Temple in your thinkings regarding why things changed? todd

valleybldr
Mar 22nd 2008, 08:08 PM
The command to tithe under the Levitical priesthood did not create pure hearts. The people surrendered the tenth because they were required.
How can you possibly make that judgment? I'm sure many follow[ed] God because they see His ways as being right and just. todd

diffangle
Mar 22nd 2008, 08:39 PM
How can you possibly make that judgment? I'm sure many follow[ed] God because they see His ways as being right and just. todd
Psa 1:2 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=1&v=2&t=KJV#2) But his delight [is] in the law of YHWH; and in His law doth he meditate day and night.

Psa 40:8 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=40&v=8&t=KJV#8) I delight to do Thy will, O my God: yea, Thy law [is] within my heart.

Psa 119:16 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=119&v=16&t=KJV#16) I will delight myself in Thy statutes: I will not forget Thy Word.

Psa 119:47 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=119&v=47&t=KJV#47) And I will delight myself in Thy commandments, which I have loved.

thethinker
Mar 22nd 2008, 10:00 PM
That's what I said "He set them up (for failure)" by giving them an inferior way. :o Do you allow for the destruction of the Temple in your thinkings regarding why things changed? todd

Paul said that the law was given to bring the knowledge of sin (Rom. 7). It was given also as a "tutor" to lead men to Christ (Galatians 3).

Other than these the law was "bondage":

"For these are the two covenants: the one from Sinai which gives birth to bondage...which corresponds to the Jerusalem that now is" (Galatians 4:21-27).

Note how clearly Paul stated it. The law which came from Sinai generates "BONDAGE". Note too that it corresponds to the earthly Jerusalem, where the temple was located. Therefore, the invasion of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple was the physical "sign" that the "covenant of "bondage" (or Sinai) came to its full end. See also Hebrews 9 & Daniel 9.

"For the letter killeth, but the spirit gives life".

Happy Passover holy day!

valleybldr
Mar 22nd 2008, 10:04 PM
Happy Passover holy day! Well, it's a month off but thanks for the well wishes. todd

diffangle
Mar 22nd 2008, 10:38 PM
[quote=thethinker;1581253]Paul said that the law was given to bring the knowledge of sin (Rom. 7). It was given also as a "tutor" to lead men to Christ (Galatians 3).

Once you graduated from school... did you forget everything your teacher taught you? Did the information become bad once you graduated?




Other than these the law was "bondage":

"For these are the two covenants: the one from Sinai which gives birth to bondage...which corresponds to the Jerusalem that now is" (Galatians 4:21-27).

Note how clearly Paul stated it. The law which came from Sinai generates "BONDAGE". Note too that it corresponds to the earthly Jerusalem, where the temple was located. Therefore, the invasion of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple was the physical "sign" that the "covenant of "bondage" (or Sinai) came to its full end. See also Hebrews 9 & Daniel 9.

"For the letter killeth, but the spirit gives life".

Happy Passover holy day!

Here's a good take on Gal. 4...

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1291204&postcount=18


Paul is setting up a spiritual analogy, or as he calls it an allegory.

The players:

Hagar = Jerusalem (in this world)
Children of Hagar = the same folks from Acts 15:1; those who claim one must be a Jew in order to find a place in the world to come, or "Unless you are circumcised (shorthand for "be re-born as a Jew through the ritual of circumcision/proselytism") according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Sarah = the real Jerusalem/Temple/New Jerusalem in Heaven
Children of Sarah = those grafted in to the Commonwealth of Israel through belief in Yeshua as Lord and Messiah, those Paul describes in Ephesians 2 as those who "once were far off", "strangers to the covenants of promise" or "the uncircumcision"

The play:

Much to the chagrin of the "Judaizers" from Judea/Jerusalem, Paul compares the Gentile converts to "Apostolic Judaism" with Isaac, and the "Jews after the flesh" with Ishmael. Can you imagine an allegory that would have made them any angrier!?

So those who were born descendants of Abraham and Sarah as it relates to the flesh, but who have rejected Yeshua, Paul compares to the descendants of Ishmael. (Whew, I bet if they read this letter it really teed them off). And he compares the Gentile "God-fearers" who are being tempted to go through the rabbinic conversion ritual by the Judaizers, but have all ready become part of Israel in a spiritual sense by virtue of Messiah's work, who abolished the enmity between Israel and the Gentiles in His flesh when He died on the cross with being the "real" or in this analogy the "spiritual" descendants of Isaac.

Mistaken interpretations:

It is a mistake to make Paul's words bigger than the scope of his analogy and think that he is contrasting spiritual with physical and saying of the spirit is good and of the flesh is bad. This is an example of a mistake that the Gnostics and proto-Gnostics did make.

It is also a mistake to enlarge the scope of the analogy to try and say that Paul is indicating that those who obey the law are of the flesh while those who follow only the Spirit's leading are spiritual. Paul would have scoffed at anyone who tried to twist his words this way. It was taken for granted that "if you love God you keep His commandments."

Key to interpretation: it is an allegorical analogy--using the passage outside the scope of the context will twist Paul's meaning.

stillforgiven
Mar 23rd 2008, 01:37 AM
Stillforgiven,
Though we are free to give according to conscience now we still should have the right priorities. I believe that those who deliver the Word of God to us and our families week in and week out should be at the top of our priorities.

I exhort you to keep first in mind your pastor's needs and the needs of other minister's of the Word at your church.

We are all being fed by the pain staking hard work of those who study the Word.

Thank you for the reminder. I do very much love my pastor and his wife, which is why I'm not willing to leave my church over this one little area of teaching. I will give, probably even more often now than before, because me and God will decide when, how much and to whom/where.

thethinker
Mar 24th 2008, 03:32 PM
It is a mistake to make Paul's words bigger than the scope of his analogy and think that he is contrasting spiritual with physical and saying of the spirit is good and of the flesh is bad. This is an example of a mistake that the Gnostics and proto-Gnostics did make.

Who said anything about flesh or phyical being bad? Paul said that the "letter" kills and the "spirit" gives life. The "letter" of the law , that is, the WRITTEN commandments, were "nailed to the cross of Christ" (Col. 2).

What does this have to do with Gnosticism? :confused



Once you graduated from school... did you forget everything your teacher taught you? Did the information become bad once you graduated?

Moody taught me well and I have remained true to the new covenant principle that we are not under the law but under the rule of grace. It is GRACE ALONE!

diffangle
Mar 24th 2008, 03:44 PM
Who said anything about flesh or phyical being bad? Paul said that the "letter" kills and the "spirit" gives life. The "letter" of the law , that is, the WRITTEN commandments, were "nailed to the cross of Christ" (Col. 2).

What does this have to do with Gnosticism? :confused

Moody taught me well and I have been faithful to the new covenant principle that the letter of the law KILLS.
Col. 2 has everything to do with gnosticism, look at verse 8 where he's talking about "vain deciet after the traditions of men", and verse 18...

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

Like I asked you in another thread, since you believe Col. 2 is talking about the OT... where is voluntary humility and worshipping of angels commanded in the OT?

thethinker
Mar 24th 2008, 04:38 PM
Col. 2 has everything to do with gnosticism, look at verse 8 where he's talking about "vain deciet after the traditions of men", and verse 18...

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

Like I asked you in another thread, since you believe Col. 2 is talking about the OT... where is voluntary humility and worshipping of angels commanded in the OT?

The "doctrines and commandments of men" were killed on the cross by virtue of the old covenant law being killed. If the old covenant is no longer in effect then all twisted interpretations should not rule. Paul said that the ordinances that were nailed to the cross were "shadows" of Christ.

So the laws that were nailed to the cross were "shadows" of Christ. Men's laws do not qualify as "shadows". Since the old covenant laws were crucified then the twisted interpretations of men most certainly have no binding rule.

"For if the first covenant had been without fault, then why the need for a second covenant?...." [Hebrews 8:7-10].

diffangle
Mar 24th 2008, 04:52 PM
The "doctrines and commandments of men" were killed on the cross by virtue of the old covenant law being killed. If the old covenant is no longer in effect then all twisted interpretations should not rule. Paul said that the ordinances that were nailed to the cross were "shadows" of Christ.

So the laws that were nailed to the cross were "shadows" of Christ. Men's laws do not qualify as "shadows". Since the old covenant laws were crucified then the twisted interpretations of men most certainly have no binding rule.

"For if the first covenant had been without fault, then why the need for a second covenant?...." [Hebrews 8:7-10].
Once again you're avoiding the question I asked you... where is voluntary humility and worshipping of angels commanded in the OT?

I think it's interesting that you think the doctrines of men is the same as the doctrines of YHWH... are you aware that there was/is an oral law(man-made) that men try to say is YHWH's Law?

Studyin'2Show
Mar 24th 2008, 05:12 PM
The "doctrines and commandments of men" were killed on the cross by virtue of the old covenant law being killed. If the old covenant is no longer in effect then all twisted interpretations should not rule. Paul said that the ordinances that were nailed to the cross were "shadows" of Christ.

So the laws that were nailed to the cross were "shadows" of Christ. Men's laws do not qualify as "shadows". Since the old covenant laws were crucified then the twisted interpretations of men most certainly have no binding rule.

"For if the first covenant had been without fault, then why the need for a second covenant?...." [Hebrews 8:7-10].When did the Law from God become the 'doctrines and commandments of men"? That is not speaking of what came from God, but rather what man has twisted God's law into. All the traditions and such that are NOT in scripture but man has elevated above the very words from God.

God Bless!

thethinker
Mar 24th 2008, 05:22 PM
When did the Law from God become the 'doctrines and commandments of men"? That is not speaking of what came from God, but rather what man has twisted God's law into. All the traditions and such that are NOT in scripture but man has elevated above the very words from God.

God Bless!

Paul said that they "changed" the truth of God into a lie" (Rom. 1). God's truth is always subject to misrepresentation. Colossians 2 clearly says that the laws that were nailed to the cross were "shadows" of Christ which cannot be true of the doctrines of men.

Since the law as God gave it was nailed to the cross, then all misrepresentations were not binding as well. Back to Hebrews 8:

"For if the first covenant had been without fault, then why the need for a second".

Friend of I AM
Mar 24th 2008, 05:28 PM
Once again you're avoiding the question I asked you... where is voluntary humility and worshipping of angels commanded in the OT?

I think it's interesting that you think the doctrines of men is the same as the doctrines of YHWH... are you aware that there was/is an oral law(man-made) that men try to say is YHWH's Law?

Romans 7:8-14
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

I think doctrines of men refers to those men who took the law, following it to the letter and then believing that they could justify themselves before God - thus in doing this, men(under the control of sin) took the law and made it sinful, using it to opress and destroy. The law justifies no one before God, but was brought to mankind to show us the character of God, and what being loving meant. The law in itself is good when its used to glorify God, not to glorify men.

thethinker
Mar 24th 2008, 06:02 PM
Once again you're avoiding the question I asked you... where is voluntary humility and worshipping of angels commanded in the OT?

I think it's interesting that you think the doctrines of men is the same as the doctrines of YHWH... are you aware that there was/is an oral law(man-made) that men try to say is YHWH's Law?

It is interesting that you think that the doctrines of men are "shadows" of Christ. :confused

Please go back and read my post. I said that the doctrines of men were "misreprestentaions" of the old covenant codes. And if the old covenant codes were "nailed to the cross" then how could the doctrines of men which came from those codes be binding?

Have you bothered to look at Hebrews 8:7? If the old covenant was without fault then why the need for a second covenant?

Studyin'2Show
Mar 24th 2008, 06:40 PM
Paul said that they "changed" the truth of God into a lie" (Rom. 1). God's truth is always subject to misrepresentation. Colossians 2 clearly says that the laws that were nailed to the cross were "shadows" of Christ which cannot be true of the doctrines of men.

Since the law as God gave it was nailed to the cross, then all misrepresentations were not binding as well. Back to Hebrews 8:

"For if the first covenant had been without fault, then why the need for a second".That's it in a nutshell! They CHANGED the truth of God into a lie. But casting away the baby with the bathwater is saying that the law GOD gave is what was bad! It is how they had twisted God's law, NOT God's itself that is bad. :o

Friend of I AM
Mar 24th 2008, 07:01 PM
That's it in a nutshell! They CHANGED the truth of God into a lie. But casting away the baby with the bathwater is saying that the law GOD gave is what was bad! It is how they had twisted God's law, NOT God's itself that is bad. :o

There were some ceremonial aspects of the law that did pass away and were nailed to the cross. Most of these ceremonial aspects were those that were given by God for the purpose of demonstrating larger spiritual issues. Notice how Paul states that the law is "spiritual" in Romans verse 14 of Romans 7. Some of the law obviously has more spiritual aspects to it than other parts of it of course, which is demonstrative through Paul's essential renouncing of the food covenant, as well as his renouncing of the sabbath, and other such ordinances.

These aspects of the Mosaic law are the shadow of things to come which Paul was speaking of. Many still keep these aspects of the law and practice them to this day, and it isn't bad or condemning to them if they do so for the right reasons(to glorify God not themselves). Still, faith becomes the justifying aspect when keeping/not keeping these aspects of the law. If one has faith before God that eating certain meats is okay, observing the sabbath only on certain days is okay, etc - then they are not commiting any sins against God.

In Christ,

Stephen

Mograce2U
Mar 24th 2008, 07:06 PM
Paul said that they "changed" the truth of God into a lie" (Rom. 1). God's truth is always subject to misrepresentation. Colossians 2 clearly says that the laws that were nailed to the cross were "shadows" of Christ which cannot be true of the doctrines of men.

Since the law as God gave it was nailed to the cross, then all misrepresentations were not binding as well. Back to Hebrews 8:

"For if the first covenant had been without fault, then why the need for a second".
There is no earthly/carnal law which applies to men once they have passed thru death:

(Col 2:12-14 KJV) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. {13} And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; {14} Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

That is why we are given the example of the woman who's husband had died and was therefore released from the law which would have made her remarriage adultery. Death is where the transition from law to grace comes in.

And Colossians 2:16 goes on to say that none of the laws concerning food, drink, feasts, new moons or sabbaths has any bearing on the one who has died in Christ and been quickened by Him. Such physical/carnal things are the shadows; the spiritual reality of which is found in Christ.

The law however does still serve a good purpose for the man that has not yet come to Christ, as it will lead him to Him. But once we are born again we are dead to the law AND to sin. Whereas before we were dead in those things. Those who have passed from death into Life have only Grace to answer to. And the answer we make is one of thanksgiving and acting in love for that Grace. Which has nothing at all to do with what day we pick to do that or whether we do or don't light candles, etc.; as it is something we ought do every day in every thing!

Friend of I AM
Mar 24th 2008, 07:21 PM
I think it's very important to remember that the very keepers of the law themselves, the Pharisees - were the one's who put Christ, the disciples and all of the prophets to death! This is why faith had to become the justifying aspect of the law. Too many people coming before God justifying themselves. As we can see from the example of the Centurian, the thief on the cross, and countless others, God's grace enabled men to fufill the law through faith in Christ. We are now under Christ's law.

This is a good thread thinker. Thank you for sharing it with us.

thethinker
Mar 24th 2008, 07:21 PM
That's it in a nutshell! They CHANGED the truth of God into a lie. But casting away the baby with the bathwater is saying that the law GOD gave is what was bad! It is how they had twisted God's law, NOT God's itself that is bad. :o

Maybe an illustration might help. I know a man who has a business cleaning shopping centers. One day he received a telephone call from a state tax collector about a random audit. When the time for the audit came the tax collector noticed that the man had not been charging his clients sales tax on his services. My friend was told that he was liable for uncollected taxes.

So my friend called a lawyer and a day later the lawyer got back to him and said that the tax code specifies that it is the commercial cleaning of BUILDINGS that is subject to sales tax. So the lawyer called the tax collector and told him what the code said. "My client cleans the GROUNDS that surround the buildings but not the actual buildings. The code says that it is the commercial cleaning of 'buildings' and we will challenge your interpretation in court".

It turned out that the lawyer's interpretation was correct and that the tax collector's was wrong. So my friend did not have to pay back taxes for failing to collect taxes.

Now suppose that tax code had been repealed before the audit. The matter wouldn't even go to court. If an uneducated tax collector comes and says "The commercial cleaning of buildings includes the cleaning of the grounds also" then the lawyer will just reply, "That code has been repealed and my client is not bound by your doctrine".

The codes that were a foreshadow of Christ have been repealed. So the doctrines of men that came from those codes are not binding. The nailing of the old covenant to the cross killed two birds with one stone.

"If the first covenant was without fault, then why the need for a second"? [Heb. 8:7]

diffangle
Mar 24th 2008, 10:03 PM
Moody taught me well
Okay then, the info your tutor taught you is still good? It still stands?




[quote=thethinker;1582643]It is interesting that you think that the doctrines of men are "shadows" of Christ. :confused

Please go back and read my post. I said that the doctrines of men were "misreprestentaions" of the old covenant codes. And if the old covenant codes were "nailed to the cross" then how could the doctrines of men which came from those codes be binding?

Okay still no answer to my question... I guess I'm just gonna have to assume you can't answer so I'll give you the answer ;). "Voluntary humility and worshipping of angels" is not part of the OT... it's gnosticism/man's tradition. And nowhere did I say that the doctrines of men are shadows of Yahushua. In Col 2 Paul was battling the gnosticism that was creeping into the assembly which he states early on in that passage and ends that passage with the description of gnosticism(vain deciets, doctrines of men, voluntary humility, worshipping of angels, touch not, taste not, etc).

If you look at what he's really saying in verses 16 & 17...

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Paul is telling the believer's to not let this gnostic element come in and judge the believer's for keeping the Sabbaths, feasts, and kosher-keeping which "ARE"(not "WAS") shadows of things "TO COME"(not "THAT CAME"). Do you realize that all the feasts of YHWH have not been fulfilled? The Feast of Tabernacles is yet to be fulfilled with Yahushua's second coming.;)






Have you bothered to look at Hebrews 8:7? If the old covenant was without fault then why the need for a second covenant?
Hbr 8:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=8&verse=7&version=kjv#7)¶For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

"Covenant" is in parenthesis... that means that it isn't in the original manuscripts.

thethinker
Mar 24th 2008, 10:58 PM
Okay still no answer to my question... I guess I'm just gonna have to assume you can't answer so I'll give you the answer ;). "Voluntary humility and worshipping of angels" is not part of the OT... it's gnosticism/man's tradition. And nowhere did I say that the doctrines of men are shadows of Yahushua. In Col 2 Paul was battling the gnosticism that was creeping into the assembly which he states early on in that passage and ends that passage with the description of gnosticism(vain deciets, doctrines of men, voluntary humility, worshipping of angels, touch not, taste not, etc).

Diff,
Paul was not battling gnostics in Colossians 2. He was battling Jews who imposed regulations that were not what God said. The gnostics were Greeks who cared not about the "sabbath". Paul's response to that Jewish element was this: The sabbath law was "nailed to the cross". So why pay any attention to men's doctrines about it?


Paul is telling the believer's to not let this gnostic element come in and judge the believer's for keeping the Sabbaths, feasts, and kosher-keeping which "ARE"(not "WAS") shadows of things "TO COME"(not "THAT CAME"). Do you realize that all the feasts of YHWH have not been fulfilled? The Feast of Tabernacles is yet to be fulfilled with Yahushua's second coming.

No! Paul was replying against the apostate Jewish "element" saying this: Don't allow them to pass judgment upon you. The letter of the law is dead. So tell them to go fly a kite.


Hebrews 8:7
For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.


"Covenant" is in parenthesis... that means that it isn't in the original manuscripts.

If it's not the old covenant that had fault, then what is Hebrews talking about?

Studyin'2Show
Mar 25th 2008, 01:53 AM
Maybe an illustration might help. I know a man who has a business cleaning shopping centers. One day he received a telephone call from a state tax collector about a random audit. When the time for the audit came the tax collector noticed that the man had not been charging his clients sales tax on his services. My friend was told that he was liable for uncollected taxes.

So my friend called a lawyer and a day later the lawyer got back to him and said that the tax code specifies that it is the commercial cleaning of BUILDINGS that is subject to sales tax. So the lawyer called the tax collector and told him what the code said. "My client cleans the GROUNDS that surround the buildings but not the actual buildings. The code says that it is the commercial cleaning of 'buildings' and we will challenge your interpretation in court".

It turned out that the lawyer's interpretation was correct and that the tax collector's was wrong. So my friend did not have to pay back taxes for failing to collect taxes.

Now suppose that tax code had been repealed before the audit. The matter wouldn't even go to court. If an uneducated tax collector comes and says "The commercial cleaning of buildings includes the cleaning of the grounds also" then the lawyer will just reply, "That code has been repealed and my client is not bound by your doctrine".

The codes that were a foreshadow of Christ have been repealed. So the doctrines of men that came from those codes are not binding. The nailing of the old covenant to the cross killed two birds with one stone.

"If the first covenant was without fault, then why the need for a second"? [Heb. 8:7]Your illustration proves my point. It was NOT the ordinance that was at fault, it was someone interpreting it WRONGLY that was bad. See, in the way you're thinking God gave something bad to His people. :hmm: Dude, the Father does not give bad things. ;)

God Bless!

ravi4u2
Mar 25th 2008, 07:39 AM
If it's not the old covenant that had fault, then what is Hebrews talking about?The old covenant was not faulty. It could just be kept by the perfect man. That perfect man was Christ the second Adam. Just as the fall of mankind happened because of the fault of one man. The redemption of mankind is now made possible through another single man keeping the ordinances of God in all its perfection.

thethinker
Mar 25th 2008, 08:40 AM
Your illustration proves my point. It was NOT the ordinance that was at fault, it was someone interpreting it WRONGLY that was bad. See, in the way you're thinking God gave something bad to His people. :hmm: Dude, the Father does not give bad things. ;)

God Bless!

My illustration does NOT prove your point. The commandments of men could be binding on men ONLY if the law was binding. The cancellation of the old covenant made the commandments of men non binding by consequence.

The sabbaths in the context were called "shadows" of Christ who came to FULFILL them. Your view suggests that Christ came to fulfill men's laws. But it was God's laws that had to be fulfilled in our behalf.

The term "shadows" in reference to the sabbaths and the written codes disproves the notion that Paul was speaking merely about the commandments of men.

ravi4u2 said:
"The old covenant was not faulty. It could just be kept by the perfect man. That perfect man was Christ the second Adam. Just as the fall of mankind happened because of the fault of one man. The redemption of mankind is now made possible through another single man keeping the ordinances of God in all its perfection."


You are certainly correct. The old covenant was faulty by reason of sinners.

"For what the law was POWERLESS to do in that it was WEAK THROUGH THE FLESH, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh...." (Rom. 8)

It is because we are sinful that the law is weak. It is because we are flesh that the old covenant had fault. And it is due to our carnality that the "letter KILLETH".

But the letter KILLETH. Therefore, the letter of the law was nailed to the cross so we could serve in the newness of the spirit. This is basic Christianity and I don't know why Christians here take issue with it.

ravi4u2
Mar 25th 2008, 09:12 AM
You are certainly correct. The old covenant was faulty by reason of sinners.So, the fault was not in the covenant, but in those that were required to keep them. For it was impossible to be kept.

brakelite
Mar 25th 2008, 10:04 AM
What belongs to God?
Ps 24:1 A Psalm of David. The earth is the LORD‘S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
1Co 10:26 For the earth is the Lord‘s, and the fulness thereof.

Both old and new testament states that all things belong to God.
Note further.......

1Ch 29:11 Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all.
12 Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all.
13 Now therefore, our God, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious name.

And again....


De 8:18 But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day.

So not only does the wealth belong to God, but so also the power we have to obtain it.
And yet all He asks is a paltry 10%. And we quibble?

Jesus endorsed tithing.

Mt 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

How else would our ministers live?

1Co 9:13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Thus the new testament way is still the way of the OT when it comes to tithe

By tithing we are merely returning to God that which already belongs to Him. Keeping back the tithe when we are convicted otherwise is robbery.
We tithe because we love God and acknowledge His rightful ownership of all things.
Thinking that we cannot afford to tithe is a mistake. I believe we cannot afford not to tithe.
Consider this promise

Mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

God is here issueing you with a challenge. He dares you to tithe. Prove Me and see if I am faithful to My word or not. Can God lie?
Incidentally, a change of the covenants cannot be used as an excuse for not tithing. Abraham tithed 100s of years before the Levitical priesthood and the law.

valleybldr
Mar 25th 2008, 01:04 PM
So, the fault was not in the covenant, but in those that were required to keep them. For it was impossible to be kept.
For salvation, yes. Otherwise, God was playing a cruel joke on them. Torah was/is/and will always be a description of God's mind and how it can apply to our daily living. Too often Torah is judged purely in terms of "salvation." So many people are focused on identifying the minimal requirements for salvation and they rarely open their hearts for more. todd

diffangle
Mar 25th 2008, 03:05 PM
Diff,
Paul was not battling gnostics in Colossians 2. He was battling Jews who imposed regulations that were not what God said. The gnostics were Greeks who cared not about the "sabbath". Paul's response to that Jewish element was this: The sabbath law was "nailed to the cross". So why pay any attention to men's doctrines about it?

Paul was most definately battling gnosticism in Colossea, hence the "vain deciet, doctrines of men, voluntary humility, and the worshipping of angels". Are you aware that there were/are Jewish gnostics? Nowadays they're called Kabbalists. Colossea had both Jewish and Greek gnostics and they were judging the believer's for their Sabbath, Feasts of YHWH, and kosher-eating observance. Paul was telling them to stay strong and not let the gnostics judge them for keeping those things.

The fourth Commandment was not nailed to the cross...

Mat 5:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=5&verse=17&version=kjv#17)¶Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Mat 5:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=5&verse=18&version=kjv#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.

Has heaven and earth passed? Has all been fulfilled(His second coming)?



No! Paul was replying against the apostate Jewish "element" saying this: Don't allow them to pass judgment upon you. The letter of the law is dead. So tell them to go fly a kite.

Let's look at the verses again...

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Paul is telling the believer's to not let this gnostic element come in and judge the believer's for keeping the Sabbaths, feasts, and kosher-keeping which "ARE"(not "WAS") shadows of things "TO COME"(not "THAT CAME"). Do you realize that all the shadows/feasts of YHWH have not been fulfilled? The Feast of Tabernacles/shadow is yet to be fulfilled with Yahushua's second coming.



If it's not the old covenant that had fault, then what is Hebrews talking about?


Hbr 8:8 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Hbr&c=8&v=8&t=KJV#8) For finding fault with them(with the people, not the Covenant), he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

ravi4u2
Mar 25th 2008, 03:21 PM
For salvation, yes. Otherwise, God was playing a cruel joke on them. Torah was/is/and will always be a description of God's mind and how it can apply to our daily living. Too often Torah is judged purely in terms of "salvation." So many people are focused on identifying the minimal requirements for salvation and they rarely open their hearts for more. todd
Is there even such thing as a minimal requirement for salvation? There is only ONE requirement.

ravi4u2
Mar 25th 2008, 03:29 PM
Paul was most definately battling gnosticism in Colossea, hence the "vain deciet, doctrines of men, voluntary humility, and the worshipping of angels". Are you aware that there were/are Jewish gnostics? Nowadays they're called Kabbalists. Colossea had both Jewish and Greek gnostics and they were judging the believer's for their Sabbath, Feasts of YHWH, and kosher-eating observance. Paul was telling them to stay strong and not let the gnostics judge them for keeping those things.Perhaps, a bit of history will be helpful here:

The Syrian king, Antiochus the Great, imported 2000 Jewish families into Phrygia at about 170 B.C. These Jews multiplied until it is estimated (by the amount of money they sent annually to the Jerusalem temple as taxes) that there were 50,000 Jews in the area in New Testament times. Paul encountered much Jewish opposition in this general area during his missionary trips. The presence of so many Jews in the area may explain why the Colossian heresy included Jewish ideas, and also why the nearby Galatian Christians were affected by Judaism.

diffangle
Mar 25th 2008, 04:07 PM
Perhaps, a bit of history will be helpful here:

The Syrian king, Antiochus the Great, imported 2000 Jewish families into Phrygia at about 170 B.C. These Jews multiplied until it is estimated (by the amount of money they sent annually to the Jerusalem temple as taxes) that there were 50,000 Jews in the area in New Testament times. Paul encountered much Jewish opposition in this general area during his missionary trips. The presence of so many Jews in the area may explain why the Colossian heresy included Jewish ideas, and also why the nearby Galatian Christians were affected by Judaism.


COLOSSIANS 2:11 In Him you were also [kai] circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also [kai] were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (NKJV) Theologians have long believed that Paul's mention here of circumcision is directly related to the heresy being promoted in Colosse. Yet an objective look at the context of this statement does not indicate that Paul was combating false teachers who wished to have the Gentile Colossians physically circumcised. Rather, he was using the symbolism of spiritual circumcision and baptism to illustrate to the Colossians how they had come to fullness in Christ (Col. 2:10) because he had purified them from sin.

Paul's use of the Greek particle kai ("also") demonstrates that his intent with this line of reasoning was not to counter teachers promoting physical circumcision. In verse 10, Paul stated that the Colossians had been made complete in Christ ("in him"). Paul uses kai in verse 11 to reinforce and connect this statement with his assertion about spiritual circumcision. The same usage of kai is also found in verse 12. The entire passage from verse 9 through 15 advances the theme of Christ's preeminence and sufficiency in atoning for sin.
COLOSSIANS 2:13 And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, 14 erasing the record [cheirographon] that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross. (NRSV) Paul states in verse 13 that the Colossians had previously been considered "dead" because they were uncircumcised (i.e., Gentile) sinners. However, once they accepted Christ and were spiritually circumcised and baptized, their sins were forgiven because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Taken as a whole, verses 11 through 14 emphasize the redemption the Colossians had through Christ.
Many denominations teach that the phrase "handwriting of requirements that was against us" (NKJV) in verse 14 refers to God's law. Because of this interpretation, they hold the antinomian position that Christ's death abolished the law. Yet that interpretation doesn't fit the context here, because verses 11 through 14 talk of sins being wiped out. The abolishment of the law would not make humans sinless, because sin was in the world before the law was given (Rom. 5:13), and death reigned from Adam to Moses because of sin (Rom. 5:12, 14).
So what is Paul saying in verse 14? The term "handwriting of requirements" comes from the Greek phrase cheirographon tois dogmasin. In recent years scholars have found where the word cheirographon was used by other writers in the same time period to refer to a signed bill of indebtedness. Such bonds were handwritten by the debtor so they could not be disputed later on. The word implies a sense of awareness of one's sins and the consequent indebtedness to God. Friberg defines cheirographon as "strictly, a handwritten document; in legal matters a promissory note, a record of indebtedness, bond; fig[uratively] in CO 2.14, not as the law itself, but as the record of charges (for breaking God's law), which stood against us and which God symbolically removed by 'nailing it to the cross,' handwritten account, record of debts."

Romans 6:23 tells us that the penalty for sin is death, because under the law there can be no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood (Heb. 9:22, Lev. 17:11). Clearly, Paul is saying in verse 14 that when the Colossians repented and accepted Christ's sacrifice on the cross, God allowed His death to pay their debt in satisfaction of the strict standards of the law.
COLOSSIANS 2:15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. (NKJV) In verse 15, Paul says that Christ, through his sacrifice, has disarmed the spiritual principalities and powers that rule over this world (for more information on these spiritual rulers, see my article "The Heavenly Divine Council (http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/divine_council.htm)"). The Messiah has taken away the fallen angels' ability to accuse Christians of sin (Rev. 12:10) and lobby for their punishment according to the law, since their debt to the law was nailed to the cross.
COLOSSIANS 2:16 Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are [esti] a shadow of things to come, but the substance is [soma] of Christ. (NKJV) In verse 16, Paul comes to the primary point he wants to make. He tells the Colossians not to let anyone (including the Gnostics) judge them in eating or drinking, or in the observance of festivals, new moons, or Sabbaths.
This passage is widely misunderstood because most scholars begin with the assumption that the Sabbath, new moons, and Holy Days mentioned in verse 16 are among the false teachings Paul is combating. They assume that the Gentile Colossians were not keeping these days, but the heretics (who are usually labeled "Jewish Gnostics") were trying to force them to observe them. Two points discredit this theory.
First, Paul calls the Gnostic teachings the "tradition of men" (Col. 2:8) and the "commandments and doctrines of men" (Col. 2:22). Regardless of how Paul felt about the observances he lists in verse 16, being a Pharisee trained in the law (Acts 22:3; 23:6; 26:5; Phi. 3:4-6), he would not have called them the "traditions of men." They are clearly defined in the Torah (Exo. 16, 20; Lev. 23; Deu. 16) as divine commands the Israelites were to obey.
Furthermore, it's clear that the heretics' teaching involved strict ascetic regulations (Col. 2:21-23). Yet asceticism is the opposite of feasting. You don't promote asceticism by encouraging the observance of feast days. Instead, you elevate asceticism by criticizing the way someone is keeping a feast, or by condemning the fact that they are celebrating a feast at all.
Because of an anti-Jewish bias which can be traced back to the early Catholic church, almost all scholars have missed the meaning of Paul's statement in these verses. For the Gnostics to be judging the Colossians regarding the manner of observance of the Sabbath, new moons, and Holy Days, they obviously had to be keeping them!
The phrase "in food or in drink" does not accurately convey the meaning of the original text. The Greek reads "en brosei kai en posei" and refers to the acts of eating and drinking. The strict Gnostics were substituting an ascetic philosophy (Col. 2:8, "human tradition") and "doctrines of demons" (see I Tim. 4:1-3) for the truth that had previously been taught to the Colossians. They were evidently quick to find fault with anyone who did not follow their teaching of denying oneself food and drink.

The text shows that the Gnostic teachers were also condemning the Colossian Christians for their observance of the Sabbath, new moons, and Holy Days. The Gnostics' reason for judging the Colossians in these matters goes hand in hand with their criticism of "eating and drinking." First-century Jews (as well as early Christians) treated the Sabbath as a weekly feast day, and fasting was forbidden on the Sabbath. In his book From Sabbath To Sunday, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi writes:
. . . For the Jews the Sabbath was anything but a day of fast or of mourning. Even the strictest Jewish sects objected to fasting on the Sabbath . . . That the early Christians adopted this Jewish custom is implied, for instance, by Augustine's rhetorical remark, when referring to the Sabbath, he says: "Did not the tradition of the elders prohibit fasting on the one hand, and command rest on the other?" Further support can be seen in the opposition to the Sabbath fast by Christians in the East and in some important Western areas, such as Milan at the time of Ambrose (d. A.D. 397), and in certain churches and regions of North Africa (pp. 187, 188).Furthermore, during most of the annual festivals (with the exception of Atonement), God commanded his people to rejoice and enjoy food and strong drink (Deu. 14:23-26, Neh. 8:10,12). This most certainly would have conflicted with the Gnostics' ascetic outlook.
Because of the view that Paul was condemning the observance of the Sabbath, new moons, and Holy Days in verse 16, nearly all scholars have misunderstood verse 17. Most try to connect the first part of the verse ("which are a shadow of things to come") with the last part ("but the substance is of Christ") to form a complete thought. To accomplish this, they translate the last part of the verse to ("the") de ("but") soma ("substance is," "substance belongs to," "reality is") tou ("the") Christou ("of Christ").
As you can see above, the phrase "substance is" comes from the single Greek word soma. This word is used 74 times in the Textus Receptus version of the New Testament; 72 times the NKJV translates it as "body" and once it is represented as "bodies." Nowhere else is it rendered "substance is," "substance belongs to," or "reality is," as most modern versions of the Bible translate it in verse 17. In reality, these renderings of soma are unjustified interpretations, not translations.
The literal translation of the Greek in the last part of verse 17 is "but the body of Christ." In Greek, verses 16 and 17 say: "Consequently, let no one judge you in eating or in drinking with respect to a festival or a new moon or sabbaths (which are a shadow of things to come) but the body of Christ." The phrase "body of Christ" should not be confusing, for Paul uses it several other times in the letter to the Colossians (1:18; 1:24; 2:19; 3:15), as well as in some of his other epistles (Rom., I Cor., and Eph.). In these instances it is a figurative reference to the Church.
Therefore, the phrase "which are a shadow of things to come" was intended by Paul to be a parenthetical statement. It was added to give the Colossians additional insight into the festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths; however, it was not necessary to complete the thought. Even if Paul had left that phrase out, his admonition would have been understandable: "Let no one judge you (in these matters) . . . but the body of Christ."
Paul is plainly saying here that the Church was to be the Colossians' only guide on eating and drinking, as these things related to Sabbath, new moon, and festival observances. They were not to let the Gnostics force ascetic practices on them, especially during these holy times (which are a shadow of the good things coming in the future - cf. Heb. 9:11, 10:1).
This grant of power to the Church is not unique in the writings of Paul. While he clearly condemns Christians who judge one another in questionable matters (Rom. 14), Paul gave the Corinthian Church the power to judge and expel those brethren who were openly sinning (I Cor. 5, 6). When combined with the earlier admonitions to hold fast to the teachings they had received previously (Col. 1:23; 2:6, 7), verses 16 and 17 clearly show that Paul expected the Colossian Church as a whole to enforce the original true teachings brought to them by Epaphras. Evidently those true teachings included the observance of the weekly and annual Sabbaths, new moons, and annual festivals. One last point about verse 17; the word translated "are" is the Greek verb esti. This verb is in the present tense; Paul is saying the annual Holy Days and the Sabbath are currently shadows of things to come. Paul does not say that they were shadows that were fulfilled at the coming of Christ. From this we know that the events they foreshadow have not been completed yet; therefore, the shadows still have relevance. Instead of doing away with God's Sabbath and the Holy Days, this passage of Scripture, when understood correctly, affirms them and shows that the Colossian Church was actually keeping them.

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/col-comm.htm

thethinker
Mar 25th 2008, 05:11 PM
Diffangle said:
Many denominations teach that the phrase "handwriting of requirements that was against us" (NKJV) in verse 14 refers to God's law. Because of this interpretation, they hold the antinomian position that Christ's death abolished the law. Yet that interpretation doesn't fit the context.

Diff,
Your last post reveals that you have misunderstood everything I have said on this thread. Neither I or anyone else on this thread is advocating antinomianism. Paul said that we should serve the law "in the newness of the SPIRIT, not the oldness of the letter" (Rom. 7:6)

I have advocated all along that the law should be served (in the spirit). Antinomians disregard the law ALTOGETHER. They say, "Live any way you want". No one on this thread has said this. Paul said that it was the letter that was "nailed to the cross". But the spirit of the law could not be put to death. Paul said that the "letter KILLETH but the spirit gives life".

Your lenghty post shows that you arguing with Antinomians and not me or anyone else on this thread. So your exegesis of the text has been clouded by the adversaries you bring in to the text.

The historical facts are that the Gnostics were NOT the enemy of the first generation Church. Their enemy was apostate Jews. Jesus clearly identified the enemy as apostate Jews. He never said a word about the Gnostics. Why?

But it does not matter. The laws that were nailed to the cross were "shadows" of Christ. So they were GOD'S LAWS and not the perverted teachings of the Jews and certainly not the Greek Gnostics who couldn't care less.

diffangle
Mar 25th 2008, 05:33 PM
But it does not matter. The laws that were nailed to the cross were "shadows" of Christ. So they were GOD'S LAWS and not the perverted teachings of the Jews and certainly not the Greek Gnostics who couldn't care less.
Where does the text say that the Law was nailed to the cross? Also, you say they "were" shadows but again the text doesn't say that... you've completely ignored another question I've asked you... the verse says "are" shadows of things "to come", present and future tense... not past tense, there is not a "were" or "that came" in the text, you're inserting those things to fit your understanding. Another question that has been ignored... do you believe that the Feast of Tabernacles/second coming has been fulfilled?

Studyin'2Show
Mar 25th 2008, 05:55 PM
The historical facts are that the Gnostics were NOT the enemy of the first generation Church. Their enemy was apostate Jews. Jesus clearly identified the enemy as apostate Jews. He never said a word about the Gnostics. Why?

But it does not matter. The laws that were nailed to the cross were "shadows" of Christ. So they were GOD'S LAWS and not the perverted teachings of the Jews and certainly not the Greek Gnostics who couldn't care less.I cannot see where she has said that any Gnostic 'laws' were nailed to the cross. :confused GOD"S LAW has now been written on my soft, willing heart. Now, I do not serve tradition or the man-made fence laws, the ordinances of men. I serve the spirit of GOD'S LAW as He had always intended it; as Messiah walked it out. You see that the religious leaders were not happy with how HE walked out Torah because they wanted Him to serve the letter but He did not serve their letter as they wanted to enforce upon Him, rather He served the spirit. They said He broke God's Law by healing on the Sabbath but in the spirit of the Law, He completely served the Law because it IS LAWFUL (It ALWAYS WAS!!!) to do good on the Sabbath! :pp Anyone who said otherwise WAS NOT observing the spirit of the Law but the letter. That IS the point! Yes, the story of your friend and the tax collector DOES prove my point! It was NEVER the ordinance that was against him, it was the misinterpretation of that ordinance that was against him. Yet if he had put himself UNDER that interpretation, he WOULD have had to pay the fine and no one would have said anything about it. According to Scripture, God's Law is GOOD for us. It was not God's Law that was the burden on the back of His people, it was the all the man-made additions to it that were the burden.

Deuteronomy 30:11-14 (NKJV)
11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

How can anyone read this and think that God gave something bad to man? It was and is man thinking that it is too mysterious so someone else has to interpret it and tell him what to do. THAT is where the problem came in. Jews even today still think it is too hard to understand so they leave it to the rabbis to tell them how to do it. Yet that goes completely against what the scripture above says. Even today if you show them a passage that clearly shows Yeshua as Messiah, they say they have to go talk to their rabbi about it.

thethinker
Mar 25th 2008, 07:01 PM
Where does the text say that the Law was nailed to the cross? Also, you say they "were" shadows but again the text doesn't say that... you've completely ignored another question I've asked you... the verse says "are" shadows of things "to come", present and future tense... not past tense, there is not a "were" or "that came" in the text, you're inserting those things to fit your understanding. Another question that has been ignored... do you believe that the Feast of Tabernacles/second coming has been fulfilled?

Diff,
Jesus did not save me from the condemnation of men's laws. I did not need to be saved from men's laws. Only God's laws condemned me. Why would God nail men's laws to the cross when it was His own laws that condemned me? :confused

The text says that Christ IS the substance that the sabbaths foreshadowed. Note the present "is". Christ "is" the substance! Christ fulfilled the whole law in our behalf. If you must insist that the letter remains then you should become a Seventh Day Adventist. They are true to the SEVENTH DAY "letter". Right? Furthermore, the letter of the law required that those who break the sabbath be stoned (Exodus 31).

But I am willing to bet that you would say that we are not under the "letter" as it refers to the observance of the sabbath on the seventh day. I bet also that you believe that we are not under the "letter" as it refers to stoning those who break the sabbath. Do you pick and choose which jot and tittle of the letter is for today and which is not?

I don't know how you connect the Feast of Tab with the second coming. :confused But I do know this: Christ fulfilled the WHOLE LETTER OF THE LAW in my behalf. Otherwise I'm damned!

I still think you're arguing with Antinomians and not with me.

Mograce2U
Mar 25th 2008, 07:33 PM
Where does the text say that the Law was nailed to the cross? Also, you say they "were" shadows but again the text doesn't say that... you've completely ignored another question I've asked you... the verse says "are" shadows of things "to come", present and future tense... not past tense, there is not a "were" or "that came" in the text, you're inserting those things to fit your understanding. Another question that has been ignored... do you believe that the Feast of Tabernacles/second coming has been fulfilled?This is a classic Hebraism. Paul is speaking of the things given in the past that spoke of what was to come with Messiah's arrival. These shadows were prophetic of the grace in the promise which they had placed their hope. This is what the prophets spoke about and the people were waiting for in the OT. The grace 1 Peter 1:10 says had come. Which the writer of Hebrews also says was here:

(Heb 11:40 KJV) God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

That perfection is only found in Christ. And His gift of the Holy Spirit indwelling us is the fulfillment of the feast of tabernacles. Not for its purpose when it was given as a shadow to the Israelites delivered from Egypt, but for its prophetic value of what it signified: Christ in us the hope of glory. God is not dwelling in the midst of His people in a cloud of fire, but in their hearts. He has come to make His abode with us by sending us the manna from heaven - the Bread of Life. And He manifests Himself to us when we seek Him by faith in Christ (John 14). I don't really understand what could possibly be left short of being resurrected after I have died. Which hope we know we have because we believe Jesus is risen and the One God sent to give us the promise.

There is no need for me to build a little booth to live in for a week each year to remember the Exodus. When the real Exodus was fulfilled at the cross where my sins were forgiven. If His life is in me then no Sabbath can point me to my rest in Him. All such things are shadows because the things they depicted had not yet come at the time they were given. The earthly counterpart is only the shadow of the spiritual reality - which is now here. To go back to the shadowy things is to say we do not have the real thing yet.

This is the mistake the Jews made who were not willing to give up the earthly for the spiritual. Because they had found their life in their hand and thought themselves unworthy of eternal life, and so rejected the One sent to deliver them. The fact that they still think Torah-keeping will bring them to God, ought to show us the root of their error. Yet being perfectedly religious in our works was never the purpose for the law in the first place. It was only given because sin had yet to be dealt its final blow. It served as a means for the people to come into the presence of God without being killed. None of which is needed now that the way has been opened. We need bring nothing but our thanksgiving and praise - the spiritual proof of our hearts having been changed by grace thru faith. No prayer shawl nor head covering nor incense buring nor candle lighting, etc.; is needed for that. We need only be covered by the blood of the Lamb. Thank God!

Studyin'2Show
Mar 25th 2008, 07:52 PM
Diff,
Jesus did not save me from the condemnation of men's laws. I did not need to be saved from men's laws. Only God's laws condemned me. Why would God nail men's laws to the cross when it was His own laws that condemned me? :confusedYou and I are saved from the PUNISHMENT of God's Law, NOT from God's Law! Scripture clearly tells us that God's Law IS good! Why would you need to be saved FROM God's Law? :confused As to why God would nail mens' laws to the cross, I guess you have no idea what the Jews were dealing with then and even to this day, what they are dealing with. I watched a man walking home from synagogue this past Sabbath in the pouring rain. Why would he do this when I am sure that he has a car at home? Is it because of the burden of God's Law that he chose not to get into his car to go to and from synagogue? No, it is because of the endless 'fence laws' laid upon the necks of him and his ancestors who think that to do so is somehow serving God Most High. It was those things that were nailed to the cross. Our debt, on the other hand, has been paid in full so that we no longer must pay the price of death and separation from God. That is the punishment we deserve.

Jeremiah 31:33 - But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

God tells us through the prophet that He will put 'Torah' (His Law) in our minds and write it on our hearts. Our mind is how we think and our heart is what we desire. Yeshua explained that He did not come to abolish 'Torah' (The Law) and explained that things actually deepened in that we should not even think (mind) about breaking God's law. Now, it is my DESIRE (heart) to walk completely in the righteousness He came to give me. This 'walking in the spirit of the law' gives me life. Because I rest on God's Sabbath (though I am ALWAYS ready to do good as my Lord has shown), do you think I must be SDA? :o Goodness no! They are not the only ones who see the benefits of keeping Sabbath. I rest on the Sabbath because I AM following the spirit of God's Law. Do I insist that you MUST keep Sabbath? Not at all. It is a gift from God and if anyone chooses not to accept it, that doesn't affect me at all. So, for me, I see that also the edicts that told believers that they could not keep Sabbath as the LETTER. How horrible that the the second and third century church even till today, told/tells people that they can not serve the spirit of the law as the Holy Spirit leads them. :cry:

diffangle
Mar 25th 2008, 11:06 PM
I cannot see where she has said that any Gnostic 'laws' were nailed to the cross. :confused

That's b/c I didn't say that.;) :lol: The word "Law" doesn't appear in Col 2. :rolleyes:



Diff,
Jesus did not save me from the condemnation of men's laws. I did not need to be saved from men's laws. Only God's laws condemned me. Why would God nail men's laws to the cross when it was His own laws that condemned me? :confused

Again, where does Col 2 say the/a "Law" was nailed to the cross? :confused

For the record, Yahushua did teach that His yoke was/is easy (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat011.html#29)and that His followers didn't have to be under the burden of the religious leaders man-made traditions/laws. Look at Matthew 15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=15&verse=2&version=kjv#2)where Yahushua defies the tradition/law of the elders. Thanks to Yahushua, Jews don't have to be under the burden of their rabbi's traditions/laws just as Catholics don't have to be under the burden of their priests traditions/laws.


The text says that Christ IS the substance that the sabbaths foreshadowed. Note the present "is". Christ "is" the substance!
Please provide the verse that says this? :confused



Christ fulfilled the whole law in our behalf. If you must insist that the letter remains then you should become a Seventh Day Adventist. They are true to the SEVENTH DAY "letter". Right? Furthermore, the letter of the law required that those who break the sabbath be stoned (Exodus 31).

But I am willing to bet that you would say that we are not under the "letter" as it refers to the observance of the sabbath on the seventh day. I bet also that you believe that we are not under the "letter" as it refers to stoning those who break the sabbath. Do you pick and choose which jot and tittle of the letter is for today and which is not?

S2S's response addressed your question pretty well here...

"You and I are saved from the PUNISHMENT of God's Law, NOT from God's Law! Scripture clearly tells us that God's Law IS good! Why would you need to be saved FROM God's Law?"

The only thing I would add is that Yahushua said the the Sabbath was "FOR" us... how can it be against us and "FOR" us at the same time?




I don't know how you connect the Feast of Tab with the second coming. :confused But I do know this: Christ fulfilled the WHOLE LETTER OF THE LAW in my behalf. Otherwise I'm damned!

AS Col 2:16&17 states the Feasts are shadows of things to come... the Feast of Tabernacles has yet to be fulfilled with His second coming where He will permantly dwell with us. He's fulfilled some(Passover, First fruits, Pentecost) but not all. All has not been fulfilled... we are not in the new heaven and earth, His second coming has not happened, Zech 14(amongst other prophecies) has not been fulfilled yet.



I still think you're arguing with Antinomians and not with me.

Do you not think that YHWH's Law is against you and nailed to the cross?

ravi4u2
Mar 26th 2008, 06:19 AM
COLOSSIANS 2:11 In Him you were also [kai] circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also [kai] were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (NKJV) Theologians have long believed that Paul's mention here of circumcision is directly related to the heresy being promoted in Colosse. Yet an objective look at the context of this statement does not indicate that Paul was combating false teachers who wished to have the Gentile Colossians physically circumcised. Rather, he was using the symbolism of spiritual circumcision and baptism to illustrate to the Colossians how they had come to fullness in Christ (Col. 2:10) because he had purified them from sin.

Paul's use of the Greek particle kai ("also") demonstrates that his intent with this line of reasoning was not to counter teachers promoting physical circumcision. In verse 10, Paul stated that the Colossians had been made complete in Christ ("in him"). Paul uses kai in verse 11 to reinforce and connect this statement with his assertion about spiritual circumcision. The same usage of kai is also found in verse 12. The entire passage from verse 9 through 15 advances the theme of Christ's preeminence and sufficiency in atoning for sin.
COLOSSIANS 2:13 And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, 14 erasing the record [cheirographon] that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross. (NRSV) Paul states in verse 13 that the Colossians had previously been considered "dead" because they were uncircumcised (i.e., Gentile) sinners. However, once they accepted Christ and were spiritually circumcised and baptized, their sins were forgiven because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Taken as a whole, verses 11 through 14 emphasize the redemption the Colossians had through Christ.
Many denominations teach that the phrase "handwriting of requirements that was against us" (NKJV) in verse 14 refers to God's law. Because of this interpretation, they hold the antinomian position that Christ's death abolished the law. Yet that interpretation doesn't fit the context here, because verses 11 through 14 talk of sins being wiped out. The abolishment of the law would not make humans sinless, because sin was in the world before the law was given (Rom. 5:13), and death reigned from Adam to Moses because of sin (Rom. 5:12, 14).
So what is Paul saying in verse 14? The term "handwriting of requirements" comes from the Greek phrase cheirographon tois dogmasin. In recent years scholars have found where the word cheirographon was used by other writers in the same time period to refer to a signed bill of indebtedness. Such bonds were handwritten by the debtor so they could not be disputed later on. The word implies a sense of awareness of one's sins and the consequent indebtedness to God. Friberg defines cheirographon as "strictly, a handwritten document; in legal matters a promissory note, a record of indebtedness, bond; fig[uratively] in CO 2.14, not as the law itself, but as the record of charges (for breaking God's law), which stood against us and which God symbolically removed by 'nailing it to the cross,' handwritten account, record of debts."

Romans 6:23 tells us that the penalty for sin is death, because under the law there can be no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood (Heb. 9:22, Lev. 17:11). Clearly, Paul is saying in verse 14 that when the Colossians repented and accepted Christ's sacrifice on the cross, God allowed His death to pay their debt in satisfaction of the strict standards of the law.
COLOSSIANS 2:15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. (NKJV) In verse 15, Paul says that Christ, through his sacrifice, has disarmed the spiritual principalities and powers that rule over this world (for more information on these spiritual rulers, see my article "The Heavenly Divine Council (http://users.aristotle.net/%7Ebhuie/divine_council.htm)"). The Messiah has taken away the fallen angels' ability to accuse Christians of sin (Rev. 12:10) and lobby for their punishment according to the law, since their debt to the law was nailed to the cross.
COLOSSIANS 2:16 Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are [esti] a shadow of things to come, but the substance is [soma] of Christ. (NKJV) In verse 16, Paul comes to the primary point he wants to make. He tells the Colossians not to let anyone (including the Gnostics) judge them in eating or drinking, or in the observance of festivals, new moons, or Sabbaths.
This passage is widely misunderstood because most scholars begin with the assumption that the Sabbath, new moons, and Holy Days mentioned in verse 16 are among the false teachings Paul is combating. They assume that the Gentile Colossians were not keeping these days, but the heretics (who are usually labeled "Jewish Gnostics") were trying to force them to observe them. Two points discredit this theory.
First, Paul calls the Gnostic teachings the "tradition of men" (Col. 2:8) and the "commandments and doctrines of men" (Col. 2:22). Regardless of how Paul felt about the observances he lists in verse 16, being a Pharisee trained in the law (Acts 22:3; 23:6; 26:5; Phi. 3:4-6), he would not have called them the "traditions of men." They are clearly defined in the Torah (Exo. 16, 20; Lev. 23; Deu. 16) as divine commands the Israelites were to obey.
Furthermore, it's clear that the heretics' teaching involved strict ascetic regulations (Col. 2:21-23). Yet asceticism is the opposite of feasting. You don't promote asceticism by encouraging the observance of feast days. Instead, you elevate asceticism by criticizing the way someone is keeping a feast, or by condemning the fact that they are celebrating a feast at all.
Because of an anti-Jewish bias which can be traced back to the early Catholic church, almost all scholars have missed the meaning of Paul's statement in these verses. For the Gnostics to be judging the Colossians regarding the manner of observance of the Sabbath, new moons, and Holy Days, they obviously had to be keeping them!
The phrase "in food or in drink" does not accurately convey the meaning of the original text. The Greek reads "en brosei kai en posei" and refers to the acts of eating and drinking. The strict Gnostics were substituting an ascetic philosophy (Col. 2:8, "human tradition") and "doctrines of demons" (see I Tim. 4:1-3) for the truth that had previously been taught to the Colossians. They were evidently quick to find fault with anyone who did not follow their teaching of denying oneself food and drink.

The text shows that the Gnostic teachers were also condemning the Colossian Christians for their observance of the Sabbath, new moons, and Holy Days. The Gnostics' reason for judging the Colossians in these matters goes hand in hand with their criticism of "eating and drinking." First-century Jews (as well as early Christians) treated the Sabbath as a weekly feast day, and fasting was forbidden on the Sabbath. In his book From Sabbath To Sunday, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi writes:
. . . For the Jews the Sabbath was anything but a day of fast or of mourning. Even the strictest Jewish sects objected to fasting on the Sabbath . . . That the early Christians adopted this Jewish custom is implied, for instance, by Augustine's rhetorical remark, when referring to the Sabbath, he says: "Did not the tradition of the elders prohibit fasting on the one hand, and command rest on the other?" Further support can be seen in the opposition to the Sabbath fast by Christians in the East and in some important Western areas, such as Milan at the time of Ambrose (d. A.D. 397), and in certain churches and regions of North Africa (pp. 187, 188).Furthermore, during most of the annual festivals (with the exception of Atonement), God commanded his people to rejoice and enjoy food and strong drink (Deu. 14:23-26, Neh. 8:10,12). This most certainly would have conflicted with the Gnostics' ascetic outlook.
Because of the view that Paul was condemning the observance of the Sabbath, new moons, and Holy Days in verse 16, nearly all scholars have misunderstood verse 17. Most try to connect the first part of the verse ("which are a shadow of things to come") with the last part ("but the substance is of Christ") to form a complete thought. To accomplish this, they translate the last part of the verse to ("the") de ("but") soma ("substance is," "substance belongs to," "reality is") tou ("the") Christou ("of Christ").
As you can see above, the phrase "substance is" comes from the single Greek word soma. This word is used 74 times in the Textus Receptus version of the New Testament; 72 times the NKJV translates it as "body" and once it is represented as "bodies." Nowhere else is it rendered "substance is," "substance belongs to," or "reality is," as most modern versions of the Bible translate it in verse 17. In reality, these renderings of soma are unjustified interpretations, not translations.
The literal translation of the Greek in the last part of verse 17 is "but the body of Christ." In Greek, verses 16 and 17 say: "Consequently, let no one judge you in eating or in drinking with respect to a festival or a new moon or sabbaths (which are a shadow of things to come) but the body of Christ." The phrase "body of Christ" should not be confusing, for Paul uses it several other times in the letter to the Colossians (1:18; 1:24; 2:19; 3:15), as well as in some of his other epistles (Rom., I Cor., and Eph.). In these instances it is a figurative reference to the Church.
Therefore, the phrase "which are a shadow of things to come" was intended by Paul to be a parenthetical statement. It was added to give the Colossians additional insight into the festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths; however, it was not necessary to complete the thought. Even if Paul had left that phrase out, his admonition would have been understandable: "Let no one judge you (in these matters) . . . but the body of Christ."
Paul is plainly saying here that the Church was to be the Colossians' only guide on eating and drinking, as these things related to Sabbath, new moon, and festival observances. They were not to let the Gnostics force ascetic practices on them, especially during these holy times (which are a shadow of the good things coming in the future - cf. Heb. 9:11, 10:1).
This grant of power to the Church is not unique in the writings of Paul. While he clearly condemns Christians who judge one another in questionable matters (Rom. 14), Paul gave the Corinthian Church the power to judge and expel those brethren who were openly sinning (I Cor. 5, 6). When combined with the earlier admonitions to hold fast to the teachings they had received previously (Col. 1:23; 2:6, 7), verses 16 and 17 clearly show that Paul expected the Colossian Church as a whole to enforce the original true teachings brought to them by Epaphras. Evidently those true teachings included the observance of the weekly and annual Sabbaths, new moons, and annual festivals. One last point about verse 17; the word translated "are" is the Greek verb esti. This verb is in the present tense; Paul is saying the annual Holy Days and the Sabbath are currently shadows of things to come. Paul does not say that they were shadows that were fulfilled at the coming of Christ. From this we know that the events they foreshadow have not been completed yet; therefore, the shadows still have relevance. Instead of doing away with God's Sabbath and the Holy Days, this passage of Scripture, when understood correctly, affirms them and shows that the Colossian Church was actually keeping them.

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/col-comm.htm (http://users.aristotle.net/%7Ebhuie/col-comm.htm)I speak history and you speak theology...theology is subjective, history is is largely not...

thethinker
Mar 26th 2008, 07:25 AM
...God tells us through the prophet that He will put 'Torah' (His Law) in our minds and write it on our hearts. Our mind is how we think and our heart is what we desire. Yeshua explained that He did not come to abolish 'Torah' (The Law) This walking in the spirit of the law gives me life.

Because I rest on God's Sabbath (though I am ALWAYS ready to do good as my Lord has shown), do you think I must be SDA? :o Goodness no! They are not the only ones who see the benefits of keeping Sabbath. I rest on the sabbath because I am followiing the spirit of God's law. Do I insist that you MUST keep Sabbath? Not at all.

Amen! That's what I have been laboring to say all along! I have always said that we serve in the newness of the spirit for the letter KILLETH.

You and Diffangle have been discoursing with Antinomians who disregard the law ALTOGETHER. You brought another adversary into this discourse and it prevented you from seeing what I have been saying.

I have always upheld the law of God in the spirit JUST AS YOU SAY!

Diffangle said:
Again, where does Col 2 say the/a "Law" was nailed to the cross?It says that the "handwritings" were nailed to the cross and "having been FORGIVEN all our trespasses". If it is men's "handwritings" that were nailed to the cross then we have been forgiven from men's laws. This CANNOT be true. Ergo....

Seeing that S2S has said that it is the spirit of the law we keep as I have said all along, and since you stand by S2S's post, then we are all in agreement. :pp "The letter killeth, but the spirit gives life". S2S said, "This walking in the spirit of the law gives me life".

valleybldr
Mar 26th 2008, 09:47 AM
Do you not think that YHWH's Law is against you and nailed to the cross?
God's precepts and instructions are not "against us" however the penality of disobedience is death. Paul makes reference to the penality result of lawlessness and people think he is talking about the law in general. todd

valleybldr
Mar 26th 2008, 09:50 AM
Is there even such thing as a minimal requirement for salvation? There is only ONE requirement. I guess that's your minimal requirement. I don't like to deal with minimals. D Grade Christianity takes up half the bandwidth on theology boards but I'm more interested in having God's laws (both the Written and Living Torah) written on my heart. Why settle for D when you can have A...Abundant life? todd

valleybldr
Mar 26th 2008, 10:01 AM
Where does the text say that the Law was nailed to the cross? Exactly. Our sins (through Christ) are nailed to the cross not the divinely authored instructions on how to protect that which is good. todd

valleybldr
Mar 26th 2008, 10:06 AM
I speak history and you speak theology...theology is subjective, history is is largely not... Nice quote and I like to point at history over theology too. However "history is written by the victors" and plenty of Christian history is written by folks that have little in common with the way of life lived by and seen reflected in the writings of the Apostles. todd

Studyin'2Show
Mar 26th 2008, 11:29 AM
Amen! That's what I have been laboring to say all along! I have always said that we serve in the newness of the spirit for the letter KILLETH.

You and Diffangle have been discoursing with Antinomians who disregard the law ALTOGETHER. You brought another adversary into this discourse and it prevented you from seeing what I have been saying.

I have always upheld the law of God in the spirit JUST AS YOU SAY!

It says that the "handwritings" were nailed to the cross and "having been FORGIVEN all our trespasses". If it is men's "handwritings" that were nailed to the cross then we have been forgiven from men's laws. This CANNOT be true. Ergo....

Seeing that S2S has said that it is the spirit of the law we keep as I have said all along, and since you stand by S2S's post, then we are all in agreement. :pp "The letter killeth, but the spirit gives life". S2S said, "This walking in the spirit of the law gives me life".The only trouble I've had with your post has been you equating God's Law with that which has been nailed to the cross. Look at the portion of your post which I have bolded. You have put the cart before the horse AND you have added a conjunction where there is none! As we rightly divide His word we must be careful of HOW we do that. Let's look at the passage:

Colossians 2:13-14
13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

You see the statement concerning us being forgiven comes BEFORE the statement about the handwriting of requirements. Now, do you see a conjunction between them? No, there is a comma. It is not conjoining the two statements, it is listing three things. First in the list is that He has made us alive with Him. :pp Second in the list is that He has forgiven all our trespasses. :pp Last in the list Paul references wiping away of 'the handwriting of requirements' that so many incorrectly equate to God's Law. Why do I say incorrectly? Look at the two points that qualify these requirements. These requirements were against us, and contrary to us. Yet, Scripture is clear that God's Law is neither against us nor contrary to us.

Nehemiah 9:13
“You came down also on Mount Sinai,
And spoke with them from heaven,
And gave them just ordinances and true laws,
Good statutes and commandments.

Joshua 1:8 - This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.


Psalm 119:97-98,113,165
97 Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day.
98 You, through Your commandments, make me wiser than my enemies; For they are ever with me.

113 I hate the double-minded, but I love Your law.

163 I hate and abhor lying, but I love Your law.

165 Great peace have those who love Your law,And nothing causes them to stumble.


Thus, 'the handwriting of requirement' CANNOT be God's Law. Paul speaks against these requirements again as he wraps up his thoughts just about a paragraph away.

Colossians 2:20-23
20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

It is absolutely clear when you take the time to rightly divide Colossians 2:12-23, that 'the handwriting of requirements' is that which is according to the commandments and doctrines of MEN and NOT the Law from God. You see, these requirements are self-imposed (not God commanded) religion and though it may APPEAR to be wisdom it has NO VALUE. Can you see that statement cannot be made about God's Law?

God Bless!

valleybldr
Mar 26th 2008, 12:44 PM
It is absolutely clear when you take the time to rightly divide Colossians 2:12-23, that .... Oh no..."absolutely clear." Isn't that a dead give away?

I believe the church at Collossae fell prey to a syncretistic heresy. You have to look closely at each concept being presented. As always, when 99.9% of the bible says one thing don't run with the .1% you think is saying something different.

todd

diffangle
Mar 26th 2008, 03:17 PM
You and Diffangle have been discoursing with Antinomians
Have you not been saying that YHWH's Law was against us and it was nailed to the cross? :confused



God's precepts and instructions are not "against us" however the penality of disobedience is death. Paul makes reference to the penality result of lawlessness and people think he is talking about the law in general. todd
Exactly. :)

thethinker
Mar 26th 2008, 03:25 PM
The only trouble I've had with your post has been you equating God's Law with that which has been nailed to the cross. Look at the portion of your post which I have bolded. You have put the cart before the horse AND you have added a conjunction where there is none! As we rightly divide His word we must be careful of HOW we do that. Let's look at the passage

S2S,
I have always asserted that it was the "letter" of God's law that was nailed to the cross though we must obey according to the spirit of the law. This does NOT infer Antinomianism. I still stand by my assertion that it was God's law, in the letter, that was crucified with Christ.

More proof: When Paul said that "the letter KILLETH" he was talking about God's law at Sinai. He CLEARLY said that the law of Moses (God's law at Sinai)) was the administration of DEATH" :

"For the letter killeth, but the spirit gives life. But if the administration of death, written and engraved in stones (Moses), was glorious...how will the ministry according to the spirit be MORE glorious"? [2 Corinthians 3:1-7].

Note that Paul said that the letter of the law was "glorious" as you correctly suggest. But the spirit of the law is even MORE GLORIOUS.

Therefore, the "letter" of the law upon the tablets of "stone" was glorious IN ITS OWN TIME. But when the "spirit" of the law was introduced the letter had to pass away. Why? Because the "spirit" of the law is more glorious.

Therefore, the old testament verses you offer prove only the glory of the letter IN ITS OWN TIME. So I must continue to insist that it was the letter that was "nailed to the cross" in Colossians 2 despite how one might parse the language. THE LETTER HAS NO GLORY NOW! IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW THAT HAS ALL THE GLORY NOW!

valleybldr
Mar 26th 2008, 04:09 PM
So I must continue to insist that it was the letter that was "nailed to the cross" in Colossians 2 despite how one might parse the language. THE LETTER HAS NO GLORY NOW! IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW THAT HAS ALL THE GLORY NOW! If the Law is abolished Jesus had no need to die for our sins. Sin, according to John, still is the "transgression" of the law. It's the record of our wrongs (law breaking) that was nailed to the cross, not the law (written or spirit), along with the Living Torah (Jesus). todd

Studyin'2Show
Mar 26th 2008, 04:45 PM
Therefore, the old testament verses you offer prove only the glory of the letter IN ITS OWN TIME. So I must continue to insist that it was the letter that was "nailed to the cross" in Colossians 2 despite how one might parse the language. THE LETTER HAS NO GLORY NOW! IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW THAT HAS ALL THE GLORY NOW!That's okay! So, we'll just have to agree to disagree then. ;)

God Bless!

Mograce2U
Mar 26th 2008, 05:05 PM
If the Law is abolished Jesus had no need to die for our sins. Sin, according to John, still is the "transgression" of the law. It's the record of our wrongs (law breaking) that was nailed to the cross, not the law (written or spirit), along with the Living Torah (Jesus). toddHi Todd,
Colossians 2 is dealing with the death of the old man and the birth of the new. The law is for the old man dead in his sins. Its purpose is to make sin exceedingly more sinful. The law condemns the sinner. But once a man dies, the law has no more hold on him. The law governs over the living not the dead in this world. The new man quickened to life in Christ has a new principle governing him. The cross is where our forgiveness is attained which was necessary because of the condemnation the law had brought upon us. We must apply the cross to ourselves: dead to the world and its elements and alive to Christ and His rule. The law has no more power over us who have been born again than it does over a dead man. It cannot condemn us anymore because we have been forgiven. The law does still govern those who are only born once into this world, because sin is still bringing them into condemnation. But once a man has been forgiven, there is no need for that law to still be his rule of life.

We're talking two worlds here - one earthly and one spiritual. And while the law is spiritual it only applies to the carnal man - not the spiritual one, because the latter has been set free - to go and sin no more! What law can condemn a man who is not a thief anymore? Must the law keep checking on him to be sure he is not stealing? Because this is what those who want to live under law are saying. The power of forgiveness, mercy and love is much greater than the law of sin and death and condemnation to rule in the life of the new man. And this is what we have in Christ now that the law (not just our past sins) has died along with our old man when they were nailed to the cross with our Lord.

We have passed over to the other side where Jesus is ruling and not Moses.

Friend of I AM
Mar 26th 2008, 05:10 PM
If the Law is abolished Jesus had no need to die for our sins. Sin, according to John, still is the "transgression" of the law. It's the record of our wrongs (law breaking) that was nailed to the cross, not the law (written or spirit), along with the Living Torah (Jesus). todd

The law wasn't abolished, but it was completely fulfilled through Christ. One cannot achieve salvation or perfection through the dead works of the law, only through faith in Christ. This is what is meant in following the spirit of the law, as oppossed to the letter. We now have a better covenant under Christ - which introduces eternal life to those who have faith in him.

Souled Out
Mar 26th 2008, 06:03 PM
S2S,
I have always asserted that it was the "letter" of God's law that was nailed to the cross though we must obey according to the spirit of the law. This does NOT infer Antinomianism. I still stand by my assertion that it was God's law, in the letter, that was crucified with Christ.

More proof: When Paul said that "the letter KILLETH" he was talking about God's law at Sinai. He CLEARLY said that the law of Moses (God's law at Sinai)) was the administration of DEATH" :

"For the letter killeth, but the spirit gives life. But if the administration of death, written and engraved in stones (Moses), was glorious...how will the ministry according to the spirit be MORE glorious"? [2 Corinthians 3:1-7].

Note that Paul said that the letter of the law was "glorious" as you correctly suggest. But the spirit of the law is even MORE GLORIOUS.

Therefore, the "letter" of the law upon the tablets of "stone" was glorious IN ITS OWN TIME. But when the "spirit" of the law was introduced the letter had to pass away. Why? Because the "spirit" of the law is more glorious.

Therefore, the old testament verses you offer prove only the glory of the letter IN ITS OWN TIME. So I must continue to insist that it was the letter that was "nailed to the cross" in Colossians 2 despite how one might parse the language. THE LETTER HAS NO GLORY NOW! IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW THAT HAS ALL THE GLORY NOW!

Thethinker,

I totally get what you're saying, but also know that you are only able to say what you're saying because of where you are firmly seated and positioned.

While the "law of commandments contained in ordinances" according to Eph. 2:15 is a "ministration of death" (2 Cor 3:7) and is indeed "abolished" (Greek - katargeo) and "done away" (same Greek word - katargeo), this is only so "after that faith is come" (Gal. 3:25).

The law was not a schoolmaster just to bring Paul and his generation to Christ. The law was also OUR schoolmaster to bring US unto Christ as well (Gal. 3:24). This statement can be made in its past tense only "after that faith is come," which is Christ.

Before faith comes which is spoken of in verse 23, we are all, generation by generation, concluded under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed (Gal. 3:22, 23).

In Matt. 5:17 Christ said that He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it, and that’s what He does as He comes to each person.

It’s not a corporate or one time event.

The Letter is not abolished, but at the same time it is abolished. It remains because others still need to come to Christ, and they do daily by way of The Letter. IOW, The Law is abolished and done away only for those in Christ because The Law (Letter) is not for a righteous man. (I Tim. 1:9)

Christ IS, WAS AND WILL BE – present, past and future. The Letter serves its purpose today, it served its purpose in the past and it remains to serve its purpose for future generations. It’s how the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin.

And yes, the Spirit of the Law IS more glorious than the Letter, although the Letter is also glorious. They both serve a purpose.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Matt. 5:27) is letter law; but "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:28) is the spirit, the real meat and heart of the law.

We are commanded to come into life by coming up higher. What’s written on our hearts is the Ten PLUS more. It's the Ten Commandments, supersized.

Under the OC, your heart could be the filthiest of the filthiest as long as you didn't physically commit the act of adultery. Not so in the new covenant and serving in the newness of the Spirit.

If obedience does not come from the deepest part of our being, from the heart (2 Cor. 3:3) "not of the letter but of the spirit" (2 Cor. 3:6), it will not even be counted as obedience or righteousness. The Spirit gives life and is a much higher and glorious law.

But again, the Letter, the Law written on stone remains to convict the world (future generations) of sin.

It is not for those whose righteousness is in Christ. So for you, yes, the Letter is fulfilled, abolished, done away, vanished, changed, disannulled, blotted out, etc., yet it still remains, hasn’t passed away, etc. because others are still coming to Christ.

Both sides of the Law is glorious, each doing what it was meant to do.

Friend of I AM
Mar 26th 2008, 07:33 PM
It is not for those whose righteousness is in Christ. So for you, yes, the Letter is fulfilled, abolished, done away, vanished, changed, disannulled, blotted out, etc., yet it still remains, hasn’t passed away, etc. because others are still coming to Christ.

Both sides of the Law is glorious, each doing what it was meant to do.

This verse summarizes what you stated quite nicely..:)

Galations 15:24,25
So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 26th 2008, 08:26 PM
I believe part of the confusion in this is that no one has said that we are to be UNDER the Law. Paul says that the Law is a tutor, right? What does a tutor do? They teach. Now, once when I was still in college, I was UNDER the authority of my tutors. I had to fear getting a bad grade because I was UNDER their authority. Now, that I am an adult, I am no longer UNDER the authority of my tutors, but guess what? I still have learned many good things and have retained that knowledge. I no longer remember such things just to get a good grade but because I have learned that those things are good for me to know. The Law, as our tutor, should teach us what righteousness is. No longer do we need to fear what will happen to us if we do this or don't do that but hopefully we have LEARNED that, for example, it is not good to commit adultery, and that it is not good to murder. So no longer are we UNDER the Law but we have matured. We should now DESIRE to walk in righteousness because the Law has been written on our heart, NOT because we are afraid of the tutor popping our hand with a ruler. ;)

God Bless!

thethinker
Mar 26th 2008, 08:54 PM
Souled out posted:
If obedience does not come from the deepest part of our being, from the heart (2 Cor. 3:3) "not of the letter but of the spirit" (2 Cor. 3:6), it will not even be counted as obedience or righteousness. The Spirit gives life and is a much higher and glorious law.

But again, the Letter, the Law written on stone remains to convict the world (future generations) of sin.

It is not for those whose righteousness is in Christ. So for you, yes, the Letter is fulfilled, abolished, done away, vanished, changed, disannulled, blotted out, etc., yet it still remains, hasn’t passed away, etc. because others are still coming to Christ.

Both sides of the Law is glorious, each doing what it was meant to do.

Souled out,

I am almost totally in agreement with you. However, the letter of the law has changed both for justification and for Christian living.

Take for example the true story of the man I spoke about when I started this thread. The law required the Levitical priesthood to collect 10% from the people. But the priesthood was transferred to Christ and we are told that this CHANGED the law too (Heb. 7).

So now we give out of a cheerful heart "not out of necessity" (or requirement). We give according as the "Lord has 'prospered' us".

The same is true about the sabbath. The letter of it was abolished. But obedience to the spirit of the law is that we REST in Christ alone for our salvation. We must rest from our "works-salvation".

Many Christians think that there were no changes that occurred in the law. But heb. 7 clearly says that the law in reference to tithing changed. it is clear that the law regarding the sabbath also changed.

Therefore, we should not lay burdens on other Christians about these matters.

Another example of the law changing has to do with marriage. Under the old covenant ONLY the man could divorce a woman for adultery. Yet Christians say that today a woman may do the same. Is not this a "change" in the law? I'm not trying to start up a discourse about divorce and remarriage.

Now you said that Christ fulfilled the law for us and you're certainly correct. But Jesus said that "not one jot or tittle will pass from the law til all be fulfilled". Therefore, if Christ fulfilled the law, then the letter passed away.

You give the impression that the letter is equally glorious with the spirit. But Paul said that the spirit is "MORE glorious".

Souled Out
Mar 27th 2008, 12:12 AM
Souled out posted:

Souled out,

I am almost totally in agreement with you. However, the letter of the law has changed both for justification and for Christian living.

Take for example the true story of the man I spoke about when I started this thread. The law required the Levitical priesthood to collect 10% from the people. But the priesthood was transferred to Christ and we are told that this CHANGED the law too (Heb. 7).

So now we give out of a cheerful heart "not out of necessity" (or requirement). We give according as the "Lord has 'prospered' us".

The same is true about the sabbath. The letter of it was abolished. But obedience to the spirit of the law is that we REST in Christ alone for our salvation. We must rest from our "works-salvation".

Many Christians think that there were no changes that occurred in the law. But heb. 7 clearly says that the law in reference to tithing changed. it is clear that the law regarding the sabbath also changed.

Therefore, we should not lay burdens on other Christians about these matters.

Another example of the law changing has to do with marriage. Under the old covenant ONLY the man could divorce a woman for adultery. Yet Christians say that today a woman may do the same. Is not this a "change" in the law? I'm not trying to start up a discourse about divorce and remarriage.

Now you said that Christ fulfilled the law for us and you're certainly correct. But Jesus said that "not one jot or tittle will pass from the law til all be fulfilled". Therefore, if Christ fulfilled the law, then the letter passed away.I think a distinction needs to be made between the Royal Law (Ten) and the rest (613 civil laws, the statutes, the judgments or the animal sacrifices or circumcision).

My previous post was about the Ten only.

Christ fulfills all the law for those in Christ, including the Sabbath. But if a Christian chooses to celebrate certain days, whether it be Saturday or Sunday or any other day is between him and God. There is no condemnation for those in Christ, whether they choose to set aside a day or not.

Regarding the rest of the law, I agree with everything you've said, as the Old Covenant passed away when the New came. It went from Aaronic/Levi to Melchisedec/Judah, which the latter is Christ.

The tithe was never for those under the New Covenant, even though plenty of Christians today still believe they must keep this law, even if they keep no other. :hmm:



You give the impression that the letter is equally glorious with the spirit. But Paul said that the spirit is "MORE glorious".I did specify that there is more glory in the Spirit vs. the Letter.

Still, we can't overlook the glory in that which convicts the world of sin and brings people to Christ:

6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7 But if the ministration of death, written, [and] engraven on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look stedfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which [glory] was passing away:

8 how shall not rather the ministration of the spirit be with glory?

9 For if the ministration of condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

10 For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth.

11 For if that which passeth away [was] with glory, much more that which remaineth [is] in glory.

It's glory vs. more glory.

thethinker
Mar 27th 2008, 09:07 PM
Still, we can't overlook the glory in that which convicts the world of sin and brings people to Christ

The conviction of sin also is NOT based in the letter of the law. Note what Jesus said:

"He shall convict the world of sin, and of righteousness and of judgment, of sin BECAUSE they believe not in Me, of righteousness, because I go to My Father...of judgment because the prince of this world is judged" (John 16:8-10).

Those who reject God's new covenant are therefore both convicted and judged on the basis of new covenant law. Paul said that everyone that walks according to this [new covenant] rule, "peace and mercy be upon them".

Jesus fulfilled the law PERFECTLY and satisfied God's justice as the sacrificial Lamb. So the law at Sinai (the ten) was taken out of the way in respect to both salvation and judgment. The letter of the law plays no part in judgment. The letter is annulled altogether.


11 For if that which passeth away [was] with glory, much more that which remaineth [is] in glory.

It's glory vs. more glory.

The literal in the Greek is "annulled". It says this: "For if which is being annulled [was] glory...."

So I would have to disagree that it is "glory vs. more glory". It is rather glory that ihas been annulled versus a better glory to remain.

Souled Out
Mar 28th 2008, 01:46 AM
The conviction of sin also is NOT based in the letter of the law. Note what Jesus said:

"He shall convict the world of sin, and of righteousness and of judgment, of sin BECAUSE they believe not in Me, of righteousness, because I go to My Father...of judgment because the prince of this world is judged" (John 16:8-10).

Those who reject God's new covenant are therefore both convicted and judged on the basis of new covenant law. Paul said that everyone that walks according to this [new covenant] rule, "peace and mercy be upon them".

Jesus fulfilled the law PERFECTLY and satisfied God's justice as the sacrificial Lamb. So the law at Sinai (the ten) was taken out of the way in respect to both salvation and judgment. The letter of the law plays no part in judgment. The letter is annulled altogether.

The conviction of sin, for you and for me is how we know that we are in need a Savior. That conviction is based on the Letter and not the Spirit of the Law.

My conviction, and probably yours too, was pretty much like Paul’s in Romans 7:7-13 where he says that he didn’t know what sin was but by the law: for he would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “Thou shalt not covet".

“Thou shalt not covet” is Letter Law not Spirit Law.

After the Letter convicts (Thou shalt not commit adultery), it’s the Spirit of that Law (Don’t lust-Don’t even go there-Put thou eyes back in thy sockets) that gets written on your heart because that’s where all sin originates.

From then on your conviction is based purely on Spirit Law because that is what’s now in you. Unbelievers don’t have that; all they have is what’s on stone.

More is expected of us because we’ve been given more.

To say that the Letter is done away is in effect pulling the rug out from under all those who have yet to come to Christ.

Its done away with for us, yes, because it’s no longer effective at convicting us. Life now for us is in the Spirit. The Letter kills us, but it’s still there and effective, ready to convict my unsaved grandfather, uncles, friends and colleagues, as well as those you know.


The literal in the Greek is "annulled". It says this: "For if which is being annulled [was] glory...."

So I would have to disagree that it is "glory vs. more glory". It is rather glory that ihas been annulled versus a better glory to remain. And that's fine that you disagree and I do understand. Once you're in Christ it's hard to see glory in anything else.

Redefining katargeo, which also means to render idle or inefficient, inactivate, inoperative, still doesn’t remove the glory that was on Moses’ face which was symbolic of the glory of what was written on stone.

Just like the Israelites, to see for the first time, communication from God -- to behold what He has said and written, is glorious. Especially when you were previously dead and unaware of the mark.

We are blessed though to even behold the glory because, just relating this back to your OP, believers that attempt to put new wine into old wineskins, will be hard pressed to find glory or rest in either Spirit or Law. They'll never be sure of what it is they're supposed to be doing.

Thanks tt.

thethinker
Mar 28th 2008, 08:41 PM
The conviction of sin, for you and for me is how we know that we are in need a Savior. That conviction is based on the Letter and not the Spirit of the Law.

My conviction, and probably yours too, was pretty much like Paul’s in Romans 7:7-13 where he says that he didn’t know what sin was but by the law: for he would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “Thou shalt not covet".

“Thou shalt not covet” is Letter Law not Spirit Law.

After the Letter convicts (Thou shalt not commit adultery), it’s the Spirit of that Law (Don’t lust-Don’t even go there-Put thou eyes back in thy sockets) that gets written on your heart because that’s where all sin originates.

From then on your conviction is based purely on Spirit Law because that is what’s now in you. Unbelievers don’t have that; all they have is what’s on stone.

Your thoughts on the role on the letter of the law in relation to conviction are hard to dispute. I am going to re-think my views about this. I do rejoice that we are in agreement on the Christian's relationship to the letter of the law.

The child of God has no relationship to the letter of the law. We have been set free from the letter to serve in the newness of the spirit.

Souled Out
Mar 28th 2008, 09:45 PM
Your thoughts on the role on the letter of the law in relation to conviction are hard to dispute. I am going to re-think my views about this. I do rejoice that we are in agreement on the Christian's relationship to the letter of the law.

The child of God has no relationship to the letter of the law. We have been set free from the letter to serve in the newness of the spirit.

Whomever the Son sets free is free indeed! To know Him is a blessed thing and you and I are truly blessed.

Abundant blessings to you and yours, tt.

StevenC
Mar 29th 2008, 04:28 AM
It is not the Law which is bondage but sin. In the Law it is written that every 7 years all debts must be forgiven and all slaves (bondservants) set free. It is the wickedness of man that abuses the law.

Such as in the case where ministers abuse the law to guilt trip people into tithing. They don't need to do such a thing if they are following God. Did not Jesus command his Apostles to take nothing with them and to go out, teach and perform miracles. Was he not saying to them that God shall provide for you what you need?

Yet it is sin within us that separates us from God, and the Law, which is for our own good, is ill spoken of because of the man of sin. Our sinful nature is what nullified the law, not Christ. The covenant had already been broken many times by Israel when Christ was born.

The principles behind the law expose the weakness of mankind, but only Christ could reconcile those weaknesses, therefore the law is considered inferior only to Christ, but the principle of the law that is that man should do as God says and will be punished if he does not. This doesn't mean we need to give money to Levites, but we should have respect for God's law and try and learn what God was teaching the people of Israel.

-Steven

valleybldr
Mar 29th 2008, 12:16 PM
The principles behind the law expose the weakness of mankind, but only Christ could reconcile those weaknesses, therefore the law is considered inferior only to Christ, but the principle of the law that is that man should do as God says and will be punished if he does not. This doesn't mean we need to give money to Levites, but we should have respect for God's law and try and learn what God was teaching the people of Israel.


Well said.

I might mention too that every time you pick up a particular translation you see the Word through the eyes of those translators. I find it fascinating to see how religious bias creeps into the text. You can’t have church traditions that are historically anti-Semitic and think their translators don’t carry that bias when translating. Regarding Torah, Paul’s writings are set up against all others and the churches anti-Jewish slant doesn’t help. I don't think Paul /author of the Hebrews was writing so that people could ignore the Torah's import in their daily lives.

todd

thethinker
Mar 29th 2008, 05:26 PM
I don't think Paul /author of the Hebrews was writing so that people could ignore the Torah's import in their daily lives

Only the spirit of the law has import for the Christian:

"For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the [letter] law of sin and death...." (Romans 8:2)

Studyin'2Show
Mar 29th 2008, 06:55 PM
Only the spirit of the law has import for the Christian:

"For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the [letter] law of sin and death...." (Romans 8:2)You know, you added in more than just the one word there. You also added in preconceived notions. Continue reading.

Romans 8:5-8
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

The point of this entire passage is to NOT walk in the flesh (our own selfishness) but to walk completely in the spirit (selflessly doing God's will). BECAUSE the carnal is an enemy of God. And look at this, IT (the flesh, the carnal) is not subject to the 'Law of God'. Our flesh will always be against the 'Law of God', but notice that it said nothing about our flesh being against the law of sin and death. The Law of God is NOT death, it is life. God did not give death to His people. What has been removed is the punishment for breaking God's Law. That is a law unto itself. Just as in the book of Esther the king could not take back His edict, nor could God take back His.

Here's the bottom line for me. The 'Law of God' is life according to scripture.

Proverbs 6:23 - For the commandment is a lamp, and the law a light; reproofs of instruction are the way of life.

However, there IS another law which I see as the 'law of sin and death'. Here it is:

Deuteronomy 28:15-19
15 “But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:
16 “Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country.
17 “Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl.
18 “Cursed shall be the fruit of your body and the produce of your land, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks.
19 “Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.

Continue on through verse 68. It is clear that this IS the 'law of sin and death'. This is the PUNISHMENT that has been paid for us by the blood of the Perfect Lamb of God, Yeshua. THAT, makes sense! THAT, lines up perfectly with ALL of Scripture. God has NOT changed from a God that wanted to punish His people to a nice graceful God who shows mercy. There was grace and mercy in the Hebrew Scriptures and there is accountability and punishment in the Apostolic Scriptures. ALL of Scripture is like an awesome tapestry and it ALL works together!

God Bless!

thethinker
Mar 30th 2008, 12:14 AM
You know, you added in more than just the one word there. You also added in preconceived notions. Continue reading.

Romans 8:5-8
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

S2S,
What word did I add? And what are my "preconceived notions"? Paul had just said that were were set free from the law so that we could serve in the newness of the spirit and not the oldness of the letter" (Romans 7:6).

Therefore, the law of the "spirit of life" is the spirit that gives life. You said earlier that you serve the spirit of the law but now you revert back to the old covenant letter again.

The man who lives "according to the flesh" iin chapter 8 is the man that attempts to live according to the letter of the law. Paul said that the letter of the law "slayed" him (Rom. 7).

"For the letter killeth, but the spirit gives life".

Studyin'2Show
Mar 30th 2008, 12:50 AM
S2S,
What word did I add? And what are my "preconceived notions"? Paul had just said that were were set free from the law so that we could serve in the newness of the spirit and not the oldness of the letter" (Romans 7:6).

Therefore, the law of the "spirit of life" is the spirit that gives life. You said earlier that you serve the spirit of the law but now you revert back to the old covenant letter again.

The man who lives "according to the flesh" iin chapter 8 is the man that attempts to live according to the letter of the law. Paul said that the letter of the law "slayed" him (Rom. 7).

"For the letter killeth, but the spirit gives life".The verse (Romans 8:2) says that he has set us free from the law of sin and death. You added in [letter]. That is from your preconceived notion that the law of sin and death is the Law of God. :hmm: How could that possibly make sense? God is NOT 'sin and death' so the Law of GOD does not equate with the law of sin and death. I explained what the law of sin and death is.

When did I revert back to the 'old covenant'? That's another preconceived notion. Because I have learned from the tutor does NOT mean I am UNDER the law. You miss the point completely. We are to walk in the spirit and NOT in the flesh. Yeshua explained in Matthew 5 what it is to live by the spirit and NOT by the letter. You see, by the 'letter' you CAN look at a woman and lust after her. By the 'letter' you CAN be angry at your brother and call him a fool. By the 'letter' you CAN divorce for whatever reason you please. Living by the spirit is NOT casting out the baby with the bathwater. The baby is the good part. :D Cast out the bathwater. That is the bad part. ;)

You say that living in the flesh is following the letter of the law? :hmm: The flesh, according to Romans 8:7 is at enmity with God and is not subject to His Law. Living in the flesh is law-less-ness. When I lived in the flesh, I got high, was promiscuous, lied, stole etc. I didn't keep Sabbath because I was living 'in the flesh'. :rolleyes: It is NOT my flesh that leads me to honor the Sabbath day. Does that even make sense? The flesh is against God. How can my selfish flesh lead me to keep His commandments? If you think that keeping His commandments is living 'in the flesh', I think you don't understand the nature of 'the flesh'.

God Bless!

thethinker
Mar 30th 2008, 06:22 PM
The verse (Romans 8:2) says that he has set us free from the law of sin and death. You added in [letter].

The brackets around "letter" indicate that I was interpreting. Brackets are and admission that the word bracketed is not in the text. I was interpreting.


That is from your preconceived notion that the law of sin and death is the Law of God. :hmm: How could that possibly make sense? God is NOT 'sin and death' so the Law of GOD does not equate with the law of sin and death. I explained what the law of sin and death is.

Paul disagrees with you. He said that sin through the law of God "slayed" him.

"I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known coveteousness except the law had said, 'You shall not covet'"....Ths commandment which was ordained to life I found to be unto death....For sin taking occasion through the commandment, deceived me, and by it slayed me." (7:7-12).


Yeshua explained in Matthew 5 what it is to live by the spirit and NOT by the letter. You see, by the 'letter' you CAN look at a woman and lust after her. By the 'letter' you CAN be angry at your brother and call him a fool. By the 'letter' you CAN divorce for whatever reason you please. Living by the spirit is NOT casting out the baby with the bathwater. The baby is the good part. :D Cast out the bathwater. That is the bad part. ;)

Your above statement is true. That's not Paul's point though.


You say that living in the flesh is following the letter of the law? :hmm: The flesh, according to Romans 8:7 is at enmity with God and is not subject to His Law. Living in the flesh is law-less-ness.

Living "in the flesh" in Rom. 7-8 is NOT "law-less-ness" as you say. Living according to the flesh for Paul was trying to live according to the letter of the law. Were not the Scribes and Pharisees living according to the flesh? You bet they were. Yet they were not lawless men in the sense that you mean "lawless".

Paul said that before he came to Christ he was "blameless" in regards to the law, that is, the letter of the law. Paul was not "lawless". Yet he counted his blamelessness as rubbish and even said that it was "perfection according to the FLESH".

diffangle
Mar 30th 2008, 06:30 PM
Paul disagrees with you. He said that sin through the law of God "slayed" him.

"I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known coveteousness except the law had said, 'You shall not covet'"....Ths commandment which was ordained to life I found to be unto death....For sin taking occasion through the commandment, deceived me, and by it slayed me." (7:7-12).

What slayed Paul? What took occasion? Sin or YHWH's Law/Commandments?


1 John 2
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. 7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

Jesusinmyheart
Mar 30th 2008, 06:39 PM
Wow. Same old same old. Anyway, i'd like to chime in for a second.

The scriptures teach that the physical world and spiritual are closely intertwined.

Taken from:

http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/BigFatGreekMindsetPart1.pdf

Augustine is considered one of the primary pillars of Christian thought, “standing between Paul and
Luther.”3 As such, his influence over Christian thought and particularly his interpretation of Paul’s epistles
through the grid of Platonic philosophy remain well entrenched in Christianity today.
In contrast to the Greek worldview, the Hebrew perspective was unified rather than dualistic. The
created universe, which consists of both visible and invisible realms, is a unified whole. Reality exists in
both realms, and one is not better than the other. When God created the world in which we live, He declared
that it was good, and so the physical world is not innately evil or somehow inferior to the immaterial
world. Ideas or ideals have no value unless they are actually lived out in the physical world. While
Platonic thought teaches “it’s the thought that counts,” God tell us “it’s the mitzvah (commandment) that counts.” Surely proper motivation is important in obeying God, but good intentions are not enough.
It is not difficult to see how the dualistic Greek worldview has become the norm in much of
western Christianity. Foremost in this regard is the notion that true faith exists in the realm of ideas—in
agreeing intellectually with a list of doctrines or a Church creed. Faith is viewed as a private matter that
takes place in one’s heart or mind and therefore cannot be judged. Some might argue that Paul affirms
such a definition of faith when he writes:
if you confess with your mouth Yeshua as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the
dead, you will be saved (Romans 10:9).
But Paul is not writing from a dualistic perspective, as though one’s confession and belief could be divorced
from one’s actions. To confess Yeshua as Lord means that one is willing and determined to obey
Him as Lord. Moreover, verse ten explains that such a confession and belief results in righteousness,
which in the context surely means righteous living as well as right-standing in God’s court of justice.
For a person to think that he or she could obey God “in my heart” without an outward life of conformity
to God’s commandments is entirely to miss Paul’s point. Indeed, chapters six and seven of Romans deal
primarily with how genuine faith results in a radical change in one’s actions. And earlier in Romans Paul
wrote:
Rom 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
(Romans 2:13).

See also "faith without works is dead".

In my opinion it is a grave error to over spiritualise the scriptures: that which is manifest in the heart changed by God will want to follow His Word into action, and therefore be producing fruit visible to all.

After all God didn't send us a spiritual figure to die a spiritual death, but a very human being with flesh and blood to shed for us, to show we must do likewise and put down the flesh against that which God has put into our hearts.

If you live in a spiritual way only, aka "it's the thought that counts", then you're not actually doing the Word. It would be like someone saying he/she will give you something you want, but only in words..... not in deeds. So how pleasing is that to you, when the thoughts and words were there, but no deeds follow?

The commandments of God are unchanging, from the foundation of the earth, as is Yeshua, who is the very Word of God which includes all the Law and the Prophets ever had written down.

To argue things have changed aka "Law nailed to the cross" is absurd, because that makes God a laughing stock of a deity who absolved the Law and doles out grace in abundance to a people who now have no Law or commandments to live by. It also lays the groundwork for a people today to live their lives as they please with a minimum engagement to the scriptures, as we are "free" now from such things.

In all reality we are free from the flesh, sin and the punishment for such, but not free from the law which is not bondage but a tutor and a guide (as is Yeshua who is the word and everything contained in the Law and Prophets), rather sin is bondage.

The commandments of God have never been bad, but they have been misinterpreted and abused, and distorted by man. Perhaps if people looked at the Law and started living by it then we could see communal changes taking place that would eventually change the world, just as sin changed it from the garden Eden. It is up to us to further God's kingdom on earth, and build the house with what He has put into our hearts. It's not our doing, but His Word in our hearts that should motivate us. However, the choice to lift a finger for God is ours to make, and it's called overcoming (the flesh).

I encourage you to read the article above in its entirety.

Here's part 2 for the above article it's a pdf format.

http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/BigFatGreekMindsetPart2.pdf

Shalom,
Tanja

Studyin'2Show
Mar 30th 2008, 08:22 PM
The brackets around "letter" indicate that I was interpreting. Brackets are and admission that the word bracketed is not in the text. I was interpreting.

Paul disagrees with you. He said that sin through the law of God "slayed" him.

Living "in the flesh" in Rom. 7-8 is NOT "law-less-ness" as you say. Living according to the flesh for Paul was trying to live according to the letter of the law. Were not the Scribes and Pharisees living according to the flesh? You bet they were. Yet they were not lawless men in the sense that you mean "lawless".

Paul said that before he came to Christ he was "blameless" in regards to the law, that is, the letter of the law. Paul was not "lawless". Yet he counted his blamelessness as rubbish and even said that it was "perfection according to the FLESH".That was my point that you were not merely adding one word (to your interpretation) but also adding preconceived notions. I wasn't saying you were adding to scripture in any other way. If that's what it appeared, I apologize.

I believe diffangle answered this already. Read it again. Paul did NOT say that the law 'slayed' him but that sin did.

Please address the passage in Romans 7-8 where you see it saying that the scribes and pharisees were living 'in the flesh'. Again, I believe you are seeing what you want to see because of preconceived ideas.

Paul did not say that he was walking 'in the flesh'. He's speaking of a completely different concept in Philippians 3 than what was being discussed in Romans 7-8. I do not have any confidence in the righteousness I might attain through the Law of God either. Whatever I could do on my own is but filthy rags. This is why I do not need to try to keep His commandments to 'earn' my way into glory, that is a free gift, praise God! :pp I keep His commandments because it is my DESIRE! He has written His Law on my soft, willing heart! :D

God Bless!

thethinker
Mar 31st 2008, 03:16 PM
What slayed Paul? What took occasion? Sin or YHWH's Law/Commandments?


Exactly! Sin took occasion through the "letter" of the law. That's why the new covenant "spirit" of the law had to come.

Note that Paul said that the [letter] of the law was "weak" through the flesh, that is, the sinful flesh. But the "spirit" of the law is not subject to the weakness of the flesh.

Therefore, the spirit is "more glorious" (2 Cor. 3).

Studyin'2Show
Mar 31st 2008, 09:18 PM
Exactly! Sin took occasion through the "letter" of the law. That's why the new covenant "spirit" of the law had to come.

Note that Paul said that the [letter] of the law was "weak" through the flesh, that is, the sinful flesh. But the "spirit" of the law is not subject to the weakness of the flesh.

Therefore, the spirit is "more glorious" (2 Cor. 3).Indeed the spirit is more glorious than the letter. What it does not do, however, is toss away the baby. ;)

God Bless!

thethinker
Mar 31st 2008, 09:37 PM
Indeed the spirit is more glorious than the letter. What it does not do, however, is toss away the baby. ;)

God Bless!

Paul is the person who "tossed away the baby". He said that the letter of the law was the "administration of death" and had to be "annulled".

So you're complaint is with Paul not me. He expected that there would be complaints against his doctrine (Rom. 6:1).

Studyin'2Show
Mar 31st 2008, 09:55 PM
Paul is the person who "tossed away the baby". He said that the letter of the law was the "administration of death" and had to be "annulled".

So you're complaint is with Paul not me. He expected that there would be complaints against his doctrine (Rom. 6:1).I have no complaint whatsoever with Paul. :D Are you thinking of some other scripture? :confused

Romans 6:1-2
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?

and verses 15-16

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

How does Paul say he learned what sin is but the Law? So, because we are no longer UNDER the law does that mean we sin. Absolutely not! You see, Paul did NOT cast out the baby! It was no longer the Law that motivated his actions. Because it was now on his heart, it was his DESIRE to walk righteously and not sin against God. See, that's why he says - Certainly not! - to the question of whether not being UNDER the Law means that we should be Law-less. There's a very big difference between the Law written on stone and the Law written in our hearts. That difference is not in the perfect Law of God, but rather it is in our motivation. We are no longer servants; we are sons! :pp

God Bless!

thethinker
Apr 1st 2008, 02:04 PM
How does Paul say he learned what sin is but the Law? So, because we are no longer UNDER the law does that mean we sin. Absolutely not! You see, Paul did NOT cast out the baby! It was no longer the Law that motivated his actions. Because it was now on his heart, it was his DESIRE to walk righteously and not sin against God. See, that's why he says - Certainly not! - to the question of whether not being UNDER the Law means that we should be Law-less. There's a very big difference between the Law written on stone and the Law written in our hearts. That difference is not in the perfect Law of God, but rather it is in our motivation.

The law was indeed a "tutor" to bring us to Christ. I have said that before. But we can't be justified through keeping it because we are all sinners. Neither should we obey the letter of it. Paul said that we were "delivered' from the law so that we may serve in the newness of the SPIRIT, not in the oldness of the letter". For the letter "killeth".

You confuse me. :confused We agree that antinomianism is a false conclusion. And we agree that we should serve the law in the newness of the spirit and not in oldness of the letter. Yet you keep on with your objections. Have you had a negative experience with antinomians?

The book of Jude says that there will be those who change the grace of our Lord into lasciviousness. Should we stop preaching grace because there are those who abuse it? I am not going to subject myself to the letter of the law just because there are sinners that abuse freedom.


We are no longer servants; we are sons! :pp

And sons are mature adults who don't need the letter.

valleybldr
Apr 1st 2008, 03:26 PM
And sons are mature adults who don't need the letter. How do you know *His* "appointed times" for worship if you don't know the letter? todd

thethinker
Apr 1st 2008, 04:08 PM
How do you know *His* "appointed times" for worship if you don't know the letter? todd

Sorry todd. I'm not following you. If you are saying that there are "appointed times" for worship I would question that. We should glorify God "whether we eat or drink or whatever we do" (Paul).

What are these "appointed times" of worship you speak of?

diffangle
Apr 1st 2008, 04:38 PM
What are these "appointed times" of worship you speak of?
One example is one that I've mentioned to you before... The Feast of Tabernacle which is a shadow of Yahushuas second coming.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 1st 2008, 04:44 PM
The law was indeed a "tutor" to bring us to Christ. I have said that before. But we can't be justified through keeping it because we are all sinners. Neither should we obey the letter of it. Paul said that we were "delivered' from the law so that we may serve in the newness of the SPIRIT, not in the oldness of the letter". For the letter "killeth".
You confuse me. :confused We agree that antinomianism is a false conclusion. And we agree that we should serve the law in the newness of the spirit and not in oldness of the letter. Yet you keep on with your objections. Have you had a negative experience with antinomians?

The book of Jude says that there will be those who change the grace of our Lord into lasciviousness. Should we stop preaching grace because there are those who abuse it? I am not going to subject myself to the letter of the law just because there are sinners that abuse freedom.

And sons are mature adults who don't need the letter.Show me exactly when I, or anyone in this thread, has said that we are seeking justification by the Law? :hmm: It hasn't happened. Yet those who have a problem with those of us who do not see God's Law as some big, bad burden always seem to assume that we are seeking justification through our own righteous acts. :o God forbid! I am justified by the blood of Messiah alone! :ppI believe that if you let go of your preconceived idea that I am seeking self-justification, you will at least understand my position better. ;)

I had never heard of 'antinomianism' or 'antinomians' before this thread so be assured, I don't have any issues with that. :D

No one has asked anyone to stop preaching grace. :o Goodness no! Why would I want you to stop preaching grace? I preach grace! For it is BY grace that we are saved, through faith; not of ourselves for it is the gift of God! :)

Yes, sons ARE mature adults; WHO HAVE LEARNED! You see, my mother was my handwriting tutor. I learned proper penmanship from her. Now, that I am an adult do I then forget all the good things she taught me because I don't HAVE TO have good penmanship? Absolutely not! Now, it is my desire to continue to use the penmanship I learned from my tutor. You see, the Law was our tutor. By it we learned what is good and what is bad. Now that we are no longer UNDER the Law, does that mean we then forget everything we have learned? Not me; not at all. I hope this clarifies things somewhat for you.

God Bless!

valleybldr
Apr 1st 2008, 04:52 PM
Sorry todd. I'm not following you. If you are saying that there are "appointed times" for worship I would question that. We should glorify God "whether we eat or drink or whatever we do" (Paul).

What are these "appointed times" of worship you speak of? The "Holy Days" God laid out for us. Yes, we need to glorify and worship 24/7 but there are special days that celebrate the redemptive work of our Savior. The Corinthian church kept one, evidently not too well :blushsad:, that is coming up soon. todd

valleybldr
Apr 1st 2008, 05:06 PM
One example is one that I've mentioned to you before... The Feast of Tabernacle which is a shadow of Yahushuas second coming. In part. More specifically Trumpets and/or Atonement point to His return. Succot/Tabernacles points to the 1,000 years He will Tabernacle with us and all nations on earth (70 sacrifices=70 nations). Here is a cool chart I've added to my collection http://www.ltradio.org/charts/Feasts%20of%20the%20Messiah/The%20seven%20month%20Feast%20cycle.jpg. I believe the "Eighth day of Assembly" represents the 'New Heavens and the New Earth" but it has become the forgotten Holy Day within the Body (it's not even on this chart because they consider "Firstfruits" a Holy Day which it is not). todd

thethinker
Apr 1st 2008, 06:08 PM
Show me exactly when I, or anyone in this thread, has said that we are seeking justification by the Law?

I don't think you are saying that we should be justified by the letter of the law. But you seem to be saying that we should live according to the letter even AFTER you have said that you live according to the spirit. So if we both agree that we are not justified by the letter and that we should serve in the newness of the spirit, then what are your objections all about? :confused


Yes, sons ARE mature adults; WHO HAVE LEARNED! You see, the Law was our tutor.

Yes. The letter of the law WAS our tutor. But not now. The Spirit of grace is our tutor now, not the letter of the law.

valleybldr
Apr 1st 2008, 06:56 PM
Yes. The letter of the law WAS our tutor. But not now. The Spirit of grace is our tutor now, not the letter of the law. How soon do you think the believers present at the first Pentecost chucked that Holy Day in the "obsolete" waste bin? It has been fulfilled, at one additional level, but like Passover it became a memorial of more then one event in God's redemptive plan for mankind. These Holy days continue even through the 1,000 year reign of our Messiah and like millions of Jews the world over we don't need a Temple to keep "the appointed times" (by the letter or by the spirit within us). todd

thethinker
Apr 1st 2008, 07:07 PM
The "Holy Days" God laid out for us. Yes, we need to glorify and worship 24/7 but there are special days that celebrate the redemptive work of our Savior. The Corinthian church kept one, evidently not too well :blushsad:, that is coming up soon. todd

Where is this found in the Corinthian epistles?

valleybldr
Apr 1st 2008, 07:26 PM
Where is this found in the Corinthian epistles?
Passover is mentioned in the first epistle chapters 5 and 11. todd

Studyin'2Show
Apr 1st 2008, 07:34 PM
I don't think you are saying that we should be justified by the letter of the law. But you seem to be saying that we should live according to the letter even AFTER you have said that you live according to the spirit. So if we both agree that we are not justified by the letter and that we should serve in the newness of the spirit, then what are your objections all about? :confused

Yes. The letter of the law WAS our tutor. But not now. The Spirit of grace is our tutor now, not the letter of the law.I've said before, the trouble I have is with you saying God's Law was nailed to the cross as I explained in post #88 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1584845#post1584845) ;) But I'm perfectly fine agreeing to disagree! :D

God Bless!

Jesusinmyheart
Apr 1st 2008, 07:45 PM
The law was indeed a "tutor" to bring us to Christ. I have said that before. But we can't be justified through keeping it because we are all sinners. Neither should we obey the letter of it. Paul said that we were "delivered' from the law so that we may serve in the newness of the SPIRIT, not in the oldness of the letter". For the letter "killeth".
Correct, since we are sinners no keeping of the Law will save us, because if we fall short in one we have transgressed all. The point is not that we therefore shouldn't keep the law, but that we are sinners because no matter how hard we try due to our flesh we will err even in the smallest thing.

My friend, where your misunderstanding of those of us that "practice the Law" comes in is, that you feel we're going just by a set of rules, just because.
But the fact is, it's God who has written the Law into our hearts, and we therefore look to the Word to see exactly what God wants of us, and then when we have began to understand we follow the Law by what we know as truth in the Spirit and live it out in the flesh.
We are no different from you as far as living and walking by the Spirit goes, however, we have taken the liberty to take the law as our guidebook, as the Word (Yeshua) leaves no doubt as to what God wants us to do. It does not put us in bondage, but sets us free because we know exactly what to do, and we don't have to wonder if we may err in any way.

It's like the Spirit has revealed to us the truth and the application of the Law, and then, because it is known to us in the Spirit we strive to walk out the visible effect of that knowledge and understanding, which is the fruit of our labors of our love for God.


I don't think you are saying that we should be justified by the letter of the law. But you seem to be saying that we should live according to the letter even AFTER you have said that you live according to the spirit. So if we both agree that we are not justified by the letter and that we should serve in the newness of the spirit, then what are your objections all about?

Our objections are that too many folks claim to be living by the Spirit not even having a clue about what God wants them to do in any given situation. The wait for some voice to whisper into their ears or go by a figment of imagination and call that revelation living/walking after the Spirit.
The scriptures leave no room to err. Granted there are situations the bible seems to be silent on, but there are very many detailed instructions, and if all else fails wisdom wise, Love will never fail. However, if you don't have the scriptures in your heart/any understanding what God is trying to say, all attempts to walk after the Spirit are futile.

This is what it means not to lean upon your OWN understanding.

Hope this clarifies it some for you of why and how we do what we do.


Shalom,
Tanja

thethinker
Apr 2nd 2008, 04:39 PM
Indeed the spirit is more glorious than the letter. What it does not do, however, is toss away the baby. ;)

God Bless!

S2S,
It just came to me today that the "baby" represents the spirit of the law while the letter of the law represents the "bathwater".

You're right. Paul kept the "baby" but threw out the letter. :bounce:

Jesusinmyheart
Apr 2nd 2008, 04:48 PM
As for the actual scripture you're using to negate the Law:


2Co 3:5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God,
2Co 3:6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

My view on this differs from yours in that the context of the scriptures needs to be considered in detail.

Note that: our sufficiency is from God.. how does it come to us from God? I say through the Word, which is Yeshua. He gave us many instructions, and IMO the OT instruictions have never been negated, but rather misapplied or misunderstood, and even distorted by some Pharisees. The Word written into our hearts explained bz the Spirit in depth leads us to a deeper understanding than the Letter of the law appears to be at first glance.

In this wise Yeshua explained the many "you have heard it said, but i say unto you......"

Take the Law, "you shall not steal" The Spirit has explained several applications of that Law to me that run deeper than some would consider. For example by the Spirit i know that to accept something from someone that i don't need amounts to stealing, because it takes the gift of God from the person who really dopes need it.

This is the Spirit of the Law, and this is why the letter kills when you just live by it to the "T" because you will only operate on surface level.

Without dwelling on the Law and meditating on it day and night as King David did, and without the Spirit's help, you will never be able to live a righteous life. The Spirit reveals to you things in time, not all at once from my own personal experience, it's a walk through life towards God, growing to maturity.

Hope that explains why i don't view doing the letter of the law as bad because i can take it from step one down to step X with the Spirit's help, and that is what makes me righteous.
Contradict this with what some Pharisees did back in Yeshuas day, who lived only to appear holy and acted out the letter, and you can see why Yeshua called them hypocrites.
This does not mean the Law is bad, and this is why Yeshua commanded:

Mat 23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat,
Mat 23:3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you--but [do] not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.
Mat 23:4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.
Mat 23:5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long,
Mat 23:6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues
Mat 23:7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others.

I hope this clarifies my position as well as that of other likeminded sisters and brothers.

Shalom,
Tanja

Studyin'2Show
Apr 2nd 2008, 04:57 PM
S2S,
It just came to me today that the "baby" represents the spirit of the law while the letter of the law represents the "bathwater".
You're right. Paul kept the "baby" but threw out the letter. :bounce:It really is not about making up analogies that fit our theology. My point was simply that the Law of God is good; perfect even, so there is no need to be rid of it. The way His people were (and are) observing it was bad. They looked at Yeshua and thought He was doing it wrong when in reality He was walking it out in perfection. :) I evidently believe the 'letter' and the 'spirit' represent different things than you do. What has come from the mouth of God is NEVER bad in my opinion, so there's no reason to throw any of His commands out. ;)

God Bless!

Jesusinmyheart
Apr 2nd 2008, 05:18 PM
S2S,
It just came to me today that the "baby" represents the spirit of the law while the letter of the law represents the "bathwater".

You're right. Paul kept the "baby" but threw out the letter.

I strongly disagree with your analogy.

IMO Paul never threw out the letter/bathwater either.... what he was doing away with was the hypocrisy of some that thought one had to follow the letter of the Law to be entering the covenant. Being physically circumcised amounts to nothing if your heart is not in it and you are doing it for the wrong reasons. This could be compared to people responding to the altar call and saying their sinners prayer, thinking "ok, now I'm saved", without a true remorse and willingness to repent and turn to God to change their lives.

God enables us through His Word to know right from wrong. How many are willing to look?

The NT is built upon the OT, and God would never throw out the foundation of the Word which is Yeshua and therefore includes the Law which was how the Word operated in the OT.
Mercy and Grace did exist back then too....

There's an article i would encourage you to read about this, but i have trouble finding it right now, and no time for an extensive search.

I'll be back.

Shalom,
Tanja

thethinker
Apr 2nd 2008, 06:03 PM
I strongly disagree with your analogy.

IMO Paul never threw out the letter/bathwater either.... what he was doing away with was the hypocrisy of some that thought one had to follow the letter of the Law to be entering the covenant.


But Paul himself said that the letter was "annulled" (2 Cor. 3:11). So I can now worship without the bondage of the letter but in the freeness of the spirit.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 2nd 2008, 07:49 PM
But Paul himself said that the letter was "annulled" (2 Cor. 3:11). So I can now worship without the bondage of the letter but in the freeness of the spirit.The problem is not with what Paul says. It's with what you define as the letter. ;) By the letter of the law you CAN lust after someone. So was the 'letter' more or less? :hmm: The point is that now God's perfect Law should be written on our soft, willing hearts. You see, the way you seem to see it, the 'letter' is to do what God said in the Hebrew Scriptures and the 'spirit' is to do what the Holy Spirit leads us to do. The trouble with that is that God is God. He has not changed. It is our perception that has changed.

Let me give you an example. I tell my 10 yr old daughter to go upstairs and get into the shower. I go up to check on her a few minutes later and find her standing in the shower with no water on and fully dressed. She has followed the letter of my command and yet in her heart she has stubbornly followed her own will. Now, fast forward eight years and my daughter is now an adult. Do I now need to tell her that she must remove her clothing and turn on the water? No, she has learned and now does those things on her own because she desires to have good hygiene. I no longer have to be over her to enforce such things.

I view the letter as trying to see what can be gotten away with. Like the the ones Yeshua rebuked for trying to get away with not taking care of a parent by saying that the money they would have used for them, they had dedicated to God. They were doing like my daughter with the shower; trying to stubbornly follow their own will instead of the Father's. It is not the command that was bad, it was how it was received and acted upon. ;)

God Bless!

Jesusinmyheart
Apr 2nd 2008, 07:55 PM
My friend, i think you're so hung up on the Law being annulled or done away, that you're missing the picture. If Yeshua Himself says that not even a jot or tittle of the Law shall pass away til heaven and earth vanish, then you must look to this verse in Corinthians speaking not about the letter of the Law or Law itself, but about the punishment that the breaking of the Law requires.

Yeshua shed His blood so our sin could be blotted out, not to blot out the Law. You will find no scripture that will speak to this.

Read this version and see if it gives you better understanding:

2Co 3:6 He has even made us competent to be workers serving a New Covenant, the essence of which is not a written text but the Spirit. For the written text brings death, but the Spirit gives life.

May I emphasize here that the written Text aka the Law does not bring death if one obeys it?
Scripture to support this is:
Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
You're only under the Law if you do wrong (bound by sin), if you obey the Law, you're free, but you're called Law abiding or Law observant. Only to a person who doesn't like the Law or doesn't want to abide the law is in bondage to the Law. God's Laws are not restrictive, but for our own good.
You can't really compare our man made laws to God's Laws other than the fact that a lot of them derive from God's laws. But you can get the picture in either case, that you're not in bondage to the Law when you abide by it it, rather it sets you free from the requirements of the punishments.
Again, Yeshua died for our sins, and therefore absolves us from punishment. But there are still stern warnings not to quench the Spirit or to blaspheme against the Spirit. IOW everything you do is either for the glory of God, or for yourself and sin.

2Co 3:7 Now if that which worked death (requirements of the Law), by means of a written text engraved on stone tablets, came with glory - such glory that the people of Isra'el could not stand to look at Moshe's face because of its brightness, even though that brightness was already fading away -
2Co 3:8 won't the working of the Spirit be accompanied by even greater glory?
2Co 3:9 For if there was glory in what worked to declare people guilty, how much more must the glory abound in what works to declare people innocent!
2Co 3:10 In fact, by comparison with this greater glory, what was made glorious before has no glory now.
2Co 3:11 For if there was glory in what faded away, how much more glory must there be in what lasts.

IOW there was visible the Glory of God in the punishments required by the Law, because it showed that everything imperfect will fade in the brightness of the righteousness of God.

So now, that we have a chance at perfection through the blood of Yeshua who takes away our sin (NOT THE LAW) we will not fade away in light of God's Glory, but we will last.

2Co 3:12 Therefore, with a hope like this, we are very open -
2Co 3:13 unlike Moshe, who put a veil over his face, so that the people of Isra'el would not see the fading brightness come to an end.
2Co 3:14 What is more, their minds were made stonelike; for to this day the same veil remains over them when they read the Old Covenant; it has not been unveiled, because only by the Messiah is the veil taken away.
2Co 3:15 Yes, till today, whenever Moshe is read, a veil lies over their heart.
2Co 3:16 "But," says the Torah, "whenever someone turns to ADONAI [the Lord God=Yeshua], the veil is taken away."

Try to be openminded, and look at the contradictions your position holds. After reading and considering my explanation go and read Romans Chapter 3 with my position in mind.

Shalom,
Tanja

valleybldr
Apr 3rd 2008, 12:53 AM
But Paul himself said that the letter was "annulled" (2 Cor. 3:11). So I can now worship without the bondage of the letter but in the freeness of the spirit.
Why did God deliver them out of slavery only to stick them into another form of bondage at Sinai? todd

Jesusinmyheart
Apr 3rd 2008, 03:24 AM
Originally Posted by thethinker View Post
But Paul himself said that the letter was "annulled" (2 Cor. 3:11). So I can now worship without the bondage of the letter but in the freeness of the spirit.
Why did God deliver them out of slavery only to stick them into another form of bondage at Sinai? todd

Good question velleybldr, this line of thinking is beyond me. God doesn't enslave, but set free.

Walking in the Spirit does not negate the importance of the foundational Law, as wisdom and understanding of the depth of any law are revealed by the Spirit, and written on one's heart. Without the foundation, no one can build a lasting house.

Shalom,
Tanja

ravi4u2
Apr 3rd 2008, 02:09 PM
Good question velleybldr, this line of thinking is beyond me. God doesn't enslave, but set free.

Walking in the Spirit does not negate the importance of the foundational Law, as wisdom and understanding of the depth of any law are revealed by the Spirit, and written on one's heart. Without the foundation, no one can build a lasting house.

Shalom,
Tanja
Christ is the foundation...not the law...

Jesusinmyheart
Apr 3rd 2008, 02:26 PM
Ah ravi, why must the Law and Christ be separated? Perhaps it must be so in your mind to be able to keep this particular theology intact.

IMO Christ is the Law.
Remember the Law was given at Mt Sinai as "the Word"...not particularly as the "ten words"

How could He not be the Law? All He ever did when He walked this earth is show how the Law was supposed to be lived out. He corrected and rebuked, and healed people not seeing, or hearing and diseased which the people who "held" the Law in their hands (some Pharisees & Scribes) would/could not do.
Finally He died, so we could wash our sin away with His blood, because no one on earth is able to be 100 % righteous/follow the Law 100 %.
Nowhere in scripture does it say that the Law is washed away by His blood, only Sin!!!

This is our salvation, the passover lamb who died so God would not kill us for being imperfect. It was never the Law which was imperfect, but fallen man.

Yeshua died for our sins, you agree right?
Yeshua was the Word, you agree?
Yeshua fulfilled a dual purpose when He came in the flesh.
Scriptures speak to us walking as He walked, and He himself said he did NOT come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill which can be read as "uphold" since He clearly stated it does not mean "to abolish" And heaven and earth still are here, and have not vanished.

Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
Apr 3rd 2008, 02:52 PM
And i'm fully aware which verse you're going to throw up as defense for what i said, however, i would encourage anyone to fully study out the scriptures, because if you consider the Law done away with, then you run into several "contradictions"

Because Yeshua Himself said He did not come to make an end to the Law by abolishing/destroying it.

Also He admonished people:
Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end5056 of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
It also is worthwhile to study the word "end"

G5056
τέλος
telos
tel'-os
From a primary word τέλλω tellō (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly the point aimed at as a limit, that is, (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally, figuratively or indefinitely], result [immediate, ultimate or prophetic], purpose); specifically an impost or levy (as paid): - + continual, custom, end (-ing), finally, uttermost. Compare G5411.

Key word here is for everyone that believeth.....and with that word believeth, is not just meant a mental grasp of believing in Yeshua, but with believing comes doing.

Moreover the next verse reads:

Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

Futhermore having Faith (Heb "emun"/ "emunah" a really fascinating study can be had researching that word) proves again, that just believing in a mental sense is not enough aka:

Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?


Shalom,
Tanja

thethinker
Apr 3rd 2008, 03:26 PM
Why did God deliver them out of slavery only to stick them into another form of bondage at Sinai? todd

Answer: TO LEAD THEM TO CHRIST! (Galatians 3-4). I'm beginning to wonder about the "pastors" that the seminaries are producing. This question reflects that you are not sitting under sound new covenant teaching.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 3rd 2008, 04:08 PM
Answer: TO LEAD THEM TO CHRIST! (Galatians 3-4). I'm beginning to wonder about the "pastors" that the seminaries are producing. This question reflects that you are not sitting under sound new covenant teaching.You missed his point completely! :(Too bad! His point was that God did not lead them out of slavery in Egypt to put them into slavery UNDER His Law, which is what you seem to believe. :hmm: Even before the creation the whole point was that man would be led to the Father through Messiah.

So, let me see if I understand your response to Todd. God took the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt, to put them into slavery to Him, so their descendants centuries later would eventually realize that they were in slavery under Him so they would be led to Messiah? :o Is that your position? So, when God said that His commandments are not too mysterious or afar off but rather very near to them so they can do it, was He just joshing? When He said that walking in His commandments is life, was He only teasing them?

Deuteronomy 30:15-16
15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess.

Jesusinmyheart
Apr 3rd 2008, 04:24 PM
thethinker,

is is too bad you can't see it. It is sad that some want to explain away "contradictions" rather than study the scriptures to see how everything is in harmony.

In my studies about this topic i have been able to find that there are no contradictions and no conflicting scriptures.
And you might be surprised, that i was sitting under NO pastor at all, but rather under the most sound teaching of the scriptures/God/Yeshua Himself to find all this beautiful truth.

I will suggest some material you can buy (though i'm thinking others may be more responsive to this than you) which will give you lots of food for thought.

You can Google the material which can be had at amazon.com soon under: "What's so new about the New Covenant?" The material is distributed by First Fruits of Zion.

There is also a book written by Tim Hegg called "The letter writer" which has a chapter in it called "Paul and the New Covenant" which covers what the above mentioned dvd covers pretty well. This book is currently out of print, but should soon be available again.

It can be found but will be very costly due to it being out of print. So wait a few more month and then look at Torahresource.com. (either should/will be available there also)

Edit: i actually looked again, and found it at homeschool-books.com for a decent price of just a few pennies under $20.00

Shalom,
Tanja



Shalom,
Tanja

thethinker
Apr 3rd 2008, 08:12 PM
You missed his point completely! :(Too bad! His point was that God did not lead them out of slavery in Egypt to put them into slavery UNDER His Law, which is what you seem to believe. :hmm: Even before the creation the whole point was that man would be led to the Father through Messiah.

So, let me see if I understand your response to Todd. God took the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt, to put them into slavery to Him, so their descendants centuries later would eventually realize that they were in slavery under Him so they would be led to Messiah? :o Is that your position? So, when God said that His commandments are not too mysterious or afar off but rather very near to them so they can do it, was He just joshing? When He said that walking in His commandments is life, was He only teasing them?

S2S,

Here's what Paul said:

"And the commandment which was ORDAINED TO LIFE, I found to bring death" (Rom. 7:10).

Paul said that this was true because of the "sin that dwells in me". Therefore, he had to be delivered from the law,

"But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to that which we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the SPIRIT and not in the oldness of the letter".

So God brought them to Sinai to bring them LIFE. But Paul said that he found that the law brought death because of sin. We have been over these things many times now.

P.S. I always enjoy your use of the animated faces :bounce:

Studyin'2Show
Apr 3rd 2008, 08:43 PM
S2S,

Here's what Paul said:

"And the commandment which was ORDAINED TO LIFE, I found to bring death" (Rom. 7:10).

Paul said that this was true because of the "sin that dwells in me". Therefore, he had to be delivered from the law,

"But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to that which we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the SPIRIT and not in the oldness of the letter".

So God brought them to Sinai to bring them LIFE. But Paul said that he found that the law brought death because of sin. We have been over these things many times now.

P.S. I always enjoy your use of the animated faces :bounce:Why did what was ordained to life bring death? That is the million dollar question. Paul answered the 'why', because SIN dwells in him. There's the answer! It is sin within the heart of man. Thank God for the blood of Yeshua that HAS (past tense) removed my sin as far as east is from west! :pp It was NEVER God's Holy Law that was the cause of death; it was us all along; our flesh. Such a blessing that we now know that we must crucify the flesh daily and walk in the spirit not in the flesh.

Yeshua tells us to follow Him, He is our example. So how did He walk in regards to God's Law? He walked in accordance with the Father's instruction for life; His Torah. I see no flaw in walking according to God's instruction as long as one know that it is not their actions that earn their place in glory, but it is the blood of Yeshua that removes our sin so that we no longer have that which Paul said caused death. :D

BTW, I would much rather chat with you in person (I'm a very animated speaker ;)) so the smilies are that part of me in text. :lol:

God Bless!

ravi4u2
Apr 4th 2008, 07:14 AM
Ah ravi, why must the Law and Christ be separated? Perhaps it must be so in your mind to be able to keep this particular theology intact.

IMO Christ is the Law.
Remember the Law was given at Mt Sinai as "the Word"...not particularly as the "ten words"

How could He not be the Law? All He ever did when He walked this earth is show how the Law was supposed to be lived out. He corrected and rebuked, and healed people not seeing, or hearing and diseased which the people who "held" the Law in their hands (some Pharisees & Scribes) would/could not do.
Finally He died, so we could wash our sin away with His blood, because no one on earth is able to be 100 % righteous/follow the Law 100 %.
Nowhere in scripture does it say that the Law is washed away by His blood, only Sin!!!

This is our salvation, the passover lamb who died so God would not kill us for being imperfect. It was never the Law which was imperfect, but fallen man.

Yeshua died for our sins, you agree right?
Yeshua was the Word, you agree?
Yeshua fulfilled a dual purpose when He came in the flesh.
Scriptures speak to us walking as He walked, and He himself said he did NOT come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill which can be read as "uphold" since He clearly stated it does not mean "to abolish" And heaven and earth still are here, and have not vanished.

Shalom,
TanjaYou are entitled to your opinions of course. But the Law is not the Christ, the Living Word. The law may be an essence of the Living Word, but definitely cannot be equated with the Person. As for the rest of your post, I have gone there before with you, so I will rest.

ravi4u2
Apr 4th 2008, 07:36 AM
And i'm fully aware which verse you're going to throw up as defense for what i said, however, i would encourage anyone to fully study out the scriptures, because if you consider the Law done away with, then you run into several "contradictions" I believe it is those that insist on keeping the law and yet say that they live by the faith in the Spirit, that are in 'contradtiction'/


Because Yeshua Himself said He did not come to make an end to the Law by abolishing/destroying it.He came to fulfill it.


Also He admonished people:
Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.This was before His death and resurrection and He was addressing the Jewish people, before his fulfillment of the law. And so a reminder to adhere.


Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end5056 of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
It also is worthwhile to study the word "end"

G5056
τέλος
telos
tel'-os
From a primary word τέλλω tellō (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly the point aimed at as a limit, that is, (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally, figuratively or indefinitely], result [immediate, ultimate or prophetic], purpose); specifically an impost or levy (as paid): - + continual, custom, end (-ing), finally, uttermost. Compare G5411.Paul uses the same word 'telos' in Philippians 3:18 and 19, to say, "For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end (telos) is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame—who set their mind on earthly things. using Scripture to interpret scripture, it makes more sense to assume that Christ is the end of the law, to those that believe.

Key word here is for everyone that believeth.....and with that word believeth, is not just meant a mental grasp of believing in Yeshua, but with believing comes doing.

Moreover the next verse reads:

Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. [/quote]But that is using scripture out of context. Paul concludes what he started in Romans 10 by saying, "For whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved". Not "whoever kept the law.


Futhermore having Faith (Heb "emun"/ "emunah" a really fascinating study can be had researching that word) proves again, that just believing in a mental sense is not enough aka:

Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?


Shalom,
TanjaBut the works James speaks about is the great commandment. James says, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself", before he says faith without action is dead. The action required there is not one of keeping the law, but of loving one another not just with words but also with deeds.

thethinker
Apr 4th 2008, 08:27 AM
Why did what was ordained to life bring death? That is the million dollar question. Paul answered the 'why', because SIN dwells in him. There's the answer! It is sin within the heart of man. Thank God for the blood of Yeshua that HAS (past tense) removed my sin as far as east is from west! :pp It was NEVER God's Holy Law that was the cause of death; it was us all along; our flesh. Such a blessing that we now know that we must crucify the flesh daily and walk in the spirit not in the flesh.

Yes! it's because of US! It is because of our sin. I have said this before.

I was answering the question why God would deliver His people out the bondage of Egypt to another bondage. The answer is that Sinai was ordained to LIFE, not bondage. The the letter of law BECAME death to us because of our sin.

But the spirit of the law GIVES LIFE DESPITE OUR SIN! This is what you ought to be jumping up and down about! :pp "The letter killeth, but the spirit gives life".


ravi4u2 said:
I believe it is those that insist on keeping the law and yet say that they live by the faith in the Spirit, that are in 'contradtiction'/

Exactly! S2S says, "I live according to the spirit of the law". But then goes on and on about the letter. :confused It's contradictory.

valleybldr
Apr 4th 2008, 10:23 AM
You are entitled to your opinions of course. But the Law is not the Christ, the Living Word. The law may be an essence of the Living Word, but definitely cannot be equated with the Person. As for the rest of your post, I have gone there before with you, so I will rest. He authored it. The Torah reflects His nature and they are both called "the Word." Your use of the word "definitely" was a dead give away but I'm glad you can now "rest." It's a Torah principle you know? todd

Studyin'2Show
Apr 4th 2008, 10:33 AM
Yes! it's because of US! It is because of our sin. I have said this before.

I was answering the question why God would deliver His people out the bondage of Egypt to another bondage. The answer is that Sinai was ordained to LIFE, not bondage. The the letter of law BECAME death to us because of our sin.

But the spirit of the law GIVES LIFE DESPITE OUR SIN! This is what you ought to be jumping up and down about! :pp "The letter killeth, but the spirit gives life".

Exactly! S2S says, "I live according to the spirit of the law". But then goes on and on about the letter. :confused It's contradictory.TT, I have not gone on and on about living by the letter. :confused I have simply commented that your interpretation that it was God's Law that was nailed to the cross, is flawed. You seem to believe that the letter of the law is God's Perfect Law. I do not. As I mentioned before, by the 'letter' of the law you can lust and hate and divorce for no reason. But was that the Father's intention? As I show with my example of sending my daughter up to 'get in the shower', she was able to be disobedient going 'by the letter' of my command, when not considering the 'spirit' of how and why the command was given. It was not the command that was bad, it was how it was received. I'm amazed that more people cannot see that this is what the 'letter' is, NOT God's commandments!

Alas, I believe we will eventually have to simply agree to disagree. ;) I have been diligently studying this for years and I understand (based on the doctrine you've been taught) why you opposed what I believe. But believe me, why I opposed your view of God's Law is solely because of what I have read in God's Word! It is against the nature of the Father to give bad instructions to His people. :hmm: I have been continually saying that it was NEVER His commands that were burdensome or bad but rather how they were received and executed by man. That's where our disagreement on this lies.

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Apr 4th 2008, 10:51 AM
I believe it is those that insist on keeping the law and yet say that they live by the faith in the Spirit, that are in 'contradtiction'

But the works James speaks about is the great commandment. James says, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself", before he says faith without action is dead. The action required there is not one of keeping the law, but of loving one another not just with words but also with deeds.Here is the problem, Ravi. You 'keep' the Law too! Have you murdered anyone lately? If not you ARE keeping the Law. Have you committed adultery lately? Or worshiped a false god? Or dishonored your parents? :hmm: If so, YOU ARE a Law keeper! :eek: Now, here's the kicker. Is that you attempting to EARN your way into His presence? Absolutely not! It is your desire to walk in His ways, correct?

Not to offend anyone but the only people who I've discussed this with that seem to believe that they have to EARN their way is SDAs. I am NOT SDA. So what problem should another believer have with me walking according to God's commandments if I am NOT doing this to earn my way in or telling you or anyone else that they HAVE TO do what I do? :confused

As for the great commandment, Yeshua said that it encompassed all the Law and the Prophets. It's not replacing them it IS them in a nutshell! No one has placed a 'requirement' upon you or anyone else to keep God's commandments. You should be doing that already because it is written on your heart; it should be your desire to not murder and not commit adultery and so on, right? Loving God and our neighbor with not just words but with our deeds should be the desire of the believer. :)

God Bless!

valleybldr
Apr 4th 2008, 12:00 PM
But the spirit of the law GIVES LIFE DESPITE OUR SIN! This is what you ought to be jumping up and down about! :pp "The letter killeth, but the spirit gives life". What part of "the Law" kills? What specifically is Paul addressing? todd

Jesusinmyheart
Apr 4th 2008, 12:01 PM
Also He admonished people:
Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

This was before His death and resurrection and He was addressing the Jewish people, before his fulfillment of the law. And so a reminder to adhere.

Yeah, that's a way to explain the Law away and keep the doctrine alive.
There you run into another contradiction:

Yeshua is the everlasting Word, there's no end to Him. In neither form as the spoken/written Word, nor as a person in flesh and blood.

If you search the OT each covenant in the scriptures is everlasting....there is no end to it, and Yeshua Himself declared that he came not to destroy, but to fulfill, which obviously cannot mean "to end" !!!

Since Studying already addressed yopur response sufficiently, i will only comment on this:




Futhermore having Faith (Heb "emun"/ "emunah" a really fascinating study can be had researching that word) proves again, that just believing in a mental sense is not enough aka:

Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?




But the works James speaks about is the great commandment. James says, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself", before he says faith without action is dead. The action required there is not one of keeping the law, but of loving one another not just with words but also with deeds.


You appear to forget that the greatest Commandment to love another as yourself is one of the two greatest Commandments on which all the other Laws hang....

IOW everything after that and the Command to love God with all your heart, mind and strength are direct extensions of those two greatest Commandments! There's no way out of that!

There is no contradiction at all when one keeps the Law in Faith by the Spirit. I know i deserve nothing more than hell, but my hope and trust is in Yeshua and what He did for me.
As S2S said, you keep the Law too, the difference is in how extensive we see it is, and you don't.


Shalom,
Tanja

valleybldr
Apr 4th 2008, 12:42 PM
If you search the OT each covenant in the scriptures is everlasting....there is no end to it, and Yeshua Himself declared that he came not to destroy, but to fulfill, which obviously cannot mean "to end" !!!
Torah pours forth from Jerusalem during the Messiah's earthly reign. We reign with Him as judges and priests so Torah is an important part of our training (here and now). todd

Jesusinmyheart
Apr 4th 2008, 12:49 PM
Torah pours forth from Jerusalem during the Messiah's earthly reign. We reign with Him as judges and priests so Torah is an important part of our training (here and now). todd
Yep, i agree :hug:

Shalom,
Tanja

Friend of I AM
Apr 4th 2008, 03:02 PM
TT, I have not gone on and on about living by the letter. :confused I have simply commented that your interpretation that it was God's Law that was nailed to the cross, is flawed. You seem to believe that the letter of the law is God's Perfect Law. I do not. As I mentioned before, by the 'letter' of the law you can lust and hate and divorce for no reason. But was that the Father's intention? As I show with my example of sending my daughter up to 'get in the shower', she was able to be disobedient going 'by the letter' of my command, when not considering the 'spirit' of how and why the command was given. It was not the command that was bad, it was how it was received. I'm amazed that more people cannot see that this is what the 'letter' is, NOT God's commandments!

Alas, I believe we will eventually have to simply agree to disagree. ;) I have been diligently studying this for years and I understand (based on the doctrine you've been taught) why you opposed what I believe. But believe me, why I opposed your view of God's Law is solely because of what I have read in God's Word! It is against the nature of the Father to give bad instructions to His people. :hmm: I have been continually saying that it was NEVER His commands that were burdensome or bad but rather how they were received and executed by man. That's where our disagreement on this lies.

God Bless!

Perhaps I can clarify for you STS, I don't think that thinker was saying that the law was flawed - but we know from our experiences that man is. The law pointed out the inherent sinfulness and imperfection of man and his inability to follow the law to the letter - and his need for a perfect God to fulfill it for him. This is why it is stated that we are "walking in the sprit of grace." Our own actions at no point have fulfilled the law for us, as the law justified no man before God. Only by the grace of God, are we even able to claim righteousnous through Christ Jesus. Adam's sin condemned all men to death and made all men lawbreakers, Christ's atonement sacrafice brought all men to grace/life in him.

In Christ,

Stephen

Studyin'2Show
Apr 4th 2008, 03:52 PM
Perhaps I can clarify for you STS, I don't think that thinker was saying that the law was flawed - but we know from our experiences that man is. The law pointed out the inherent sinfulness and imperfection of man and his inability to follow the law to the letter - and his need for a perfect God to fulfill it for him. This is why it is stated that we are "walking in the sprit of grace." Our own actions at no point have fulfilled the law for us, as the law justified no man before God. Only by the grace of God, are we even able to claim righteousnous through Christ Jesus. Adam's sin condemned all men to death and made all men lawbreakers, Christ's atonement sacrafice brought all men to grace/life in him.

In Christ,

StephenStephen,

If this were all thethinker was saying I would be in complete agreement. However, as I have told him/her my trouble is not with those who do not see the value of God's Law for the believer. My trouble is only with the interpretation that God's Perfect Law was nailed to the cross. That interpretation is flawed which is what I have been discussing. Of course we are not justified by keeping the Law! :o Who in this thread has said that we are? :confused

God Bless!

valleybldr
Apr 4th 2008, 04:01 PM
That interpretation is flawed which is what I have been discussing. Of course we are not justified by keeping the Law! :o Who in this thread has said that we are? :confused

God Bless! No one, but it's a "straw man" that must be maintained at all costs. :B todd

Jesusinmyheart
Apr 4th 2008, 04:48 PM
Perhaps it's my posts that people find so difficult to accept. I can come across terribly strong with this topic because i think it's such an important one.

To reiterate how i view this topic let me repost a part of what i posted eslewhere:

Let me ask you: Do you consider the laws of this country a bondage, or a yoke of some sort?

I know i don't, cause i have no problem abiding by those laws because i know they are there for everyone's good (ideally). I see it the same way with God's Laws.

Therefore even while i abide by the Law, i'm not under the Law.

Being law abiding does NOT equal being under the Law. Being under the Law in biblical terms actually means that the law requires punishment for an individual's sins committed by having broken the Law.
However the requirement for punishment does not apply to those who abide in Yeshua/the Word/The Law He gave because it's their heart's desire. He has gladly shed His blood to atone for our sins in this case.

As for what i fail to do according to the Law, God will teach me and correct me in due time. And i know i have His mercy through the blood of Yeshua on my side. I never said i was perfect.....but that doesn't and shouldn't stop me from trying to be pleasing to Him, by obeying Him to the best of my abilities.

This is what it means to have a circumcision of the heart which many in the OT times just refused to do.

Shalom,
Tanja

valleybldr
Apr 4th 2008, 04:54 PM
This is what it means to have a circumcision of the heart which many in the OT times just refused to do.
So far, it's true of every age. todd

Mat 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. :22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? :23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity[law breaking]. :24 Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock:"

Jesusinmyheart
Apr 4th 2008, 05:18 PM
So far, it's true of every age. todd

Mat 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. :22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? :23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity[law breaking]. :24 Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock:"

I agree!! I just figured i have poured enough fire out here already, so i didn't want to say anything more. :lol:

Shalom,
Tanja

Friend of I AM
Apr 4th 2008, 06:26 PM
Stephen,

If this were all thethinker was saying I would be in complete agreement. However, as I have told him/her my trouble is not with those who do not see the value of God's Law for the believer. My trouble is only with the interpretation that God's Perfect Law was nailed to the cross. That interpretation is flawed which is what I have been discussing. Of course we are not justified by keeping the Law! :o Who in this thread has said that we are? :confused

God Bless!

I think the topic of this thread is to demonstrate that the letter itself is not something that could be completely fulfilled by any man, it took God to do this.(this is clearly expressed within the title verse of the thread) I believe thinker expressed fairly well that there was never a problem with the law, only with man's ability to be perfected through the law and brought back to fellowship with God.

I think what has been communicated within the thread title, as well as within all of his/her posts - is that man's inability to fulfill the letter of the law died with Christ that day, however, Christ himself being the fullfillment of the law raised the new man back from the grave, leaving the imperfection of the old man behind on the cross(an imperfection clearly demonstrated by man's inability to fullfill the letter by himself)

In Christ,

Stephen

Jesusinmyheart
Apr 4th 2008, 07:00 PM
This is where some seem to really get things mixed up. Yeshua died for our sins, and His blood covers the requirement for punishment according to the Law.

Does that now mean we can sit on our hineys and dwiddle our thumbs?

Nowhere in the scriptures can one find an anology of Yeshua having run the race for you, or doing it for you.
It is totally contradictory to the scriptures who speak of "picking up your OWN cross to follow Him", to "deny yourself" and to "die to the flesh" and running a race as hard as any athlete does to win a prize.
This is work, hard work, it;s called overcoming the flesh. And the best way to know just what we must do, is to lean what God desires of us. There are many instructions in the OT and NT alike, but all the NT instructions are an extension of what was given in the Old. Without the foundation one is not likely to fully grasp what God expects of us.
The Old is not contradictory to the New.

Shalom,
Tanja

Friend of I AM
Apr 4th 2008, 07:08 PM
This is where some seem to really get things mixed up. Yeshua died for our sins, and His blood covers the requirement for punishment according to the Law.

Does that now mean we can sit on our hineys and dwiddle our thumbs?

Nowhere in the scriptures can one find an anology of Yeshua having run the race for you, or doing it for you.
It is totally contradictory to the scriptures who speak of "picking up your OWN cross to follow Him", to "deny yourself" and to "die to the flesh" and running a race as hard as any athlete does to win a prize.
This is work, hard work, it;s called overcoming the flesh. And the best way to know just what we must do, is to lean what God desires of us. There are many instructions in the OT and NT alike, but all the NT instructions are an extension of what was given in the Old. Without the foundation one is not likely to fully grasp what God expects of us.
The Old is not contradictory to the New.

Shalom,
Tanja

It's a work of God when we follow him or specifically, faith that allows us to perform this work. The work done through us is that work being done by the Holy Spirit(Christ), not ourselves. The cross that we carry is that of surrender, surrendering our own understanding and ability, and allowing God to work His faith in us to continue following him. That's why Christ states "his burden is light", it's not us truly carrying anything, it's the faith that comes from Him that's doing all of the work for us.

In Christ,

Stephen

Studyin'2Show
Apr 4th 2008, 07:52 PM
I think what has been communicated within the thread title, as well as within all of his/her posts - is that man's inability to fulfill the letter of the law died with Christ that day, however, Christ himself being the fullfillment of the law raised the new man back from the grave, leaving the imperfection of the old man behind on the cross(an imperfection clearly demonstrated by man's inability to fullfill the letter by himself)

In Christ,

StephenOkay, so there's the point at which I strongly disagree with the interpretation that both you and thethinker (and many believers) have. Colossians 2 does not say that the Law or the letter of the law are nailed to the cross. It speaks of the 'requirements that were against us' being nailed to the cross. Both you and thethinker seem to agree that God's Perfect Law is not against us but rather the stated penalty that is against us.

Deuteronomy 28:15-19 (plus onward to verse 68)
15 “But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:
16 “Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country.
17 “Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl.
18 “Cursed shall be the fruit of your body and the produce of your land, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks.
19 “Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.

This is a portion of the requirements that were against us. These are NOT His commands. These are NOT His statutes. As you can see He references His commandments and His statutes within this passage. Part of the confusions comes because the Jews call from Genesis to Deuteronomy, Torah. Which being translated is the Law. However, NOT every word written within these 5 books is part of God's Perfect Law. It is not difficult to identify God's commands because it will say something like 'And YHWH said....' or 'And YHWH said to Moses....' Anyway, these (Deuteronomy 28:15-68) are the 'handwriting of requirement that were against us'. These curses have indeed been nailed to the cross as our Savior took the curse upon Himself for us. Thou shall not murder - is not against us. Never was, never will be. Honor thy father and mother - is not against us. None of God's commands are AGAINST us so they can not be that which has been nailed to the cross. :D

The thread title is absolutely correct! I agree completely! I thought it was interesting discussion as I read the first few pages though the different denominational lines had already been drawn. I didn't really get into this debate until I responded in post #54 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1582563#post1582563) to this post:
The "doctrines and commandments of men" were killed on the cross by virtue of the old covenant law being killed. If the old covenant is no longer in effect then all twisted interpretations should not rule. Paul said that the ordinances that were nailed to the cross were "shadows" of Christ.

So the laws that were nailed to the cross were "shadows" of Christ. Men's laws do not qualify as "shadows". Since the old covenant laws were crucified then the twisted interpretations of men most certainly have no binding rule.

"For if the first covenant had been without fault, then why the need for a second covenant?...." [Hebrews 8:7-10].I said it then and I'll say it now, God's Perfect Law was not nailed to the cross. The scripture does NOT say that God's commandments or His Law was 'nailed to the cross' and hence the debate. ;)

God Bless!

Jesusinmyheart
Apr 4th 2008, 08:13 PM
Friend of I AM,

Your post seems to infer that am doing all these things of my own will.

No, i can assure you that the Word, who is also Yeshua is doing His work in me. It is only because of the Word that i have begun to even realize my faults aka:

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

This is step one for me as a believer to clean up my act.
At this point i'm at the level of a Believer. I believe what i read to be true and just.

So with the help of the Word showing me what God wants and does not want, the Holy Spirit writes it into my heart when i'm hit with remorse and understand the depth of the law.

Now the desire to change, it is my choice BROUGHT ON by The Word, so it's the Word premeating my heart and soul and leads me to a desire to change. However, it takes my Spirit to battle the flesh aka for what's in my heart and mind to overcome my flesh to now walk in the truth and obey what God desires me to do.

Now i am at the level of a righteous person, with sound faith. aka

Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son,

My deeds prove my fruit, and my faith is not dead.

Mat 3:8 Bear fruit in keeping with repentance.

Jas 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.


I hope this clarifies my position.

Shalom,
Tanja

Friend of I AM
Apr 4th 2008, 09:19 PM
Okay, so there's the point at which I strongly disagree with the interpretation that both you and thethinker (and many believers) have. Colossians 2 does not say that the Law or the letter of the law are nailed to the cross.


Well I guess you also disagree with Paul, as well as with the Word of God on this one, not just myself and thinker..or as it is written...

Galatians 3:10-18

For all who rely on doing the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the book of the law.” Now it is clear no one is justified before God by the law, because the righteous one will live by faith. But the law is not based on faith, but the one who does the works of the law will live by them. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”) in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles so that we could receive the promise of the Spirit by faith.

Inheritance Comes from Promises and not Law

Brothers and sisters, I offer an example from everyday life: When a covenant has been ratified, even though it is only a human contract, no one can set it aside or add anything to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his descendant. Scripture does not say, “and to the descendants,” referring to many, but “and to your descendant,” referring to one, who is Christ. What I am saying is this: The law that came four hundred thirty years later does not cancel a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to invalidate the promise. For if the inheritance is based on the law, it is no longer based on the promise, but God graciously gave it to Abraham through the promise.

The curse, the old man found in Adam died on the cross that day as Christ was the fulfillment of the letter of the law for him, the new man lives again in Christ. I sincerely hope and pray that the new man guides you to salvation and love in Christ Jesus.

God bless In Christ,

Stephen

Studyin'2Show
Apr 4th 2008, 09:54 PM
Well I guess you also disagree with Paul, as well as with the Word of God on this one, not just myself and thinker..or as it is written...

Galatians 3:10-18

For all who rely on doing the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the book of the law.” Now it is clear no one is justified before God by the law, because the righteous one will live by faith. But the law is not based on faith, but the one who does the works of the law will live by them. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”) in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles so that we could receive the promise of the Spirit by faith.

Inheritance Comes from Promises and not Law

Brothers and sisters, I offer an example from everyday life: When a covenant has been ratified, even though it is only a human contract, no one can set it aside or add anything to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his descendant. Scripture does not say, “and to the descendants,” referring to many, but “and to your descendant,” referring to one, who is Christ. What I am saying is this: The law that came four hundred thirty years later does not cancel a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to invalidate the promise. For if the inheritance is based on the law, it is no longer based on the promise, but God graciously gave it to Abraham through the promise.

The curse, the old man found in Adam died on the cross that day as Christ was the fulfillment of the letter of the law for him, the new man lives again in Christ. I sincerely hope and pray that the new man guides you to salvation and love in Christ Jesus.

God bless In Christ,

StephenHere we go with the 'straw man' again. :rolleyes: No, I do not disagree with Paul. Not at all. Paul CLEARLY states that anyone that RELIES on keeping the Law (for their salvation) is under the curse! What curse? The one that I just told you has been nailed to the cross for ALL who follow Yeshua to take as a free gift. He has taken this curse upon Himself and I am free of it because I have accepted His sacrifice in my place. ;) Who is not free from the curse? Those who RELY on their own works to earn their way into His presence. Those are the ones Paul is referring to. Do you seriously think that Paul is rebuking believers for not murdering, not committing adultery, not coveting, etc? :o That is ridiculous to even conceive. Do you disagree with Paul when he says this?

Romans 7:25 - I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

He serves the law of God. It is the flesh that serves the law of sin. Earlier in the chapter he ask: What shall we say then? Is the law sin? And then answers his own question: Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law.

It is the Law of God that I serve as well, in my whole inward man; my spirit. I agree with Paul completely and serve God's Law as he says he does. Do you not agree with Paul? Do you not serve the law of God? :hmm:

valleybldr
Apr 4th 2008, 10:07 PM
I sincerely hope and pray that the new man guides you to salvation and love in Christ Jesus.

Yes, one thing we know for sure obedient followers surely do not have salvation. :B todd

Jesusinmyheart
Apr 4th 2008, 11:38 PM
Yes, one thing we know for sure obedient followers surely do not have salvation. :B todd

HAHA, your sarcasm really cracked me up!!
Sad topic really

Shalom,
Tanja

thethinker
Apr 5th 2008, 08:19 AM
TT, I have not gone on and on about living by the letter. :confused I have simply commented that your interpretation that it was God's Law that was nailed to the cross, is flawed. You seem to believe that the letter of the law is God's Perfect Law. I do not. As I mentioned before, by the 'letter' of the law you can lust and hate and divorce for no reason. But was that the Father's intention? As I show with my example of sending my daughter up to 'get in the shower', she was able to be disobedient going 'by the letter' of my command, when not considering the 'spirit' of how and why the command was given. It was not the command that was bad, it was how it was received. I'm amazed that more people cannot see that this is what the 'letter' is, NOT God's commandments!

Alas, I believe we will eventually have to simply agree to disagree. ;) I have been diligently studying this for years and I understand (based on the doctrine you've been taught) why you opposed what I believe. But believe me, why I opposed your view of God's Law is solely because of what I have read in God's Word! It is against the nature of the Father to give bad instructions to His people. :hmm: I have been continually saying that it was NEVER His commands that were burdensome or bad but rather how they were received and executed by man. That's where our disagreement on this lies.

God Bless!

S2S,
We have been over this many times. The "handwritings" and "sabbaths" that were nailed to the cross were shadows of Christ. The doctrines and commandments of men were not "shadows" of Christ. My answer isn't going to change on this.


Paul said that we were delivered from the letter of God's law (Rom. 7). You have said that you serve in the newness of the spirit. :pp So get on board!

valleybldr
Apr 5th 2008, 11:21 AM
As for the rest of your post, I have gone there before with you, so I will rest.Hmm, where have I heard that before? todd

valleybldr
Apr 5th 2008, 11:24 AM
Paul said that we were delivered from the letter of God's law (Rom. 7). You have said that you serve in the newness of the spirit. :pp So get on board! Can you give me some examples of these "laws" you have been "delivered from?" I'm wondering why God will use them in His earthly Kingdom if we have progressed to a place where they are no longer needed? todd

valleybldr
Apr 5th 2008, 11:52 AM
HAHA, your sarcasm really cracked me up!!
Sad topic really

Shalom,
Tanja
What's sad is that many Christians can't restrain themselves from judging (condemning) others who walk in good conscience by the Word. todd

diffangle
Apr 5th 2008, 01:20 PM
S2S,
We have been over this many times. The "handwritings" and "sabbaths" that were nailed to the cross were shadows of Christ. The doctrines and commandments of men were not "shadows" of Christ. My answer isn't going to change on this.

You're twisting that passage, it does not say that the Sabbath(or the Law)or shadows were nailed to the cross. He talks about shadows in a present and future tense, so how can he say they are a thing of the past?

Col 2:17 Which are(present tense) a shadow of things to come(future tense)

You never answered the question on whether or not Yahushua has fulfilled all the Feasts, iow has He come a second time already? If not, then there are still some shadows/Feasts that have not been fulfilled.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 5th 2008, 01:51 PM
S2S,
We have been over this many times. The "handwritings" and "sabbaths" that were nailed to the cross were shadows of Christ. The doctrines and commandments of men were not "shadows" of Christ. My answer isn't going to change on this.

Paul said that we were delivered from the letter of God's law (Rom. 7). You have said that you serve in the newness of the spirit. :pp So get on board!Yes, we have been over this already which is why it is unclear why you continue to cling to what is clearly not the proper interpretation. I answered this already in this post:
The only trouble I've had with your post has been you equating God's Law with that which has been nailed to the cross. Look at the portion of your post which I have bolded. You have put the cart before the horse AND you have added a conjunction where there is none! As we rightly divide His word we must be careful of HOW we do that. Let's look at the passage:

Colossians 2:13-14
13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

You see the statement concerning us being forgiven comes BEFORE the statement about the handwriting of requirements. Now, do you see a conjunction between them? No, there is a comma. It is not conjoining the two statements, it is listing three things. First in the list is that He has made us alive with Him. :pp Second in the list is that He has forgiven all our trespasses. :pp Last in the list Paul references wiping away of 'the handwriting of requirements' that so many incorrectly equate to God's Law. Why do I say incorrectly? Look at the two points that qualify these requirements. These requirements were against us, and contrary to us. Yet, Scripture is clear that God's Law is neither against us nor contrary to us.

Nehemiah 9:13
“You came down also on Mount Sinai,
And spoke with them from heaven,
And gave them just ordinances and true laws,
Good statutes and commandments.

Joshua 1:8 - This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.


Psalm 119:97-98,113,165
97 Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day.
98 You, through Your commandments, make me wiser than my enemies; For they are ever with me.

113 I hate the double-minded, but I love Your law.

163 I hate and abhor lying, but I love Your law.

165 Great peace have those who love Your law,And nothing causes them to stumble.


Thus, 'the handwriting of requirement' CANNOT be God's Law. Paul speaks against these requirements again as he wraps up his thoughts just about a paragraph away.

Colossians 2:20-23
20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

It is absolutely clear when you take the time to rightly divide Colossians 2:12-23, that 'the handwriting of requirements' is that which is according to the commandments and doctrines of MEN and NOT the Law from God. You see, these requirements are self-imposed (not God commanded) religion and though it may APPEAR to be wisdom it has NO VALUE. Can you see that statement cannot be made about God's Law?

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Apr 5th 2008, 01:55 PM
What's sad is that many Christians can't restrain themselves from judging (condemning) others who walk in good conscience by the Word. toddBecause of the SDA mentality that goes around condemning everyone else they think that's what we're talking about. They can't see that we are not condemning them at all but that they are judging and condemning us by their words, attitudes and actions JUST LIKE the SDA's do to them and the Pharisees did to Yeshua. :(

thethinker
Apr 5th 2008, 01:57 PM
You're twisting that passage, it does not say that the Sabbath(or the Law)or shadows were nailed to the cross. He talks about shadows in a present and future tense, so how can he say they are a thing of the past?

Col 2:17 Which are(present tense) a shadow of things to come(future tense)

You never answered the question on whether or not Yahushua has fulfilled all the Feasts, iow has He come a second time already? If not, then there are still some shadows/Feasts that have not been fulfilled.

I replied to you indicating that the present tense is also used in reference to Christ as the "substance" of those things. I don't know what you think the present tense is supposed to prove.

Christ is the "substance" in that He is the fulfillment of the whole law. He IS (present tense) the fulfillment of the whole law, including the feasts:

"Christ is the END of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Rom. 10:4).

Now you want Christ + the feasts + the letter + the sabbath and + everything else. But the Protestant Reformation had it right. It is NOT Christ + anything. IT IS "SOLA CHRISTOS", THAT IS CHRIST ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!

diffangle
Apr 5th 2008, 02:06 PM
I replied to you indicating that the present tense is also used in reference to Christ as the "substance" of those things. I don't know what you think the present tense is supposed to prove.

Christ is the "substance" in that He is the fulfillment of the whole law. He IS (present tense) the fulfillment of the whole law, including the feasts:

"Christ is the END of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Rom. 10:4).

Now you want Christ + the feasts + the letter + the sabbath and + everything else. But the Protestant Reformation had it right. It is NOT Christ + anything. IT IS "SOLA CHRISTOS", THAT IS CHRIST ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!
So your saying the Feast that is a shadow of His second coming has been fulfilled? When was His second coming?

thethinker
Apr 5th 2008, 02:36 PM
So your saying the Feast that is a shadow of His second coming has been fulfilled? When was His second coming?

I asked you before to show me how you connect the Feast with Christ's second coming. Will you please?

Thanks

Mograce2U
Apr 5th 2008, 02:59 PM
Originally Posted by valleybldr
What's sad is that many Christians can't restrain themselves from judging (condemning) others who walk in good conscience by the Word. todd

Because of the SDA mentality that goes around condemning everyone else they think that's what we're talking about. They can't see that we are not condemning them at all but that they are judging and condemning us by their words, attitudes and actions JUST LIKE the SDA's do to them and the Pharisees did to Yeshua. This is where it gets a bit confusing doesn't it? Who is persecuting whom? Legalism takes many forms, some of which are more subtle than others, with traditions being one of the paths into it. Thinker appears to me to be trying to find out what the passage is telling us and is not judging anybody.

If we are to understand this passage in Col 2 we have to find the main point of what is being said first before we can examine the details. 2:17 seems to be the key to the point Paul is making.

(Col 2:17 KJV) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

(Col 2:17 NIV) These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

It seems clear that whatever the shadowy things were pointing to that the reality of those things is found in the body of Christ. Not in the form or the ritual but in the spiritual reality of being now dead to that and alive to Christ. That the Law has no governing authority over a dead man; the passage brings out that point as well. It can neither curse him nor bless him. The man who is born of the Spirit, is ruled by the Spirit.

Now whether or not one wants to deduce from that, that he ought to still celebrate in the shadowy things, I suppose is up to him. In the day that Paul wrote to the Colossians, the body of Christ was still being formed, but it is firmly established in our day. And since both Jews and non-Jews are a part of it, I also suppose this debate over traditions will never cease!

thethinker
Apr 5th 2008, 03:39 PM
Thinker appears to me to be trying to find out what the passage is telling us and is not judging anybody.

Mograce,

I am thankful for your defense but I am not without sin. I am somewhat judgmental. I see the burden of guilt being laid by those who call themselves "Pastors". They lay burdens on people about tithing and keeping the sabbath and this and that.

When my 16 year old daughter was offered her first job as a grocery cashier she was very excited. It was her first job. She felt adult like. She was excited about her new found independence.

But she had to work Sundays. So my wife and I told her that she could work Sundays with certain restrictions. We made it clear to her that she could not work until after 2:00 pm so the worship of God was not neglected.

Well, after the very first youth night she came home and went to her room crying. My wife and I came to her and asked her why she was crying. She said that the youth minister told her that she is sinning by working on Sunday and then added "Your problem is that you believe your dad".

So I let the man have it for his unkind and judgmental words.

Jesus said this: "The hour is coming and now is that you will no longer worship in Jerusalem. God is spirit. They that worship Him MUST worship Him in spirit and in truth" (John 4).

When Jesus nullified the worship of God in Jerusalem He nullified the whole old covenant package. He nullified the "letter" of worship. Therefore, no man is permitted to dicate. So we told our daughter to stand against the guilt manipulators. We told her that they carry their childhood and old covenant baggage into their relationship with God and His people.

Again, thanks for the defense. But to be honest I am a tad judgmental.

diffangle
Apr 5th 2008, 04:41 PM
I asked you before to show me how you connect the Feast with Christ's second coming. Will you please?

Thanks
http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/sabbath_feasts.htm

Feast of Trumpets - this year on September 27 - Rosh Hash Anah (http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/rosh_hashanah.htm) A day of blowing trumpets which were traditionally used to call people together (Numbers 10). In Matthew 24:31 we learn that Yahshuah will gather His elect from the four winds of the earth at His return.

"And YHWH spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation. Ye shall do no servile work therein: but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto YHWH." (Lev 23:23-25)

Feast of Tabernacles - October 11 - October 18 - Points to the Millennial Reign of Yahshua on earth following His return. It is a Feast of seven days spent learning what that Kingdom will be like. For the moment, the present earth and world is forgotten and one learns what the one coming will be like, what Yahweh's standards of righteousness are and compliance to those standards.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 5th 2008, 04:57 PM
So your saying the Feast that is a shadow of His second coming has been fulfilled? When was His second coming?I think he's a preterist so he does think everything has already been fulfilled. :hmm:
If I'm wrong let me know, thethinker! ;)

Studyin'2Show
Apr 5th 2008, 05:06 PM
"Christ is the END of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Rom. 10:4).

Now you want Christ + the feasts + the letter + the sabbath and + everything else. But the Protestant Reformation had it right. It is NOT Christ + anything. IT IS "SOLA CHRISTOS", THAT IS CHRIST ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!Messiah IS the end of the Law FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS! Absolutely! The value in God's Law for the believer is NOT for righteousness. This is where I believe the confusion lie. No one, NOT ONE whose posted in support of God's Law has said that it is to attain righteousness. Why do you continue to throw up that straw man that is so easy to knock over? :confused Of course the law FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS has ended. So, is the Law of God sin? NO NO NO!!! According to Paul it is not sin. So, WHY WHY WHY do so many continue to give me and others a problem for not murdering, and not coveting, and not committing adultery and YES keeping holy the Sabbath? WHY? It is clearly NOT SIN! So why the problem? I have not told you or anyone else what you must do. I have not tied any requirements beyond faith to bring salvation. Why is this always such an issue?

Messiah Alone! :pp Only Yeshua! :pp Sola Scriptura is EXACTLY what I'm talking about! Scripture! ALL of it! :yes: Okay! Rant over! :D

God Bless!

diffangle
Apr 5th 2008, 05:17 PM
I think he's a preterist so he does think everything has already been fulfilled. :hmm:
If I'm wrong let me know, thethinker! ;)
That would explain some things then. ;)

TT... are you a preterist that believes the second coming has occured?

thethinker
Apr 5th 2008, 05:52 PM
http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/sabbath_feasts.htm

Feast of Trumpets - this year on September 27 - Rosh Hash Anah (http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/rosh_hashanah.htm) A day of blowing trumpets which were traditionally used to call people together (Numbers 10). In Matthew 24:31 we learn that Yahshuah will gather His elect from the four winds of the earth at His return.

"And YHWH spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation. Ye shall do no servile work therein: but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto YHWH." (Lev 23:23-25)

Feast of Tabernacles - October 11 - October 18 - Points to the Millennial Reign of Yahshua on earth following His return. It is a Feast of seven days spent learning what that Kingdom will be like. For the moment, the present earth and world is forgotten and one learns what the one coming will be like, what Yahweh's standards of righteousness are and compliance to those standards.

Sorry Diff. But I still don't see your connection of the feast of Tabs with the second coming. Somebody is reading the New Testament into the Old Testement.

Also, you said that Christ will return to establish a kingdom on earth. But Paul said that at the resurrection Christ would return as a SUBJECT, not as a King:

"The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he has put all things under His feet. But when He says 'all things are put under Him,' it is evident that he who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all" (1 Cor. 15:26-28).

This is a clear statement. It is saying that Christ will GIVE UP His kingship to the Father at the resurrection. With this being the case how can Christ become a "millennial" king?

This is not Preterist interpretation though it fits with Preterism well. Non-Preterists have said this too:

Albert Barnes: "The interpretation that affirms that the Son shall then be subject to the Father in the sense of laying down His delegated authority, and ceasing to exercise His mediatorial reign, has been the common interpretation of all time" (Barnes Note on 1 Corinthians 15, p. 302).

Charles Hodge: "When the work of redemption has been accomplished, the dead raised, the judgment held, the ememies of Christ all subdued to Him, then, and not until then, will the Son ALSO BE SUBJECT to Him [God].... The subjection of the Son to the Father means precisely what is meant by His delivering up the kingdom to the Father"(1 & 11 Corinthians p. 333).

I cite these non-Preterists to show you that Christ's return as "subject" rather than king is not a Preterist thing. Whether Preterist or Futurist does not matter. At the time of the resurrection the Son "Himself" becomes a"subject" in His Father's kingdom. Therefore, He does NOT return to establish a "millennial" kingdom seeing that He gives up His kingship at that time.

I know you're thinking about the Olivet discourse that says that the Son will return "in His kingdom". But this has reference to His rule over the Jews of His own generation who rejected Him. The Olivet Discourse had to do with Christ's judgment upon the generation that rejected Him. It was fulfilled in ad70.

Note that Barnes said that "the interpretation that affirms that the Son shall then be 'subject' is the 'common interpretation of all times'".

I think you have allowed yourself to be influenced by Dispensationalism. If I am wrong you may correct me.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 5th 2008, 07:10 PM
I think that clears up quite a bit! :D We have definitely come to the point of agreeing to disagree! :lol: BTW, I'm not a futurist, a preterist, or a dispensationalist. I am simply a disciple of Yeshua. I hear His voice and I follow Him! :pp Thanks for the lively discourse. ;)

God Bless!

diffangle
Apr 5th 2008, 07:49 PM
Sorry Diff. But I still don't see your connection of the feast of Tabs with the second coming. Somebody is reading the New Testament into the Old Testement.


Did Paul not say that the Feasts are shadows of things to come? Was he reading the NT into the OT? You don't see the connection? Paul saw the connection which he says are shadows of things to come.

Brother Mark
Apr 5th 2008, 09:21 PM
Messiah IS the end of the Law FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS! Absolutely! The value in God's Law for the believer is NOT for righteousness. This is where I believe the confusion lie. No one, NOT ONE whose posted in support of God's Law has said that it is to attain righteousness. Why do you continue to throw up that straw man that is so easy to knock over? :confused Of course the law FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS has ended. So, is the Law of God sin? NO NO NO!!! According to Paul it is not sin. So, WHY WHY WHY do so many continue to give me and others a problem for not murdering, and not coveting, and not committing adultery and YES keeping holy the Sabbath? WHY? It is clearly NOT SIN! So why the problem? I have not told you or anyone else what you must do. I have not tied any requirements beyond faith to bring salvation. Why is this always such an issue?

Messiah Alone! :pp Only Yeshua! :pp Sola Scriptura is EXACTLY what I'm talking about! Scripture! ALL of it! :yes: Okay! Rant over! :D

God Bless!

How can Christ be the "end of the Law for righteousness" when righteousness never came by law to begin with? Was the Law ever for righteousness?

Mograce2U
Apr 5th 2008, 09:22 PM
Did Paul not say that the Feasts are shadows of things to come? Was he reading the NT into the OT? You don't see the connection? Paul saw the connection which he says are shadows of things to come.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?

Studyin'2Show
Apr 5th 2008, 09:44 PM
How can Christ be the "end of the Law for righteousness" when righteousness never came by law to begin with? Was the Law ever for righteousness?Ask Paul! :lol: Good to see you, BTW! :wave:

Studyin'2Show
Apr 5th 2008, 09:49 PM
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
Apr 5th 2008, 10:17 PM
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
Apr 6th 2008, 02:27 AM
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
Apr 6th 2008, 02:50 AM
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. :D 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
Apr 6th 2008, 03:18 AM
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
Apr 6th 2008, 09:29 AM
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
Apr 6th 2008, 11:50 AM
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. :hug:

Brother Mark
Apr 6th 2008, 12:58 PM
Ask Paul! :lol: Good to see you, BTW! :wave:

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
Apr 6th 2008, 01:03 PM
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. :mad: todd

diffangle
Apr 6th 2008, 02:16 PM
[quote=thethinker;1596958]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. :P 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. :rolleyes:



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 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=22&version=kjv#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 66:23 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=23&version=kjv#23)And 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
Apr 6th 2008, 07:35 PM
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! :lol: Let's ask him when we get there. :D 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. :mad: toddIt 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. :D

Brother Mark
Apr 6th 2008, 11:21 PM
I thought it was a fair suggestion! :lol: Let's ask him when we get there. :D 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
Apr 6th 2008, 11:48 PM
They were never OK because of the Law and Paul wrote that repeatedlyWrong! 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
Apr 6th 2008, 11:49 PM
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. :confused I just said it with less words. :lol:

God Bless!

Brother Mark
Apr 7th 2008, 01:35 AM
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. :confused I just said it with less words. :lol:

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.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 7th 2008, 01:55 AM
I guess it all depends on what exactly you consider as 'regulations'. :hmm: If you're talking about taking two doves to the Temple or bringing the priests a lamb without blemish then I agree because our High Priest has brought our sacrifice before the altar once for all. But if you're talking about not murdering, not lying, not committing adultery or even keeping holy the Sabbath (I hope I'm not opening a can of worms :D) I believe they are not present as regulations but rather as basic life instructions. Have you heard the song 'Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth'? It's not at all about a regulation I feel I MUST adhere to or be condemned. There is now NO CONDEMNATION for them who are in Christ Jesus. :pp Honey, I stand firm on that! It has never been about mindlessly following a list of regulations but rather what's in my heart; what I freely desire. For me, that's what it means to have God's Law written in my heart. It's not just a religious saying but it is completely true. His Law has become my desire. I do not want to murder or lie or commit adultery or not keep holy the weekly memorial of His creation. For me that is what it means to live by the 'spirit' of the law. If I were living by the letter there would be so much I could legalistically attempt to 'get away with' which would mean it was not 'in my heart' (my desire). By the letter I could bear false witness FOR my neighbor, but by the spirit of the Law I want no falsehood anywhere on my lips.

So, you see, I completely agree that the letter kills. We just don't agree completely on what the letter is. ;)

God Bless!

Brother Mark
Apr 7th 2008, 02:30 AM
I guess it all depends on what exactly you consider as 'regulations'. :hmm: If you're talking about taking two doves to the Temple or bringing the priests a lamb without blemish then I agree because our High Priest has brought our sacrifice before the altar once for all.

Yep. That's what I am talking about... along with the food laws, the priestly laws, etc.


But if you're talking about not murdering, not lying, not committing adultery or even keeping holy the Sabbath (I hope I'm not opening a can of worms :D)

Now those would be the 10 commandments that found their way inside the ark. The regulations, IMO, were placed outside the ark. In other words, EVERYTHING except the 10 commandments are the regulations of the old covenant.


I believe they are not present as regulations but rather as basic life instructions. Have you heard the song 'Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth'? It's not at all about a regulation I feel I MUST adhere to or be condemned. There is now NO CONDEMNATION for them who are in Christ Jesus. :pp Honey, I stand firm on that! It has never been about mindlessly following a list of regulations but rather what's in my heart; what I freely desire. For me, that's what it means to have God's Law written in my heart. It's not just a religious saying but it is completely true. His Law has become my desire. I do not want to murder or lie or commit adultery or not keep holy the weekly memorial of His creation. For me that is what it means to live by the 'spirit' of the law. If I were living by the letter there would be so much I could legalistically attempt to 'get away with' which would mean it was not 'in my heart' (my desire). By the letter I could bear false witness FOR my neighbor, but by the spirit of the Law I want no falsehood anywhere on my lips.

So, you see, I completely agree that the letter kills. We just don't agree completely on what the letter is. ;)

God Bless!


I know what you are saying. But we simply disagree S2S. I have never heard you say that one is justified by his actions and in this, we agree. Yet, we will disagree in this... I kept all that is required of the passover meal when I got saved. To celebrate the feast physically is fine but is no longer a law or mandate, the same with eating pork, or wearing tassels or any other regulation that was given under the old covenant. It all was a type and a shadow.

As for the 10 commandments, they stand firm. And the sabbath can of worms, I think there is room for difference of opinion on that one too. But that would be another thread. ;)

The letter puts a burden on folks that is no longer necessary. There is no longer any need to eat kosher, or to offer a grain offering, etc. We know now what those things mean spiritually and that is the ultimate purpose God had for creating those laws to begin with.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 7th 2008, 03:00 AM
Fair enough! Just to clarify though, I will not be celebrating Passover this month as a mandate but as a remembrance of the Lamb of God that was slain and His precious blood that has wiped away all my sin! I didn't stop eating pork because of any fear of condemnation, but because I believe pork is not healthy and thus, though I see and accept the symbolism, I believe our Maker knows best what we should and should not eat; health wise. I've shared with you before that my father died about five years ago and that one of the reasons was that his doctor told him to stop eating pork...and he didn't. I trust God's menu but I don't feel condemned if I eat pork-n-beans and take out the bacon! :lol:

God Bless!

Brother Mark
Apr 7th 2008, 03:44 AM
Fair enough! Just to clarify though, I will not be celebrating Passover this month as a mandate but as a remembrance of the Lamb of God that was slain and His precious blood that has wiped away all my sin! I didn't stop eating pork because of any fear of condemnation, but because I believe pork is not healthy and thus, though I see and accept the symbolism, I believe our Maker knows best what we should and should not eat; health wise. I've shared with you before that my father died about five years ago and that one of the reasons was that his doctor told him to stop eating pork...and he didn't. I trust God's menu but I don't feel condemned if I eat pork-n-beans and take out the bacon! :lol:

God Bless!

It WAS God's menu but isn't any more. ;)

We don't have to tiptoe S2S. If one chooses to eat for health reasons there's nothing wrong with that. But when one says "God says this is the way we are commanded to eat" that is something different. To break his command is to sin. If he commands us not to eat pork, it is wrong to do so regardless of health consequences. There are many unhealthy things to eat (i.e. processed sugar) but we don't hear so much on that on the board. I reckon that's because processed sugar isn't in the "law". In other words, I think it is more than just health reasons that some don't eat pork.

As I mentioned before, there is nothing wrong with celebrating the feast. But when we teach that it is better or in keeping with the commands to do so, I think we have crossed over into the letter. Nothing wrong with not eating pork. Nor is there anything wrong with eating pork. Sin defiles us and we are no longer defiled by what we eat but that which comes out of us. That was the whole point of the food laws. That what we take in, will impact our hearts and defile us as it comes back out. Let us beware of what doctrine or words we eat. For if they take root in us, then they will come back out and defile us. Pork is nothing.

I think we can agree on the spiritual portion of the law. But alas, I don't think we will on the letter. I know you seek agreement in many cases. I seek clarification. In other words, disagreement is ok as long as we aren't disagreeable. I know from experience, I tend to be more disagreeable than you do. ;)

Studyin'2Show
Apr 7th 2008, 12:43 PM
I think I agree with you much more than you realize. ;) I didn't grow up 'in the church' or with 'godly parents' that taught me. Because of this I came into faith with absolutely no preconceived doctrinal issues. I didn't go to VBS or any of the things I've seen since becoming a believer 9 yrs ago and then working in youth leadership at a Southern Baptist church for close to 7 yrs. I had never heard of Sola Scriptura before becoming a member here 2 yrs ago, but that is my belief structure in a nutshell. It is ONLY SCRIPTURE that has broought me to the understanding I have. The Holy Spirit has been my Guide word by word, line by line, chapter by chaper, and book by book. :)

And just for the record, I don't seek agreement in all issues but rather unity in the one issue that counts and that is Yeshua Messiah as Lord and Savior of all, Whose precious blood has cleansed all those who call on His holy name! :pp On that we are completely unified! You continue to be one of the handful of people on this board that I greatly esteem.

With that said, I believe it's still His menu but that He doesn't impose it upon us as some would perceive. Let me give you an example. My 18 yr old daughter decorated her room in our new house. She picked a dark chocolate brown and almost all black accessories. When she first picked the color for the walls I explained that such dark colors are not good for a bedroom. A family room or a tv room can pull it off but a bedroom should have some brighter colors at least as accessories. Maybe as an accent wall but not for every nook and cranny. Now, I know for an absolute fact that darkness, especially so dominating, promotes sleeping too long and depression. Now, she had free will to pick her colors and I didn't kick her out because of it. She's an adult. She can make her on choices and then live with the consequences. Is she sleeping too long? Yep. Depressed? That's not so noticeable but it may be affecting her somewhat. That's how I see the food laws. Like an instruction booklet for our digestive system telling us what works best and what doesn't. It's still our prerogative to choose. It's not going to affect our standing as children of the King. But it may cause our physical bodies not to work at peak efficiency.

Now, that's my take on the issue but as I said to thethinker earlier in the thread, how long do you think we'll be discussing this issue in glory? I don't think one second. It is one of those things that will burn away like so much chaff. So, for now, while we remain in these bodies of flesh, we may disagree on our interpretation, but is it really that big a deal? :dunno:

God Bless!

Brother Mark
Apr 7th 2008, 01:20 PM
Now, that's my take on the issue but as I said to thethinker earlier in the thread, how long do you think we'll be discussing this issue in glory? I don't think one second. It is one of those things that will burn away like so much chaff. So, for now, while we remain in these bodies of flesh, we may disagree on our interpretation, but is it really that big a deal? :dunno:

God Bless!

Because of what I believe, I think it a bigger deal than you might suspect. ;) But having said that, very few issues outside of salvation are so big as to divide the body. I have mentioned before and I will say it again... you have a kind spirit on these issues.

As for the food laws, if they are laws, then it is sin not to follow them. Sin cannot be taken so lightly. It was because of sin that Christ was died and that often causes us fellowship with the Father. If the food laws are more guidelines, then they are no longer laws. There are no minor laws when it comes to sin. It is one thing to have a choice before God. It is entirely another to choose to sin, and willfully at that!

So, if the food laws are simple guidelines on what is best for us, then they are no longer law. If they are law, they are more than guidelines to follow. If they are just guidelines, then perhaps other things are guidelines as well. Meaning, there is no more law concerning them. It gets to be a hairy issue at some point.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 7th 2008, 02:18 PM
Not so hairy! :D I believe you've hit the nail on the head. They have always been guidelines. However, guidelines, when given to a child ARE LAW. It's like washing behind your ears. :hmm: Yeah, another one of my examples. :lol: When you were a child and your mother told you to wash behind your ears it was like law. She might've even checked to make sure you did and you may have gotten into trouble if you didn't. That's the way we handle children so they will learn. Now that you're all grown up, your mother doesn't check behind your ears anymore, does she? You have probably learned from what you saw as law as a child that you DESIRE to be cleanly and wash behind your ears. But you know what, you could choose to never wash behind your ears or even wash at all, because you are an adult. Your mother would still love you and wouldn't kick you out of the family but you would have to deal with the consequences of your choice to never wash. :D

That's how I see it. I believe that's why Paul speaks of us 'growing up' in Him and speaks of those who are 'mature'. So, my daughter wasn't being disobedient to me when she painted her room dark brown, so there was no sin. But she does have to live with the consequences of her choice, however big or small that may be.

As for other things being caught up in the 'only guidelines' thing, I don't think that's an issue. Love God and love thy neighbor is a command. Everything gets summed up well in that, so no worries! :)

God Bless!

Mograce2U
Apr 7th 2008, 02:39 PM
Denise, #215 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1597942&postcount=215)
Some do use portions of scripture as though it were a cookbook. I have bought Ezekiel's Millet bread at the store with the scripture printed on the label. And I have known some who were encouraged to follow the formula for the holy anointing oil given to the priests to anoint their houses against evil spirits. The subtle thing that begins to happen in the minds of those who utilize scripture this way is that superstition begins to creep in. And with superstition comes the temptation to view God in idolatrous ways. And it happens because we fail to grasp the context in which God spoke to instruct His people.

The food laws (etc.) were given as instructions in holiness to a people the Lord set apart from their pagan idolatrous neighbors for His service. And He marked those people as His own so that Messiah could be brought into the world thru them. His laws for their sanctification were therefore strict and exact. Casual observance was forbidden and punishment came when they were broken. If we are to see these laws as still in effect and binding now that Christ has come, then the nation of Israel ought to have been wiped out long ago - along with their temple.

But we know that when Christ came there also came a change in the law and in the priesthood. The priesthood of believers who follow the Lord were not given the OT forms as their guide. And there is no way to go back to those things without bringing superstition and a form of legalism into play. If the rule you choose to follow, but which is not required; causes you to feel guilt when it is broken, then legalism is at work. Superstition says that you must do this else God will not bless. It is legalism because the blessings of God are now dependent upon what you do.

This is exactly what Christ came to put away: the idea that men could call down blessings from God at their will and that God would have to respond because "Thus saith the Lord". Holding God to the letter of His words without understanding the import of those words is merely a religious cloak for the heart's rebellion. Israel struggled with idolatry because of this phenomenon which comes about thru carnal ordinances. Even a quick look into the NT shows that such carnal requirements are not part of our service to Christ. We do not serve the flesh in any way, shape or form tho we still be in these bodies. Yet men want a religious experience and thru the trappings of tradition he hopes to gain it. And so men put on robes and shawls and head coverings to play this role out that makes them feel and look religious, because he cannot see what is spiritual with the eyes in his head. And because it makes him feel good, he believes God is now pleased with him. When God never cared one whit about such things in the first place.

I know you understand the difference, but to add back the trappings is just that - a trap. Give up just one Sabbath observance and you will see what I mean. Guilt will be what you have to deal with. What is that guilt supposed to be telling you if not that you have sinned? If failing to keep Sabbath is sin then the curse of the law is still in effect. You can't have the blessings of the law without the curse too. And with the curse comes a fear of judgment - the essence of what a guilty conscience is.

Yet Jesus came to set us free - not to become law-less, but to live according to a new rule. One in which the conscience is renewed to the things of God which are from above and are not found in the earth. The heart which has received the spirit of the law, no longer concerns itself with the outward form which was only given for the consecration of the flesh. God is not looking upon our flesh at all but looks straight into our hearts. Right past the robes and shawls and candles and such. The things which only get in the way as we try to cover our own nakedness as we stand before Him with whom we have to do. God has covered our nakedness by shedding the blood of His own Son and we ought not to think that our righteous standing before Him can be enhanced by our own efforts of carnal obedience. He has declared us holy in His sight and so the defilement of our flesh is no longer the issue and we need not be trying to consecrate it with those things that do not please Him.

It is a bit like the picture of Aaron when he put on holy garments to stand before the Lord and then took them off when he went back out to the people so they would not get defiled. We however, will never take off the garments Christ has provided us. And any other covering we might put on would only hide the glory that we have in Him. Such coverings is exactly what religious traditions are attempting to do, as they bring things that men can see before their eyes and declare "I am holier than thou". Having the "right" traditions is not the answer. Doing away with such things however is, and this Jesus has done for us.

Brother Mark
Apr 7th 2008, 02:46 PM
Not so hairy! :D I believe you've hit the nail on the head. They have always been guidelines. However, guidelines, when given to a child ARE LAW. It's like washing behind your ears. :hmm: Yeah, another one of my examples. :lol: When you were a child and your mother told you to wash behind your ears it was like law. She might've even checked to make sure you did and you may have gotten into trouble if you didn't. That's the way we handle children so they will learn. Now that you're all grown up, your mother doesn't check behind your ears anymore, does she? You have probably learned from what you saw as law as a child that you DESIRE to be cleanly and wash behind your ears. But you know what, you could choose to never wash behind your ears or even wash at all, because you are an adult. Your mother would still love you and wouldn't kick you out of the family but you would have to deal with the consequences of your choice to never wash. :D

That's how I see it. I believe that's why Paul speaks of us 'growing up' in Him and speaks of those who are 'mature'. So, my daughter wasn't being disobedient to me when she painted her room dark brown, so there was no sin. But she does have to live with the consequences of her choice, however big or small that may be.

As for other things being caught up in the 'only guidelines' thing, I don't think that's an issue. Love God and love thy neighbor is a command. Everything gets summed up well in that, so no worries! :)

God Bless!

I see your position a little better now. So indeed, it is no longer law. In that we agree. I don't see it as guidelines either though. I see it as a spiritual law. The spiritual part is highly important and is still sin and will lead to defilement.

So how much of the law do you classify now as guidelines that are no longer sin to "break"?

ravi4u2
Apr 7th 2008, 02:54 PM
Here is the problem, Ravi. You 'keep' the Law too! Have you murdered anyone lately? If not you ARE keeping the Law. Have you committed adultery lately? Or worshiped a false god? Or dishonored your parents? :hmm: If so, YOU ARE a Law keeper! :eek: Now, here's the kicker. Is that you attempting to EARN your way into His presence? Absolutely not! It is your desire to walk in His ways, correct?On the contrary, I have not murdered anyone, committed adultery or dishonored my parents not because it is a requirement of the law to be kept, but because I am transforming day by day into the image of Christ, through my relationship with Him. There is a difference.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 7th 2008, 03:02 PM
On the contrary, I have not murdered anyone, committed adultery or dishonored my parents not because it is a requirement of the law to be kept, but because I am transforming day by day into the image of Christ, through my relationship with Him. There is a difference.That's my point exactly! It's NOT about the requirements, it's about the DESIRE we have in our heart. For me, that is what it means when Jeremiah prophesies that He will write His Law on our hearts. Our heart symbolizes our desire. ;)

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Apr 7th 2008, 03:27 PM
Denise, #215 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1597942&postcount=215)

But we know that when Christ came there also came a change in the law and in the priesthood. The priesthood of believers who follow the Lord were not given the OT forms as their guide. And there is no way to go back to those things without bringing superstition and a form of legalism into play. If the rule you choose to follow, but which is not required; causes you to feel guilt when it is broken, then legalism is at work. Superstition says that you must do this else God will not bless. It is legalism because the blessings of God are now dependent upon what you do.

I know you understand the difference, but to add back the trappings is just that - a trap. Give up just one Sabbath observance and you will see what I mean. Guilt will be what you have to deal with. What is that guilt supposed to be telling you if not that you have sinned? If failing to keep Sabbath is sin then the curse of the law is still in effect. You can't have the blessings of the law without the curse too. And with the curse comes a fear of judgment - the essence of what a guilty conscience is. Hey Robin!

I cut your post down because I just wanted to address a couple of things. What legalism? What calling down of blessings? Yeshua said that it rains upon the just AND the unjust! I haven't said or even implied that you must do x, y, and z to get blessed. And I haven't said that if you don't do x, y, and z you won't get blessed. Or even that if you do x, y, and z it won't rain. :confused Now, I can't speak for anyone else so if you've heard that elsewhere, you'll have to discuss it with the one who said it. ;)

As for the Sabbath, nope, no guilt! :D You see Robin, I stand firmly on the word of God. All of it! His word tells me that there is NOW NO CONDEMNATION for them who are in Christ Jesus. Why would I feel guilty because I have to do something on the Sabbath? Yeshua said it is good to do good on the Sabbath. I'm not going to do something bad :o and against the kingdom ANY day. His Sabbath is a weekly memorial of the 7 days of creation and I do remember it and keep it holy. It's not about what I HAVE TO do, but it is about about what I desire to do. So, no trap, no fear of a curse (that was nailed to the cross :D), no guilty conscience just peace in Him!

God Bless!

ravi4u2
Apr 7th 2008, 03:35 PM
Yeah, that's a way to explain the Law away and keep the doctrine alive.
There you run into another contradiction:

Yeshua is the everlasting Word, there's no end to Him. In neither form as the spoken/written Word, nor as a person in flesh and blood.

If you search the OT each covenant in the scriptures is everlasting....there is no end to it, and Yeshua Himself declared that he came not to destroy, but to fulfill, which obviously cannot mean "to end" !!!And it is fulfilled in Him!


You appear to forget that the greatest Commandment to love another as yourself is one of the two greatest Commandments on which all the other Laws hang....

IOW everything after that and the Command to love God with all your heart, mind and strength are direct extensions of those two greatest Commandments! There's no way out of that!

There is no contradiction at all when one keeps the Law in Faith by the Spirit. I know i deserve nothing more than hell, but my hope and trust is in Yeshua and what He did for me.Let me give you another rendering:


mark 12:28 - 34 - Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?” Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” So the scribe said to Him, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” Now when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”The scribe said, that to keep the great commandment is better than offering burnt offerings and sacrifices. He DID NOT SAY, that the burnt offerings and sacrifices are NOT NECESSARY. And Jesus said, he was not far from the kingdom of God. Can we deduce from that that because Jesus commended him for his reply, and because burnt sacrifices and offerings were not explicitly prohibited by Jesus, it still has got to be practiced today?


As S2S said, you keep the Law too, the difference is in how extensive we see it is, and you don'tOn the contrary, I do not keep the law. It is impossible to keep the law. Jesus raised the bar on law keeping. For example, the law says, “Do not commit adultery”. But Jesus raises the standard when He says, “anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart”. You see, it is impossible to be a law keeper. I share in the liberty of life of Christ Jesus.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 7th 2008, 03:40 PM
So how much of the law do you classify now as guidelines that are no longer sin to "break"?Mark, each one must be washed by the water of His Word. It not about running through a buffet line, picking and choosing as some would suppose. It is about running through the Word of God and allowing the Holy Spirit that He has deposited into you, lead and guide you into ALL truth. It's not about a recipe. It IS about being obedient to the Holy Spirit within you. You read and be washed in His Word and be obedient to where He leads you. ;)

Studyin'2Show
Apr 7th 2008, 03:50 PM
On the contrary, I do not keep the law. It is impossible to keep the law. Jesus raised the bar on law keeping. For example, the law says, “Do not commit adultery”. But Jesus raises the standard when He says, “anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart”. You see, it is impossible to be a law keeper. I share in the liberty of life of Christ Jesus.On the contrary. Either you are a law 'keeper' or a law 'breaker'. You either walk lawfully or law-less-ly. There is no in between. Because Yeshua raised the bar does not mean that you now murder, and commit adultery as part of your 'liberty'. If you are not lusting after a woman, you are not going to be breaking the letter of the law either. Can you see that? Every time you choose to not hate your brother or not lust after a woman, you have made a conscious decision to follow His Law, likely because He has written it in your heart. It is your DESIRE to walk righteously. :)

God Bless!

thethinker
Apr 7th 2008, 04:21 PM
[quote]

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).


That's some creative thinking and twisting in order to get the Scriptures to mean what you want them to mean. :P 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.

Diff,
You say that I am engaging in "creative thinking". But Jesus said to His disciples,

"But when the Holy Spirit comes He will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). People today erroneously think that the moment Christ died that "all truth" just dawned on the first Christians. We think that they knew everything from the start. Not so! Jesus' promise of the Holy Spirit to "guide" into all truth easily dispels that idea.

Try reading the Bible as a first generation Christian who had to wait for God to reval His truths.

"Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but NOW is being revealed" (Rom. 16:25-26).

Note that Paul said "my" gospel which was "hidden" for long ages past. The gospel was revealed to Paul progressively.



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

Isa 66:22 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=22&version=kjv#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 66:23 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=66&verse=23&version=kjv#23)And 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 Hebrew word "olam" should not be translated "forever". It means "to the end of the age", whatever "age" is in view. Abraham was told that circumcision was an ordinance to continue "forever". But it was done away by the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).

BTW. The Reformation Study Bible says that the prophecies of Isaiah 56:1 thru 66:24 had to do with the exiles that returned from Babylon before the rebuilding of the temple in 520 B.C. So the new heaven and earth of Isaiah 66 is not related to that in Revelation.

Note that Noah and his family lived through the destruction of the "old" earth of their time. So when they came out of the ark they entered a "new" heaven and earth (2 Peter 3).

My point.: There were other "new" earths. So don't confuse them.

We are fully under the new covenant and the spirit of the law now. You are free in Christ to live your life according to your cleansed conscience (Heb. 10).

Studyin'2Show
Apr 7th 2008, 07:19 PM
The Hebrew word "olam" should not be translated "forever". It means "to the end of the age", whatever "age" is in view. Abraham was told that circumcision was an ordinance to continue "forever". But it was done away by the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).

BTW. The Reformation Study Bible says that the prophecies of Isaiah 56:1 thru 66:24 had to do with the exiles that returned from Babylon before the rebuilding of the temple in 520 B.C. So the new heaven and earth of Isaiah 66 is not related to that in Revelation.

Note that Noah and his family lived through the destruction of the "old" earth of their time. So when they came out of the ark they entered a "new" heaven and earth (2 Peter 3).

My point.: There were other "new" earths. So don't confuse them.

We are fully under the new covenant and the spirit of the law now. You are free in Christ to live your life according to your cleansed conscience (Heb. 10).This is why it's hard to have this type of conversation between those with differing dispensational views. It hard not to deal with that fundamental issue first which tends to derail the thread. We've sort of already gone over anything edifying regarding the 'letter' and the 'spirit', with us ALL agreeing that the spirit gives life while the letter kills. Now getting us to all agree on what that means seems to be something that may need to get straightened out in glory. :lol:

God Bless!

thethinker
Apr 7th 2008, 07:37 PM
This is why it's hard to have this type of conversation between those with differing dispensational views. It hard not to deal with that fundamental issue first which tends to derail the thread. We've sort of already gone over anything edifying regarding the 'letter' and the 'spirit', with us ALL agreeing that the spirit gives life while the letter kills. Now getting us to all agree on what that means seems to be something that may need to get straightened out in glory. :lol:

God Bless!

S2S,
It doesn't need to be straightened out in glory. Obedience in the spirit is a matter of conscience. So long as our actions do no harm to any one we are free to live according to our conscience. The problem is that everybody wants to impose their conscience on others.

You have said that God treats us as full grown sons, that is, He treats us as adults. Therefore, we should treat on another as adults in the area of service in the spirit.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 7th 2008, 08:05 PM
S2S,
It doesn't need to be straightened out in glory. Obedience in the spirit is a matter of conscience. So long as our actions do no harm to any one we are free to live according to our conscience. The problem is that everybody wants to impose their conscience on others.

You have said that God treats us as full grown sons, that is, He treats us as adults. Therefore, we should treat on another as adults in the area of service in the spirit.You've hit a homerun with that one! :D That's it in a nutshell and was sort of my point. We've hashed and rehashed this at this point and the bottom line is that we just disagree, and that's okay. My quip about straightening it out in glory was an attempt at light hearted sarcasm. :lol:

God Bless!