PDA

View Full Version : My former hypocrisy



Gift of God
Jul 8th 2008, 10:20 PM
What actually took place is this: I tried keeping rules and working my head off to please God, and it didn't work. So I quit being a "law man" so that I could be God's man. Christ's life showed me how, and enabled me to do it. I identified myself completely with him. Indeed, I have been crucified with Christ. My ego is no longer central. It is no longer important that I appear righteous before you or have your good opinion, and I am no longer driven to impress God. Christ lives in me. The life you see me living is not "mine," but it is lived by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am not going to go back on that.

Is it not clear to you that to go back to that old rule-keeping, peer-pleasing religion would be an abandonment of everything personal and free in my relationship with God? I refuse to do that, to repudiate God's grace. If a living relationship with God could come by rule-keeping, then Christ died unnecessarily.

Galatians 2:19-21, The Message

Read the above carefully, it really ministered to me about the freedom that we have in Christ. I also read the rest of Galatians in The Message. I highly recommend this, The Message Bible makes it clear as day about salvation not being through law-keeping and works, but by grace alone.

And while real grace brings about a change in the heart, sometimes we have to downplay this because otherwise people will put too much of an emphasis on works as a means to salvation.

The law is a tutor to lead us to Christ, we come to Christ when we realize we cannot keep it no matter how hard we try.

In Galatians 2:17-18 The Message says,

Have some of you noticed that we are not yet perfect? (No great surprise, right?) And are you ready to make the accusation that since people like me, who go through Christ to get things right with God, aren't perfectly virtuous, Christ must therefore be an accessory to sin? The accusation is frivolous. If I was "trying to be good," I would be rebuilding the same old barn that I tore down. I would be acting as a charlatan.

Galatians 6:11-13, The Message,

Now, in these last sentences, I want to emphasize in the bold scrawls of my personal handwriting the immense importance of what I have written to you. These people who are attempting to force the ways of circumcision on you have only one motive: They want an easy way to look good before others, lacking the courage to live by a faith that shares Christ's suffering and death. All their talk about the law is gas. They themselves don't keep the law! And they are highly selective in the laws that they do observe. They only want you to be circumcised so they can boast of their success in recruiting you to their side. That is contemptible!

Be praying that all in the body of Christ may come to a real understanding of God's grace as it is in reality!

weighed
Jul 8th 2008, 11:51 PM
What actually took place is this: I tried keeping rules and working my head off to please God, and it didn't work. So I quit being a "law man" so that I could be God's man. Christ's life showed me how, and enabled me to do it. I identified myself completely with him. Indeed, I have been crucified with Christ. My ego is no longer central. It is no longer important that I appear righteous before you or have your good opinion, and I am no longer driven to impress God. Christ lives in me. The life you see me living is not "mine," but it is lived by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am not going to go back on that.

Is it not clear to you that to go back to that old rule-keeping, peer-pleasing religion would be an abandonment of everything personal and free in my relationship with God? I refuse to do that, to repudiate God's grace. If a living relationship with God could come by rule-keeping, then Christ died unnecessarily.

Galatians 2:19-21, The Message

Read the above carefully, it really ministered to me about the freedom that we have in Christ. I also read the rest of Galatians in The Message. I highly recommend this, The Message Bible makes it clear as day about salvation not being through law-keeping and works, but by grace alone.

And while real grace brings about a change in the heart, sometimes we have to downplay this because otherwise people will put too much of an emphasis on works as a means to salvation.

The law is a tutor to lead us to Christ, we come to Christ when we realize we cannot keep it no matter how hard we try.

In Galatians 2:17-18 The Message says,

Have some of you noticed that we are not yet perfect? (No great surprise, right?) And are you ready to make the accusation that since people like me, who go through Christ to get things right with God, aren't perfectly virtuous, Christ must therefore be an accessory to sin? The accusation is frivolous. If I was "trying to be good," I would be rebuilding the same old barn that I tore down. I would be acting as a charlatan.

Galatians 6:11-13, The Message,

Now, in these last sentences, I want to emphasize in the bold scrawls of my personal handwriting the immense importance of what I have written to you. These people who are attempting to force the ways of circumcision on you have only one motive: They want an easy way to look good before others, lacking the courage to live by a faith that shares Christ's suffering and death. All their talk about the law is gas. They themselves don't keep the law! And they are highly selective in the laws that they do observe. They only want you to be circumcised so they can boast of their success in recruiting you to their side. That is contemptible!

Be praying that all in the body of Christ may come to a real understanding of God's grace as it is in reality!

lpost, and lovely testimony!
Rom 7:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

markedward
Jul 9th 2008, 02:49 AM
Recommendation:

Do not use The Message version.

I'm biased against The Message, and for good reason.

1 - It's a paraphrase, not a translation. It's a single individual's personal interpretations of Biblical passages, not an accurate translation of the original languages. As a result, you can be guaranteed that what you are reading is going to have inaccurate messages in at least some places.

2 - Certain Biblical passages have been proven have been altered by The Message's author. For example, in nearly every other Bible translation, Jesus says "The Father and I are one." Plain as day, Jesus is saying that He and God are the same, that He is God because He and God are one. The Message, on the other hand, paraphrases this as "The Father and I are one in heart and mind." That drastically changes what Jesus was saying. The author of The Message changed Jesus' claim of being one with God into Jesus claiming to have the same ideas as God.

3 - It's been shown that the author of The Message borrows quite a bit of his phrasing from New Age and occultic groups. Meaning, he's changing the words of the Bible into pagan words.

Simply put: The Message "Bible" is a terrible Bible to use. It does not matter if you think it's easy to understand. It's just not trustworthy.

InHisGrip
Jul 9th 2008, 03:48 AM
(The MESSAGE is not a translation, its a paraphrase. Its a fine tool for personal devotional times but was never intended to be a translation.)

I am so glad to hear that you have broken away from some of the legalism that enslaves.

Gift of God
Jul 9th 2008, 04:07 AM
I don't use The Message as the final authority on anything. I have read completely the KJV, NKJV, NASB and NIV Bibles in the past, maybe not every word, but enough to know the general teaching of what the Bible is when you take a look at all translations. I agree with InHisGrip. The Message is good for devotional times but was not intended to be a translation.

When I compare The Message's rendition of Galatians to the NKJV, which is the other Bible I am currently reading, I find that they are not contradictory to one another and that The Message sheds a lot of light on doctrines that were previously hidden from me.

"The thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy."

God has done something good in my life through The Message.

Just like the enemy to try to make me distrust its message and thus lose what I have gained.

Friend of I AM
Jul 9th 2008, 02:01 PM
What actually took place is this: I tried keeping rules and working my head off to please God, and it didn't work. So I quit being a "law man" so that I could be God's man. Christ's life showed me how, and enabled me to do it. I identified myself completely with him. Indeed, I have been crucified with Christ. My ego is no longer central. It is no longer important that I appear righteous before you or have your good opinion, and I am no longer driven to impress God. Christ lives in me. The life you see me living is not "mine," but it is lived by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am not going to go back on that.

Is it not clear to you that to go back to that old rule-keeping, peer-pleasing religion would be an abandonment of everything personal and free in my relationship with God? I refuse to do that, to repudiate God's grace. If a living relationship with God could come by rule-keeping, then Christ died unnecessarily.

Galatians 2:19-21, The Message

Read the above carefully, it really ministered to me about the freedom that we have in Christ. I also read the rest of Galatians in The Message. I highly recommend this, The Message Bible makes it clear as day about salvation not being through law-keeping and works, but by grace alone.

And while real grace brings about a change in the heart, sometimes we have to downplay this because otherwise people will put too much of an emphasis on works as a means to salvation.

The law is a tutor to lead us to Christ, we come to Christ when we realize we cannot keep it no matter how hard we try.

In Galatians 2:17-18 The Message says,

Have some of you noticed that we are not yet perfect? (No great surprise, right?) And are you ready to make the accusation that since people like me, who go through Christ to get things right with God, aren't perfectly virtuous, Christ must therefore be an accessory to sin? The accusation is frivolous. If I was "trying to be good," I would be rebuilding the same old barn that I tore down. I would be acting as a charlatan.

Galatians 6:11-13, The Message,

Now, in these last sentences, I want to emphasize in the bold scrawls of my personal handwriting the immense importance of what I have written to you. These people who are attempting to force the ways of circumcision on you have only one motive: They want an easy way to look good before others, lacking the courage to live by a faith that shares Christ's suffering and death. All their talk about the law is gas. They themselves don't keep the law! And they are highly selective in the laws that they do observe. They only want you to be circumcised so they can boast of their success in recruiting you to their side. That is contemptible!

Be praying that all in the body of Christ may come to a real understanding of God's grace as it is in reality!

Good points and I agree with most of what you said. Remember though that sincerely wanting to please God isn't a bad thing. I think ideally, we all should be men(and women) who sincerely want to please God through our conduct, and the way we work his message throughout our lives.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 9th 2008, 02:28 PM
If I was "trying to be good," I would be rebuilding the same old barn that I tore down.

The person who tries to be pleasing to the Father after understanding His will, tears down an old barn, and builds a new one on a sound foundation (the Torah Law and Prophets), but not with the plans he makes of his own, but rather with the plans of God by instruction of God just as Noah did (the renewing of the mind through the Spirit). This makes for a better barn than there was before which should be able to stand when the rain comes, and the wind blows to where nothing can damage it and tear holes into it, or worse tear it down.

This new barn is going to be covered with His Son’s blood where there are no holes for the blood to seep through, and therefore no spot will be left uncovered when we stand before God on that day giving account of our life. This way there will be no nakedness, which God can see.
Can you imagine what would have happened had Noah been sloppy with his work and not followed God's instructions? None of that covering with pitch would have been to any avail.
And if you recall he was told to cover inside and out with pitch......
This is synonymous with the Word written into our hearts aka being circumcised in the heart, and then being covered by the blood.

To each their own, I chose to follow Him the way He showed me to.

Shalom,
Tanja

Gift of God
Jul 9th 2008, 02:49 PM
But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. Romans 7:6.

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them. Hebrews 10:16.

It is not a matter of keeping the rules and regulations of the law. If you are in Christ then his law is written in your heart, you are not focused on all the laws and on your self-keeping of them, you are focused on Jesus Christ and what He has done for you. He has brought forgiveness of sins through His blood, this is more freeing than you could ever imagine if you really understand it, it leads you into holiness based on what Christ has done for you and not based on what you can do for God.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 9th 2008, 02:54 PM
Let me add:

I fully agree that if one circumcised themselves only to consider themselves in the covenant then the work of Christ would indeed be for nought.
If you follow the law to boast in front of people and flash your holiness, then again, you are doing it all for the wrong reason.

However, i do not think that one trying to do all these things out of love for their father and thus wanting to please Him is wrong to do so.

Look at your own chiuldren, doesn't it warm your heart when you see your child trying their best because they want to please/impress you?

Now if the same child does this because you have company over and they act up to show off, how do you feel?

Exactly!!!! That's what makes the difference between doing it for the right reason and the wrong reason.

Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 9th 2008, 03:05 PM
Gift of God,

Let me ask you, are all the Law written into your heart in a single instant?

Do you know the depth of loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself in that short moment of time when you made the decision to follow God?

I propose it takes time and life here on earth is a training period and a learning experience.

I know that God has been rebuilding me slowly and with care, not instantaneously. Why else do you propose we all still are capable of sin? We are newborn, do you propose a newborn to be able to do everything right from the moment it was born?

I'm very much focused on the Law, as in it is the determining factor and measuring rod on what i wil do any given moment in life. It is when i chose to follow His way when i pick up my cross in that instant and carry it.

In this way i'm focusing on Christ, because He asked me to follow Him. How could i not be focusing on Him when i follow Him in deed? I know what He has done for me, and i follow Him out of gratefulness.
I know He nailed the requirements for my sins which were the wages of sin = death to the cross.....


Shalom,
Tanja

RabbiKnife
Jul 9th 2008, 03:08 PM
It is incomprehensible to me that "focusing on the Law" is somehow equated to "taking up one's cross."

Paul teaches quite the contrary.

Friend of I AM
Jul 9th 2008, 04:11 PM
I think a lot of people may have misunderstood my point about conduct on this one. Don't want to go tit for tat, do think it's a good idea to clarify what I meant. Conducting ourselves is based on the faith the God has imparted us within our life, and what 1 Corinthians 13 describes love to be. The law is simply Love. Anyone who has loved God and their brothers in this way is walking with God and is doing his will. We know everything that love is and isn't through the scriptures and through the sacred law, and now we can rejoice in knowing what the love of God truly is, and why it's so pleasing to him and both ourselves if we continue to walk in love with him, as well as with our bretheren.

So let us all continue to follow the two commands which all of the commands are stemmed from in this and other discussions. Those being to "love God" and "love one another." God bless all in Christ.

Stephen

Gift of God
Jul 10th 2008, 04:59 AM
Gift of God,

Let me ask you, are all the Law written into your heart in a single instant?

Do you know the depth of loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself in that short moment of time when you made the decision to follow God?

Ezekiel 36:25-27.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 10th 2008, 06:36 AM
Eze 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
Eze 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
Eze 36:28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

It says nothing about the time frame in which this will happen whether this is instantaneous or something developing over time. just that Gpd will do this.

However "cause to walk in my statues and careful to obey my rules" seems to imply that it's something developing over time and not instantaneous.

Shalom,
Tanja

ProjectPeter
Jul 10th 2008, 01:45 PM
The person who tries to be pleasing to the Father after understanding His will, tears down an old barn, and builds a new one on a sound foundation (the Torah Law and Prophets), but not with the plans he makes of his own, but rather with the plans of God by instruction of God just as Noah did (the renewing of the mind through the Spirit). This makes for a better barn than there was before which should be able to stand when the rain comes, and the wind blows to where nothing can damage it and tear holes into it, or worse tear it down.

This new barn is going to be covered with His Son’s blood where there are no holes for the blood to seep through, and therefore no spot will be left uncovered when we stand before God on that day giving account of our life. This way there will be no nakedness, which God can see.
Can you imagine what would have happened had Noah been sloppy with his work and not followed God's instructions? None of that covering with pitch would have been to any avail.
And if you recall he was told to cover inside and out with pitch......
This is synonymous with the Word written into our hearts aka being circumcised in the heart, and then being covered by the blood.

To each their own, I chose to follow Him the way He showed me to.

Shalom,
Tanja
The only foundation Tanja is Christ. Not the Torah and the Prophets. That was the foundation the Jews built upon thinking they held eternal life in the letter of the Law. It didn't then... don't now. Christ is that way and not the letters in the Book.

Gift of God
Jul 10th 2008, 05:08 PM
he makes it happen at the moment of the sprinkling of clean water on you, not over a long period of time. The law becomes written in the heart, this does not mean we obey it perfectly. When we are born again the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts (Romans 5:5). Love is the fulfillment of the Law. (Romans 13:8-10)

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 10th 2008, 07:07 PM
No falling away then like Ananias and Sapphira did then huh?

Oh well......

Shalom,
Tanja

ProjectPeter
Jul 10th 2008, 07:17 PM
No falling away then like Ananias and Sapphira did then huh?

Oh well......

Shalom,
Tanja
You'll have to explain that... without a quote... no clue what you are responding to.

Partaker of Christ
Jul 10th 2008, 09:48 PM
John 5:39 You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and these are they which testify about Me.
John 5:40 But you are unwilling to come to Me, so that you may have life.


John 6:63 It is the Spirit who makes alive; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who were the ones who did not believe, and who was the one who would betray Him.
John 6:65 And He said, "Because of this I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."
John 6:66 From this time many of His disciples turned back and no longer would walk with Him.
John 6:67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also want to go away?"

John 6:68 But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
John 6:69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 11th 2008, 03:19 PM
Ananaias and Sapphira obviously had the Holy Spirit, and yet they sinned and went against the truth in their heart. They died instantly when they were confronted and still stuck to their evil.....

Shalom,
Tanja

RoadWarrior
Jul 11th 2008, 03:27 PM
Ananaias and Sapphira obviously had the Holy Spirit, and yet they sinned and went against the truth in their heart. They died instantly when they were confronted and still stuck to their evil.....

Shalom,
Tanja

Can you back up your view that they "obviously had the Holy Spirit"?

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 11th 2008, 03:39 PM
Act 5:3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?


Tanja

RoadWarrior
Jul 11th 2008, 04:23 PM
Act 5:3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?


Tanja

I guess I see that differently - the Holy Spirit has not filled his heart, but Satan has filled his heart.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 11th 2008, 05:23 PM
Well but why would they address the fact that he lied to the Holy Spirit if he didn't have him, because then he would just be an unbeliever.... and unbelievers do not know the Holy Spirit.....
And i personally cannot see that an unbeliever would be punished with physical death, to where their chance of repentance vanished as well, rather i would see an unbeliever being taught awareness of the crime .....
That does not fit the God i know.
Without repentance there cannot be salvation.

2Co 7:10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.

Several scriptures come to mind:

Joh 7:39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Those who believe are sealed with the Holy Spirit.

Ananias and Sapphira imo turned against the Holy Spirit and died.

1Ti 2:3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

If they were unbelievers would God really rather have them cut off without a chance to repent?

That's not the God i know.

Rather i see God as one who will discipline those who err, and make mistakes instead of cutting them off, but those like Moses who had more knowledge of the truth and understanding were cut off when they erred......

Luk 12:48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.

Shalom,
Tanja

Gift of God
Jul 11th 2008, 09:41 PM
Because the Holy Spirit was in Peter, who Ananias and saphirra lied to. God took it personally that Ananias and wife lied to one of His children.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 11th 2008, 11:22 PM
I disagree GoG, i don't see that God operates in that way.
I don't see God striking two people dead because they lied to Peter whom had the Holy Spirit, that then would be considered a sin against a fellow man. Something I'm sure Peter would have forgiven as the Holy Spirit moves any person with the Holy Spirit to compassion. Or else i would see that many would perish for lying to another with the Holy Spirit for say stealing money and not telling or whatever. :hmm:

Rather i see that they were struck dead because they sinned against God, God as the Holy Spirit within them.



Shalom,
Tanja

Zack702
Jul 11th 2008, 11:42 PM
I find one problem with this and that is that it is mocking the law. As to say that "law men" are ego driven.

The same God who was with us from the beginning the same one who built the temple from the foundation to the pinnacle.

Christ is of the Father and the Father is who gave the covenant to Abraham in the first place.

Israel didn't build upon it but rather the opposite they tried to tare it down. Even still he had blessed all nations of the earth one way or another. With or without them God had by his messengers and his words do not fail.

God brought the Prophets and the Nazarites we did not do it but God did. Are they not a foundation?

Abraham was a wanderer when the kings of the Gentiles were ruling the Earth. God gave them a foundation and showed them good works that they would be blessed and overcome wickedness.

What we are capable of is overcoming wickedness. Loving our neighbors and loving God. The same God who stirred up the nations in the OT and the same God who sent Jesus Christ. There is no other.

Now Imagine if everyone always followed the sayings of Jesus Christ? Obviously this isn't likely so we must find out what is possible somewhere. This is where the bible can help.

God raised up the uneducated to be wise God made the weak to be strong.

threebigrocks
Jul 12th 2008, 04:20 AM
Act 5:3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?


Tanja

This I would have to agree with. Ananias and Sapphiria were in the process of selling all they had and giving it all to the church, joining with the believers of the time. They believed in Christ and were set to give up all they had to follow Peter and be a part of the church.

Their sin was in holding back and not giving all as they had promised, and in lying about it. For neglecting their integrity before God and for lying God struck them both dead. He can do that. He's God. The same God who will pronounce just judgement on all.

Thing is, it is still far from the teaching of the Law as the Spirit did not indwell believers in Christ until (obviously) after Christ's death and resurrection AND the day of penticost. It wasn't going against a law, but the Spirit of God.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 12th 2008, 05:03 AM
People in the Ot received the Hoply Spirit too.... so i don't agree with this:


Thing is, it is still far from the teaching of the Law as the Spirit did not indwell believers in Christ until (obviously) after Christ's death and resurrection AND the day of penticost. It wasn't going against a law, but the Spirit of God.

Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 13th 2008, 02:50 PM
Before i was even fully awake i was mulling over some verses, and it pointed to this thread.
How can one be a hypocrite doing the will of God when you do it in line with these verses:

Col 3:17 And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

Joh 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

I would never call you a hypocrite for doing things in the name of the Lord....

I really oppose your statement here:


And while real grace brings about a change in the heart, sometimes we have to downplay this because otherwise people will put too much of an emphasis on works as a means to salvation.
Why would you want to hide a light......

I never tried to look holy by observing the Law of God, rather i saw that it was something He wanted me to do, and it gave me joy every time He explained something to me.

The only time you become a hypocrite going by the Law is if you're doing it for the same reasons as the Pharisees did whom Yeshua chastised for broadening their tefillin and lengthening their tzitzit and claiming the more prestigious seats and wanting to be seen by men, in other words they wanted to be revered. This is trying to claim equality with God.

Doing things for those you love is not selfish, and God wouldn't think so either.


The life you see me living is not "mine," but it is lived by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
If God taught you to observe the Law, then this is active faith if you do what He tells you.

Noah was saved by God's instructions and following them out just as He said to do. Would Noah have been saved had he not followed His instructions?
Abraham was considered righteous as he followed what God told him to do in deed when he took his only son Isaac to be a sacrifice.
Indeed then your life is no longer your own if you do His will. How could you possibly be fallen from Grace if you do His will out of the abundance of your heart by what He planted there through the Word and the Spirit?????


Shalom,
Tanja

Gift of God
Jul 13th 2008, 06:19 PM
There are so many responses since the last time I looked at this that all I can say is, you need to meditate on such passages as Philippians 3:1-9,esp.v.6,9). The entire book of Galatians will also be necessary for you to be able to get a hold of this, which is a doctrine that is necessary for your salvation. You will probably also have to study the book of Romans for a long while.

Nobody ever said coming to the end of yourself was going to be easy. You have to get the word in your heart if you want the righteousness of faith.

threebigrocks
Jul 13th 2008, 06:38 PM
People in the Ot received the Hoply Spirit too.... so i don't agree with this:


Shalom,
Tanja

I don't disagree with you Tanja, but wholly agree with you. But for anyone to choose Christ and have the Spirit dwell in them if they simply confessed Him as Lord and repented wasn't available prior to Penticost. The Spirit indwelled of the old testiment were men of faith of God through obedience and faith, and not of the Law that was effective in old testiment times. Same Spirit, but given to men quite a bit differently.

We can see through Anninias and his wife that they did believe and were willing to sell all for the cause of Christ's church. They were of the Spirit of the new covenant given to all who believe in Christ and not in the Law. Isaiah 1:10-18 makes it clear that God doesn't want our rituals, sacrafices, observances but our whole selves with no holding back. Anninias and Sipphria held back out of selfish gain instead of following through with giving all to God. They fell back into lovers of self and not lovers of God.

God did strike them dead, just as He did thousands of others for disobedience. He will do so again in a time that is coming soon. He is wrath and punishment as well as love and mercy. We cannot get around that fact, it's who God is.

threebigrocks
Jul 13th 2008, 06:41 PM
Now Imagine if everyone always followed the sayings of Jesus Christ? Obviously this isn't likely so we must find out what is possible somewhere. This is where the bible can help.

It's not likely, but what is expected of every Christian. That's what Christian means - follower of Christ. The only way it's possible is to look to Christ, scripture and prayer.

We won't ever have a utopia here on earth, but simple obedience even in time of doubt and struggle is our call.

Gift of God
Jul 13th 2008, 06:50 PM
Ananias and Saphirra were not willing to sell all for the cause of Christ, as evidenced by the fact that they didn't do so. They gave some of it and lied about it because they wanted to have a place of prominence in the church as they very likely saw was given to Barnabas as a result of his gift.

It is very akin to the selling of indulgences in the Catholic Church. They were trying to buy a position of athourity and cared not for whether or not God accepted them, but rather they wanted the approval of men, and this is more grievous in God's sight than I think you are aware of. This is why He simply struck them dead, and I believe they went to hell because Satan had filled their heart to do this, and in the same way that Judas went to hell because he allowed Satan to fill his heart to betray the Lord.

Gift of God
Jul 13th 2008, 06:54 PM
For if they went to heaven it was no real punishment for such a grievous sin against the Holy Spirit. And sins against the Holy Spirit are the worst kind. "The righteous perish, and no man takes it to heart. Merciful men are taken away, While no one considers that merciful men are taken away from evil." This is in stark contrast to Ananias and Saphira who were committing wicked acts of unbelief against the Holy Spirit.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 13th 2008, 07:43 PM
We can see through Anninias and his wife that they did believe and were willing to sell all for the cause of Christ's church. They were of the Spirit of the new covenant given to all who believe in Christ and not in the Law. Isaiah 1:10-18 makes it clear that God doesn't want our rituals, sacrafices, observances but our whole selves with no holding back. Anninias and Sipphria held back out of selfish gain instead of following through with giving all to God. They fell back into lovers of self and not lovers of God.
I don't think that's what it really was about that they turned lovers of themselves, but rather they wanted to keep their reputation untarnished.... much like hypocriters as the Pharisees were..... they wanted to be looked as holy......pious...

Act 5:4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."

Had they told the truth they would not have died even if it would have been selfish.


The Spirit indwelled of the old testiment were men of faith of God through obedience and faith, and not of the Law that was effective in old testiment times.

And i completely disagree with the above statement!!! By Faith they upheld the law!!!

Rom 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 13th 2008, 07:48 PM
There are so many responses since the last time I looked at this that all I can say is, you need to meditate on such passages as Philippians 3:1-9,esp.v.6,9). The entire book of Galatians will also be necessary for you to be able to get a hold of this, which is a doctrine that is necessary for your salvation. You will probably also have to study the book of Romans for a long while.

I have studied all of these books for a long time for about 3 years to be exact, and the more i study this out the more i see Galatians and Romans and all other scripture in harmony with the way things were in the OT.

Shalom,
Tanja

Vhayes
Jul 13th 2008, 07:57 PM
Tanja, please keep reading - while you quote Romans 3:31, keep reading into chapter 4

13 - For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 - For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; 15 - for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.

If we love our neighbor as ourself, we will cause him no harm. If we love God with all our heart, soul and mind, we will dwell on Him all day long and allow Him to guide us. I just don't personally think He will guide us into stoning sinners or prohibiting us from wearing clothing of mixed fabrics.

I know we disagree on these things and I'm trying to be respectful of your beliefs while being firm in mine.

V

Vhayes
Jul 13th 2008, 07:58 PM
I don't think that's what it really was about that they turned lovers of themselves, but rather they wanted to keep their reputation untarnished.... much like hypocriters as the Pharisees were..... they wanted to be looked as holy......pious...

Act 5:4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."

Had they told the truth they would not have died even if it would have been selfish.
I completely agree with this!
V

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 13th 2008, 08:53 PM
Vhayes,
:hug: nice to meet you again!

I am aware of those scriptures, i just am firm in my belief that they are to be understood differently.



13 - For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. Look at how many examples we have of those that just wanted to appear holy, yet they had no deep understanding of the depth and grace of each law God gave? They were the ones who lived the Law in a superficial way, while their hearts remained uncircumcised. This indicates a lack and or even rejection of the Holy Spirit.

2Th 2:13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

God's Law is perfect, holy and just and good. The truth was revealed through Christ, when He walked the Law by the Spirit.
He still obeyed it, but showed how the law is to be applied: with compassion and love.

Hence, the stoning of people while commanded could only be legally carried out on rare instances in line with the Law. Not to mention the Laws governing a death penalty were quite stringent.
If it was not done right then those who carried out a stoning became murderers.

I was reading and studying a little on the laying on of hands today. And when someone had comitted a crime worthy of stoning the whole congregation was to lay hands on this person, which to me is synomous for enlightening the person regarding their sin, so that the person should be remorseful and repent. In such case one should be given mercy.

If mercy was not given, i have to wonder how many of the OT stonings of which i only counted 5 or 6 i forget exact number were carried out Lawfully.

To apply the Law lawfully is to have love and compassion while carrying out the Law.

Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

God's Law is perfect, holy and just and good. The truth was revealed through Christ, when He walked the Law by the Spirit.

This is how He got away with healing on the Sabbath, because the law of healing someone or helping someone for example on the Sabbath actually superceded the Sabbath law on grounds of Love your neighor as yourself.

The stoning law was given by God because in an extreme case evil had to be put out of the camp, because a little of leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.
Nowhere in the OT does God say you cannot have mercy over a sinner even one with the death penalty.

That this could be done is what Yeshua showed with the adulterous woman which was brought to Him.

It is my hope that many Pharisees that walked out that day admitting their own guilt being sinners themselves that we all are in need of mercy, and that they saw who Yeshua truly was. The scriptures are silent on that as hardly any Pharisee or Sadducee was listed by name in the scriptures.


I know we disagree on these things and I'm trying to be respectful of your beliefs while being firm in mine.
I totally appreciate that, and ditto.
:hug:


Shalom,
Tanja

threebigrocks
Jul 13th 2008, 09:24 PM
I don't think that's what it really was about that they turned lovers of themselves, but rather they wanted to keep their reputation untarnished.... much like hypocriters as the Pharisees were..... they wanted to be looked as holy......pious...

Act 5:4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."

Had they told the truth they would not have died even if it would have been selfish.

But they did lie, and they were struck dead on the spot one right after the other. It is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean, and that stems from the heart. They cared more about keeping a bit for themselves after pledging to give all to the church, to God. The lie they stood on came from the heart. "At their disposal" meant that they would be provided for in the manner of all the others who pooled together money or possessions for the better of the whole. It wasn't as though they had access to nothing at that point. But they lied anyway, even though they knew they would not be left for want of anything.




And i completely disagree with the above statement!!! By Faith they upheld the law!!!

Rom 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Shalom,
Tanja

Galatians 5


16But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.

17For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.


If we are led by the Spirit - we are not under the Law.

To broaden on your Romans 3 passage:

Romans 3


27Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.

28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. 31Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law


Interesting, as I quoted the NASB above that the law is established, not upheld. The Law gets us nothing but condemnation, it drives us to the cross and grace of Christ in the hope we have through the resurrection. The purpose of the Law was to show that we couldn't make ourselves righteous before Christ by anything we did or could do, but only through Christ and being granted His righteousness by faith.

The law is holy and serves it's purpose to expose our sin and inability to save ourselves and directs us to the One who can.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 13th 2008, 10:53 PM
But they did lie, and they were struck dead on the spot one right after the other. It is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean, and that stems from the heart. They cared more about keeping a bit for themselves after pledging to give all to the church....
TBR, the lie was not the root sin, it was the motive itself that caused them to lie which was the reason they were struck dead. The lie was only a superficial manifestation of a much deeper and underlying issue which was not good.

At their disposal meant that even once they sold the property they could have kept it all... It was their choice what to do with the funds.

Obviously i'm reading the scriptures differently. :P

As for walking in the Spirit and therefore not carrying out the desires of the flesh.

I agree with what the verse says, however that does not change my conclusion about the Law, as the Spirit gives you the Law... from superficial down to the deep end.
And by that teaching of the Spirit i walk.

The difference in viewing these scriptures comes when one considers works of Law to be the bad thing instead of considering it to be works done apart from the Spirit.

If you hold to that understanding of those scriptures you run into a conflict with James:

Jas 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

At least the way i see it.

Shalom,
Tanja

threebigrocks
Jul 14th 2008, 01:03 AM
I agree with what the verse says, however that does not change my conclusion about the Law, as the Spirit gives you the Law... from superficial down to the deep end.
And by that teaching of the Spirit i walk.

The difference in viewing these scriptures comes when one considers works of Law to be the bad thing instead of considering it to be works done apart from the Spirit.

If you hold to that understanding of those scriptures you run into a conflict with James:

Jas 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

At least the way i see it.

Shalom,
Tanja

But the law is good. Never said it wasn't. But we aren't to follow the law. Works of faith produce fruit, no law needed. They go hand in hand - if you are of Christ, you will do works that please Him by following His commands. They are summarized in loving your God with all you are and your neighbor as yourself. Nothing we do earns us salvation but Christ and Christ alone.

Still no comment on the Isaiah scripture from you.

There is no conflict. But before I take this where the OP couldn't have possibly imagined I'll let it go. We can address this in another thread.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 14th 2008, 04:15 AM
Nothing we do earns us salvation but Christ and Christ alone.
I agree.... no arguement from me there. Yet i believe that works out of faith are required too be eligible for salvation.


Still no comment on the Isaiah scripture from you.
Where was it? I must have missed that Tell me the verses again please and i will comment.

Shalom,
Tanja

Gift of God
Jul 14th 2008, 02:34 PM
And i completely disagree with the above statement!!! By Faith they upheld the law!!!

Tanja, you need to understand the context of Paul's statement in Romans and Galatians. We uphold the law because it is a tutor to lead people to Christ so they may be justified by faith, but once we have faith we are no longer under a tutor.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 14th 2008, 04:27 PM
Tanja, you need to understand the context of Paul's statement in Romans and Galatians. We uphold the law because it is a tutor to lead people to Christ so they may be justified by faith, but once we have faith we are no longer under a tutor.Are you perfect now to the point you no longer need a tutor?
I'm not sure about you, but as for myself i know that i'm still in need of a tutor as i'm not perfect. The blood of Yeshua covers my sins, but til death of my fleshly body and resurrection i will not be perfect.
I will continue to learn til the day i die.
Everything i need to understand God is teaching me, and IMO it's a (life)long process.

Shalom,
Tanja

RoadWarrior
Jul 14th 2008, 04:32 PM
Are you perfect now to the point you no longer need a tutor?
I'm not sure about you, but as for myself i know that i'm still in need of a tutor as i'm not perfect. The blood of Yeshua covers my sins, but til death of my fleshly body and resurrection i will not be perfect.
I will continue to learn til the day i die.
Everything i need to understand God is teaching me, and IMO it's a (life)long process.

Shalom,
Tanja

Hi Tanja,

I agree with this. I don't have cut and dried doctrine for all this about law and faith, but I know that the more I study the Bible (including the law) the more I learn about the character and personality of God. My ability to understand the meaning of the Tanach began when I accepted Jesus as my Savior, and He began to open my eyes to His truth.

ProjectPeter
Jul 14th 2008, 04:34 PM
Are you perfect now to the point you no longer need a tutor?
I'm not sure about you, but as for myself i know that i'm still in need of a tutor as i'm not perfect. The blood of Yeshua covers my sins, but til death of my fleshly body and resurrection i will not be perfect.
I will continue to learn til the day i die.
Everything i need to understand God is teaching me, and IMO it's a (life)long process.

Shalom,
Tanja
Galatians 3:24 *Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.
25 *But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
26 *For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

NO! We no longer need the tutor. That is exactly Paul's point. If faith has come (if you truly believe and are clothed in Christ) you no longer need it... sure enough... no doubt.

RoadWarrior
Jul 14th 2008, 04:40 PM
We may be struggling with semantics in this discussion. The Holy Spirit is the one who "brings all things to our remembrance" according to the gosepl of John, and is a far better and more reliable teacher than man in 1 John. Yet He is still a teacher.

For those of us who grew up with no knowledge of the OT, and have discovered it as adult Christians, there is a wealth of information in those books.

When the Bereans "searched the scriptures to see if these things be so", it was the Tanach that they searched - the NT did not yet exist.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 14th 2008, 04:52 PM
NO! We no longer need the tutor. That is exactly Paul's point. If faith has come (if you truly believe and are clothed in Christ) you no longer need it... sure enough... no doubt.
Is your faith complete yet? Look at what happened here:

Mat 14:28 And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water."
Mat 14:29 He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus.
Mat 14:30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me."
Mat 14:31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"

It shows that this faith was not yet solid/full enough for Peter to to walk on water. He sunk, because he was still learning and growing.

That's my point. I do not deny that once you are full of Faith that you will no longer need a tutor. It needs time and discipleship to get there. Perhaps this is confusing to you, as i'm still considering myself at that stage. Praise God if you are already ahead of that.

And thanks RoadWarrior for your understanding:


The Holy Spirit is the one who "brings all things to our remembrance" according to the gosepl of John, and is a far better and more reliable teacher than man in 1 John. Yet He is still a teacher.



Shalom,
Tanja

ProjectPeter
Jul 14th 2008, 05:20 PM
We may be struggling with semantics in this discussion. The Holy Spirit is the one who "brings all things to our remembrance" according to the gosepl of John, and is a far better and more reliable teacher than man in 1 John. Yet He is still a teacher.

For those of us who grew up with no knowledge of the OT, and have discovered it as adult Christians, there is a wealth of information in those books.

When the Bereans "searched the scriptures to see if these things be so", it was the Tanach that they searched - the NT did not yet exist.
There is a wealth of information as well as TONS of value in the examples we have in there. As the New Testament makes clear... it is there for our example.

Yet when it comes to keeping the Law as Gentiles... why would anyone want to go under that bondage that even the Jews couldn't keep? That's really not semantics.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 14th 2008, 05:30 PM
The law is not bondage... that's just not the way i see it!! If God took all of His people out of Egypt, to enslave them again??? I just don't think so.

The Law coupled with the Holy Spirit sets you free.

He (the Holy Spirit) leads you into all truth but i do not see that that truth would be anything but a correct understanding of the Law. The Law has been called good and holy and just. I do not see the Law as somehting bad. Infact it was never bad, what was bad was the way people took it upon themselves and rejected the Holy Spirit.

Whcih scripture says the Law is bondage?

Shalom,
Tanja

ProjectPeter
Jul 14th 2008, 05:41 PM
Is your faith complete yet? Look at what happened here:

Mat 14:28 And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water."
Mat 14:29 He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus.
Mat 14:30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me."
Mat 14:31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"

It shows that this faith was not yet solid/full enough for Peter to to walk on water. He sunk, because he was still learning and growing.

That's my point. I do not deny that once you are full of Faith that you will no longer need a tutor. It needs time and discipleship to get there. Perhaps this is confusing to you, as i'm still considering myself at that stage. Praise God if you are already ahead of that.

And thanks RoadWarrior for your understanding:




Shalom,
TanjaIt wasn't faith in the Law nor Peter's following of the Law that ever allowed him to walk on water (and he did walk on water UNTIL he sunk). The Law didn't empower folks... the Lord does. ;)

ProjectPeter
Jul 14th 2008, 05:56 PM
The law is not bondage... that's just not the way i see it!! If God took all of His people out of Egypt, to enslave them again??? I just don't think so.

The Law coupled with the Holy Spirit sets you free.

He (the Holy Spirit) leads you into all truth but i do not see that that truth would be anything but a correct understanding of the Law. The Law has been called good and holy and just. I do not see the Law as somehting bad. Infact it was never bad, what was bad was the way people took it upon themselves and rejected the Holy Spirit.

Whcih scripture says the Law is bondage?

Shalom,
TanjaNaturally you already know but for the sake of folks reading along...

Acts 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 "And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;
9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.
10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
11 "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."


Here they were debating on whether or not the Gentiles should follow the Law of Moses and be circumcised. Peter make clear it is a yoke.

Then there is the ever popular...

Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
2 ¶Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.

RoadWarrior
Jul 14th 2008, 07:00 PM
There is a wealth of information as well as TONS of value in the examples we have in there. As the New Testament makes clear... it is there for our example.

Yet when it comes to keeping the Law as Gentiles... why would anyone want to go under that bondage that even the Jews couldn't keep? That's really not semantics.

I see a difference in being "under the law" and in "having the law written on my heart." I think it is very difficult to express how important the second is, when the first is so heavy in everyone's minds.

When I was a law student, I learned to look behind the law itself, to the reason why the law had been written - find the principle behind the written law. This was about secular law of course, but the concept carries over for me into the Biblical law.

Thus, I do not seek to "keep the letter of the law" as the Pharisees had come to do, but to obey and walk in the principles of God that were expressed in the written scriptures, both old and new.

But that's just my path. I realize others may not agree with me on that.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 14th 2008, 07:46 PM
Ken,
In response to your previous post #54.

The yoke of bondage was only going to happen if they would fall back to the sin of observing the law not with what the Spirit put in their hearts but going much by the letter as did many Pharisees.

It was not to say that the law itself is the bondage, but that the falling back to observing the law just for the sake of observing it was what made it a bondage.

This is why Paul said:

Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.
Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Some of these Gallatians were hearing "you must be circumcised in order for God to accept you". And this is totally contrary to the Gospel of Christ.

Rom 2:29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Hearing with faith is different than works of the law, but to someone not trained in discernment it may appear to be the same. aka Wheat and Tares.

Hearing in Faith does not exclude the Law however as Roadwarrior pointed out, it's about the reason behind the law that the law was created.

The reason we parents make rules is out of love for our children to keep them safe and on a good path. This is not bondage when a child obeys the parent but it means freedom....

Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 14th 2008, 07:52 PM
Let me rephrase that for it might be easier to understand:

The law observed just out of fleshly motives to attain rightousness is what puts one in bondage as it is a dead walk with no fruit. See the Pharisees that Yeshua confronted numeropus times.

The Law observed in the heart through the Spirit is life and freedom.
See how Yeshua walked in the Spirit of the Law, and was free and without condemnation?

I have to echo this:

I see a difference in being "under the law" and in "having the law written on my heart." I think it is very difficult to express how important the second is, when the first is so heavy in everyone's minds.There is indeed a difference and the difference is not in the Law itself but in the person who either uses it lawfully or abuses it.

It was never the law that needed changing, but the people.

Shalom,
Tanja

ProjectPeter
Jul 14th 2008, 07:53 PM
I see a difference in being "under the law" and in "having the law written on my heart." I think it is very difficult to express how important the second is, when the first is so heavy in everyone's minds.

When I was a law student, I learned to look behind the law itself, to the reason why the law had been written - find the principle behind the written law. This was about secular law of course, but the concept carries over for me into the Biblical law.

Thus, I do not seek to "keep the letter of the law" as the Pharisees had come to do, but to obey and walk in the principles of God that were expressed in the written scriptures, both old and new.

But that's just my path. I realize others may not agree with me on that.What law are you speaking of? The 613 Laws of Mosees? The Laws of God (Ten Commandments) etc? See the broadness of such a statement! One must CLARIFY!!!! Otherwise we still aren't sure what one is speaking of!!! ;)

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 14th 2008, 07:53 PM
Ken i really wish you would understand that... i'm not a legalist. Not at all.

Shalom,
Tanja

ProjectPeter
Jul 14th 2008, 07:57 PM
Ken,
In response to your previous post #54.

The yoke of bondage was only going to happen if they would fall back to the sin of observing the law not with what the Spirit put in their hearts but going much by the letter as did many Pharisees.

It was not to say that the law itself is the bondage, but that the falling back to observing the law just for the sake of observing it was what made it a bondage.

This is why Paul said:

Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.
Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Some of these Gallatians were hearing "you must be circumcised in order for God to accept you". And this is totally contrary to the Gospel of Christ.

Rom 2:29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Hearing with faith is different than works of the law, but to someone not trained in discernment it may appear to be the same. aka Wheat and Tares.

Hearing in Faith does not exclude the Law however as Roadwarrior pointed out, it's about the reason behind the law that the law was created.

The reason we parents make rules is out of love for our children to keep them safe and on a good path. This is not bondage when a child obeys the parent but it means freedom....

Shalom,
TanjaOkay... tell me then. In regard to righteousness... what good is physical circumcision? What point was God making in having Abraham and the others do such as this? Now... you can go on with all the added stuff you just wrote which really isn't in Acts 15 and all... but if one is a Christian, in order to be obedient to the Word.... does one need be circumcised? And please... a yes or no would really be cool because that is really the only two viable answers you can give. Everything else is just wrapping something so no one can really know what's inside.

ProjectPeter
Jul 14th 2008, 07:59 PM
Let me rephrase that for it might be easier to understand:

The law observed just out of fleshly motives to attain rightousness is what puts one in bondage as it is a dead walk with no fruit. See the Pharisees that Yeshua confronted numeropus times.

The Law observed in the heart through the Spirit is life and freedom.
See how Yeshua walked in the Spirit of the Law, and was free and without condemnation?

I have to echo this:
There is indeed a difference and the difference is not in the Law itself but in the person who either uses it lawfully or abuses it.

It was never the law that needed changing, but the people.

Shalom,
TanjaProblem is Tanja... God gave them the additional Law because they WOULDN'T change. ;)

ProjectPeter
Jul 14th 2008, 08:00 PM
Ken i really wish you would understand that... i'm not a legalist. Not at all.

Shalom,
Tanja
Answer post 60 and let that be the judge. ;)

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 14th 2008, 08:03 PM
What law are you speaking of? The 613 Laws of Mosees? The Laws of God (Ten Commandments) etc? See the broadness of such a statement! One must CLARIFY!!!! Otherwise we still aren't sure what one is speaking of!!!

Ok, let me try to clarify.

First the law of Moses is yet still the Law of God, but called Law of Moses because he was the one through whom it came to the people. Aside from the ten, when God spoke and the people were afraid and they didn't want to hear God because they were afraid.

So God gave the basics, and through Moses came the clarification of those ten. A deeper level if you will.

If the law of Moses was contrary to God then God would not have permitted it to be there and written down for not a jot or tittle of the law will disappeasr til the end of time.

The Law run down to the two basic principles (Love God and love your neighbor) on which all the Law hangs does not seem to be very broad or deep.

Hence all the extra Laws 2=10=613 The two encompass the twn and the ten encompass the 613.
It was spelled out so people could perhaps grasp the depth of the law and begin to understand.

While an infant may feel love, it still won't know the depth of love til years later. Same with the law two commandments seems easy, but who knows the deoth of it?

That's why God gave us the Spirit to understand, and the Spirit is not opposed to the 613..... there's much harmony to be found if one is just willing to study it out.


Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 14th 2008, 08:13 PM
Okay... tell me then. In regard to righteousness... what good is physical circumcision? What point was God making in having Abraham and the others do such as this? Now... you can go on with all the added stuff you just wrote which really isn't in Acts 15 and all... but if one is a Christian, in order to be obedient to the Word.... does one need be circumcised? And please... a yes or no would really be cool because that is really the only two viable answers you can give. Everything else is just wrapping something so no one can really know what's inside.Ken,
The apostles loosed the law regarding physical circumcision, and so i say: No it's not required, what God wants is circumcision of the heart.

However, here's the kicker: Since God required it to be a physical outward manifestation of a circumcised heart, i would say it is not wrong for a person who feels such conviction to take God up on that command.

The reason the apostles loosed that one Law regarding to circumcision of the foreskin (penile/outward circumcision), was because the legalistic Jews said that without outward circumcision the Galatians could not enter the covenant with God.

So what good is physical circumcision?
Nothing unless your heart has been circumcised first.
Also, the apostles said that each is to remain as they entered.

Shalom,
Tanja

ProjectPeter
Jul 14th 2008, 08:21 PM
Ok, let me try to clarify.

First the law of Moses is yet still the Law of God, but called Law of Moses because he was the one through whom it came to the people. Aside from the ten, when God spoke and the people were afraid and they didn't want to hear God because they were afraid.

So God gave the basics, and through Moses came the clarification of those ten. A deeper level if you will.

If the law of Moses was contrary to God then God would not have permitted it to be there and written down for not a jot or tittle of the law will disappeasr til the end of time.

The Law run down to the two basic principles (Love God and love your neighbor) on which all the Law hangs does not seem to be very broad or deep.

Hence all the extra Laws 2=10=613 The two encompass the twn and the ten encompass the 613.
It was spelled out so people could perhaps grasp the depth of the law and begin to understand.

While an infant may feel love, it still won't know the depth of love til years later. Same with the law two commandments seems easy, but who knows the deoth of it?

That's why God gave us the Spirit to understand, and the Spirit is not opposed to the 613..... there's much harmony to be found if one is just willing to study it out.


Shalom,
TanjaI understand how you believe it. :D That's why I asked RW how she saw it!


I have to take apart the sink and do some repair work... I'll respond to yours in about 2 billion hours when I fix this thing! :lol:

ProjectPeter
Jul 14th 2008, 08:23 PM
You skirted the answer. Read what I asked carefully because you worded your way all around what I asked.

For a Christian to ultimately be obedient to God's Word... a Gentile Christian... do they need to be physically circumcised?

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 14th 2008, 08:36 PM
I don't think i skirted the answer at all Ken.

But let me rephrase:

To be obedient to God's Word they need to be circumcised in their Heart, so No, they do not need a physical circumcision.

How that is different from what i wrote before is beyond me:


No it's not required, what God wants is circumcision of the heart.
Does that satisfy you better?

Shalom,
Tanja

ProjectPeter
Jul 14th 2008, 09:03 PM
I don't think i skirted the answer at all Ken.

But let me rephrase:

To be obedient to God's Word they need to be circumcised in their Heart, so No, they do not need a physical circumcision.

How that is different from what i wrote before is beyond me:

Does that satisfy you better?

Shalom,
Tanja
So then one need not obey the Law of Moses to be obedient? I hope you see the confusion there Tanja because that is what you often say.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 14th 2008, 09:48 PM
So then one need not obey the Law of Moses to be obedient? I hope you see the confusion there Tanja because that is what you often say.That is where i believe you err in understanding.

The Law of the outward circumcision being relaxed does not mean that all the other OT law was relaxed as well.
You cannot equate circumcision with all of the OT Law. The law that the apostles in the NT relaxed was ONLY the Law regarding circumcision. Because that was the point on which the legalists were hinging a covenant status.
They said if you don't circumcise you can't be saved, regardless of whether they loved God and kept kosher or didn't kill etc....

Act 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
It was not a question of the whole OT law but a question of circumcision.

Shalom,
Tanja

ProjectPeter
Jul 14th 2008, 11:43 PM
That is where i believe you err in understanding.

The Law of the outward circumcision being relaxed does not mean that all the other OT law was relaxed as well.
You cannot equate circumcision with all of the OT Law. The law that the apostles in the NT relaxed was ONLY the Law regarding circumcision. Because that was the point on which the legalists were hinging a covenant status.
They said if you don't circumcise you can't be saved, regardless of whether they loved God and kept kosher or didn't kill etc....

Act 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
It was not a question of the whole OT law but a question of circumcision.

Shalom,
TanjaGood. So now that you accept that as "relaxed" then let's go further since you now have set a precedence for yourself here. ;)


Acts 15:4 And when they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them.
5 But certain ones of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed, stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."
6 ¶And the apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter.
7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 "And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;
9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.
10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
11 "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."


Tanja... look at the RED highlight. That is what the debate was about. That is what Peter called a yoke. That is why they wrote the letter and NOT JUST THE APOSTLE's, and ELDERS... but the Holy Spirit as well. So what Law were they talking about Tanja?

Partaker of Christ
Jul 15th 2008, 12:25 AM
Let me rephrase that for it might be easier to understand:

The law observed just out of fleshly motives to attain rightousness is what puts one in bondage as it is a dead walk with no fruit. See the Pharisees that Yeshua confronted numeropus times.

The Law observed in the heart through the Spirit is life and freedom.
See how Yeshua walked in the Spirit of the Law, and was free and without condemnation?

I have to echo this:
There is indeed a difference and the difference is not in the Law itself but in the person who either uses it lawfully or abuses it.

It was never the law that needed changing, but the people.

Shalom,
Tanja

1Tim 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Tim 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Our faith in Christ, is our righteousness.

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

The law is there for the flesh, because the flesh is corrupt.
If we live by the law, we claim to live by the flesh.

The Spirit is without sin, and does not need the law. We live and walk by the spirit (new life) that is without sin.

If everyone had lived righteously, then there would have never been a law given. What is the point of having a law, when there are no law breakers.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.


Php 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

The law is given for our own righteousness (self righteousness), but since we cannot keep all of the law all of the time, we cannot have our own righteousness.

God has judged that the flesh is no good, and that the flesh (old man) should die. We have therefore been crucified with Christ. We are no longer debtors to the flesh.

Baptism is our burial. When we get baptised, we are accepting Gods judgment on our old man, and we are accepting our death with Christ. If we do not accept this, then we are buried alive.

There has to be death, before there can be a resurrection (new life)

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 15th 2008, 02:50 AM
"It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."That does not mean they were saying to direct them to all the Law of Moses, rather they are referring to the circumcision as being the part of the law of Moses they needed to be directed to.

Do you know that most Jews never even expected the Gentile proselytes to live up to all their law of Moses? So in light of that historical fact this verse would not make any sense to read it the way you do.

Shalom,
Tanja

threebigrocks
Jul 15th 2008, 02:59 AM
Isaiah 1:10-18 makes it clear that God doesn't want our rituals, sacrafices, observances but our whole selves with no holding back.

Tanja, this is the scripture that I was asking about which you either missed or had forgotten about. Even back in Isaiah's day God was tired and quite displeased with all the ritual of the Law. Thing is, it still remained during those times - until Christ.

Vhayes
Jul 15th 2008, 03:33 AM
Is your faith complete yet? Look at what happened here:

Mat 14:28 And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water."
Mat 14:29 He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus.
Mat 14:30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me."
Mat 14:31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"

It shows that this faith was not yet solid/full enough for Peter to to walk on water. He sunk, because he was still learning and growing.

Hi Tanja -

What did Peter have yet to learn about the Law? Wasn't he an Israelite, a Hebrew?

Peter began to sink because he took his focus off of Jesus and began looking at his circumstances. Any time we take our focus off of Jesus and make something else more important, we are in danger of sinking just like Peter.

V

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 15th 2008, 04:04 AM
Hi Tanja -

What did Peter have yet to learn about the Law? Wasn't he an Israelite, a Hebrew?
Just because he knew the scriptures doesn't mean he knew the Spirit of everything. He had one advantage that he knew the scriptures well, but otherwise he was lacking understanding as many Christians still do.

Peter began to sink because he took his focus off of Jesus and began looking at his circumstances.
I don't think he sank because of looking at circumstances, but rather i believe it was his leaning onto his own understanding that made him sink.
His mind therefore could not graps that spiritual thing that allowed Yeshua to walk on the water. That's why he was "little of faith"
He still had much to learn.

Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 15th 2008, 04:12 AM
Tanja, this is the scripture that I was asking about which you either missed or had forgotten about. Even back in Isaiah's day God was tired and quite displeased with all the ritual of the Law. Thing is, it still remained during those times - until Christ.

TBR, it eludes me how you can think that God would be tired and displeased of people doing something he himself had commanded. So perhaps we need to look at the fact that something he commanded to do cannot be bad, but that his commandments are good just and holy.
So why was God displeased?

I think it was because the people were worshiping Him in vain. They were not putting their heart into it. They were legalistically and ritualistically going throi8gh the motions and not meaning a thing.

It would be akin to someone saying "i love you" then turning their back to either indulge themselves or worse showering all their attention on someone else.

Here's part of a verse that explains this to be the case:

"I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly."
They were not truly repentant.

Isa 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.
Isa 1:19 If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land;
Isa 1:20 but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."
Isa 1:21 How the faithful city has become a whore, she who was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.

God is seeing a people who formerly loved him and have fallen to apostasy, yet they continued their play with God as if everything was ok.

Shalom,
Tanja

talmidim
Jul 15th 2008, 12:16 PM
Shalom All,

I have read through the thread and I see a lot of the same old 'Law vs Grace' misunderstanding that always makes me roll my eyes. But when I started thinking about it, I realized that the difference between the two arguments is really very small. So if you will please allow me some grace, I will try to explain what I mean.

The presupposed dichotomy of the 'Grace vs Law' is false in my view. And this for more than one reason. The giving of the original 'Law' at Sinai is the very picture of grace. It is the addition of all the precepts and statutes given for the administration of the commonwealth of Israel and the moral guidance of its people in a very specific environment that seems to confuse everyone. That and the teachings of Paul.

Paul called Peter, John and James 'supports', implying that their teachings were foundational. But Peter called Paul two things, a dear brother and hard to understand. Now please note that Peter is already schooled in the basics of Judaism from his youth and then spent three very intensive years learning from the Master the true meaning of the Word. But he says that Paul is hard to understand. And I think we should take Peter's observation to heart.

Paul was a genius. Ever sit in a room with a bona fide Genius? They tend to say things that require the listener understand a lot. Statements will be made that are way above your head. And then you might say that you understand this and that, but what was meant by this? Then the genius may take pity and come get you. You will be led by the hand through their logic until you can both see the same conclusion.

Paul memorized all of Torah verbatim before his bar mitzvah at age twelve. And though that is exceptional, it was just one of the requirement to be accepted as a student of Gamaliel, the leading sage of Israel. But Paul was more than just a student. He became Gamaliel's star pupil and protege. By the time he was a young man, he was an authority on all the scriptures, the commentaries and judgments of the sages and the priests, and all the writings of the Hebrew people. And he was being groomed for great things.

So how many of us can claim a pedigree anything like that? My guess is not many. The teachings of Paul are hard to understand, even for those that were raise in a culture that had no other literature or national pastime except the scriptures and the the things written about the scriptures.

In order to understand Paul's statements about 'the Law', we need to define what the the term meant. In Paul's day, there were several things that were meant by 'the Law'.


It could mean the Ten Commandments that were given at Sinai.

It could mean the Torah, the first five books of scripture.

It could mean the Levitical laws that governed the Temple service and the functions of the pristhood.

It could mean the commentary of the 'Elders' that were popularly called the 'Oral Torah'.

Or it could mean all of the above inclusively.


So taking a verse or two from Paul's letters to shore up a point about 'the Law' may not be as convincing to some as to others. And this is just one expression. There are many other things to consider when trying to understand what Paul meant in his letters. And those of us that think that modern western and ancient eastern are not that different styles of thought might wish to reconsider.

And finally, please remember that the letters that Paul wrote were to congregations that he personally discipled, some for months and some for years. And since most of the early church was led by Jews, Paul had no concern that his missives would be greatly misconstrued. But today, we are thousands of years and many cultural boundaries away from the original context of Paul's letters. The writings of Paul are definitely a product of his culture, his abilities and his training. To assume otherwise is folly.

A couple of things we know for sure. Paul taught that the Levitical laws had changed for all because of the Messiah becoming the High Priest in heaven. And he believed that both the Oral traditions of the Elders and the statutes for the administration of the commonwealth of Israel did not apply to the gentile believer. But he also taught that the Sabbaths and the New Moons and the 'Holy Days' were a shadow of things to come. And he and all the Apostles agreed that the gentiles should do certain things so that they could fellowship with the Jews at synagogue 'where Moses was taught every Sabbath'. So not all of 'the Law' applies as some 'Messianics' claim. And not all of 'the Law' is as useless as some 'Christians' profess.

So when it comes to relying on a paraphrase of an English translation of the Greek letters written by a Hebrew scholar, I would be very skeptical. I believe that some of the strongly held beliefs that I see in this thread will be changed in the day that we no longer 'see as though through a glass darkly'. But that is my take on thing. And that could change too...;)

ProjectPeter
Jul 15th 2008, 12:39 PM
That does not mean they were saying to direct them to all the Law of Moses, rather they are referring to the circumcision as being the part of the law of Moses they needed to be directed to.

Do you know that most Jews never even expected the Gentile proselytes to live up to all their law of Moses? So in light of that historical fact this verse would not make any sense to read it the way you do.

Shalom,
TanjaRead it the way I do? Tanja... that is what it says! Goodness... it ain't about reading it the way I do. It is about what it very simply says!

And look at what Paul says Tanya...

Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
2 ¶Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.


Get it yet?

ProjectPeter
Jul 15th 2008, 12:43 PM
Just because he knew the scriptures doesn't mean he knew the Spirit of everything. He had one advantage that he knew the scriptures well, but otherwise he was lacking understanding as many Christians still do.

I don't think he sank because of looking at circumstances, but rather i believe it was his leaning onto his own understanding that made him sink.
His mind therefore could not graps that spiritual thing that allowed Yeshua to walk on the water. That's why he was "little of faith"
He still had much to learn.

Shalom,
Tanja
I am now truly convinced that there are folks that just make stuff up as they go!

ProjectPeter
Jul 15th 2008, 12:45 PM
Shalom All,

I have read through the thread and I see a lot of the same old 'Law vs Grace' misunderstanding that always makes me roll my eyes. But when I started thinking about it, I realized that the difference between the two arguments is really very small. So if you will please allow me some grace, I will try to explain what I mean.

The presupposed dichotomy of the 'Grace vs Law' is false in my view. And this for more than one reason. The giving of the original 'Law' at Sinai is the very picture of grace. It is the addition of all the precepts and statutes given for the administration of the commonwealth of Israel and the moral guidance of its people in a very specific environment that seems to confuse everyone. That and the teachings of Paul.

Paul called Peter, John and James 'supports', implying that their teachings were foundational. But Peter called Paul two things, a dear brother and hard to understand. Now please note that Peter is already schooled in the basics of Judaism from his youth and then spent three very intensive years learning from the Master the true meaning of the Word. But he says that Paul is hard to understand. And I think we should take Peter's observation to heart.

Paul was a genius. Ever sit in a room with a bona fide Genius? They tend to say things that require the listener understand a lot. Statements will be made that are way above your head. And then you might say that you understand this and that, but what was meant by this? Then the genius may take pity and come get you. You will be led by the hand through their logic until you can both see the same conclusion.

Paul memorized all of Torah verbatim before his bar mitzvah at age twelve. And though that is exceptional, it was just one of the requirement to be accepted as a student of Gamaliel, the leading sage of Israel. But Paul was more than just a student. He became Gamaliel's star pupil and protege. By the time he was a young man, he was an authority on all the scriptures, the commentaries and judgments of the sages and the priests, and all the writings of the Hebrew people. And he was being groomed for great things.

So how many of us can claim a pedigree anything like that? My guess is not many. The teachings of Paul are hard to understand, even for those that were raise in a culture that had no other literature or national pastime except the scriptures and the the things written about the scriptures.

In order to understand Paul's statements about 'the Law', we need to define what the the term meant. In Paul's day, there were several things that were meant by 'the Law'.


It could mean the Ten Commandments that were given at Sinai.

It could mean the Torah, the first five books of scripture.

It could mean the Levitical laws that governed the Temple service and the functions of the pristhood.

It could mean the commentary of the 'Elders' that were popularly called the 'Oral Torah'.

Or it could mean all of the above inclusively.


So taking a verse or two from Paul's letters to shore up a point about 'the Law' may not be as convincing to some as to others. And this is just one expression. There are many other things to consider when trying to understand what Paul meant in his letters. And those of us that think that modern western and ancient eastern are not that different styles of thought might wish to reconsider.

And finally, please remember that the letters that Paul wrote were to congregations that he personally discipled, some for months and some for years. And since most of the early church was led by Jews, Paul had no concern that his missives would be greatly misconstrued. But today, we are thousands of years and many cultural boundaries away from the original context of Paul's letters. The writings of Paul are definitely a product of his culture, his abilities and his training. To assume otherwise is folly.

A couple of things we know for sure. Paul taught that the Levitical laws had changed for all because of the Messiah becoming the High Priest in heaven. And he believed that both the Oral traditions of the Elders and the statutes for the administration of the commonwealth of Israel did not apply to the gentile believer. But he also taught that the Sabbaths and the New Moons and the 'Holy Days' were a shadow of things to come. And he and all the Apostles agreed that the gentiles should do certain things so that they could fellowship with the Jews at synagogue 'where Moses was taught every Sabbath'. So not all of 'the Law' applies as some 'Messianics' claim. And not all of 'the Law' is as useless as some 'Christians' profess.

So when it comes to relying on a paraphrase of an English translation of the Greek letters written by a Hebrew scholar, I would be very skeptical. I believe that some of the strongly held beliefs that I see in this thread will be changed in the day that we no longer 'see as though through a glass darkly'. But that is my take on thing. And that could change too...;)



Tell me this... do you believe that the Word is a living Word?

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 15th 2008, 01:08 PM
I am now truly convinced that there are folks that just make stuff up as they go!That's a shame you'd think that way.

Tanja

threebigrocks
Jul 15th 2008, 03:06 PM
TBR, it eludes me how you can think that God would be tired and displeased of people doing something he himself had commanded.

Uh, because it says so?

Isaiah 1

11 “What makes you think I want all your sacrifices?”
says the Lord.
“I am sick of your burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of fattened cattle.
I get no pleasure from the blood
of bulls and lambs and goats.
12 When you come to worship me,
who asked you to parade through my courts with all your ceremony?
13 Stop bringing me your meaningless gifts;
the incense of your offerings disgusts me!
As for your celebrations of the new moon and the Sabbath
and your special days for fasting—
they are all sinful and false.
I want no more of your pious meetings.

Sacrafice and burnt offerings He didn't desire. This verse goes on to say that God didn't even hear their prayers any longer. Simply going through the motions and adhering to the law didn't get them favor in the eyes of God. He likened them to Sodom and Gemorrah for their actions. They did as God asked, right? Sabbaths, goats and fat of the calf. Bulls, iincense, celebrations.

Man could only be sinful because it's his nature. The law exposes that which is clearly seen in these verses. That is why God sent His Son. The law was a stumbling block to faith. Why hang onto what trips us up today when we've got Jesus? He was the final sacrafice, perfect, and fufilled all that it was so we would no longer be subject to it but to grace. Through Christ is the only way to please God.

ProjectPeter
Jul 15th 2008, 08:38 PM
That's a shame you'd think that way.

Tanja
What does that passage actually say Tanja? Add nothing to it just simply what does it say?

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 15th 2008, 09:11 PM
Never mind PP, i believe the historical and cultural context is lost on you. While scriptures are timeless in that their application never diminishes, the actual understanding of some things definitely depends on an understanding of cultural and historical facts.
With that said i bow out of this discussion as well.

Shalom,
Tanja

ProjectPeter
Jul 15th 2008, 09:20 PM
What has culture to do with it Tanja?

They debated.

Debate Topic: Gentiles must be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses.

Right or wrong? Culture has nothing to do with that and one needs no history lesson to understand that fact... right?

keck553
Jul 15th 2008, 09:38 PM
Project Peter, I have a question. When you read Hebrews, do you think the writer is replacing old with new, or using v'chomer arguments (like Jesus did)? Why aren't you so animate about Pauls teachings regarding the pagan traditions Greeks brought into the synagogue? He struggled just as much against those legalistic traditions.

What God has always wanted was relationship. That has never changed. The prophets knew this and they also understood well that thier brethren were reciting, but not practicing She'ma Israel in thier hearts. That's all that God wanted from them. In the 'Old Testament', God redeemed a lot of folks who disobeyed 'the law'. Why? For the same reason He redeems anyone who repents and accepts His Son as thier sin offering, Lord and Savior. Obedience to God is evidence of salvation, not a path to salvation. That has never changed, and it never will change.

You don't think culture matters? Who do you think created the Jewish culture? Jews? Egyptians? Greeks? If God inspired the Jewish culture, don't you think there might be some profitable characteristics to glean?

Just because the Jews (and not all of them) screwed up God's perfect, PERFECT Torah, and just because Christians (and not all of them) screw up Jesus' PERFECT teachings (Torah) to this day, why do you assign the failures of man to the character of God? You do believe Jesus is the same Eloheim who gave Torah at Sinai, don't you?

God doesn't change. The grace He gave to the Hebrews in is no different than the grace He gives us, in spite of our sin and disobedience. If God changes and decides to extend His grace to us now, what's to stop Him from getting torqued at our unbelief and disobedience and change His mind about us next weekl?

You can't have it both ways. We can only accept God's Way. We conform to His image, and His image is detailed in all 66 books of the bible, not just a few misunderstood and wrongly taught verses from Paul. When I don't know what to do, I just look to see what Jesus did. Jesus will never become a Greek to please us. Ever.

talmidim
Jul 15th 2008, 09:44 PM
Project Peter, do you observe the Ten Commandments? If so then we already agree on much.

keck553
Jul 15th 2008, 10:01 PM
I'll wager it's 9 :B

ProjectPeter
Jul 15th 2008, 10:04 PM
Project Peter, I have a question. When you read Hebrews, do you think the writer is replacing old with new, or using v'chomer arguments (like Jesus did)? Why aren't you so animate about Pauls teachings regarding the pagan traditions Greeks brought into the synagogue? He struggled just as much against those legalistic traditions.

What God has always wanted was relationship. That has never changed. The prophets knew this and they also understood well that thier brethren were reciting, but not practicing She'ma Israel in thier hearts. That's all that God wanted from them. In the 'Old Testament', God redeemed a lot of folks who disobeyed 'the law'. Why? For the same reason He redeems anyone who repents and accepts His Son as thier sin offering, Lord and Savior. Obedience to God is evidence of salvation, not a path to salvation. That has never changed, and it never will change.

You don't think culture matters? Who do you think created the Jewish culture? Jews? Egyptians? Greeks? If God inspired the Jewish culture, don't you think there might be some profitable characteristics to glean?

Just because the Jews (and not all of them) screwed up God's perfect, PERFECT Torah, and just because Christians (and not all of them) screw up Jesus' PERFECT teachings (Torah) to this day, why do you assign the failures of man to the character of God? You do believe Jesus is the same Eloheim who gave Torah at Sinai, don't you?

God doesn't change. The grace He gave to the Hebrews in is no different than the grace He gives us, in spite of our sin and disobedience. If God changes and decides to extend His grace to us now, what's to stop Him from getting torqued at our unbelief and disobedience and change His mind about us next weekl?

You can't have it both ways. We can only accept God's Way. We conform to His image, and His image is detailed in all 66 books of the bible, not just a few misunderstood and wrongly taught verses from Paul. When I don't know what to do, I just look to see what Jesus did. Jesus will never become a Greek to please us. Ever.
In Hebrews the writer was showing the type and shadow of what is and what is to come. Let me add... out of 20,000 plus post... you will find much animation about many such things. This thread happens to be going the route it is going and isn't about those pagan traditions. Sort of makes sense that this is what I'd be talking about as opposed to those traditions... right?

As to the Law of Moses being perfect... no. It wasn't perfect. That is just exactly what Jesus taught. If it was perfect then that Law would give us eternal life. It doesn't.

If it was perfect then ponder this... would there be a need for Jesus to correct the rule of divorce which Moses allowed because of the hardness of the heart of the Jew?

If that Law was perfect then would God ever tell them that he was tired and burdened by their offerings (offered as the Law demands) and their feast days and festivals (followed as the Law demands)? God wasn't interested in that. What God wanted was righteousness. Didn't much concern Himself with all the pomp. Scripture reference if you need... Isaiah... chapters 1 and 2 would be one of many such.

ProjectPeter
Jul 15th 2008, 10:06 PM
Project Peter, do you observe the Ten Commandments? If so then we already agree on much.
Sure I do... and while that is something good we agree on that isn't everything in and of itself. Only a part.

ProjectPeter
Jul 15th 2008, 10:07 PM
I'll wager it's 9 :B
No... all ten. Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. I rest in that and rest in Him. Do it seven days a week actually... including Saturday. Thanks for posting this though because you help prove my point that I am making with others.

keck553
Jul 15th 2008, 10:16 PM
I knew that was coming...... All you proved is your adherence to a false teaching. Sorry your missing the blessing of the day God set apart from the rest of the week from day 7 of creation.

Can we at least agree that Jesus is God and not some dude who 'started a new religion?'

Yes, Yeshua is the Lord of Shabbat. He is my Lord. I conform to His image. That's why I revere Him and His instructions.

May God bless you and show you His Ways always!

ProjectPeter
Jul 15th 2008, 10:21 PM
I knew that was coming...... All you proved is your adherence to a false teaching. Sorry your missing the blessing of the day God set apart from the rest of the week from day 7 of creation.

Can we at least agree that Jesus is God and not some dude who 'started a new religion?'

Yes, Yeshua is the Lord of Shabbat. He is my Lord. I conform to His image. That's why I revere Him and His instructions.

May God bless you and show you His Ways always!
How did Jesus instruct to follow the Sabbath?

talmidim
Jul 15th 2008, 10:36 PM
How did Jesus instruct to follow the Sabbath?Who was it that appear to them in the wilderness in a pillar of fire and smoke? Who was it that gave the commandments to Moses? Who was it that dictated Torah? Who was it that instructed them to keep the seventh day in remembrance of His work in creation?

talmidim
Jul 15th 2008, 10:50 PM
If I may point out - you may take a literal translation of any distinctly foreign language and culture - say Chinese for instance, but you will quickly find the inescapable dependence on cultural context and idiomatic expression to properly render the text accurately. When you add the translation to another language and the crossing of cultural boundaries to the mix, the amount lost in the translation becomes very pronounced. Major points can be quickly misconstrued. So in regard to understanding of any passage of scripture, this is a perspective that seems to be conspicuously absent from western analysis of this eastern language and culture. The literal with no regard for cultural context is in fact, not literal at all.

Take a little time browsing the Ancient Hebrew Research Center (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/) online. It is a website dedicated to publishing the best information in the field of the ancient Hebrew and how words and phrases came about. I do not subscribe to all that is written there, but the majority of the information is quite enlightening. I think you may be pleasantly surprised.

Have a nice day, :)
Phillip

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 12:47 AM
Who was it that appear to them in the wilderness in a pillar of fire and smoke? Who was it that gave the commandments to Moses? Who was it that dictated Torah? Who was it that instructed them to keep the seventh day in remembrance of His work in creation?
So that was Jesus' instruction to the Gentiles?

talmidim
Jul 16th 2008, 01:16 AM
So that was Jesus' instruction to the Gentiles?Sorry for the tardy response. I had to go and pick up my wife's dad, drop him off and then go get the grandkids.

In answer to your question, as I recall, there was a mixed multitude in attendance in the wilderness, so yes. But He clarified who benefited from the Sabbath in the NT. Did you have a specific verse you wanted to discuss in the OT or NT?

BTW, you never addressed the context of the term 'the Law'.

Oh, I'm sorry the link above wasn't working. I fixed it.

Zack702
Jul 16th 2008, 01:23 AM
Consider my hypothetical statement. I hope you do not despise them. Even though they might be false teachings I do hope you are good enough to forgive me.

Consider that Joe kept the sabbath but his neighbor did not. And that Joe keeping the sabbath hears his neighbor cry out loud "neighbor come help me my leg is trapped in my plow". What then do you honestly think the good thing to do is?

a. stone him to death for breaking the law!
b. pretend not to notice?
c. get up and help the poor man.

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 01:26 AM
Sorry for the tardy response. I had to go and pick up my wife's dad, drop him off and then go get the grandkids.

In answer to your question, as I recall, there was a mixed multitude in attendance in the wilderness, so yes. But He clarified who benefited from the Sabbath in the NT. Did you have a specific verse you wanted to discuss in the OT or NT?

BTW, you never addressed the context of the term 'the Law'.

Oh, I'm sorry the link above wasn't working. I fixed it.
Not that tardy... I just posted myself. Was busy stuffing my face with fried chicken! :lol:

Check chat to mod's.

As to a specific verse... no. I am asking you to share what Christ taught in regard to the Sabbath. Actually I was asking the other guy that posted but naturally I am interested on what you think He taught on that issue.

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 01:29 AM
Consider my hypothetical statement. I hope you do not despise them. Even though they might be false teachings I do hope you are good enough to forgive me.

Consider that Joe kept the sabbath but his neighbor did not. And that Joe keeping the sabbath hears his neighbor cry out loud "neighbor come help me my leg is trapped in my plow". What then do you honestly think the good thing to do is?

a. stone him to death for breaking the law!
b. pretend not to notice?
c. get up and help the poor man.If you notice my red user name then notice that I am an Admin on this forum and the Admin in charge of the doctrinal section which includes this specific section called Bible Chat. So do me a favor and knock off the drama queen stuff.

Jesus said get up and help him. What did the Law of Moses say?

Zack702
Jul 16th 2008, 01:41 AM
Well pardon me ProjectPeter. My answer to the question is c and I hope we all can agree it seams that c is the right thing to do.

I'm sorry that your user name is red and that you have the responsibility of setting "drama queens" straight. I pray you been seen as wise among your brothers and sisters I would never shame you the way you have obviously done me.

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 01:46 AM
Well pardon me ProjectPeter. My answer to the question is c and I hope we all can agree it seams that c is the right thing to do.

I'm sorry that your user name is red and that you have the responsibility of setting "drama queens" straight. I pray you been seen as wise among your brothers and sisters I would never shame you the way you have obviously done me.
It wasn't shame but correction. The whole "I hope you do not despise them... false teaching I do hope you are good enough...." stuff was a tad bit over the top. ;)

Zack702
Jul 16th 2008, 01:49 AM
Yea I know it. I am honestly sorry and that part was in response to keck553 who wrote "All you proved is your adherence to a false teaching."

Because I do not despise there words however I do hope I am forgiven if it be so.

talmidim
Jul 16th 2008, 02:05 AM
I personally wish we could set the Sabbath issue aside until we can agree what Paul meant by 'the Law'. It would help the conversation if we had a contextual understanding of the terms. I posted on the subject HERE (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1710739&postcount=77) and HERE (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1711464&postcount=95). Does anyone agree or disagree with what I posted?

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 02:15 AM
Yea I know it. I am honestly sorry and that part was in response to keck553 who wrote "All you proved is your adherence to a false teaching."

Because I do not despise there words however I do hope I am forgiven if it be so.
I hear you and keep in mind... drama shouldn't begat more drama. ;) You're fine. I wasn't shaming you... just trying to keep this passionate without turning totally silly. :)

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 02:20 AM
I personally wish we could set the Sabbath issue aside until we can agree what Paul meant by 'the Law'. It would help the conversation if we had a contextual understanding of the terms. I posted on the subject HERE (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1710739&postcount=77) and HERE (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1711464&postcount=95). Does anyone agree or disagree with what I posted?

The Law of Moses. 613. Naturally he added the Ten which we follow even this day because God Himself penned that. But speaking the LAW OF MOSES which Paul makes VERY clear he too was speaking of. How hard is that to understand? As to the Sabbath... I didn't bring that up eh?

Zack702
Jul 16th 2008, 02:36 AM
I personally wish we could set the Sabbath issue aside until we can agree what Paul meant by 'the Law'. It would help the conversation if we had a contextual understanding of the terms. I posted on the subject HERE (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1710739&postcount=77) and HERE (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1711464&postcount=95). Does anyone agree or disagree with what I posted?



" 5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?"

"What sayest thou?"
Jesus asked this.

I think what we should agree on is the wages of sin. Once we can agree on that we can begin to see the purpose of the law a little more clearly. And once we clearly see the purpose of the law we can more clearly see the purpose of Jesus Christ.

talmidim
Jul 16th 2008, 03:11 AM
The Law of Moses. 613. Naturally he added the Ten which we follow even this day because God Himself penned that. But speaking the LAW OF MOSES which Paul makes VERY clear he too was speaking of. How hard is that to understand? As to the Sabbath... I didn't bring that up eh?Well you could say that He directly dictated Torah too. That's not the point I was trying to get across.

'The Law' developed over time into an idiom that could mean several things depending on the context in which is was used. In my previous post I listed a number of these as examples but it is a partial list. Because the terms, 'traditions of our fathers' of 'traditions of the elders' was also interchangeable with 'oral Torah' which was also referred to as 'the Law' by many in that day. My point being that without understanding the Hebraic context, how can we be sure that he meant the 10 or the 613 (some of which come from tradition and not scripture) or Torah, or the interpretations of Torah by the leaders of Israel, etc.

It is my position that you can't take this phrase on face value. Doesn't mean that you have interpreted it wrong. Just means that you have to prove your interpretation with context. Line upon line, etc...

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 03:27 AM
Well you could say that He directly dictated Torah too. That's not the point I was trying to get across.

'The Law' developed over time into an idiom that could mean several things depending on the context in which is was used. In my previous post I listed a number of these as examples but it is a partial list. Because the terms, 'traditions of our fathers' of 'traditions of the elders' was also interchangeable with 'oral Torah' which was also referred to as 'the Law' by many in that day. My point being that without understanding the Hebraic context, how can we be sure that he meant the 10 or the 613 (some of which come from tradition and not scripture) or Torah, or the interpretations of Torah by the leaders of Israel, etc.

It is my position that you can't take this phrase on face value. Doesn't mean that you have interpreted it wrong. Just means that you have to prove your interpretation with context. Line upon line, etc...

Line upon line isn't always a positive thing and the mention of it in Scripture makes that clear. Ponder that.

Paul speaks of the Law of Moses. In Acts 15 they were speaking of the Law of Moses. Period. Not the oral stuff. Not all the whatever stuff. The Law of Moses. Period. Isn't that what it says as I have already provided the passage?

talmidim
Jul 16th 2008, 04:27 AM
Line upon line isn't always a positive thing and the mention of it in Scripture makes that clear. Ponder that.

Paul speaks of the Law of Moses. In Acts 15 they were speaking of the Law of Moses. Period. Not the oral stuff. Not all the whatever stuff. The Law of Moses. Period. Isn't that what it says as I have already provided the passage?Since you haven't said what that means to you, I will tell you what it means to me. The way I understand it, the Jews were still teaching the gentiles that they had to be circumcised to be saved. Why? Because the Jews believed that you must become a Jew to be saved. And to become a Jew you had to be circumcised.

The point of Acts 15 was to establish a minimum standard of behavior so that the gentiles would be accepted into the synagogues. And the point of them being accepted into the synagogue was that it was the only place to go to learn scripture. After all, the NT hadn't been written yet and they needed context by which to understand the teachings of the Apostles. Oops, there's that word again.

BTW, All of the items prohibited to new gentile believers in Acts 15, had to do with pagan worship. And the Apostles rightly determined that they must forgo their old 'gods' and those practices before they could have fellowship in the synagogue.

As far as 'line upon line', that was a reference to understanding scripture by confirming scripture with scripture in context . I don't know what you are talking about when you say that line upon line isn't always a good thing. Can you explain?

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 04:35 AM
Since you haven't said what that means to you, I will tell you what it means to me. The way I understand it, the Jews were still teaching the gentiles that they had to be circumcised to be saved. Why? Because the Jews believed that you must become a Jew to be saved. And to become a Jew you had to be circumcised.

The point of Acts 15 was to establish a minimum standard of behavior so that the gentiles would be accepted into the synagogues. And the point of them being accepted into the synagogue was that it was the only place to go to learn scripture. After all, the NT hadn't been written yet and they needed context by which to understand the teachings of the Apostles. Oops, there's that word again.

BTW, All of the items prohibited to new gentile believers in Acts 15, had to do with pagan worship. And the Apostles rightly determined that they must forgo their old 'gods' and those practices before they could have fellowship in the synagogue.

As far as 'line upon line', that was a reference to understanding scripture by confirming scripture with scripture in context . I don't know what you are talking about when you say that line upon line isn't always a good thing. Can you explain?

Acts 15 had nothing to do with Gentiles being able to worship in synagogues. Paul was either kicked out of or left on his own in most every one he went to. They wouldn't accept what he taught. Read Acts for what it actually says.

talmidim
Jul 16th 2008, 06:26 AM
You keep making these blanket statements but don't really back it up with scripture. But I will play along for now.
Acts 15 had nothing to do with Gentiles being able to worship in synagogues.Then where else were they to learn scripture? Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God, right? So where were these new believers to hear it if not the synagogues, where Moses was taught every Sabbath?

The scrolls of Torah, the Prophets and the Writings were not inexpensive or plentiful. In those days, you had to go to them, not the other way around. And they were in the synagogues. So no matter your doctrinal beliefs, you had to go to synagogue to hear scripture.

Are you trying to tell me that the Apostles abandoned going to the synagogues or reading scripture? Because they quoted a lot of it for having abandoned it, starting with Acts 1:20. And every time I turn a page, an Apostle is going to a synagogue or to the Temple. They are still observing feasts and Sabbaths.


Paul was either kicked out of or left on his own in most every one he went to. They wouldn't accept what he taught. Read Acts for what it actually says.That is not how I remember things. But I will re-read it with an eye towards answering this claim of yours.

It is true that some synagogues kicked Paul out. But not all. And he never quit going to synagogues in every place he had opportunity, teaching both Jews and gentile. Even as late as Acts 21, Paul was meeting with Jews that believed. So I have a hard time accepting what you claim on face value. In the mean time, sleep well.

Good night all,
Phillip

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 12:12 PM
You keep making these blanket statements but don't really back it up with scripture.Alrighty.




But I will play along for now.Then where else were they to learn scripture? Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God, right? So where were these new believers to hear it if not the synagogues, where Moses was taught every Sabbath? From those preaching. Paul mentions many of them in his letters.



The scrolls of Torah, the Prophets and the Writings were not inexpensive or plentiful. In those days, you had to go to them, not the other way around. And they were in the synagogues. So no matter your doctrinal beliefs, you had to go to synagogue to hear scripture. So you believe that the Corinth church would gather in the Jewish synagogue and hold church gatherings, communion, speak in tongues... and all that and the Jewish leaders were cool with that?



Are you trying to tell me that the Apostles abandoned going to the synagogues or reading scripture? Because they quoted a lot of it for having abandoned it, starting with Acts 1:20. And every time I turn a page, an Apostle is going to a synagogue or to the Temple. They are still observing feasts and Sabbaths.Paul always went first to the Jews. That was his practice. As I said... in most instances they ran him out and even tried to kill him in many instances. As to their still observing feast and Sabbaths... I have no problem with that... they were Jewish.


That is not how I remember things. But I will re-read it with an eye towards answering this claim of yours. alright.


It is true that some synagogues kicked Paul out. But not all. And he never quit going to synagogues in every place he had opportunity, teaching both Jews and gentile. Even as late as Acts 21, Paul was meeting with Jews that believed. So I have a hard time accepting what you claim on face value. In the mean time, sleep well. Um... try most of them. As to as late as Acts 21... you are wrong there. It goes all the way to the last chapter. Paul ALWAYS took it to the Jew first. That was his common practice and he even did that when in house arrest in Rome. And it wasn't just Jewish believers... He took it to those that didn't believe. It seems that you think the synagogues were full of Christians... they weren't. They were full of Jews and converted Jews. Not followers of Christ.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 16th 2008, 12:46 PM
So you believe that the Corinth church would gather in the Jewish synagogue and hold church gatherings, communion, speak in tongues... and all that and the Jewish leaders were cool with that?
It seems that you think the synagogues were full of Christians... they weren't. They were full of Jews and converted Jews. Not followers of Christ.Just because one reads about the bad bad Pharisees in the scriptures doesn't mean ALL were against Yeshua, and there were infact quite a few who came around, and probably more so even after His death.

It is a misconception to assume that all Jewish leaders were against Yeshua. From my understanding and historical backing i believe that the number of those who were against him was actually lesser than those that were not.

You have to know that there were two prevalent schools of two rabbis in that day, one called the school of Hillel and the other the school of Shammai both were rabbis and the school of Hillel being the most popular Some of what Yeshua taught was actually quite astonishingly similar to how Hillel worded things. It made things easily understood when Yeshua spoke in parables because any student could readily understand what this was about while todays reader would not have a clue.

This article here alone about the two rabbis, while it doesn't talk about the following i want to point out, will give you a good idea of why Peter had such problems not wanting to go sit and eat with Gentiles....which is why God sent him the vision about Gentiles being clean.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/hillel.html

Also looking at the two rabbis and knowing Hillel was so popular lets show this example as well the school of Hillel (and both had their good sides and bad) allowed divorce for any cause. Now imagine Shammai who was less liked but still popular said it was wrong and his interpretation of the Torah was that one should only divorce for adultery and to divorce for any reason other than what was permitted in the Law (He who does not care for his own is worse than an infidel) was going to commit adultery him/herself. Now imagine the shock of most people who liked rabbi Hillel so much better.....when Yeshua told them the truth.

This goes to show that the cultural and historical aspect is really important for us to understand somethings in the scriptures.

But i'm sure you'll disagree with this too.

Shalom,
Tanja

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 01:27 PM
Tanja,

I didn't say all. I did say MOST. Read Acts and it clearly speaks of how the message of Paul was generally rejected by them and then Paul went to the Gentiles of that city. Many of those leaders tried to stone him... kill him... etc.

Acts 14:1 *And it came about that in Iconium they entered the synagogue of the Jews together, and spoke in such a manner that a great multitude believed, both of Jews and of Greeks.
2 *But the Jews who disbelieved stirred up the minds of the Gentiles, and embittered them against the brethren.
3 *Therefore they spent a long time there speaking boldly with reliance upon the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of His grace, granting that signs and wonders be done by their hands.
4 *But the multitude of the city was divided; and some sided with the Jews, and some with the apostles.
5 *And when an attempt was made by both the Gentiles and the Jews with their rulers, to mistreat and to stone them,
6 *they became aware of it and fled to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe, and the surrounding region;


There were many places that had no synagouge. Paul would preach wherever in those places or find out where folks prayed and there he would go... such as along the river etc. Even then... they would come to him.

Acts 14:19 *¶But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having won over the multitudes, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead.


Acts 17:1 *Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
2 *And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
3 *explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."
4 *And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a great multitude of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.
5 *But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and coming upon the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people.

Acts 17:10 *¶And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 *Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.
12 *Many of them therefore believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.
13 *But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there likewise, agitating and stirring up the crowds.
14 *And then immediately the brethren sent Paul out to go as far as the sea; and Silas and Timothy remained there.

Acts 18:1 *After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth.
2 *And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. He came to them,
3 *and because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working; for by trade they were tent-makers.
4 *And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
5 *¶But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.
6 *And when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, "Your blood be upon your own heads! I am clean. From now on I shall go to the Gentiles."
7 *And he departed from there and went to the house of a certain man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God, whose house was next to the synagogue.
8 *And Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.
9 *And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, "Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent;
10 *for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city."
11 *And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
12 *¶But while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat,
13 *saying, "This man persuades men to worship God contrary to the law."
14 *But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, "If it were a matter of wrong or of vicious crime, O Jews, it would be reasonable for me to put up with you;
15 *but if there are questions about words and names and your own law, look after it yourselves; I am unwilling to be a judge of these matters."
16 *And he drove them away from the judgment seat.
17 *And they all took hold of Sosthenes, the leader of the synagogue, and began beating him in front of the judgment seat. And Gallio was not concerned about any of these things.

Acts 19:1 *And it came about that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found some disciples,
2 *and he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."
3 *And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism."
4 *And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."
5 *And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 *And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.
7 *And there were in all about twelve men.
8 *¶And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.
9 *But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.
10 *And this took place for two years, so that all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.

This is enough... getting close to the limit I figure.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 16th 2008, 01:36 PM
Ken,

You're talking about a narrative, the writers of these different books wrote what they were inspired to write. They did not write every single day down after Yeshua died and what they did. They wrote down what God inspired them to for the sake of those after them.

There may are likely many more instances where they went to a synagogue in different places, and many more believers were added than what you can find in their writings.
What we see in those books is the most important fragments of their lives, but not their entire life it shows what their life was about but not the whole thing from the day they were born to the end.

That's what i'm trying to say....

If i wrote down 50 % of my life and said that 10 times i fell and broke my bones and said that 5 times i didn't you could not safely assume that i broke my bones most of the time because you just wouldn't know. I may not be including the 100 othet times i fell and didn't break my bones.

Shalom,
Tanja

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 01:49 PM
Ken,

You're talking about a narrative, the writers of these different books wrote what they were inspired to write. They did not write every single day down after Yeshua died and what they did. They wrote down what God inspired them to for the sake of those after them.

There may are likely many more instances where they went to a synagogue in different places, and many more believers were added than what you can find in their writings.
What we see in those books is the most important fragments of their lives, but not their entire life it shows what their life was about but not the whole thing from the day they were born to the end.

That's what i'm trying to say....

If i wrote down 50 % of my life and said that 10 times i fell and broke my bones and said that 5 times i didn't you could not safely assume that i broke my bones most of the time because you just wouldn't know. I may not be including the 100 othet times i fell and didn't break my bones.

Shalom,
Tanja
Tanja... that's what we have to go by and as you said... it was written for those after. If you run with your logic.... you can just make stuff up as you go so anything can go! What is there is there for a reason Tanja. The point is the same. See... here is the problem... "I don't see that in Scripture." So I show it to you. "This is just a narrative and we can't go by that. "

It is Scripture Tanja. What do you go by?

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 16th 2008, 02:04 PM
I go by what the Holy Spirit teaches me about the scriptures and if He leads me to investigate the history and cultural background or whatever to get the full understanding then so be it.

Shalom,
Tanja

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 02:11 PM
I go by what the Holy Spirit teaches me about the scriptures and if He leads me to investigate the history and cultural background or whatever to get the full understanding then so be it.

Shalom,
Tanja
Again... with what I posted... city after city that Paul went to and went first to the synagogue if the city had one... he left.

You don't need a lesson on history and culture to understand that the Jewish folk didn't care for Paul's message by and large. And when a group did... and Jews elsewhere heard about it... they took a road trip and stirred up trouble and out they would go.

History books and culture books are not Scripture. Acts is Scripture. The Holy Spirit isn't leading you to believe something that contradicts Scripture. So you have Scripture here... what does Scripture teach us Tanja?

keck553
Jul 16th 2008, 03:22 PM
In Hebrews the writer was showing the type and shadow of what is and what is to come. Let me add... out of 20,000 plus post... you will find much animation about many such things. This thread happens to be going the route it is going and isn't about those pagan traditions. Sort of makes sense that this is what I'd be talking about as opposed to those traditions... right?

As to the Law of Moses being perfect... no. It wasn't perfect. That is just exactly what Jesus taught. If it was perfect then that Law would give us eternal life. It doesn't.

If it was perfect then ponder this... would there be a need for Jesus to correct the rule of divorce which Moses allowed because of the hardness of the heart of the Jew?

If that Law was perfect then would God ever tell them that he was tired and burdened by their offerings (offered as the Law demands) and their feast days and festivals (followed as the Law demands)? God wasn't interested in that. What God wanted was righteousness. Didn't much concern Himself with all the pomp. Scripture reference if you need... Isaiah... chapters 1 and 2 would be one of many such.

The law was never meant for salvation. So a 'perfect law' would be insufficient. The reason why God admonished His people through the Prophets is that they were NOT abiding in Torah, especially commandment #1, and they were NOT treating thier brothers and foreigners according to Torah.

Jesus didn't say God allowed divorce. Jesus said Moses allowed divorce because of their hardness of hearts. Just as our civil leaders and various churches allow divorce. God doesn't change. As far as Christians compared to Jews are concerned, there's no change in hardness of hearts here, at least corporatly. Look around your congregation and your neighborhood and tell me there is no hardness of hearts. Show me your average Christian who sticks God in his pocket for all but and hour and a half on Amon Ra day and tell me there is no hardness of heart.

All I'm doing is telling the truth. It's kind of difficult to know the fullness of a characeter in a book by it's last few chapters.

Again, if you can't understand what Paul is saying reading only half the conversation in his letters, defer to what God says. What did Jesus say? He's the final authority. If Paul's teachings contradict the teachings of Jesus then Paul is being misunderstood. Can you agree to that?

By the way, Kefa (Peter) never ate anything God said wasn't food fit for human consumption.

keck553
Jul 16th 2008, 03:27 PM
Again... with what I posted... city after city that Paul went to and went first to the synagogue if the city had one... he left.

You don't need a lesson on history and culture to understand that the Jewish folk didn't care for Paul's message by and large. And when a group did... and Jews elsewhere heard about it... they took a road trip and stirred up trouble and out they would go.

History books and culture books are not Scripture. Acts is Scripture. The Holy Spirit isn't leading you to believe something that contradicts Scripture. So you have Scripture here... what does Scripture teach us Tanja?

Tell me ProjectPeter, did any Jewish Priests, Pharisees and ordinary Jews follow Yeshua? What is scripture teaching you?

talmidim
Jul 16th 2008, 03:45 PM
From those preaching. Paul mentions many of them in his letters.There is ample scriptural evidence that gentiles gathered in the synagogues to hear the scriptures too. Do you disagree?


So you believe that the Corinth church would gather in the Jewish synagogue and hold church gatherings, communion, speak in tongues... and all that and the Jewish leaders were cool with that? I didn't say anything about the church at Corinth. But since you brought it up, do you think that it was exclusively gentile? I don't see any scriptural support for that argument either.

Most scholars believe that in the time of Paul, the makeup of the church (as a whole) was heavily Jewish and slowly progressed toward a gentile majority. So we are not talking about the Jewish leaders being in the Corinthian church. We are talking about the Corinthian Church having gentile and Jewish participants, gentile and Jewish leaders. The first thing we read about in the letter to Corinth is the division in the church concerning which Jewish or gentile leader they would follow. Who ya gonna call? Cephas? Apollos? Saul? Crispus? Gaius?


Paul always went first to the Jews. That was his practice. As I said... in most instances they ran him out and even tried to kill him in many instances. As to their still observing feast and Sabbaths... I have no problem with that... they were Jewish. Yes that is true. But the number matters little. Because the numbers changed over time.

These are the same people that Paul taught were neither Jew nor Greek. So, do you believe that these congregation were divided with some keeping Sabbaths and feasts and others not? It is clear that the congregations of believers were mixed. And I personally do not see that as the case.

Why would the Romans, hundreds of years later, make a death penalty law declaring the Christian Sabbath was Sunday, if there weren't already Christians that kept the Jewish Sabbath? You make a law when it is needed, not when everyone is already doing what you want...


Um... try most of them. As to as late as Acts 21... you are wrong there. It goes all the way to the last chapter. Paul ALWAYS took it to the Jew first. That was his common practice and he even did that when in house arrest in Rome. And it wasn't just Jewish believers... He took it to those that didn't believe. It seems that you think the synagogues were full of Christians... they weren't. They were full of Jews and converted Jews. Not followers of Christ.Yes you are right that he went to the Jews first. And you are right that he told everyone, Jew gentile, believer and non-believing Jew and gentile.

Where do you get that I believe that the synagogues were already filled with Christians? No my friend, I think that synagogues were filled with Jews and gentiles, just like scriptures said. Some with more gentiles than others. And I think that some congregations believed Paul's message and some didn't, just like scripture said. And I believe that some searched the scriptures to prove what Paul said, like the Bereans did. So where did the (Jewish) Bereans get the scriptures they searched anyway? It must have been their synagogue. That is where they kept them.

Does any of this make sense to you?

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 03:47 PM
The law was never meant for salvation. So a 'perfect law' would be insufficient. The reason why God admonished His people through the Prophets is that they were NOT abiding in Torah, especially commandment #1, and they were NOT treating thier brothers and foreigners according to Torah.

Jesus didn't say God allowed divorce. Jesus said Moses allowed divorce because of their hardness of hearts. Just as our civil leaders and various churches allow divorce. God doesn't change. As far as Christians compared to Jews are concerned, there's no change in hardness of hearts here, at least corporatly. Look around your congregation and your neighborhood and tell me there is no hardness of hearts. Show me your average Christian who sticks God in his pocket for all but and hour and a half on Amon Ra day and tell me there is no hardness of heart.

All I'm doing is telling the truth. It's kind of difficult to know the fullness of a characeter in a book by it's last few chapters.

Again, if you can't understand what Paul is saying reading only half the conversation in his letters, defer to what God says. What did Jesus say? He's the final authority. If Paul's teachings contradict the teachings of Jesus then Paul is being misunderstood. Can you agree to that?

By the way, Kefa (Peter) never ate anything God said wasn't food fit for human consumption.Uh... Jesus didn't teach much on the sabbath and following it short the fact that it was in fact okay to do good on the Sabbath and the fact that hey... even by law his disciples picking grain was not legal just as David and his troops eating the shewbread wasn't legal by the law.

What Jesus never changed was the Laws of God. He simply broadened their meaning... example murder. It isn't about just running someone through with a knife and killing them... if you hate them then you have murdered them in your heart.

But things from the Law such as swearing an oath... Jesus didn't broaden them... he said don't swear an oath at all. On divorce... don't do it at all save sexual immorality.... etc.

What our civil leaders allow... most know Christ about as personally as they know the Queen of England personally. As to churches that allow for divorce... they will answer for that I figure. They shouldn't.

As to Peter's dietary habits... you can only guess that. ;)

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 03:53 PM
Tell me ProjectPeter, did any Jewish Priests, Pharisees and ordinary Jews follow Yeshua? What is scripture teaching you?
No... none of them! Not a one... nary any. :rolleyes: Did you even read the many Scripture from Acts that I posted making my point? Care to comment on that?

Yes... there was a boat load of Jews that followed Christ starting on the day of Pentecost. I am certain there were Pharisee's that did as well as whatever all else they had as a group back in the day. Those passages that I posted make it clear that many or some Jews and Gentiles listened to Paul's message and believed.

Those passages ALSO make it very clear that most all the times Paul preached in the synagogue... It wasn't received very well.

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 04:15 PM
There is ample scriptural evidence that gentiles gathered in the synagogues to hear the scriptures too. Do you disagree?Sure... where there was one.



I didn't say anything about the church at Corinth. But since you brought it up, do you think that it was exclusively gentile? I don't see any scriptural support for that argument either. While I am certain that there were Jewish believers there... Paul did preach some time to the Jews before telling them so long... His ministry there was primarily to the Gentile.

Acts 18:1 After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth.
2 And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. He came to them,
3 and because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working; for by trade they were tent-makers.
4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
5 ¶But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.
6 And when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, "Your blood be upon your own heads! I am clean. From now on I shall go to the Gentiles."
7 And he departed from there and went to the house of a certain man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God, whose house was next to the synagogue.
8 And Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

We know there were Jews... Crispus being one of them... but from there he went to the Gentile. When Paul wrote Corinthians... he wasn't sending it to the synagogue... that should be pretty plain. ;)



Most scholars believe that in the time of Paul, the makeup of the church (as a whole) was heavily Jewish and slowly progressed toward a gentile majority. So we are not talking about the Jewish leaders being in the Corinthian church. We are talking about the Corinthian Church having gentile and Jewish participants, gentile and Jewish leaders. The first thing we read about in the letter to Corinth is the division in the church concerning which Jewish or gentile leader they would follow. Who ya gonna call? Cephas? Apollos? Saul? Crispus? Gaius?
Paul always went first to the Jews... I don't see anywhere in Scripture that it says he always struck out and nary one Jew believed. Always says some or in some cases it says many of both. Again... not sure what point you figure you are making with all this.


Yes that is true. But the number matters little. Because the numbers changed over time.

These are the same people that Paul taught were neither Jew nor Greek. So, do you believe that these congregation were divided with some keeping Sabbaths and feasts and others not? It is clear that the congregations of believers were mixed. And I personally do not see that as the case.

Why would the Romans, hundreds of years later, make a death penalty law declaring the Christian Sabbath was Sunday, if there weren't already Christians that kept the Jewish Sabbath? You make a law when it is needed, not when everyone is already doing what you want...

If they worshiped on Saturday or Sunday or Tuesday... doesn't matter. Hopefully they did everything as to the Lord every day. Even Saturday. Again... we can get into the whole Sabbath thing if you want but it doesn't matter and Paul made that perfectly clear. I figure many a Jew (in particular) and probably some Gentiles went to the Synagogue on Saturday if the leaders let them in. Crispus was no longer the leader and it is apparent that he lost that position when he became a believer. Notice later down when it speaks of the leader of the Synagogue... the name is different. ;)


Yes you are right that he went to the Jews first. And you are right that he told everyone, Jew gentile, believer and non-believing Jew and gentile.

Where do you get that I believe that the synagogues were already filled with Christians? No my friend, I think that synagogues were filled with Jews and gentiles, just like scriptures said. Some with more gentiles than others. And I think that some congregations believed Paul's message and some didn't, just like scripture said. And I believe that some searched the scriptures to prove what Paul said, like the Bereans did. So where did the (Jewish) Bereans get the scriptures they searched anyway? It must have been their synagogue. That is where they kept them.Uh... and some had their own just as Paul did. ;)




Does any of this make sense to you?

Sure... but not sure what you're arguing with me on here. About the Sabbath? What exactly? I mean you did this long post as if I would disagree that there were not both Jew and Gentile in the synagogue? I never said such and posted all those passages which showed there were. Surely you would figure I have read those passages.... right? So again... I don't even get your point here.

keck553
Jul 16th 2008, 04:18 PM
No... none of them! Not a one... nary any. :rolleyes: Did you even read the many Scripture from Acts that I posted making my point? Care to comment on that?



That's not what my bible says:

Act 6:7 The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.

Are we reading the same bible?

As he taught and healed, the throngs grew and “there was a great multitude of His disciples, and a great throng of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon [Lebanon],…and all the multitude were trying to touch Him… Luke 6:17,19

Are these people Jews or Gentiles?

Mat 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and the villages teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every weakness of body among the people.
Mat 9:36 And seeing the crowds, He was moved with pity concerning them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd.
Mat 9:37 Then He said to His disciples, The harvest truly is great, but the workers few.

Does the harvest mentioned here fit your 'nary a one of them' view? How big were these crowds? One of the two times we are given an actual number, we are told that a multitude followed Jesus around for three whole days in a desolate place without food. We are told that there were 4,000 men that would mean with women and children anywhere from 8-12,000 people following Jesus.

At times, Jesus tried to get away from the crowd to be by Himself, but the multitudes wouldn’t let Him. They followed Him everywhere. On one occasion, His disciples advised Jesus to send a mass of people home. Again, they were in a desolate place with no food. How many were in the crowd that Yeshua Himself fed? The record says 5,000 men - with women and children probably between 10,000 15,000.

Not a Pharisee beleived in Jesus? What about Jarius? Nicodemus? What about the ones who belived, but did not act out of fear?

Joh 12:42 Still, however, even out of the rulers, many did believe into Him. But because of the Pharisees, they were not confessing, so that they not be put out of the synagogue.

Lots of Christians abound today like that.....

talmidim
Jul 16th 2008, 04:21 PM
I am not seeking to argue with you.

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 04:21 PM
That's not what my bible says:

Act 6:7 The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.

Are we reading the same bible?

As he taught and healed, the throngs grew and “there was a great multitude of His disciples, and a great throng of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon [Lebanon],…and all the multitude were trying to touch Him… Luke 6:17,19

Are these people Jews or Gentiles?

Mat 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and the villages teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every weakness of body among the people.
Mat 9:36 And seeing the crowds, He was moved with pity concerning them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd.
Mat 9:37 Then He said to His disciples, The harvest truly is great, but the workers few.

Does the harvest mentioned here fit your 'nary a one of them' view? How big were these crowds? One of the two times we are given an actual number, we are told that a multitude followed Jesus around for three whole days in a desolate place without food. We are told that there were 4,000 men that would mean with women and children anywhere from 8-12,000 people following Jesus.

At times, Jesus tried to get away from the crowd to be by Himself, but the multitudes wouldn’t let Him. They followed Him everywhere. On one occasion, His disciples advised Jesus to send a mass of people home. Again, they were in a desolate place with no food. How many were in the crowd that Yeshua Himself fed? The record says 5,000 men - with women and children probably between 10,000 15,000.

Not a Pharisee beleived in Jesus? What about Jarius? Nicodemus? What about the ones who belived, but did not act out of fear?

Joh 12:42 Still, however, even out of the rulers, many did believe into Him. But because of the Pharisees, they were not confessing, so that they not be put out of the synagogue.

Lots of Christians abound today like that.....
Yeah... it is right clear that you aren't even reading my post but just wanting to kick and fuss. :lol:

GO BACK AND READ THE WHOLE POST!

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 04:22 PM
I am not seeking to argue with you.
Okay... that's cool. Still don't understand your point.

keck553
Jul 16th 2008, 04:27 PM
Uh... Jesus didn't teach much on the sabbath and following it short the fact that it was in fact okay to do good on the Sabbath and the fact that hey... even by law his disciples picking grain was not legal just as David and his troops eating the shewbread wasn't legal by the law.



Uh....Jesus didn't have to teach about Shabbat - The very day was named Shabbat. All Jews observed it. They had it right, except for some of the fences PEOPLE built around Shabbat, and in those cases Jesus taught in the tradition of Hillel. This isn't a novel teaching, by the way. This form of argument was in wide use among the Jewish followers of Hillel, and that includes Paul, and the writer of the book of Hebrews Jews would have been very familiar with this type of argument. Jesus followed rabbinical tradition in these teachings. Knowing the culture makes these things clear.

keck553
Jul 16th 2008, 04:32 PM
Yeah... it is right clear that you aren't even reading my post but just wanting to kick and fuss. :lol:

GO BACK AND READ THE WHOLE POST!

I'm not seeking to argue with you brother. I read your entire post, it seems you contradicted yourself. I only addressed the relevant issue. "nary a one of them".

Hey, I came in line with the Lord kicking and screaming and resisting too. But God has ways to get through even my stubborness. :)

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 04:37 PM
Uh....Jesus didn't have to teach about Shabbat - The very day was named Shabbat. All Jews observed it. They had it right, except for some of the fences PEOPLE built around Shabbat, and in those cases Jesus taught in the tradition of Hillel. This isn't a novel teaching, by the way. This form of argument was in wide use among the Jewish followers of Hillel, and that includes Paul, and the writer of the book of Hebrews Jews would have been very familiar with this type of argument. Jesus followed rabbinical tradition in these teachings. Knowing the culture makes these things clear.
Really?

Matthew 7:28 *¶The result was that when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were amazed at His teaching;
29 *for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.

Mark 1:27 *And they were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves, saying, "What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him."

Luke 4:31 *¶And He came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. And He was teaching them on the Sabbath;
32 *and they were amazed at His teaching, for His message was with authority.

Jesus taught quite different than what they were used to. ;)

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 04:39 PM
I'm not seeking to argue with you brother. I read your entire post, it seems you contradicted yourself. I only addressed the relevant issue. "nary a one of them".

Hey, I came in line with the Lord kicking and screaming and resisting too. But God has ways to get through even my stubborness. :)If you read the entire post and saw where I made it clear that there were many Jewish believers and that included leaders... then why post as if I didn't say that? Is that honest?

keck553
Jul 16th 2008, 04:39 PM
The scribes were not who I was referring to. :o

Of course they were amazed. He's God, full of wisdom, and truth. I would be amazed too!

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 04:41 PM
The scribes were not who I was referring to. :o

Of course they were amazed. He's God, full of wisdom, and truth. I would be amazed too!
The passages that I posted didn't only mention the Scribes. ;) You did read the "new teaching"... etc? They were in awe at Jesus' teaching for that reason. It was totally different than what they heard before and add to that the miracles... I'm quite sure it was something to behold. Rest assured... it was quite different than anything they had heard before. That is what it says... right?

keck553
Jul 16th 2008, 04:43 PM
If you read the entire post and saw where I made it clear that there were many Jewish believers and that included leaders... then why post as if I didn't say that? Is that honest?

So then, I misread this "No... none of them! Not a one... nary any. :rolleyes:"

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 04:46 PM
Did the post consist of more than that... notice the little emoticon thingy with the rolled eyes. Then read the rest of the post. To get that emoticon thingy to post like that here is the code in between too colons. : sarcasm :

keck553
Jul 16th 2008, 04:49 PM
The passages that I posted didn't only mention the Scribes. ;) You did read the "new teaching"... etc? They were in awe at Jesus' teaching for that reason. It was totally different than what they heard before and add to that the miracles... I'm quite sure it was something to behold. Rest assured... it was quite different than anything they had heard before. That is what it says... right?

yes, for sure, Jesus put Torah on their hearts, and THAT was new! All I meant is that His argument regarding the Shabbat verse is in line with Hillel's style of argument.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 16th 2008, 05:54 PM
Scriptures posted by PP

Matthew 7:28 *¶The result was that when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were amazed at His teaching;
29 *for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.



Mark 1:27 *And they were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves, saying, "What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him."

Luke 4:31 *¶And He came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. And He was teaching them on the Sabbath;
32 *and they were amazed at His teaching, for His message was with authority.

The word amazed today seems to carry a rather negative connotation as in being amazed that someone would do something like that.

The word "Amazed" being used here is rather a "filled with awe and wonder" not that they disbelieved.

These people that witnessed this were rather overjoyed.

When it says yeshua's message was with authority, it means that these people realized it as truth.... they recognized the validity of it.

Si i personally don't see these verses in the same negative light you do. I don't consider these people to be those that wouldn't accept Him.

In Matthew after the teaching, multitudes followed Him.

In Mark after this His fame spread throughout the region.

In Luke likewise the fame about him went "roundabout" the region He was in.

Shalom,
Tanja

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 05:58 PM
The word amazed today seems to carry a rather negative connotation as in being amazed that someone would do something like that.

The word "Amazed" being used here is rather a "filled with awe and wonder" not that they disbelieved.

These people that witnessed this were rather overjoyed.

When it says yeshua's message was with authority, it means that these people realized it as truth.... they recognized the validity of it.

Si i personally don't see these verses in the same negative light you do. I don't consider these people to be those that wouldn't accept Him.

In Matthew after the teaching, multitudes followed Him.

In Mark after this His fame spread throughout the region.

In Luke likewise the fame about him went "roundabout" the region He was in.

Shalom,
TanjaWhat in the world makes you think I think this is negative? Where did I say anything about disbelieving (although many did)? Are you reading the thread or just jumping on stuff here... Seriously Tanja... ugh!

keck553
Jul 16th 2008, 06:27 PM
Ever put yourself in a 1st century Jew's place? Have you any idea what it was like to be an average Jew under Roman occupation and Sanhedron oppression?

Or is the comfort of an armchair and a sermon on grace over channel 120 enough hardship to make your faith superior?

Until your daughter is taken away and raped for a tax payment, your son is nailed to a tree for no reason at all, and you're condemned for not saying a blessing over washed hands before you eat a snack, don't assume to be anyone's judge.

Just thank God in Heaven He has the mercy not to put you to the test in this way.

threebigrocks
Jul 16th 2008, 06:38 PM
With all these scriptures, with all the focus on the law being so relevant, with what all the amazing things that the people witnessed that so few stood up for Christ with the law being placed on their heart. Was that even possible without the Spirit who was not yet there as Christ had not died, been resurrected nor ascended to His father?

In the upper room on the day of penticost, after the immediate danger was over in those 40 days between Christ's death and ascention, where did all the believers go? If those Jews were so overjoyed that keep getting mentioned here, so enamorated with Christ, where were they? Surely, in 40 days they could regroup! Out of all the thousands who sat and heard Christ teach on the hillsides and in the temple, all of those starving people he fed, all the sick and demon possessed he cured and healed - where did they go?

Seems it takes more than the law to make one new, to have something impress them enough to hold it in their hearts as you claim. I get excited over something new and different too. Doesn't mean it's forever. It surely can be a fading glory.

When the apostles went out in the beginning of Acts, still no mention of those thousands upon thousands of followers of Christ. Instead, we see new converts repenting and being baptized, in groups of 2 or 3 thousand, not 5,000 plus women and children.

It was the Holy Spirit that could change mens hearts, causing the change that brings salvation. The law didn't keep those in repentance to following Christ, if there was any at all. Without hope, conviction is fading and hope was not available until Christ's ascention.

threebigrocks
Jul 16th 2008, 06:49 PM
Ever put yourself in a 1st century Jew's place? Have you any idea what it was like to be an average Jew under Roman occupation and Sanhedron oppression?

Or is the comfort of an armchair and a sermon on grace over channel 120 enough hardship to make your faith superior?

Until your daughter is taken away and raped for a tax payment, your son is nailed to a tree for no reason at all, and you're condemned for not saying a blessing over washed hands before you eat a snack, don't assume to be anyone's judge.

Just thank God in Heaven He has the mercy not to put you to the test in this way.

None of us have ever lived in the 1st century, so nobody here can comment on it. Not that it was by any means easy. We can have a picture of it, but without first hand experience it means nothing to one's heart.

Those days of the early church will also be found in the end times. Many will find out what persecution is that exceeds the atrocity of the early days of Christianity under Roman rule.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 16th 2008, 06:56 PM
With all these scriptures, with all the focus on the law being so relevant, with what all the amazing things that the people witnessed that so few stood up for Christ with the law being placed on their heart. Was that even possible without the Spirit who was not yet there as Christ had not died, been resurrected nor ascended to His father?

Ok, question for you Do you believe the Holy Spirit indwelt people in the OT?

Tanja

talmidim
Jul 16th 2008, 07:07 PM
With all these scriptures, with all the focus on the law being so relevant, with what all the amazing things that the people witnessed that so few stood up for Christ with the law being placed on their heart. Was that even possible without the Spirit who was not yet there as Christ had not died, been resurrected nor ascended to His father?

In the upper room on the day of penticost, after the immediate danger was over in those 40 days between Christ's death and ascention, where did all the believers go? If those Jews were so overjoyed that keep getting mentioned here, so enamorated with Christ, where were they? Surely, in 40 days they could regroup! Out of all the thousands who sat and heard Christ teach on the hillsides and in the temple, all of those starving people he fed, all the sick and demon possessed he cured and healed - where did they go?

Seems it takes more than the law to make one new, to have something impress them enough to hold it in their hearts as you claim. I get excited over something new and different too. Doesn't mean it's forever. It surely can be a fading glory.

When the apostles went out in the beginning of Acts, still no mention of those thousands upon thousands of followers of Christ. Instead, we see new converts repenting and being baptized, in groups of 2 or 3 thousand, not 5,000 plus women and children.

It was the Holy Spirit that could change mens hearts, causing the change that brings salvation. The law didn't keep those in repentance to following Christ, if there was any at all. Without hope, conviction is fading and hope was not available until Christ's ascention.I agree with much of what you say here. That there is hope in the Holy Spirit. But hope returned even before Pentecost. I do not agree with some of how you interpret these times because of the following.

Most of the Messiah's followers were convinced by His teachings and authority that He was the long awaited Messiah. But the prevalent teaching among the people was that the Messiah would lead a great military victory and free Israel from Roman rule. When He was killed, their hopes understandably were crushed. They had no reason to regroup, until they came to understand that He would return. Many fell away heartbroken, including the Apostles. And many came back after they understood what was really occurring. I think the upper room was a very cramped living quarters of 120 believers. It probably wasn't representative of the whole of the movement, except for the fact that there were others hiding elsewhere.

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 07:14 PM
Ever put yourself in a 1st century Jew's place? Have you any idea what it was like to be an average Jew under Roman occupation and Sanhedron oppression?

Or is the comfort of an armchair and a sermon on grace over channel 120 enough hardship to make your faith superior?

Until your daughter is taken away and raped for a tax payment, your son is nailed to a tree for no reason at all, and you're condemned for not saying a blessing over washed hands before you eat a snack, don't assume to be anyone's judge.

Just thank God in Heaven He has the mercy not to put you to the test in this way.Uh... if they died denying Christ... they failed the test. y I figure time will come when most of us alive today will likely be tested the same way. If we deny Him... we fail as well. That's Bible.

threebigrocks
Jul 16th 2008, 07:21 PM
Ok, question for you Do you believe the Holy Spirit indwelt people in the OT?

Tanja

Yes, I do, as God appointed to empower them to be a sign and witness.

When was the Spirit available to all who called on His Sons name? Nobody comes to the Father except through the Son in the times in which we live NOW.

Still no comment on the Isaiah 1 passage I shared Tanja. ;)

threebigrocks
Jul 16th 2008, 07:26 PM
I agree with much of what you say here. That there is hope in the Holy Spirit. But hope returned even before Pentecost. I do not agree with some of how you interpret these times because of the following.

Most of the Messiah's followers were convinced by His teachings and authority that He was the long awaited Messiah. But the prevalent teaching among the people was that the Messiah would lead a great military victory and free Israel from Roman rule. When He was killed, their hopes understandably were crushed. They had no reason to regroup, until they came to understand that He would return.

But the apostles and the others gathered began to put the pieces together after they saw Christ physically manifest Himself, being resurrected. All who expected a great military force would still turn a bild eye and deaf ear because who they thought to be their redeemer turned out to not be what they thought. They just saw death, and didn't place their hope in the resurrection which is where our hope as Christians lies.

Misplaced hope, just as PP said, is failure and only brings death and they went back to following the law.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 16th 2008, 10:06 PM
Still no comment on the Isaiah 1 passage I shared Tanja. TBR, i did finally comment on it and infact i think you responded afterwards to what i said:

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1710438&postcount=76

and your reply:

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1710891&postcount=82

As for the Holy Spirit:


Yes, I do, as God appointed to empower them to be a sign and witness.Yes, the Holy Spirit was given to people back then, but not just to some prophets and select few. Do you know how the Holy Spirit was passed on in those times?

At Mt. Sinai God gave the Spirit to all who were there and didn't reject Him.

After that the Holy Spirit was transferred/passed on by a laying on of Hands as it were a transfer of authority, though it did not diminish the authority of the one who passed it on. Like a candle that's lit being used to light another doesn't make the first candle go out. This could be within the family, or from neighbor to neighbor.
We first see this in the transfer of Moses and Joshua the son of Nun this was a God appointed thing. This also played out in small scale in the households and amongst people who believed. He had to be passed on like a light from one candle to the next and if no one worthy was found then the candle would go out.....
The lights once big and bright became smaller and smaller and eventually this would have died out.
To where perhaps by the time Yeshua came on the scene there were only two lights one bigger and one lesser light.....just a hunch...

The difference after this Pentecost in the NT was that now the Holy Spirit was given freely to anyone whom the Father called and drew near, and came to His Son. It was no longer done by hands of men transferring the Spirit/knowledge of Him, but rather through God Himself transferring the Knowledge and the Holy Spirit. This is now a continuous pouring out of the Spirit. Not like it was before when God poured the HS out at MT Sinai at that one location expecting people to carry on the flame for Him.

Sound familiar?

Jer 31:34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

There are really only some small minor differences between what one calls the Old Covenant and the New Covenant aside from the biggest that Yeshua came and shed His blood so the sins of the world could be taken away.

Shalom,
Tanja

keck553
Jul 16th 2008, 10:31 PM
Uh... if they died denying Christ... they failed the test. y I figure time will come when most of us alive today will likely be tested the same way. If we deny Him... we fail as well. That's Bible.

True. There is no path to the Father but through the Son. And what to do about it? Don't we collectively want ALL saved, especially those who love the same God we do but reject His Son?

How many converts have 'Christians' made twice the sons of hell as they were - in the past 2000 years? How many unbeleivers were persecuted, burned at the stake, starved to death, raped and murdered, experimented on, gassed and cremated in the name of the Gospel? I will tell you - tens of millions. How does a beliver in Eloheim but who rejects His Son see the Gospel? Through the veil of 2000 years of murder and persecution in the name of Jesus, my friend. We have nothing to brag about as a corporate. We should be on our knees repenting for what our brethren past and present in the body of Christ have done to profane His name.

"Love your brother as yourself" is the same command given by Jesus as was given by God at Sinai. Both Jews and Gentiles don't have much to brag about in that regard.

It's no wonder God will have to redeem Israel Himself.

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 11:26 PM
TBR, i did finally comment on it and infact i think you responded afterwards to what i said:

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1710438&postcount=76

and your reply:

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1710891&postcount=82

As for the Holy Spirit:

Yes, the Holy Spirit was given to people back then, but not just to some prophets and select few. Do you know how the Holy Spirit was passed on in those times?

At Mt. Sinai God gave the Spirit to all who were there and didn't reject Him.

After that the Holy Spirit was transferred/passed on by a laying on of Hands as it were a transfer of authority, though it did not diminish the authority of the one who passed it on. Like a candle that's lit being used to light another doesn't make the first candle go out. This could be within the family, or from neighbor to neighbor.
We first see this in the transfer of Moses and Joshua the son of Nun this was a God appointed thing. This also played out in small scale in the households and amongst people who believed. He had to be passed on like a light from one candle to the next and if no one worthy was found then the candle would go out.....
The lights once big and bright became smaller and smaller and eventually this would have died out.
To where perhaps by the time Yeshua came on the scene there were only two lights one bigger and one lesser light.....just a hunch...

The difference after this Pentecost in the NT was that now the Holy Spirit was given freely to anyone whom the Father called and drew near, and came to His Son. It was no longer done by hands of men transferring the Spirit/knowledge of Him, but rather through God Himself transferring the Knowledge and the Holy Spirit. This is now a continuous pouring out of the Spirit. Not like it was before when God poured the HS out at MT Sinai at that one location expecting people to carry on the flame for Him.

Sound familiar?

Jer 31:34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

There are really only some small minor differences between what one calls the Old Covenant and the New Covenant aside from the biggest that Yeshua came and shed His blood so the sins of the world could be taken away.

Shalom,
TanjaTanya,

It was given to the 70 elders that Moses appointed as leaders of the people. It wasn't even a laying on of hands thing either... there were two men that stayed back in the camp and they too prophesied in the camp as did the others (one time only). It was actually in the Tent of Meetings as well.

The Spirit also came upon men and gifted them to make the things for the tabernacle.

Not sure where you get the Sinai and laying on of hands and transferring it from... do you have specific Scripture for that? All that being said... the Spirit operating in folks back then... that was a rare thing for select folk. No question of that.

ProjectPeter
Jul 16th 2008, 11:28 PM
True. There is no path to the Father but through the Son. And what to do about it? Don't we collectively want ALL saved, especially those who love the same God we do but reject His Son?

How many converts have 'Christians' made twice the sons of hell as they were - in the past 2000 years? How many unbeleivers were persecuted, burned at the stake, starved to death, raped and murdered, experimented on, gassed and cremated in the name of the Gospel? I will tell you - tens of millions. How does a beliver in Eloheim but who rejects His Son see the Gospel? Through the veil of 2000 years of murder and persecution in the name of Jesus, my friend. We have nothing to brag about as a corporate. We should be on our knees repenting for what our brethren past and present in the body of Christ have done to profane His name.

"Love your brother as yourself" is the same command given by Jesus as was given by God at Sinai. Both Jews and Gentiles don't have much to brag about in that regard.

It's no wonder God will have to redeem Israel Himself.
Feel better now that you have that all out of your system? :lol:

Vhayes
Jul 17th 2008, 02:06 AM
Just because he knew the scriptures doesn't mean he knew the Spirit of everything. He had one advantage that he knew the scriptures well, but otherwise he was lacking understanding as many Christians still do.

I don't think he sank because of looking at circumstances, but rather i believe it was his leaning onto his own understanding that made him sink.
His mind therefore could not graps that spiritual thing that allowed Yeshua to walk on the water. That's why he was "little of faith"
He still had much to learn.

Shalom,
Tanja
Hi Tanja -

I've read this post several times and I don't understand what you are saying. Is there anyway you could elaborate a little so I can get a better understanding of what you believe here?

Thank you and again, I mean no disrespect, I just do not understand what you are saying.
V

ProjectPeter
Jul 17th 2008, 02:11 AM
Hi Tanja -

I've read this post several times and I don't understand what you are saying. Is there anyway you could elaborate a little so I can get a better understanding of what you believe here?

Thank you and again, I mean no disrespect, I just do not understand what you are saying.
V
Just for the record... your understanding of Peter and the use of him for this discussion was pretty much spot on. ;)

Matthew 14:27 *But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, "Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid."
28 *And Peter answered Him and said, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water."
29 *And He said, "Come!" And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
30 *But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
31 *And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and said to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"

keck553
Jul 17th 2008, 10:26 PM
Feel better now that you have that all out of your system? :lol:


Yes!! Thank God for grace!

jewel4Christ
Jul 17th 2008, 10:48 PM
Well, this quote goes back a page or two....but, wanted to say AMEN!



I don't use The Message as the final authority on anything. I have read completely the KJV, NKJV, NASB and NIV Bibles in the past, maybe not every word, but enough to know the general teaching of what the Bible is when you take a look at all translations. I agree with InHisGrip. The Message is good for devotional times but was not intended to be a translation.

When I compare The Message's rendition of Galatians to the NKJV, which is the other Bible I am currently reading, I find that they are not contradictory to one another and that The Message sheds a lot of light on doctrines that were previously hidden from me.

"The thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy."

God has done something good in my life through The Message.

Just like the enemy to try to make me distrust its message and thus lose what I have gained.

I own the message, and have studied it thoroughly. I have not read where it contradicts any other version.

Perhaps, someone should point out a passage that contradicts?

About the "law" issue, and all, God offers salvation, as a free gift, and many use the law unlawfully, just as Israel did.

The law must be used to bring one to Christ. Afterwards, it has done it's duty.

It was never a measuring stick to righteousness, or good works. Many are using it unlawfully......

peaceandlove,

janet