PDA

View Full Version : The Law of Christ



Kahtar
Jul 21st 2008, 03:51 AM
I keep seeing these discussions about the OT law, the ten commandments, etc, and invariably someone will come along and say something like "Christians today live and die under the Law of Christ".
So, in this thread, I would like for those to indulge me and provide the clear, concise list of those laws of Christ, and then explain what it means to be 'under' those laws.
Now, before you go reading between the lines all the 'stuff' that I didn't say, don't. There isn't anything there. I'm not supporting OT law, I am not advocating that we live under OT law.
It's a simple question, and it should only need a simple answer, a simple list, and that one explanation I asked for.

Literalist-Luke
Jul 21st 2008, 02:46 PM
Acts 15:23-29 -

The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.


Sounds pretty well straight to the point to me.

Kahtar
Jul 21st 2008, 04:01 PM
Okay, thank you. Question though. Aren't all of those OT laws?
Since the argument is that the OT laws are done away with and we are no longer under them, I am really looking for the NT laws, the laws of Christ, for the new covenant people.

manichunter
Jul 21st 2008, 04:10 PM
Acts 15:23-29 -

The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.


Sounds pretty well straight to the point to me.

Does this seem like kosher laws. Eating food without blood in it. It seems wierd.

keck553
Jul 21st 2008, 04:34 PM
I don't think God intended us to eat meat, the same way He never intended men to have many wives and treat them like a commodity. We had to adapt because of the fall.

Regarding eating blood, God gives instructions how to drain it out of the meat and where to let it drain.

God doesn't change. Why is that so difficult a concept for some?

threebigrocks
Jul 21st 2008, 05:24 PM
I don't think God intended us to eat meat, the same way He never intended men to have many wives and treat them like a commodity. We had to adapt because of the fall.

Regarding eating blood, God gives instructions how to drain it out of the meat and where to let it drain.

God doesn't change. Why is that so difficult a concept for some?

You don't think God intended us to eat meat? Then why did He allow us to eat meat after the flood?

Christ has made all things clean. So long as we do not cause our brother to stumble we can consume what we wish. Just as gentiles had direct access to God through Christ and thereby erasing that division between them and Israel the same is said of food. Do not make unclean what God has made clean.


Edit to add:
Also, I see where you said this in the Blood Sacrafice thread:

Noah was told to bring 7 of each clean animals and 2 of each unclean animals. Why? Not only for food, but in sacrificial offerings to the Lord.

manichunter
Jul 21st 2008, 05:38 PM
You don't think God intended us to eat meat? Then why did He allow us to eat meat after the flood?

Christ has made all things clean. So long as we do not cause our brother to stumble we can consume what we wish. Just as gentiles had direct access to God through Christ and thereby erasing that division between them and Israel the same is said of food. Do not make unclean what God has made clean.

Actually this is true. God originally only told mankind they could eat only from the trees of the garden and their fruits.


Ge 2:16 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ge+2:16&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;

Then God allows the eating of meat as long as it does not have blood in it when we eat it. I did not remember this little pre Moses Torah. I wonder if God actually gave this command to Adam after the fall.

Gen 9:1-5 1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. F10 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ge+9&t=nkj&st=1&new=1&l=en#F) 2And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man's brother I will require the life of man.

Ta-An
Jul 21st 2008, 05:51 PM
Kahtar, in support to your question just this : Same people will tell you that the Holy Spirit reveals nothing new, that is not written .... written where :hmm: just in the NT??

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 21st 2008, 06:05 PM
Let me throw in a link that shows all the Law of the NT:

http://shalach.org/BibleSearch/NTCommandments.htm

Have fun comparing all of that to the OT.

The text is too long for me to post here unless i break it up in 3 posts.

Shalom,
Tanja

keck553
Jul 21st 2008, 06:17 PM
You don't think God intended us to eat meat? Then why did He allow us to eat meat after the flood?

Christ has made all things clean. So long as we do not cause our brother to stumble we can consume what we wish. Just as gentiles had direct access to God through Christ and thereby erasing that division between them and Israel the same is said of food. Do not make unclean what God has made clean.


Edit to add:
Also, I see where you said this in the Blood Sacrafice thread:

No, I don't think God intended us to eat meat. Where does it say Adam killed cows and sheep to survive in the Garden of Eden? He allowed us to eat meat after the flood for the same reason He let Moses allow for multiple wives.

Also, your comment to Yeshua making 'all things clean', He was referring to ritual cleanliness, not about what to eat. Look up the subject of the matter. Proper context is imperitive. The food was bread. The subject was ritual hand washing.

And no, I wouldn't cause a brother to stumble by eating meat if he abstains. I understand Paul was teaching Greeks, most of whom were vegetarians.

Context.

threebigrocks
Jul 21st 2008, 06:27 PM
No, I don't think God intended us to eat meat. Where does it say Adam killed cows and sheep to survive in the Garden of Eden? He allowed us to eat meat after the flood for the same reason He let Moses allow for multiple wives.

Also, your comment to Yeshua making 'all things clean', He was referring to ritual cleanliness, not about what to eat. Look up the subject of the matter. Proper context is imperitive. The food was bread. The subject was ritual hand washing.

And no, I wouldn't cause a brother to stumble by eating meat if he abstains. I understand Paul was teaching Greeks, most of whom were vegetarians.

Context.

So Christ was all about ritual cleanliness?

Kahtar
Jul 21st 2008, 06:37 PM
Thank you all for your input so far.
I would just point out the focus of this thread, and encourage everyone to stick to that please.
Thank you Jesusinmyheart for the link. I'll look at it. Sure would have liked the list though, even if it is 3 posts long. :)

manichunter
Jul 21st 2008, 06:42 PM
Thank you all for your input so far.
I would just point out the focus of this thread, and encourage everyone to stick to that please.
Thank you Jesusinmyheart for the link. I'll look at it. Sure would have liked the list though, even if it is 3 posts long. :)


I was thinking the same thing Mr K. I apologize for my diverting the topic on my part.

Ta-An
Jul 21st 2008, 06:43 PM
Thank you all for your input so far.
I would just point out the focus of this thread, and encourage everyone to stick to that please.
Thank you Jesusinmyheart for the link. I'll look at it. Sure would have liked the list though, even if it is 3 posts long. :)Kahtar, you should have said : Only those who do not sing in the choir, please answer :D


My apologies :blush:

Kahtar
Jul 21st 2008, 06:53 PM
;) Applogies accepted.Wow! Have you looked at that list? :eek:
After briefly browsing through that list, one thing became very apparent. Most if not ALL of them are found in the OT. They are not new laws at all, but the same laws of the OT.
I was rather amused by the author's note that they are 'not to be confused with the 10 commandments which were abolished with the law of Moses'

Take the very first one in the list, for instance:
1. Idols (Acts 15:20).
Is that not simply a retelling, or further clarification, of the first and second of the Ten commandments?
That's like saying the OT law 'Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength' is abolished, and we are now to follow the NT law 'Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength'. :D

Literalist-Luke
Jul 21st 2008, 06:58 PM
Does this seem like kosher laws. Eating food without blood in it. It seems wierd.
Okay, thank you. Question though. Aren't all of those OT laws?
Since the argument is that the OT laws are done away with and we are no longer under them, I am really looking for the NT laws, the laws of Christ, for the new covenant people.It should be no surprise that there would be some carryover from the Old Testament. That fact is that meat with raw blood in it is not as healthy as fully cooked meat. Eating healthier food is a good enough reason for me, regardless of whether it was in the Old Testament or not.

keck553
Jul 21st 2008, 06:59 PM
So Christ was all about ritual cleanliness?

So Christ was all about gourging on hogs?

fewarechosen
Jul 21st 2008, 07:02 PM
if there is a law of christ as its called

it would be love

in my opinion it is wayyyy more than the original ot laws
the laws now are infinate yet oh so simple

preach with actions

it is that every action should be for and towards god

things like getting married, sure its fine to do so.
but the better way is to attend to things of god and not earthly things

god doesnt care what we eat but he cares about how it is influencing those around us, when i am eating some fatty greesy foods am i casting a stumbling block to my brother ? am i taking god for granted ?

when i watch a movie does it edify god at all ?

does the car i drive have an influence on people around me ?

do i need a car ?

do i spend time on a message board when i should be ringing my neighbors doorbell and telling him im a christian and i should be doing more to help my neighbor so could i cut your grass or something just to help

do i lay down every action i do in life ?

is my life truly laid down for my neighbor ?
if my life is laid down every action i take will be for my neighbors good

for we are to love my neighbor as my self, i love to do things for myself so should i not love to do them for my neighbor ?

why do i spend the 10 bucks on a movie, why do i not give it to a person who needs to eat ? is my need to see a movie greater than someone elses need to eat ?

why do i not give away all my money and all my food having nothing for myself, then let god feed me

have i gone 40 days with no food nor water

surely god will not let me starve to death

do i love my own family more than anothers family who does me harm ?

when someone attacks my family do i realize it was my family attacking my family or am i drawing a line between us

do i feed and shelter the very people who wish to do me harm or am i all talk.

christs law was love, lay down your life for your neighbor
every action you take should be the laying down of your life for anothers

Brother Mark
Jul 21st 2008, 07:09 PM
No, I don't think God intended us to eat meat. Where does it say Adam killed cows and sheep to survive in the Garden of Eden? He allowed us to eat meat after the flood for the same reason He let Moses allow for multiple wives.

Actually, there's a big difference. God gave the animals for food to Noah. It wasn't that he allowed it, he gave it.

Gen 9:3-4
3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.
NASB

In the same spirit that he gave us the green plant, he gave us animals to eat.

Ta-An
Jul 21st 2008, 07:10 PM
;) Applogies accepted.Wow! Have you looked at that list? :eek:
Have you counted them??

Brother Mark
Jul 21st 2008, 07:12 PM
Thank you all for your input so far.
I would just point out the focus of this thread, and encourage everyone to stick to that please.
Thank you Jesusinmyheart for the link. I'll look at it. Sure would have liked the list though, even if it is 3 posts long. :)

Hi Kahtar. I responded to at least one post before reading this one. So at this point, I'll throw something out there.

The only NT law that I know of that is completely new, and maybe someone can correct me if it is not new or if there are more is this one...

John 13:34

34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
KJV

I suspect that all or most other NT commands are just repeating OT commands.

fewarechosen
Jul 21st 2008, 07:23 PM
Hi Kahtar. I responded to at least one post before reading this one. So at this point, I'll throw something out there.

The only NT law that I know of that is completely new, and maybe someone can correct me if it is not new or if there are more is this one...

John 13:34

34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
KJV

I suspect that all or most other NT commands are just repeating OT commands.

i feel christ didnt really repeat them as much as elaborate on them, he also let us know that he is sending us the comforter which is the law written in our hearts

thats the new law the old law was not written in the hearts and minds, the new law is. thank god for that

thats the biggest difference and all the difference between old law and new, the new is in us

keck553
Jul 21st 2008, 08:14 PM
Actually, there's a big difference. God gave the animals for food to Noah. It wasn't that he allowed it, he gave it.

Gen 9:3-4
3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.
NASB

In the same spirit that he gave us the green plant, he gave us animals to eat.

That's called 'mercy'.

Kahtar
Jul 21st 2008, 08:14 PM
Have you counted them??

Yeah. 1050! .....................:D

Kahtar
Jul 21st 2008, 08:15 PM
Hi Kahtar. I responded to at least one post before reading this one. So at this point, I'll throw something out there.

The only NT law that I know of that is completely new, and maybe someone can correct me if it is not new or if there are more is this one...

John 13:34

34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
KJV

I suspect that all or most other NT commands are just repeating OT commands.


Is that really new, though? Isn't that simply 'love your neighbor as yourself stated a different way?

Kahtar
Jul 21st 2008, 08:17 PM
i feel christ didnt really repeat them as much as elaborate on them, he also let us know that he is sending us the comforter which is the law written in our hearts

thats the new law the old law was not written in the hearts and minds, the new law is. thank god for that

thats the biggest difference and all the difference between old law and new, the new is in us

I agree, but, what IS that law written in our hearts? Can you describe it, or them?

Brother Mark
Jul 21st 2008, 08:18 PM
Is that really new, though? Isn't that simply 'love your neighbor as yourself stated a different way?

I don't think so and here's why...

Jesus prayed in the garden "Father, if it be possible, remove this cup from me". But it wasn't going to happen. That was a prayer of self preservation. Nothing wrong with loving yourself as we are told to do so and Jesus loved himself. But then, Jesus loved God and others more than he did himself and offered himself up as a sacrifice. So to love others as Jesus loved us puts the command on the level of a God kind of love.

A man may not love himself much and can still love others as much as he loves himself. But when a man loves as Christ loves, that is a love beyond what most of us understand. In that sense, it is a new command. It is one that could not be kept under the old covenant because only God can love that way. But in the new covenant, we have God in us so now, we too can love like God loves.

Rom 5:5

5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
KJV

Kahtar
Jul 21st 2008, 08:19 PM
if there is a law of christ as its called

it would be love
Agreed, but that is simply the entirely of the law summed up in one word.Summed up in to statements, it is 'love God', and 'love neighbor'.
Still not new, though. That's OT law.

keck553
Jul 21st 2008, 08:20 PM
So, what is Love? I try hard to define this in God's terms, not mine, for my terms are self centered.

Yeshua was not teaching anything already laid out in Torah (which most here say is dead), except for one new command he gives to His talmidim (mroe on this later).

Matthew 22:37-28: "Yeshua said to them, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment."

"..in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgements, that you may live and multiply; and that the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you to to possess" - Deuteronomy 30:16

Does the western culture have a good idea of what "love" is? Considering the fact that it's a major subject in songs, books, magazines and movies you'd think we have it down pat. With that mindset, looking at how scripture defines 'love' indeed is confusing. Consider the movie that proclaimed "Love never means saying your sorry". or the sick euphamism that equates love with sexual deviancy. No, love is not how our
culture defines it. Biblical Love is not an emotion. Please consider:

Think about a few things you love, like chocolate, or your dog, or your job.

The hebew word for love is "ahav". It is spelled with the Hebrew letters "alef-hay-bet." Like the english term, the hebrew word can be used for anything from nobel to profane. The fist usage of "ahav" is in Genesis 22:2

Gen 22:2 And He said, Now take your son, Isaac, your only one whom you love, and go into the land of Moriah. And there offer him for a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I will say to you.

Reading Genesis 22:1-2 and 11-12, we see the things implied that Abraham loved. How did Abraham prove his love?

Ahav represents an interesting hebrew pictograph if one starts with hebrew "av" (father) and add teh letter "hay" in the middle, you can see the word 'ahav' (the hebrew alphabet only contains consonants). The adding of the letter 'hay' points to the Spirt of God, the heart of a matter, and shows that love is the focus of the Father. In other words, the heart of the Father is Love.

Genesis 27:1-5 reveals to us what Isaac loved (verse 4).

Then in Exodus 20:5-6 comes the first use of the word "ahav" in the context of loving God. Reading this, ask yourself what God links to loving Him?

Exo 20:5 you shall not bow to them, and you shall not serve them; for I am Jehovah your God, a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of fathers on sons, on the third and on the fourth generation, to those that hate Me;
Exo 20:6 and doing kindness to thousands, to those loving Me, and to those keeping My commandments.

The verse below should be fairly obvious as to what God says to do to love Him.

Deu 11:1 "You shall therefore love the LORD your God, and always keep His charge, His statutes, His ordinances, and His commandments.

So, what does God love? Does He tell us?

Psa 11:7 For the LORD is righteous, He loves righteousness; The upright will behold His face.
Psa 33:5 He loves righteousness and justice; The earth is full of the lovingkindness of the LORD.
Psa 87:2 The LORD loves the gates of Zion More than all the other dwelling places of Jacob.

The Greek word used in the Septuagint for Love in Genesis 22:2 comes from the Greek word "Agapao". This is the same word used in John 3:16. Think about how John 3:14-17 relates to Genesis 22:2.

When reading the Apostolic writings, we need to be careful not to use definitions that are not supported by scripture. I've heard it said agapao is "God's unconditional love for man." Is that the only use for the word "agapao" though? For example in Matthew 22:37, Yeshua quotes from Deuteronomy 6:5. The word 'agapao' is used - but as a command for us to love God, not the other way around. Please read the following:

Luk 7:41 "A moneylender had two debtors: one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty.
Luk 7:42 "When they were unable to repay, he graciously forgave them both. So which of them will love him more?"
Luk 7:43 Simon answered and said, "I suppose the one whom he forgave more." And He said to him, "You have judged correctly."

then:

Joh 10:17 "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again.

then:

Joh 14:21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."

Note the relationship of love to commands.

So, what are we to love?

Deu 6:5 and you are to love Adonai your God with all your heart, all your being and all your resources.
Psa 119:47 I shall delight in Your commandments, Which I love.
Psa 119:97 o mem O how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day.
Psa 119:159 Consider how I love Your precepts; Revive me, O LORD, according to Your lovingkindness.
Mat 5:44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,Mat 22:37 And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' Mat 22:38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. Mat 22:39 "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'
Joh 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.
Joh 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.
Joh 15:9 "Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. Joh 15:10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
Joh 15:11 "These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,
1Jn 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
1Jn 4:8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

In 1 John 2:15 we are told what NOT to love.
Do you think the prosperity preachers who say the law is dead except for tithing read that?

Then in 1 John 4:16 we are told God is love. This verse is misused often to teach a different Gospel. It is used by some to water down the fact that God is holy and expects people to obey. It is used to 'change' the God of the Old Testament into a different God of the New Testament.

God has not changed.

A false teaching stems from a misunderstanding of Matthew 22:37-39 (parallel verses in Mark 12 and Luke 10). This has been used to create a false doctrine that Yeshua instituted a 'new law', the "Law of Love" which supercedes and replaces God's holy commandments. What Yeshua points out here is the connection between God's commandments and loving Him. The "Law of Love" has always been the summation of God's commands, otherwise the Torah teachers wouldn't have agreed with Him. If we don't want to obey Him, we do not love Him.

The second greatest command is to "love you neighbor as yourself." This is a quote from Leviticus 19:18. All along, love has been the summation of all that God has commanded. Love motivates our desire to obey Him, and validates we are His children.

Kahtar
Jul 21st 2008, 08:23 PM
I don't think so and here's why...

Jesus prayed in the garden "Father, if it be possible, remove this cup from me". But it wasn't going to happen. That was a prayer of self preservation. Nothing wrong with loving yourself as we are told to do so and Jesus loved himself. But then, Jesus loved God and others more than he did himself and offered himself up as a sacrifice. So to love others as Jesus loved us puts the command on the level of a God kind of love.

A man may not love himself much and can still love others as much as he loves himself. But when a man loves as Christ loves, that is a love beyond what most of us understand. In that sense, it is a new command. It is one that could not be kept under the old covenant because only God can love that way. But in the new covenant, we have God in us so now, we too can love like God loves.

Rom 5:5

5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
KJV

Okay, I'll go along with that. But really, it's still love, just a much greater level of love. In fact, a level not attainable by us without Christ.

losthorizon
Jul 21st 2008, 10:53 PM
I keep seeing these discussions about the OT law, the ten commandments, etc, and invariably someone will come along and say something like "Christians today live and die under the Law of Christ".
So, in this thread, I would like for those to indulge me and provide the clear, concise list of those laws of Christ, and then explain what it means to be 'under' those laws.
Now, before you go reading between the lines all the 'stuff' that I didn't say, don't. There isn't anything there. I'm not supporting OT law, I am not advocating that we live under OT law.
It's a simple question, and it should only need a simple answer, a simple list, and that one explanation I asked for.
Well Kahtar – since you use my direct quote – “Christians today live and die under the Law of Christ" – I suspect you are directing this thread (at least in part) to my posts regarding the contrast I make between the “Law of Moses” and the “Law of Christ” so I will wade into this thread and “indulge” you the best I can.

Let me start by saying that you and I both know very well there is no “clear, concise list of those laws of Christ” as though the NT operates on “to do” lists – it doesn’t. We are exhorted to study His word diligently to know what is revealed – “a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” The law of Christ (God’s “perfect law of liberty”) is simply a conceptual law based on the two basic principles taught by the Lord in the New Testament – faith and love. Christ’s law ("the law of God") can best be summed up in the words of John…
And this is his commandment, we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as he gave us commandment. 1 John 3:23As contrasted with the Law of Moses (a law based on works) – the law of Christ is a law based on faith and love and it is here that we see the difference between the two laws and it is a big difference - a law of works vs. a law of faith.
Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? of works? Nay: but by a law of faith. Romans 3:27What we witness on many threads in this forum are those who wish to draw Christians back under the shadows of Judaism (bondage based on a law of works) and take away the freedom we have in Christ Jesus – freedom based on a law of faith through God’s grace…
“For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.” Romans 6: 14Much more could be said on this subject but I think you understand my position – we are encouraged and commanded to "love one another" and “bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ...". Galatians 6:2

keck553
Jul 21st 2008, 11:36 PM
As contrasted with the Law of Moses (a law based on works) – the law of Christ is a law based on faith and love and it is here that we see the difference between the two laws and it is a big difference - a law of works vs. a law of faith.

Sorry, that statement a either a false teaching or Jesus following Torah perfectly meant He was following a law of works, not faith? I guess then James was a liar, along with all the patriarchs, prophets and Yeshua Himself..

Who do you think gave Torah in the first place? Do you really think a gracious and loving God would give a law of works to a nation He took under His wing, then change his mind, pull the rug from under them and pour out His grace on a bunch of tree worshipping pagans in exchange for almost 2000 years of persecutions, murder and coerced conversions in the name of love?

Yikees. That's not the God I worship.

It was always about relationship, and always will be about relationship. And I don't mean relationship as in your heavenly buddy either.

Kahtar
Jul 22nd 2008, 12:24 AM
Thank you lh. Admittedly, your post in another thread is what spawned this one, and your statement was a convenient starting point. ;)
And your response here was well-stated, and, let me say that overall, I agree with what you have presented.
I understand, and agree with, your distain of and teaching against the 'putting us back under the law'.
You are of course correct that there is no clearly defined 'list', per se, however, as can be seen in the link provided by a previous poster, one can certainly be developed from that diligent study of the Word that you suggested.
And to be sure, love and faith are clearly stated in the NT, and are the basis of our relationship with Chrsit.
But, those have always been the basis of man's relationship with God. It has ever been His desire that we love Him and believe what He says. Hebrews 11 brings this out quite well. I see little difference between the 'Love God' of the OT and the 'love God' of the NT. Perhaps you can explain the difference between the two. From my perspective, love is love, a matter of man's heart in both testaments, and I see no difference.
I will disagree with you that the OT law was a 'law of works'. It is a law of love, summed up in the two, Love God, and Love Neighbor', outwardly displayed, and obeyed, in physical works. However, the application of it by the Levitical priesthood limited it to a mere 'law of works' not unlike the laws of our land today, void of love and truth and faith, which Jesus Christ so fervently attempted to explain to them.
What I would like from you, if you are willing, is how you would define 'the law of love and faith'. In other words, what does that look like, how do we do it, how is it carried out in our lives.
It is one thing to say 'we live according to the law of faith', and quite another to explain HOW we do that. The book of James comes to mind here.
And, if you are willing, perhaps explain what is meant by 'being under the law', and being 'under grace'.

threebigrocks
Jul 22nd 2008, 12:54 AM
Sorry, that statement a either a false teaching or Jesus following Torah perfectly meant He was following a law of works, not faith? I guess then James was a liar, along with all the patriarchs, prophets and Yeshua Himself..

Who do you think gave Torah in the first place? Do you really think a gracious and loving God would give a law of works to a nation He took under His wing, then change his mind, pull the rug from under them and pour out His grace on a bunch of tree worshipping pagans in exchange for almost 2000 years of persecutions, murder and coerced conversions in the name of love?

Yikees. That's not the God I worship.

It was always about relationship, and always will be about relationship. And I don't mean relationship as in your heavenly buddy either.


He gave hope to those tree worshipping pagans to come to Him, should they choose to lay aside their pagan practices and repent and turn to Him. Before He lived the law perfectly, because of the Father's love for us He was also obedient to Him, there was no hope for them.

Now, to fufill that which none of us could out of love - to give up hope through His resurrection - how is that not the God you know?

losthorizon
Jul 22nd 2008, 12:56 AM
I will disagree with you that the OT law was a 'law of works'. It is a law of love, summed up in the two, Love God, and Love Neighbor', outwardly displayed, and obeyed, in physical works. However, the application of it by the Levitical priesthood limited it to a mere 'law of works'...


But the law of Moses was always administered by the Levitical priesthood – that being true it was always a “law of works” was it not? The God we all should worship is the God who provided salvation through His gift to our race - the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross – not through the works of the law of Moses as some erroneously teach...
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3). Therefore our Christian hope is only through the blood of Christ who redeemed us from the “curse of the law”…"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13). Was the law of Moses in some sense a “curse for us” - why did we need to be "redeemed from the curse of the law"? Why was the law of Moses nailed to His cross or do you think it was?

Kahtar
Jul 22nd 2008, 03:02 AM
But the law of Moses was always administered by the Levitical priesthood – that being true it was always a “law of works” was it not? The God we all should worship is the God who provided salvation through His gift to our race - the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross – not through the works of the law of Moses as some erroneously teach...

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3).
Therefore our Christian hope is only through the blood of Christ who redeemed us from the “curse of the law”…"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13). Was the law of Moses in some sense a “curse for us” - why did we need to be "redeemed from the curse of the law"? Why was the law of Moses nailed to His cross or do you think it was?


I have spent the last hour answering your post here. It is all ready to post, but I'm not going to post it yet, because I want to give you time to answer the questions I asked.

I would also point out that the purpose of this thread is not to win a debate, but rather to cut through all the Christianeze and say what we really mean by all those old familiar phrases.

StevenC
Jul 22nd 2008, 05:43 AM
I keep seeing these discussions about the OT law, the ten commandments, etc, and invariably someone will come along and say something like "Christians today live and die under the Law of Christ".
So, in this thread, I would like for those to indulge me and provide the clear, concise list of those laws of Christ, and then explain what it means to be 'under' those laws.
Now, before you go reading between the lines all the 'stuff' that I didn't say, don't. There isn't anything there. I'm not supporting OT law, I am not advocating that we live under OT law.
It's a simple question, and it should only need a simple answer, a simple list, and that one explanation I asked for.

Hello Kahtar,

I will throw in my two cents. I view Jesus' teachings such as his sermon on the mount to be his commandments:


17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

I hope I haven't confused the issue here. I view the "law" and "commandments" to be somewhat interchangeable, so to me your post is about "The Commandments of Christ."

-Steven

Brother Mark
Jul 22nd 2008, 12:41 PM
Okay, I'll go along with that. But really, it's still love, just a much greater level of love. In fact, a level not attainable by us without Christ.

Yea, I'll agree with that. But should it surprise us that God, who is Love, will only give commands that deal with love? Until Christ came to live in us, we could not hope to fully love as He does.

I see a few differences in the old covenant and the new covenant. The biggest one is Christ in us the hope of glory. That could not happen until his blood cleansed the temple of our hearts. Then God had a new holy of holies to reside in.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 22nd 2008, 01:22 PM
I see a few differences in the old covenant and the new covenant. The biggest one is Christ in us the hope of glory. That could not happen until his blood cleansed the temple of our hearts. Then God had a new holy of holies to reside in.

That's where i see it differently, Yeshua was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This means that while the blood may not actually have been shed at that time in a physical sense, forgiveness existed from the beginning.

Shalom,
Tanja

Brother Mark
Jul 22nd 2008, 01:30 PM
That's where i see it differently, Yeshua was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This means that while the blood may not actually have been shed at that time in a physical sense, forgiveness existed from the beginning.

Shalom,
Tanja

Yet, until the actual death and resurrection of Christ, the saints had to stay in paradise waiting till His time was full. Forgiveness was available, but until Jesus died and rose again, God didn't live in us as he does now. He had a temple to dwell in back then. Now he dwells in a temple not made with hands, i.e. His people.

But in keeping with the OP, what differences do you see in the old covenant and new covenant commands?

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 22nd 2008, 01:50 PM
Yet, until the actual death and resurrection of Christ, the saints had to stay in paradise waiting till His time was full. Forgiveness was available, but until Jesus died and rose again, God didn't live in us as he does now. He had a temple to dwell in back then. Now he dwells in a temple not made with hands, i.e. His people.I'm not so sure i agree with this..... (Sorry for the small derail Kahtar) I assume you are basically saying that now the saints no longer go to Paradise.. but then where do they go?
In Revelation we see that the saints who are dead are under the Altar.... That to me sounds much like paradise. It's certainly not Heaven.

It appears to me that not until He comes again will we be first judged and then allowed to enter.

As for the differences in the OT commands and the NT commands i don't see a difference, i only see a clarification of sorts something that is supposed to reach even deeper into the heart. Those commandments which cannot be physically carried out i.e. sacrifice are now entered into a spiritual plane of existence, in and through us who Believe.

Shalom,
Tanja

Kahtar
Jul 22nd 2008, 02:17 PM
The basic difference I see between the Mosaic and the Messianic Covenants is the physical and the spiritual. All through the Word we see the recurring theme of the natural first and then the spiritual. It is seen in the first and second Adam, Cain and Abel, Esau and Jacob, Saul and David, Ishmael and Isaac, the temple in Jerusalem and the temple made without hands, and on and on.
The first, being natural, physical, is a shadow of the spiritual, and as such, is 'weak' and unable to fulfill the spiritual requirements, but points to the spiritual. The spiritual, when carried out, is displayed in the physical.

Edit to add:
I do see a difference between God's law and the covenants. That difference is exemplified in the fact that the commandments, written by God's hand in stone, were placed inside the ark of the covenant, while the ordinances, Moses' law, was placed on the side of the ark. God's law has existed from the beginning, and has been a part of each 'conditional' covenant. (Noah's and Abraham's covenants were not conditional, but are everlasting covenants, not dependant upon man's actions).
In the physical temple, the commandments were placed in the ark, inside the holy of holies. The physical temple was a shadow of the temple made without hands, us. In us, our 'holy of holies' is our spirit, our heart, our innermost being, and guess where the law is. It's written upon our hearts.

Brother Mark
Jul 22nd 2008, 02:25 PM
The basic difference I see between the Mosaic and the Messianic Covenants is the physical and the spiritual. All through the Word we see the recurring theme of the natural first and then the spiritual. It is seen in the first and second Adam, Cain and Abel, Esau and Jacob, Saul and David, Ishmael and Isaac, the temple in Jerusalem and the temple made without hands, and on and on.
The first, being natural, physical, is a shadow of the spiritual, and as such, is 'weak' and unable to fulfill the spiritual requirements, but points to the spiritual. The spiritual, when carried out, is displayed in the physical.

This is exactly how I see it too Kahtar. This is a big difference. The natural reveals the spiritual if we look. I think this is what Paul was getting at when he spoke of the letter and the spirit. This was one issue Israel had. They couldn't see the spiritual for the natural. David clearly saw it in Psalms 51. In his sin, he knew that the blood of bulls and goats could do nothing for him. He knew only through the grace of God could forgiveness be had. So while the physical was commanded in the OT, so too was the spiritual but the spiritual is explained more fully in the NT.

Edit: Though I do think that the spiritual carried out in the physical today is different than what was carried out physically under the law. For instance, I now offer a sacrifice of praise and offer my own body and my words, a grain sacrifice, are to be salted with grace. So the spiritual is displayed in then physical but not so much in offering animals and grains for offerings to the Lord but rather in offering myself and those things that belong to me to Him.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 22nd 2008, 02:32 PM
The first, being natural, physical, is a shadow of the spiritual, and as such, is 'weak' and unable to fulfill the spiritual requirements, but points to the spiritual. The spiritual, when carried out, is displayed in the physical.

We're walking temples :lol: No seriously!!!

Shalom,
Tanja

Kahtar
Jul 22nd 2008, 02:40 PM
We're walking temples :lol: No seriously!!!

Shalom,
Tanja

Yes, we are. The Holy Spirit has taken up residence within us. We carry the kingdom and God's power and glory with us whereever we go. Out of our bellies flow rivers of living water, just as the River of Life flows from beneath the throne of God in Revelation.
It's really pretty awesome when you stop to think about it.

Brother Mark
Jul 22nd 2008, 02:50 PM
Edit to add:
I do see a difference between God's law and the covenants. That difference is exemplified in the fact that the commandments, written by God's hand in stone, were placed inside the ark of the covenant, while the ordinances, Moses' law, was placed on the side of the ark. God's law has existed from the beginning, and has been a part of each 'conditional' covenant. (Noah's and Abraham's covenants were not conditional, but are everlasting covenants, not dependant upon man's actions).
In the physical temple, the commandments were placed in the ark, inside the holy of holies. The physical temple was a shadow of the temple made without hands, us. In us, our 'holy of holies' is our spirit, our heart, our innermost being, and guess where the law is. It's written upon our hearts.

I think we are in complete agreement. I remember Talmadim explaining this quite well in a post long ago.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 22nd 2008, 03:37 PM
It's really pretty awesome when you stop to think about it.

I know it is, i'm just laughing because when i wrote that earlier it gave me a most hillarious visual to go with the sentence, so don't mind me on that. :lol:

Shalom,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 22nd 2008, 03:40 PM
On a much more serious note, if you consider that we are walking temples, can you see how we are supposed to bring God and His truth to the people?
We now embody the House of God, as well as His Priesthood in person.
This also brings home the importance of maintaining His Law as an example and light to others, it is after all HIS code of conduct.
Of course here again the importance is that this is in the heart of those who receive it.

Shalom,
Tanja

keck553
Jul 22nd 2008, 03:51 PM
It's important to remember Torah is NOT a covenant. They are instructions.

The principals of the New Covenant go all the way back to at least Abraham, so to say the Sinai covenant was a step back from the New Covenant faith of Abraham is unfounded.

Jesus explained and exemplified how the 10 commandments were meant to come from the heart into the physical world. He summed up all the commandments into two, which the Torah Teachers and sages knew all along but didn't keep and treasure.

It's dangerous to focus on a set of regulations in that they become the object of worship, or more accurately, an idol. Humans love routine and structure, and it's no wonder, God made us that way.

When Moses came down the mountain with the 10 commandments, he found God's people frollicking and worshipping an Egyptian idol. They had rejected an emmisary of God. Moses smashed the commandments and went back up the mountain. The second time he came down, the people were mourning and ready to accept God.

When Jesus came He found God's people frollicking and worshipping an idol (they turned Torah into an idol that served them). They rejected God's Son. He went back up the mountain, but when He returns, His people will be mourning and ready to accept God.

That is accept God and His Way, not continue in the world's ways and pretend grace will forever cover the profaning of His name. How much greater will destruction come to those who have rejected His Son. Those who have repented (turned to God's Way) and accepted Yeshua HaMaschiach as thier Savior have no need to fear, He will keep and treasure His people. He will show the same grace to those who love (in the verb form) Him the same as the Father showed grace to thise who love (in the verb form) Him.

What Yeshua did was explain that if Torah doesn't come from the heart, it is useless and unprofitable.

My 6 year son was watching me do some framing a while back. He wanted to imitate his dad, so he asked for a hammer and some nails. I gave him instructions on how to hold the hammer, start the nail, etc. Does anyone here think he could have done it 'his way' and not been injured or unsuccessful? Does anyone think by following my instructions he was doing 'works'? Of course he didn't get it perfect. But it pleased me to no end that he wanted to be like his dad. This is what God wants from all of us.

As far as the heart and stone thing is concerned, yes, Yeshua showed us in detail how the 10 commandments are a heart issue. But does that mean believers have their hearts of stone magically turned to hearts of flesh?

I wonder through 2000 years of persection and mass murder in the name of Jesus exactly what the nature of this transformation of stoney hearts to flesh represents. But then I am looking at what men did with the teachings of Messiah to further thier worship of an idol. What makes them different than 'the Jews' except for the quantity of death and suffering? Love your neighbor???

Have we (mainstream Christianity) turned the Lord's 'grace' into an idol?

Kahtar
Jul 23rd 2008, 12:47 PM
Good post, Keck. I particularly liked that little nugget about Moses/Jesus coming down from the mountain. I had never made that connection before.

Kahtar
Jul 23rd 2008, 12:53 PM
LH is busy with real life at the moment, so I'm going to go ahead and post my answer to his last post.

But the law of Moses was always administered by the Levitical priesthood – that being true it was always a “law of works” was it not?
No, not always. Probably most of the time, though. There were some, like Zadok and his sons, who ministered before the Lord, and drew close to Him. But many were like the sons of Eli, who corrupted the priesthood and the people.
It is true, however, that the actual 'doing' of the law was works. But I would submit to you that YOU cannot love God and love neighbor WITHOUT fulfilling or DOING the law.
If love was merely a cushy feeling we get in our heart, or just words that we recite, then maybe we wouldn't have to do anything. But love compells us to act. The Holy Spirit compels us to act. The very gifts of the Spirit are for the purpose of acting out that love we are filled with.
The law of love compels us to love our neighbor instead of killing him, to clothe him when he's naked, feed him when he's hungry, give him drink when he's thirsty, lay hands on him and heal him when he's sick, pray for him when he despitefully uses us, and even give up our own life for him when necessary.

The God we all should worship is the God who provided salvation through His gift to our race - the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross
This is certainly true. And has been from the beginning. When Abel brought his lamb before God, he didn't have faith in the lamb, he wasn't trusting in the little innocent animal, he was trusting in the Word of God in the garden about the coming Seed of the Woman who would crush the head of the serpent, and understood the lamb represented that Savior of manking who was yet to come. And every sacrifice from that time had the same purpose, whether the one offering it realized that or not. Many did not.
When we take communion, we are demonstrating through an outward physical act that which we believe and trust in in our heart, that body and blood of the True Sacrifice.
And I would submit to you that when you accepted Christ as your Savior, and even now when you confess and repent of your sins, that you are still trusting in a sacrifice, you are fulfilling the law of sacrifice, but with the understanding of that True Sacrifice, the Seed of the Woman who DID come.
It is necessary to understand that mere obedience to the law has NEVER been sufficient for righteousness or salvation. Even today, the mere ACT of getting baptised won't save you, drinking grape juice and eating crackers won't save you, going to church won't save you, putting money in the basket won't save you. The ONLY thing that will save a man is by accepting that Sacrifice, by accepting the death of the Lamb of God Who died IN OUR PLACE, so that we don't have to experience that death ourself.
But the fact that baptism doesn't save us doesn't mean we shouldn't get baptized. We get baptized not for salvation, but for obedience. We take communion not for salvation, but for obedience. We love our neighbor, and demonstrate that love not to get saved, but for obedience, and because the Holy Spirit has given us the love of Christ to be able to love our neighbor. We are obedient not to get saved, but because we truly DO love God, and desire in our heart to be pleasing to Him.

Therefore our Christian hope is only through the blood of Christ who redeemed us from the “curse of the law”…Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (Gal. 3:13). Was the law of Moses in some sense a “curse for us” - why did we need to be redeemed from the curse of the law?
Yes, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law. But what is the curse of the law? The law itself? Or the fulfillment of the law?
Paul tells us in Romans 7:12 that the law is holy, and just, and good. The law itself is not a curse. BUT, the law exposes our sin, and the punishment for breaking the law is death. And because the law exposes our sin, it brings upon us the curse of the law, which is death.
But Jesus Christ paid the price of the law, which we all have broken, with His own death. So now, because the law has been satisfied through Christ and His Sacrifice, we are set free from that curse, we are set from from death.
And because we have been set free from death, we are now, as Paul said in Romans 7:6 free so that we can serve in newness of spirit, instead of the oldness of the letter. So how do we serve in newness of spirit? What is Paul talking about there? Before Christ we served in the letter of the law. Now, we serve in the spirit of the law. It is the selfsame law, however. The law is good and holy. It is GOOD to love God and neighbor, and it is good to demonstrate that love. It is how God would have his children live.

Why was the law of Moses nailed to His cross or do you think it was?
The ordinances have been nailed to the cross. They pertained to the old covenant. The law of God has not been nailed to anything, because the law will never pass away. The law of God existed before the covenant with Moses, and the law of Moses. It was incorporated into the law of Moses, and it has been incorporated into the New Covenant. But now that selfsame law has been written upon our hearts, which simply means the Holy Spirit has given us the ability AND THE DESIRE to love God and love our neighbor. Now we WANT to love our neighbor instead of killing him, and give to him instead of stealing from him, and tell him the truth instead of lying to him, etc.
The laws of the old covenant, the ordinances of the temple, the feasts of God, all these were shadows, the physical expression of spiritual truths. Those spiritual truths have always existed. The OT focused upon the physical expression, the NT focuses upon the spiritual truth the physical expression spoke of.

keck553
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:03 PM
I've read that the curses of disobedience have been nailed to the cross, not the ordinances. Can you help me Scripturally with that one?

Because the command Love God (Deut) and love your neighbor (Lev) are certainly ordinances in Torah, detailed in 613 actions God says is loving Him and our neighbor. I would hope the two greatest commandments are not 'old and faded away'.

I wanted to share something about "shadows". I have to begin with a root concept though, and this is physical things and spiritual things. Some people have something against the physical things (often referred to as 'works'), others against the spiritual things of life.

That statement may raise a red flag in you, like "who has anything against spiritual things? I'm saying that anyone who has something against the physical things has something against the spiritual things. Please bear with me. I think our theology has been hijacked regarding the understanding of the relationship between the physical and the spiritual in Scripture.

Ironically, the book of Hebrews explains that realationship. The problem is that the Epistle uses some language that if not understood in biblical context (as opposed to Platoism) one can come to the wrong conclusion.

I'll start with Scripture:

For if he were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to Torah; who serve to copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make teh tabernacle. For He said, "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." - Hebrews 8:4-5

For Torah, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer conntunally year by year make those who approach perfect - Hebrews 10:1

In the early 4th Centure BC, the Greek Philosopher Plato gave us the "Cave Analogy" in his work "Republic". Essentially the Cave Analogy is that man in his current state is confined in a cave, where higher reality is casting shadows on the back wall of the cave. Man is limited to knowing reality by what is dimly projected by those shadows, according to Plato. Plato's view was that truth cannot be known by looking at shadows, but rather by perceiving the forms that cast the shadows.

Plato was wrong

Scripture proves Plato wrong, but instead of shying away from Plato's philosophy, early Christian philosophers adapted Plato's views on reality in their interpretation of Scripture. Justin Martyr, Origen and St. Augustine were all Platoists. Their theologies and thier views plus the views of countelss have laced Scripture with Greek philosophy.

Here is how the NASB translates Colossians 2:16-17. Now watch this - how easily the translators add the word "mere" to their translation even though it is not even alluded to in the original Greek:

Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or new moon or a Sabbath day - things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ - Col 2:16-17 NASB

See how this verse now, with the added "mere" fits right into Plato's Cave Analogy?

The word "shadow" is "skia" in Greek. the Greek 'skia' in the Septuagint in Hebrew is "tzel". It comes from the Hebrew root. "tzalal", which means "hovering over"

Look it up:

Gen 19:8 "Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter (tzel) of my roof."

1Ch 29:15 "For we are sojourners before You, and tenants, as all our fathers were; our days on the earth are like a shadow (tzel), and there is no hope.

Job 8:8 "Please inquire of past generations, And consider the things searched out by their fathers.
Job 8:9 "For we are only of yesterday and know nothing, Because our days on earth are as a shadow (tzel)
Job 8:10 "Will they not teach you and tell you, And bring forth words from their minds?

Isa 4:5 then the LORD will create over the whole area of Mount Zion and over her assemblies a cloud by day, even smoke, and the brightness of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory will be a canopy.
Isa 4:6 There will be a shelter (tzel) to give shade from the heat by day, and refuge and protection from the storm and the rain.

What does 'tzel' do in these verses? Is a shadow in these verses a good thing, a bad thing, or maybe it depends??

Imagine in your mind what this would look like:

The ___________ is a ferocious creature. Extreemly sharp teeth make it a deadly predator. It is able to eat more than Its own body weight. This mammal is known for its voracious appetite and vicious nature.

What do you see? What if I showed you a picture of a shrew? The above describes one.

A picture makes a big difference. Even an outline, or a shadow would have been helpful in identifying the subject, yes? Once you saw the outline, your would know whether the above description would terrify you, or only terrify an insect. What tells you the shadow is a good thing, or a bad thing, is not the shadow, but the shape it is pointing to; outlining.

What makes the difference is the substance or the shadow-caster. Seeing the picture reveals the substance. The shadow reveals the shadow-caster.

Isaiah references 'tzel' in 51:15-16:

But I am the Lord your God
Who divides the sea whos waves roared
The Lord of hosts is His name
And I have put My words in your mouth
I have covered you with the shadow of My hand
That I may plant the heavens
lay the foundations of the earth
And say to Zion, "You are My people"

If this was literal, what whould the shadow look like?

Because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. - Romans 1:19-20

When we read the three references in the New Testament to the Greek equivalent to "tzel" a pattern emerges. The church translators, steeped in Platoism, can't imagine a shadow to be a good thing - and that the references to 'a shadow' is a hebraic reference to the physical world. They couldn't imagine, with their Plato mindset, that in our bodily state, the only was we can see the spiritual is to see the shadows.

Since the translators took free license with fliddling with God's Word (remember 'mere'?) I'll return the favor and ask you to consider their true intent:

"So let no one judge you in food or drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ"
- Col 2:16-17 NKJV

the intent:

"So let no one judge you in food or drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or shabbats, which are a shadow of Who is coming, and the Shadow-Caster is Messiah"

and the intent of Hebews 8:4-5 outside of Platoism:

For if Messiah were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are already priests who offer gifts according to Torah; who serve the visible manifestation and the shadow of Who is Heavenly as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown to you on the mountain."

Kahtar
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:28 PM
I agree with your assessment of 'the shadows'. Well written.

I've read that the curses of disobedience have been nailed to the cross, not the ordinances. Can you help me Scripturally with that one?
Colossians 2:13-14 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; (14) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Most use Col 2:14 to show that the law has been nailed to the cross, but if you really take the time to read it in context, you find that Paul is talking about our sins, as opposed to the law.
In context, he says, you being dead in your sins he has quickened, and has forgiven you all trespasses, blotting out the 'handwriting of ordinances that was against us', and took it away, nailing it to his cross.
The handwriting of ordinances that was against us was the written record of our trespasses, and in Christ, those have been blotted out, our sins are taken away, and nailed to the cross. Those who have not accepted Christ will have that written record read to them as they stand before Him on the day of judgment. When we stand before Him, our 'slate' will be clean, because it has all been blotted out.
Since not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until heaven and earth pass (and they are still here, I believe), then the law has not been taken out of the way, or nailed to anything. But our GUILT has been.
The only other possible explanation would be the ordinances of the temple, which are separate from God's law, ie the 'law of Moses', rather than the Law of God. They were referred to as ordinances.

Brother Mark
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:54 PM
I think Hebrews 8-9 speaks of the ordinances of the covenant.

Heb 8:13-9:1

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

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

When the first covenant was replaced with the second covenant, so were the regulations or ordinances.

Heb 9:1

9 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
KJV

However, as Keck mentioned above the shadows are to point back to the shadow Caster. We can still see in the old covenant the shadows or spiritual commands that we also see in the new covenant. Our sacrifices now include much more than just animal or grain sacrifices.

For instance, in the new covenant, our words are often considered sacrifices (i.e. sacrifice of praise). When we say things to others, we are told in the new covenant to make sure our words are salted with grace. In the OT, a grain offering was offered and it too was to be salted. The spiritual shadows are still to be done in a physical way but a different way than what was in the old covenant.

If Jesus was speaking of the law of Moses and it's jot or tittle, then we would still be required to stone folks because that is part of the letter of the law and contains both jots and tittles. But he fulfilled much of that and the curse of the law was nailed to the cross.

keck553
Jul 23rd 2008, 06:02 PM
I agree with your assessment of 'the shadows'. Well written.

Colossians 2:13-14 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; (14) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Most use Col 2:14 to show that the law has been nailed to the cross, but if you really take the time to read it in context, you find that Paul is talking about our sins, as opposed to the law.
In context, he says, you being dead in your sins he has quickened, and has forgiven you all trespasses, blotting out the 'handwriting of ordinances that was against us', and took it away, nailing it to his cross.
The handwriting of ordinances that was against us was the written record of our trespasses, and in Christ, those have been blotted out, our sins are taken away, and nailed to the cross. Those who have not accepted Christ will have that written record read to them as they stand before Him on the day of judgment. When we stand before Him, our 'slate' will be clean, because it has all been blotted out.
Since not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until heaven and earth pass (and they are still here, I believe), then the law has not been taken out of the way, or nailed to anything. But our GUILT has been.
The only other possible explanation would be the ordinances of the temple, which are separate from God's law, ie the 'law of Moses', rather than the Law of God. They were referred to as ordinances.

I agree. I'm engaging in an in-depth study of the book of Hebrews in the next few days, so I think soon I'll have a better contextual assesment of the Levitical process and the priesthood as they relate to Messiah.

I already know the theme of Hebrews is not a replacement manifesto, but a 'how much more.....' thesis so well articulated by Yeshua Himself. But even that concept I am dropping so I can pray ahead and go into it without preconceived bias.

I have a strange feeling I'm going to come out of is with "That's not what I thought".....God has a way of turning our worldview upside down and shaking out the leaven.

keck553
Jul 23rd 2008, 06:08 PM
I think Hebrews 8-9 speaks of the ordinances of the covenant.

Heb 8:13-9:1

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



I'll get to the rest of your post later (ran out of time), but I totally disagree with this statement.Jesus never said that, and adding that commentary to His words do not make it true. In fact Jesus said exactly the opposite, that not one jot or tittle would be annulled until Heaven and earth passes awaay. That hasn't happened, has it? God's Covenant through Moses did NOT replace God's covenant with Abraham, or His Covenant with Noah. yet they were all 'new' covenants, obviously.

New doesn't mean 'replace' in Hebrew thought, which Jesus adhered to. You can search your Bible to your hearts content (which is awesome in itself) and you will not find 'replace' in the context you submitted in the original Greek.

Brother Mark
Jul 23rd 2008, 06:30 PM
I'll get to the rest of your post later (ran out of time), but I totally disagree with this statement.Jesus never said that, and adding that commentary to His words do not make it true. In fact Jesus said exactly the opposite, that not one jot or tittle would be annulled until Heaven and earth passes awaay. That hasn't happened, has it? God's Covenant through Moses did NOT replace God's covenant with Abraham, or His Covenant with Noah. yet they were all 'new' covenants, obviously.

It says "till all be fulfilled" too. So that scripture is qualified by two things. Heaven and earth will have to pass away for things to change before "all is fulfilled".

Matt 5:18

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
KJV

But we see that a jot and tittle did "pass away" in the sense we no longer stone anyone. Nor do we offer sacrifices thought if we still followed jot and tittle that is what we would do. But it is no longer required.


New doesn't mean 'replace' in Hebrew thought, which Jesus adhered to. You can search your Bible to your hearts content (which is awesome in itself) and you will not find 'replace' in the context you submitted in the original Greek.

I can use another word. I am not hooked on replace. The old covenant has faded away. A new covenant is now in existence. We can learn from both but we live in the new one.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 23rd 2008, 09:20 PM
I can use another word. I am not hooked on replace. The old covenant has faded away. A new covenant is now in existence. We can learn from both but we live in the new one.
This is where i disagree because i don't think the old has completely vanished away yet.

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

For one the writer of this verse claimed that something at his time was yet growing old and is ready to disappear.... meaning at the time that this verse was penned it was not passed away yet, but ready to disappear. I don't think it's completely vanished yet, and won't be til He comes again.

Shalom,
Tanja

keck553
Jul 23rd 2008, 10:03 PM
It says "till all be fulfilled" too. So that scripture is qualified by two things. Heaven and earth will have to pass away for things to change before "all is fulfilled".

Matt 5:18

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
KJV

But we see that a jot and tittle did "pass away" in the sense we no longer stone anyone. Nor do we offer sacrifices thought if we still followed jot and tittle that is what we would do. But it is no longer required.



I can use another word. I am not hooked on replace. The old covenant has faded away. A new covenant is now in existence. We can learn from both but we live in the new one.

Do you know how often the Sanhedron sentenced someone to stoning in biblical times? The Talmud states that 'a bloody Sanhedron' was one that sentenced more than 10 stonings in a generation.

Go visit a Texas gas chamber and get back to me about capitol punishment 'fading away'.

You don't offer sacrifices? Are you not a living sacrifice unto Messiah? Do we not count our provisions to God and offer our firstfruits to the poor and to the needy?

You say the 'old covenant' is faded. But Torah was NOT a covenant. Torah was instructions given by God to set His chosen people apart from pagans. That's why He called for a "Holy Nation." How is a Christian set apart for God these days? Can you spot all; Christians in a secular setting and tell them apart from unblelievers?

God's Holy Days were celebrated individually and corporately by Israel. What are a Christian's Holy Days? You say every day? Then why can't I tell a believer from an unbeliveer in Wal-Mart? Is it too shameful to be boldly a Christian? Christmas? A totally corporately secular winterfest, complete with decorated trees in the pagan fashion discribed in the Bible, not even close to Yeshua's birth, and totally unscriptual, but at least traditionally has some potential. And Easter is set up against the backdrop of a pagan fertility goddess instead of us gathering and rejoicing our deliverance and freedom from the bondage of sin by sacrifice of God's Son.

Is that how Christians worship God? Hide in the crowd and use pagan holidays to quietly acknowledge Him? If you think God isn't pleased with lip service, then how much more is He displeased with this slap in His face? God set up the entire universe to herald in His Son to save our sorry behinds, and we ignore even remembering what He did, or the things He told us we should do to remian physically and spiritually healthy to serve Him? We just shrug our shoulders and pull out the magic word "Grace" to cover it? What do we worship? God or His Grace? When God's Grace is used as a work-around to live like pagans I think Grace has become an idol, just as Torah became (and still is) an idol for Israel. How are we different then? By what we raise up as our idol? Why not raise up Yeshua and do what He did?

Sorry about the rant, but grace does not replace a relationship with God, nor should be used as an excuse to ignore everything He's done to bring us to this point.

Brother Mark
Jul 23rd 2008, 10:10 PM
You don't offer sacrifices? Are you not a living sacrifice unto Messiah? Do we not count our provisions to God and offer our firstfruits to the poor and to the needy?

Did you read my post 54?

I want to give Kahtar time to respond to what has been said so far before responding to each point. We have plenty of old covenant/new covenant threads already out there. I am just writing now to make sure you read all my post before responding to this one. ;)

keck553
Jul 23rd 2008, 10:10 PM
This is where i disagree because i don't think the old has completely vanished away yet.

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

For one the writer of this verse claimed that something at his time was yet growing old and is ready to disappear.... meaning at the time that this verse was penned it was not passed away yet, but ready to disappear. I don't think it's completely vanished yet, and won't be til He comes again.

Shalom,
Tanja

And all truely IS fulfilled ! AMEN

losthorizon
Jul 23rd 2008, 10:33 PM
I've read that the curses of disobedience have been nailed to the cross, not the ordinances. Can you help me Scripturally with that one?


I would suggest you read a bit closer – what was *nailed to the cross* was the “Decalogue” – ie – that which was written by the hand of God – the Mosaical system in its entirety including the 10 Commandment Law. The NT is clear - there has been a complete “disannulling” of the Old Covenant which included the Law of Moses because there could not be “perfection” by the Levitical priesthood. That is why the Christ came to offer Himself as the perfect sacrifice. Jesus is also our perfect high priest – not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedec. And in order for Jesus to be a priest there was of necessity a change in the OT law – not some amendment but a complete and total change – why – because "Our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood". Jesus could not be our high priest if the OT was still in force. That is why it was nailed to the cross with Him… "he canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross" -
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Colossians 2:14Christians have never been under the Law of Moses – Christians have never been commanded to “keep” the Sabbath or any of the 613 commandments of the old Mosaic system . The NT is not about day-keeping, physical circumcision, animal sacrifices, etc. The NT concept of the law of Christ is based on two principles taught by the Lord in the New Testament – faith and love. Christ’s law is summed up in the words of John…
And this is his commandment, we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as he gave us commandment. 1 John 3:23When we do this we fulfill His law to "love one another" and “bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ...". Galatians 6:2. It has nothing to do with the shadows found under the Old Covenant law as some suggest – that law was given only to the Jews and was nailed once and for all time to His cross...never to be binding of God's people again...we are dead to that law by the body of Christ...
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. Romans 7:4

keck553
Jul 23rd 2008, 10:45 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't see any validity in your opinion. Scripture simple doesn't have the term "disanulled" in it, the word "replaced" in it, or any of the other terms you stated.

Scripture clearly tells us the curses of disobedience to Torah is nailed to the cross. Nowhere does it say the stone tablets are nailed to the cross. Doesn't the word "against" tell you something? Torah was never 'against' anyone. What kind of god would impose that? Certainly not the One Who has ALWAYS been full of Grace and Truth.

Although Isaiah does prophecy that Torah would be placed on our hearts, which Jesus did, assuming we follow Him and trust Him.

If Jesus wanted to annul the Torah He gave through Moses, He simply would have said so. He's God, He can do this. We're not God, we can't.

Peace.

losthorizon
Jul 23rd 2008, 10:48 PM
Sorry about the rant, but grace does not replace a relationship with God, nor should be used as an excuse to ignore everything He's done to bring us to this point.
But isn’t our relationship with God based on His grace through our obedient faith? Of course it is. Our relationship with God is not based on “keeping” a law with its traditions that was nailed to His cross.
"For by GRACE you have been saved through FAITH; and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God; not as result of WORKS, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for GOOD WORKS, which God PREPARED BEFOREHAND so that we would WALK IN THEM." (Ephesians 2:8-10}

Kahtar
Jul 23rd 2008, 11:00 PM
I'm sitting here reading through all this, from the perspective of an unbeliever, and I'm going 'Huh?'
What is grace, and how does it have anything to do with a relationship with God?
What is obedient faith, and how does it look, how does it work. For that matter what is faith?Try to speak plain English instead of Christianeze. Those of us writing here are not the only ones reading this.

keck553
Jul 23rd 2008, 11:00 PM
Since you've answered your own question, I'll ask two (and not answer them):

1) Where did I ever state obedience leads to salvation?

2) Do you agree with James when he says 'Faith without works is dead'?

See James statements fit perfectly with the seemingly contradictory ones if one understands that Faith is a verb, not a thought.

Peace

losthorizon
Jul 23rd 2008, 11:05 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't see any validity in your opinion. Scripture simple doesn't have the term "disanulled" in it, the word "replaced" in it, or any of the other terms you stated.




Disannul: To annul or cancel; abolish; to bring something to an end

For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace…Ephesians 2:14-15

So he is our peace. In his body he has made Jewish and non-Jewish people one by breaking down the wall of hostility that kept them apart. He brought an end to the commandments and demands found in Moses' Teachings so that he could take Jewish and non-Jewish people and create one new humanity in himself. So he made peace. Ephesians 2:14-15

BHS
Jul 23rd 2008, 11:06 PM
Colossians 2:13-14 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; (14) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Most use Col 2:14 to show that the law has been nailed to the cross, but if you really take the time to read it in context, you find that Paul is talking about our sins, as opposed to the law.
In context, he says, you being dead in your sins he has quickened, and has forgiven you all trespasses, blotting out the 'handwriting of ordinances that was against us', and took it away, nailing it to his cross.
The handwriting of ordinances that was against us was the written record of our trespasses, and in Christ, those have been blotted out, our sins are taken away, and nailed to the cross. Those who have not accepted Christ will have that written record read to them as they stand before Him on the day of judgment. When we stand before Him, our 'slate' will be clean, because it has all been blotted out.
Since not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until heaven and earth pass (and they are still here, I believe), then the law has not been taken out of the way, or nailed to anything. But our GUILT has been.


Kahtar, I think you are right on! It wasn't the "law" but the charges against us (our sin) that is taken away. No sin was found in Jesus and the only charge they had against Him was that He claimed to be the "King of the Jews". This charge was prominently displayed over His head so those seeing Him upon the cross would know what charge was against Him. The charges against us might be a long list, but like you have said those charges have been blotted out.

Many blessings and shalom,
BHS

losthorizon
Jul 23rd 2008, 11:11 PM
I'm sitting here reading through all this, from the perspective of an unbeliever, and I'm going 'Huh?'
What is grace, and how does it have anything to do with a relationship with God?
What is obedient faith, and how does it look, how does it work. For that matter what is faith?Try to speak plain English instead of Christianeze. Those of us writing here are not the only ones reading this.
I think simple men and women have read and understood "Christianeze" (whatever that means) for over 2000 years - I don't think one really needs a PhD to understand and apply to their lives words like "faith", "obedience", "grace", etc.

keck553
Jul 23rd 2008, 11:14 PM
Disannul: To annul or cancel; abolish; to bring something to an end

For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace…Ephesians 2:14-15

So he is our peace. In his body he has made Jewish and non-Jewish people one by breaking down the wall of hostility that kept them apart. He brought an end to the commandments and demands found in Moses' Teachings so that he could take Jewish and non-Jewish people and create one new humanity in himself. So he made peace. Ephesians 2:14-15


It's strange, I know English, Russian, am learning Hebrew and know some Greek, but I could never get a handle on Shakesphere.

Eph 2:14 For He is our peace, He making us both one, and breaking down the middle wall of partition,
Eph 2:15 in His flesh causing to cease the enmity, the Law of the commandments in decrees, that He might in Himself create the two into one new man, making peace,

Tell me, when you mix coffee and milk, making the two one, do you throw out the coffee? :rolleyes:

I see the emnity being ceased here, not GOD's insructions

Peace.

Brother Mark
Jul 23rd 2008, 11:19 PM
Disannul: To annul or cancel; abolish; to bring something to an end

For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace…Ephesians 2:14-15

So he is our peace. In his body he has made Jewish and non-Jewish people one by breaking down the wall of hostility that kept them apart. He brought an end to the commandments and demands found in Moses' Teachings so that he could take Jewish and non-Jewish people and create one new humanity in himself. So he made peace. Ephesians 2:14-15
Do you see any use for the shadows today? Can they teach us something perhaps?

Brother Mark
Jul 23rd 2008, 11:26 PM
You don't offer sacrifices? Are you not a living sacrifice unto Messiah? Do we not count our provisions to God and offer our firstfruits to the poor and to the needy?

Hi again Keck. I responded a small amount to this earlier but perhaps you missed my post because it was the last one on the previous page. Did you read post #54?

Kahtar
Jul 23rd 2008, 11:29 PM
For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace…Ephesians 2:14-15

So he is our peace. In his body he has made Jewish and non-Jewish people one by breaking down the wall of hostility that kept them apart. He brought an end to the commandments and demands found in Moses' Teachings so that he could take Jewish and non-Jewish people and create one new humanity in himself. So he made peace. Ephesians 2:14-15

</p>
Reading the Ephesians passage in context, we have:
Ephesians 2:11-19 Wherefore remember, that you [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; (the Jews called the Gentiles the Uncircumcision)
(12) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
(13) But now in Christ Jesus you (Gentiles) who sometimes were far off (separated from the covenant of promise, and of God) are made nigh (drawn close) by the blood of Christ.
(14) For he is our peace, who has made both one,( both Jew and Gentile) and has broken down the middle wall of partition [between us](between Jew and Gentile); (a reference to the wall that separated the court of the Gentiles from the rest of the temple)
(15) Having abolished in his flesh the enmity,( G2189 ἔχθρα ekh'-thrah Feminine of G2190; hostility; by implication a reason for opposition: - enmity, hatred.) (Jesus abolished, brought to an end, the hatred between the Jew and Gentile) [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances;(those temple ordinances that disallowed Gentiles from entering the temple and approaching God) for to make in himself of twain one new man,(making Jew and Gentile as one, instead of separate groups) [so] making peace;
(16) And that he might reconcile both (Jew and Gentile) unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity (hatred between Jew and Gentile) thereby:
(17) And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, (to the Gentile) and to them that were nigh (the Jew).
(18) For through him we both (Jew and Gentile) have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
(19) Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
So in context, it is speaking of the separation between Jew and Gentile, and that being abolished through Christ, and brought to an end the temple ordinances that pertained to keeping the Gentiles separate.
Not referring to God's law, the ten commandments here.

Kahtar
Jul 23rd 2008, 11:32 PM
Okay lost, humor me and explain to me what YOU mean by 'obedient faith'. Define it, and explain how that applies and works out in your life.Just pretend that I'm ignorant...................(shouldn't be too hard :D)

Since explaining the Christianeze is part of the reason for this thread, if you don't desire to do that, you are free to discuss anything you want in other threads.

losthorizon
Jul 23rd 2008, 11:33 PM
It's strange, I know English, Russian, am learning Hebrew and know some Greek, but I could never get a handle on Shakesphere.

Eph 2:14 For He is our peace, He making us both one, and breaking down the middle wall of partition,
Eph 2:15 in His flesh causing to cease the enmity, the Law of the commandments in decrees, that He might in Himself create the two into one new man, making peace,

Tell me, when you mix coffee and milk, making the two one, do you throw out the coffee? :rolleyes:

I see the emnity being ceased here, not GOD's insructions

Peace.
When you sell your old house and buy a new house do you enter into a completely new agreement to pay your new mortgage - isn't your old written agreement taken away when you enter into a new agreement? Can Christ be a priest under the Old Covenant? Why did God make a “new” covenant with His creation?

losthorizon
Jul 23rd 2008, 11:35 PM
[/INDENT] Do you see any use for the shadows today? Can they teach us something perhaps?
Sure - we learn much from OT studies - it is hard to understand the NT without knowledge of the old.

Brother Mark
Jul 23rd 2008, 11:36 PM
So in context, it is speaking of the separation between Jew and Gentile, and that being abolished through Christ, and brought to an end the temple ordinances that pertained to keeping the Gentiles separate.
Not referring to God's law, the ten commandments here.

Good point. Another thing to consider too, since we know in Hebrews that a change in the law occurred, and we are told to keep the Spirit of the Law in other passages, what then is the spirit of the law concerning our priestly duties? Can we possibly learn all our priestly duties from the NT? Perhaps. But it would seem to me that we need to understand the spiritual implication of those duties and how to keep the spirit of those ordinances today without falling back into keeping the letter of those ordinances and that we can see that better illustrated with a good understanding of both the new covenant and the old covenant ordinances.

At least that's my opinion on the subject matter at hand.

Brother Mark
Jul 23rd 2008, 11:38 PM
Sure - we learn much from OT studies - it is hard to understand the NT without knowledge of the old.

I agree with this. So when Paul says we need to keep the spirit of the law and that we no longer live by the letter of the law, what does he mean? Can it be that we can learn about resting in our Lord from a study of the OT letter concerning the sabbath?

Or what of our duties as priest? Since Hebrews teaches us that there is a heavenly tabernacle that was cleansed by the blood of Jesus, can we then learn what Jesus is doing from the copies that were made in the OT types? If so, can we also learn what some of our duties as priest are in a spiritual sense?

losthorizon
Jul 24th 2008, 12:23 AM
=Kahtar
So in context, it is speaking of the separation between Jew and Gentile, and that being abolished through Christ, and brought to an end the temple ordinances that pertained to keeping the Gentiles separate.
Not referring to God's law, the ten commandments here.


I will respectfully disagree with you - *in context* the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” is a reference to the Mosaic system in its entirety including temple ordinances, animal sacrifices, circumcision, sabbath days, etc, etc. God nailed the entire Old Covenant to the cross of Christ and instituted in its place an entirely “new covenant” - the law of love aka the law of Christ through which he reconciled both Jew and Greek into one church, the body of Christ – making “in himself of twain one new man” through His blood. There could never have been reconciliation as long as the Mosaic system remained in force – He could not have become our great high priest unless the OLD were nailed to His cross. Do you believe any part of the Old Covenant is binding on Christians today? Are we bound by law to “keep” the seventh day of the week as the Jews were required to do –is the 4th commandment part of the NT? Must we now under the NT observe days, and months, and times, and years...
But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. (Gal 4)

losthorizon
Jul 24th 2008, 01:03 AM
Okay lost, humor me and explain to me what YOU mean by 'obedient faith'. Define it, and explain how that applies and works out in your life.Just pretend that I'm ignorant...................(shouldn't be too hard :D)

Obedience: the act or practice of obeying; dutiful or submissive compliance

Faith: (Christian Theology) the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

explain how that applies and works out in your life

How much time do you have? I would offer an example of *obedient faith* recorded in the NT that would sum up my understanding of that term..."By faith Abraham obeyed..."
By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. (Heb 11:8)



Since explaining the Christianeze is part of the reason for this thread, if you don't desire to do that, you are free to discuss anything you want in other threads.
Maybe you can define/explain what you mean by your term "Christianeze" so we can stay on the same page.

Kahtar
Jul 25th 2008, 01:23 PM
Thank you for answering my question lh. I appologize for taking so long to respond.
So your definition of 'obedient' faith would be basically to trust God's Word to the extent that you DO those things that He asks of us, just as Abraham heard the Word of God, believed, and trusted God enough to actually GO and DO those things God required of him. Would that be correct?
And you have stated that the thing God wants us to do, apart from mere believing, is to love. IE love God and love our neighbor. Would that be correct?
Now let me ask you, HOW do you love God, and HOW do you love your neighbor? Is it merely a cushy feeling in the heart, just a state of mind, or is it more than that?
By the way, to clear up the obvious misconceptions you are having about me and some others here, I, and I am sure they, understand that salvation comes by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and the work HE did, and not by any works we do.
I am pretty sure I was clear in previous posts that works do not save us, not the works of the OC, and not even the works of the NC. Therefore, there is no longer any need for you to question me or the others about that. No one here is saying we must perform the works of either covenant to be saved.
Paul wrote that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. That simply means that the law is no longer used to make us righteous, because our righteousnes is found in Christ, not in our works, not in the law.
But now that we are saved, by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, what do we do? Sit around like bumps on a log and merely 'trust'? No, we are told to love and and love neighbor. I will tell you that from my perspective, that is more than feelings or a state of mind. It requires action on our part.
Oh, the Christianeze thing. It includes any commony used phrases and cliches that Christians understand, but non-Christains do not.
Example: I was listening to a pastor speaking to a group of elderly Navajo men and women. He was providing them withe the plan of salvation, telling them all about trusting in the blood of Christ, and so forth.
What they are hearing is that they are supposed to believe some white guy died on a tree, and they were supposed to somehow get his blood and wash in it, and that would somehow make them clean so that they could go to some place called heaven that white people want to go to. They not only were not getting the picture, they were repulsed by it.
When we as Christians are speaking to the unbelieving world, it is necessary to speak in words they can understand.
Things like 'believing faith', "trusting in the blood', 'walking in the spirit', 'regeneration', 'sanctification', 'appropriating the blood', and so forth.

keck553
Jul 25th 2008, 03:26 PM
Consider that many say they trust in God's Grace to the point they can disobey Him to His Face and still consider themselves holy and blameless through the blood of Messiah. We have that much trust in Grace. Nothing wrong at all with knowing the extent of God's Grace.

So is Grace the ONLY aspect of God's character? Is God's wisdom equal to His Grace? Are the instructions God gave us as a free gift to keep us physically and spiritually healthy less sufficient than His Grace? Does your trust in the wisdom of those who proclaim 'the other white meat" exceed your trust in God's wisdom that these things are not healthy for you? Why put so much trust in God's Grace, but use His gift of Grace as a boot to grind His Wisdom into the dust?

See, I know some non-messianic Jews who actually do love God with all their hearts and all their souls and all thier strength, who love their brothers as themselves, who give thier last provision to a hungry person. They aren't 'working to salvation'. They simply do what God tells them to do because they love Him and trust His wisdom and faithfulness. They know they can't be sufficient on their own. They understand 'repent' as well as anyone. Clearly Jesus forgave before His death and resurrection, but salvation is a totally different characteristic of God. No one, past, present or future has salvation except through the blood of Messiah, even the saints. The orthodox Jews I know understand God's Grace as well as anyone. And when Messiah comes to them (it happens more than you think), and they accept Him they are saved like any of us, but they continue to trust ALL of God's characteristics, not just Grace.

Now I realize that many Jews worship Torah and wrap their religion around it, but how many Christiams worship Grace and wrap their religion around it?

Let's keep our eyes on Jesus and not be distracted by one aspect of His character.

threebigrocks
Jul 25th 2008, 04:59 PM
Now I realize that many Jews worship Torah and wrap their religion around it, but how many Christiams worship Grace and wrap their religion around it?

Let's keep our eyes on Jesus and not be distracted by one aspect of His character.

I do not think that anyone here is saying that there aren't extreme opposites of error. Men do rest in the ultra grace camp to the point of believing that they can still sin and be within that same grace. Sin and grace cannot coexist.

Are we not to strive through maturing in faith to form ourselves to the very character and nature of God? We are to strive to become like Christ in his nature and character. We cannot be distracted by it and write it off, we must embrace what Christ is and represents.

keck553
Jul 25th 2008, 06:44 PM
There is a certain dichotemy in striving. We strive to obey God, but it is the motivation, or in plain terms, one's heart condition, that separates sincerity to God and merely doing works to boast before men. It is a constant temptation to boast and judge others who are in a different place in thier sanctification, and only the conviction of the Holy Spirit can draw that line clearly. The truth is that God Himself sanctifys us according to our trust in Him. Now this can get circular...Even that trust He teaches us through all kinds of circumstances we are not sufficient to have victory over without Him. I have failed every test God has laid out before me without trusting His sufficiency. God has put me in places where there is no possible earthy solution, yet He has done the impossible right before my eyes. You'd think that would just have to happen once to convince me. But like the stiff necked Hebrews wandering in the desert, I kept questioning His soverignty in natural circumstances that occur. My doubt of His soverighty and control of physical circumstances are far, far less then they have been, but I can not boast that it was from any effort of mine. There were times when my doubt was clear and obvious, and all I could do is obey His commands, and not even with joy. There were times I just obeyed because He told me to through His Word, no other reason. But it was His faithfulness that drew me to the Light, and I praise God for this; no way could I have gained this without His Hand in it.

So what started all this in me? It was a simple, and honestly desparate prayer: "Blessed are you Lord God. Please reveal Yourself to me and help me with my unbelief, according to your will, in the name of Jesus, I pray".

Kahtar
Jul 25th 2008, 07:16 PM
Okay, TBR, I don't know how you got my name attached to that quote, but I think that was keck's. :)

threebigrocks
Jul 25th 2008, 08:09 PM
Okay, TBR, I don't know how you got my name attached to that quote, but I think that was keck's. :)

:o No clue, fixin' it!

Kahtar
Jul 25th 2008, 08:14 PM
:D Wierd stuff happens.................

melpointy
Jul 25th 2008, 09:12 PM
Just wanted to say thanks for posting this link your right its long.:rofl:

http://shalach.org/BibleSearch/NTCommandments.htm

keck553
Jul 25th 2008, 10:12 PM
Considering God started with two commands with Adam and Eve, upped it to 7 with Noah, then 613 through Moses, is it any suprise the next covenant contains over 1000?

Just wait until He comes back!!

Just kidding :)

Ron Brown
Jul 25th 2008, 10:50 PM
Christ's law is the 10 commandments. Remember, the only law God wrote with his own hands was the 10 commandments on the tablets. All of the rest of the laws were written by Moses, not the hand of God.

Scripture tells us that sin is a transgression of the law in 1 John 3:4 and in Romans 3:20. Remember, the law gives us knowledge and conviction of sin, but it does not cleanse us of our sins, only the blood of Christ cleanses us of our sins.

Since the only laws written by God were the 10 commandments, transgressing these laws is sin, not transgressing the laws of Moses and the Levitical priests.

Kahtar
Jul 25th 2008, 10:54 PM
Right Ron. In fact, those stone tablets were placed inside the ark in the tabernacle, and later Solomon's temple. But the ordinances, the law of Moses, was not. It was placed on the side of the ark. This according to God's command. God Himself showed a difference between the two by commanding it.

keck553
Jul 25th 2008, 10:59 PM
For one thing, the Ten Commandments were 10 Hebrew letters on stone, not whole sentences. And torah does not mean 'law', it means to aim for the bullesye (sanctify). Did not God sanctify His chosen (Israel and the sojourning foreigner) through Moses with HIS instructions (Torah)? Yes, He certainly did. Those are God's instructions, not a man's.

Why would The Son of God follow some man's rules BLAMELESSLY?

The fact is He didn't. He followed God's instructions. He ate kosher. He celebrated the feasts. He was circumsized on the 8th day. And on through all 613. Blamelessly. Yeshua's commandments of charity, love your brother, all these things were from Torah, out of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, not necessarily straight verbatom from the 10 commandments. The Torah are instructions on how to follow the 10 letters written in stone. How else can God expect anyone to observe 10 Hebrew letters?

Kahtar
Jul 25th 2008, 11:02 PM
It is true that those laws Moses wrote came from God, Who dictated to Moses what to write.
But it is equally true that God required they remain separate from the 10 commandments.
What was it that doesn't make sense to you?

keck553
Jul 25th 2008, 11:09 PM
It makes perfect sense to me. When you buy a BBQ, you see the image on the box, and then you open it and find an 8000 page assembly guide and a billion loose screws..

By the way, it says Yeshua is the Lord OF shabbat, not "Yeshua is Shabbat". Better check that 6th commandment again?

:)

shalom

Ron Brown
Jul 25th 2008, 11:14 PM
Why would The Son of God follow some man's rules BLAMELESSLY?

The fact is He didn't. He followed God's instructions. He ate kosher. He celebrated the feasts. He was circumsized on the 8th day. And on through all 613. Blamelessly. Yeshua's commandments of charity, love your brother, all these things were from Torah, out of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, not necessarily straight verbatom from the 10 commandments. The Torah are instructions on how to follow the 10 letters written in stone. How else can God expect anyone to observe 10 Hebrew letters?

Since Christ was a Jewish Rabbi he could do no less. But what does this have to do with the New Testament covenant?

keck553
Jul 25th 2008, 11:20 PM
Not true. As a Jewish rabbi He was obligated to follow the halechah - man made ordinances, such as ritual hand washing, etc.

But He didn't. He only followed God's Torah given through Moses.

What does that have to do with the Covenant promises that God added to the all HIs previous ones? Do you think God annulled the Noahic covenant, or any other? Nope, He added to them. :)

God doesn't change His mind. He changes ours.

What does the New Covenant have to do with all the previous ones?

Everything.

Ron Brown
Jul 25th 2008, 11:28 PM
Not true. As a Jewish rabbi He was obligated to follow the halechah - man made ordinances, such as ritual hand washing, etc.

The disciples called Christ Rabbi, which simply means great one or honorable teacher, and Christ was also Jewish. So Christ was indeed a Jewish Rabbi.

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 12:32 AM
Oh, the Christianeze thing. It includes any commony used phrases and cliches that Christians understand, but non-Christains do not.
Example: I was listening to a pastor speaking to a group of elderly Navajo men and women. He was providing them withe the plan of salvation, telling them all about trusting in the blood of Christ, and so forth.
What they are hearing is that they are supposed to believe some white guy died on a tree, and they were supposed to somehow get his blood and wash in it, and that would somehow make them clean so that they could go to some place called heaven that white people want to go to. They not only were not getting the picture, they were repulsed by it.
When we as Christians are speaking to the unbelieving world, it is necessary to speak in words they can understand.
Things like 'believing faith', "trusting in the blood', 'walking in the spirit', 'regeneration', 'sanctification', 'appropriating the blood', and so forth.
That’s interesting Kahtar because I grew up close to an Indian reservation in the Sierra Nevada foothills and my high school had a fair representation from that native population. The reservation itself was sovereign tribal land under US law and within its boundaries were two churches – the RCC and a “non-denominational” church. When I was in high school I was not a Christian and had no desire to become a Christian. Some of my “drinking buddies” were Indians who were also my baseball teammates. I recall one night we drove up to the “res” after a night of drinking to sleep it off at a friend’s house. Shortly after we arrived my friend’s father came into our room to see what was going on. He immediately recognized that we had been drinking too much and began to explain why this action was wrong. His starting point was the New Testament which he quoted “from the heart”. He spoke to us about the person of Jesus Christ but he didn’t refer to Him as “some white guy who died on a tree” – he referred to Him as the Lord of Glory who died for all men without regard to race, ethnicity, etc. He quoted passages verbatim regarding the sin of drunkenness that cut deep into my heart. I think without a doubt he understood the “Christianeze thing” you speak against.

To keep the story short – a few years later while I was serving out of country in the military my mother sent a news clipping about my old teammate and drinking buddy – the “Indian preacher’s” eldest son – who, while in a drunken stupor told his friends he was strong enough to stop a speeding car as he stepped out in front of a pickup truck that killed him instantly. When I returned I went to pay my respects to the family and specifically to the father who had preached against the drunkenness that took his son’s life and soul. He was not bitter against God as I expected he would be and I do believe his faith was stronger than before. I have often thought about that man of God and I credit him in part with the faith I share with him today. Christians have been speaking to the "unbelieving world" from the get-go - that's our calling - and terms such as “obedient faith', "trusting in the blood', 'walking in the spirit' have always been used and the Lord’s church has grown and existed for over 20 centuries now – I find nothing inappropriate when witnessing to unbelievers by using such phraseology. The gospel message is not difficult to understand in its basic form – ie – the good news of the gospel - the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord.
"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures..." (1 Corinthians 15).

Kahtar
Jul 26th 2008, 02:55 AM
Well, I guess that pretty well proves me wrong and sets me in my place, ey?So be it. If you don't want to play, that's okay. But if you continue to participate in this thread, I will be asking you to clarify what you're saying.So, setting aside the Christianeze issue, do you have anything to add to the topic?

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 03:07 AM
Well, I guess that pretty well proves me wrong and sets me in my place, ey?So be it. If you don't want to play, that's okay. But if you continue to participate in this thread, I will be asking you to clarify what you're saying.So, setting aside the Christianeze issue, do you have anything to add to the topic?
Well what game are we playing – you appear to have some “politically correct” agenda. Maybe you can explain the ground rules and where exactly you are heading.

Kahtar
Jul 26th 2008, 04:07 AM
Ya know friend, all I asked in the beginning is that you explain what you mean. If that is too tough or distasteful for you then fine. You know the topic of the thread without my repeating it, but if you are confused about even that, then just take a little meander to the first post in the thread.
Seriously, if you do not wish to discuss the topic, or explain a few of the phrases you toss around, you certainly don't have to participate in the thread.
I requested your participation here because I thought you could add something positive to the thread.

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 04:45 AM
Ya know friend, all I asked in the beginning is that you explain what you mean. If that is too tough or distasteful for you then fine. You know the topic of the thread without my repeating it, but if you are confused about even that, then just take a little meander to the first post in the thread.
Seriously, if you do not wish to discuss the topic, or explain a few of the phrases you toss around, you certainly don't have to participate in the thread.
I requested your participation here because I thought you could add something positive to the thread.
You asked me to define the law of Christ and I did – it is a conceptual law based on faith and love. I contrasted that law with the law of works under the old Mosaic system. I defined obedient faith as you requested. I pointed out that your “Christianeze thing” appeared to be no problem from my point of view when presenting the gospel of Christ to the lost. If you do not want my participation I will not participate – it’s your thread.

manichunter
Jul 26th 2008, 05:25 AM
You asked me to define the law of Christ and I did – it is a conceptual law based on faith and love. I contrasted that law with the law of works under the old Mosaic system. I defined obedient faith as you requested. I pointed out that your “Christianeze thing” appeared to be no problem from my point of view when presenting the gospel of Christ to the lost. If you do not want my participation I will not participate – it’s your thread.


This is the problem I have with most christian theologies. You mention that it is conceptual. Hence it was created or subjected to the creativity of man. Most of christian theology today is man created and not God ordained and inspired.

Ron Brown
Jul 26th 2008, 05:29 AM
This is the problem I have with most christian theologies. You mention that it is conceptual. Hence it was created or subjected to the creativity of man. Most of christian theology today is man created and not God ordained and inspired.

I agree. Which is why you better study and use the original Biblical manuscript languages when you preach or teach scripture. If you don't, you will be teaching primarily man made ideas and doctrines about scripture.

Kahtar
Jul 26th 2008, 12:35 PM
You asked me to define the law of Christ and I did – it is a conceptual law based on faith and love. I contrasted that law with the law of works under the old Mosaic system. I defined obedient faith as you requested. I pointed out that your “Christianeze thing” appeared to be no problem from my point of view when presenting the gospel of Christ to the lost. If you do not want my participation I will not participate – it’s your thread.

Okay, let's go with that.
Conceptual law - the law is nothing more than a concept to you. Do you have scriptural support for that concept?
The idea of conceptual law relegates the law to nothing more than a state of mind.
What do you do with this scripture:
James 1:22-25 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. (23) For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: (24) For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. (25) But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth [therein], he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
Obedient faith - obedience to what? In what ways are you obedient? In your mind only?

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 01:05 PM
Okay, let's go with that.
Conceptual law - the law is nothing more than a concept to you. Do you have scriptural support for that concept?
The idea of conceptual law relegates the law to nothing more than a state of mind.


You misunderstand my friend – conceptual (Latin: conceptualis) simply means the “act of conceiving” and it is much more that “a state of mind” – such laws require *action* on the part of man. All of God’s laws are conceptual in nature – ie - they all come from the mind of the Eternal and the law of Christ is no exception. As stated earlier, the law of Christ (“the perfect law of liberty”) is a conceptual law based on the two concepts of faith and love (faith and love in action). And His law is summed up in the words of John…
And this is his commandment, we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as he gave us commandment. 1 John 3:23Please note – the conceptual law of God requires that we DO something – we are commanded to "love one another" and “bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ..." Galatians 6:2.

Are you implying that God’s laws are not conceived (conceptual) from His mind?

manichunter
Jul 26th 2008, 01:23 PM
You misunderstand my friend – conceptual (Latin: conceptualis) simply means the “act of conceiving” and it is much more that “a state of mind” – such laws require *action* on the part of man. All of God’s laws are conceptual in nature – ie - they all come from the mind of the Eternal and the law of Christ is no exception. As stated earlier, the law of Christ (“the perfect law of liberty”) is a conceptual law based on the two concepts of faith and love (faith and love in action). And His law is summed up in the words of John…

And this is his commandment, we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as he gave us commandment. 1 John 3:23
Please note – the conceptual law of God requires that we DO something – we are commanded to "love one another" and “bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ..." Galatians 6:2.

Are you implying that God’s laws are not conceived (conceptual) from His mind?


The law should be precept upon precept.............. not concept upon concept

Kahtar
Jul 26th 2008, 01:35 PM
You misunderstand my friend – conceptual (Latin: conceptualis) simply means the “act of conceiving” and it is much more that “a state of mind” – such laws require *action* on the part of man. All of God’s laws are conceptual in nature – ie - they all come from the mind of the Eternal and the law of Christ is no exception. As stated earlier, the law of Christ (“the perfect law of liberty”) is a conceptual law based on the two concepts of faith and love (faith and love in action). And His law is summed up in the words of John…

And this is his commandment, we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as he gave us commandment. 1 John 3:23
Please note – the conceptual law of God requires that we DO something – we are commanded to &quot;love one another&quot; and “bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ...&quot; Galatians 6:2.

Are you implying that God’s laws are not conceived (conceptual) from His mind?

I rarely 'imply' anything.
Okay, faith and love in action I can agree with. But what does that action entail?
We are commanded to love one another. How do we do that?
We are commanded to bear one another's burdens. How do we do that?

manichunter
Jul 26th 2008, 02:04 PM
I rarely 'imply' anything.
Okay, faith and love in action I can agree with. But what does that action entail?
We are commanded to love one another. How do we do that?
We are commanded to bear one another's burdens. How do we do that?



This is how is usually plays out

precept- as God prescribed for mankind as the means to show we love Him and other men

concept- as mankind has decided for him self to define love towards God and man (every man doing what is right in his own eyes)

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 02:09 PM
The law should be precept upon precept.............. not concept upon concept
A precept is simply a command (a principle) and when applied to God it is His commands (laws) to man which come from the mind of God (ie, conceptual laws). It appears to be a simple precept/concept – no? ;)

manichunter
Jul 26th 2008, 02:11 PM
You misunderstand my friend – conceptual (Latin: conceptualis) simply means the “act of conceiving” and it is much more that “a state of mind” – such laws require *action* on the part of man. All of God’s laws are conceptual in nature – ie - they all come from the mind of the Eternal and the law of Christ is no exception. As stated earlier, the law of Christ (“the perfect law of liberty”) is a conceptual law based on the two concepts of faith and love (faith and love in action). And His law is summed up in the words of John…

And this is his commandment, we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as he gave us commandment. 1 John 3:23
Please note – the conceptual law of God requires that we DO something – we are commanded to "love one another" and “bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ..." Galatians 6:2.

Are you implying that God’s laws are not conceived (conceptual) from His mind?

God's law is not conceptual. God is his law just like God is good, love, and anything else He is. God is what He does. This is what He is trying to create in us. Make us people/saints that do what they are. Carnality does not get this. Carnal says that I can separate what I do from what I am. This a foriegn in defining and relating to God. God does not do good. God is good therefore He can do nothing but good. God is law therefore He can say nothing but law. They are not acts or thoughts that can be seen as conceived as in created from reasoning or thinking. They come from the source of who God is, not from His thoughts, but identity. God can only act behind who He is. That is why He cannot change. He cannot cease being good because it is who He is. He cannot cease speaking law, because it is who He is.

manichunter
Jul 26th 2008, 02:13 PM
A precept is simply a command (a principle) and when applied to God it is His commands (laws) to man which come from the mind of God (ie, conceptual laws). It appears to be a simple precept/concept – no? ;)


God's law does not come from His mind, but His person. God is not a man that He has a man, God is spirit. God is what He does.

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 02:15 PM
I rarely 'imply' anything.


Is this one of those rare occations?


Okay, faith and love in action I can agree with. But what does that action entail?
An action is simply “a thing done” and the action that pleases God is summed up in the commandment of the Lord…
Love the Lord your God with all your heart…love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.

We are commanded to love one another. How do we do that?
We are commanded to bear one another's burdens. How do we do that?
These are self-evident actions seen in the action of God “who first loved us" and showed his love among us by sending His only Son into the world to bear our burdens – we learn by God’s example through His teaching found in His word...
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 2 Tim 3:16

manichunter
Jul 26th 2008, 02:16 PM
Is this one of those rare occations?


An action is simply “a thing done” and the action that pleases God is summed up in the commandment of the Lord…

Love the Lord your God with all your heart…love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.
These are self-evident actions seen in the action of God “who first loved us" and showed his love among us by sending His only Son into the world to bear our burdens – we learn by God’s example through His teaching found in His word...

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 2 Tim 3:16


God breathed His law from His person. God breathed into man His person. God is really good, amen, praise God!

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 02:22 PM
God's law does not come from His mind, but His person. God is not a man that He has a man, God is spirit. God is what He does.
Actually, God's laws do come from the Mind of God - is it your concept that God does not have "a mind"? Does God not feel, perceive and reason? These are all things one does with his "mind". What is the difference between "his person" and "his mind"?

manichunter
Jul 26th 2008, 02:32 PM
Actually, God's laws do come from the Mind of God - is it your concept that God does not have "a mind"? Does God not feel, perceive and reason? These are all things one does with his "mind". What is the difference between "his person" and "his mind"?


That is my point. There is no difference. With man there can and is often a difference. We can think one thing but be different in our persona and character. We often do things we hate becomes our mind can be different from our values. God is the perfect definition of consistent. The word concept is a word that cannot be applied upon Him. He is what He does. That is not a concept.

Vhayes
Jul 26th 2008, 02:47 PM
I rarely 'imply' anything.
Okay, faith and love in action I can agree with. But what does that action entail?
We are commanded to love one another. How do we do that?
We are commanded to bear one another's burdens. How do we do that?
Hi Kahtar -

I'm not Lost Horizon but I'd like to answer to the best of my ability.

I sincerely believe we love our fellow man only by the power of the Holy Spirit. It goes against the very nature of mankind to "love" anything different than themselves hence the way people shun the homeless or the critically ill.

If we are filled with the Spirit, we will have a love for a homeless person (as an example) that seeks what is best for him but mostly we will have a longing for him to hear and understand the Good News of the gospel which is the only thing that will give him hope, lift his burdens and make him whole.

Does that mean we will hand the homeless man a tract and keep moving? I don't think so. I think it means you buy the homeless man a sandwich and a cool drink, sit with him in the shade and talk to him about the One Who has ALL the answers.

If I do any good work because God expects it, it will be burnt as hay and stubble - I have had my reward while here on earth. If I am led by the Holy Spirit and allow Him to use me as a tool or the method of His ministry to others, then God gets the glory.

I feel I've rambled - I hope this makes a bit of sense.
V

Kahtar
Jul 26th 2008, 02:52 PM
An action is simply “a thing done” and the action that pleases God is summed up in the commandment of the Lord…
Love the Lord your God with all your heart…love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.

Since you are avoiding answering HOW we love, perhaps you can give your definition of love, ie a cushy feeling, a state of mind, action on our part, etc.
These are self-evident actions seen in the action of God “who first loved us&quot; and showed his love among us by sending His only Son into the world to bear our burdens – we learn by God’s example through His teaching found in His word...

Okay, He SHOWED His love by sending His Son. We learn by God's example. So how do we SHOW love of God and neighbor?

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 03:21 PM
The word concept is a word that cannot be applied upon Him. He is what He does. That is not a concept.
Actually, what He does is a concept – a concept is simply the “act of conceiving” and the Mind of God conceives – ie – His mind apprehends by reason.

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 03:27 PM
Since you are avoiding answering HOW we love, perhaps you can give your definition of love, ie a cushy feeling, a state of mind, action on our part, etc.


I am not avoiding anything my friend. How one loves is self-evident – I love my children and that love is evidenced by my actions just as God demonstrated His love for us when He sacrificed His Son for our redemption. Love is all of the above - "cushy feeling, a state of mind, action on our part" and much more. Biblically there is a wide diversity of application and meanings for “love” – in its basic form it would be an unselfish concern for the good of another…fully demonstrated by the example of God on our behalf.
"God shows His love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us…"

Okay, He SHOWED His love by sending His Son. We learn by God's example. So how do we SHOW love of God and neighbor?
By obeying God (as the Son did) with a loving heart and doing unto others as you would have others do unto you - this is the law of Christ.
"Obedience is better than sacrifice"

Kahtar
Jul 26th 2008, 03:43 PM
I love my children and that love is evidenced by my actions ..... By obeying God (as the Son did) with a loving heart and doing unto others as you would have others do unto you - this is the law of Christ.
Okay, so would you agree then that our love is demonstrated by giving to others instead of stealing from them, or speaking truth to them instead of lying to them, etc.? Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, etc.?

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 04:02 PM
Okay, so would you agree then that our love is demonstrated by giving to others instead of stealing from them, or speaking truth to them instead of lying to them, etc.? Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, etc.?
Aren’t your questions like asking, “Is the basement downstairs”? I think it is obvious that any Christian (and most non-Christians I know) would answer those questions in the affirmative.

Kahtar
Jul 26th 2008, 04:07 PM
Now would you say that the reason you do those things is in order to earn salvation, or because you ARE saved and desire to walk an obedient and pleasing lifestyle before God?

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 04:22 PM
Now would you say that the reason you do those things is in order to earn salvation, or because you ARE saved and desire to walk an obedient and pleasing lifestyle before God?
As we both well know – we cannot “earn salvation” so why ask that question - what is your motivation? Salvation “is by grace…through faith”. Salivation is “not from yourselves, it is the gift of God…” My motivation to obey God comes from a loving heart – a love for God that through faith obeys – ie – obedient faith.
“Abraham by faith…obeyed.”

Kahtar
Jul 26th 2008, 04:37 PM
Okay. Thank you for bearing with me.
Would you agree that the following are New Covenant 'laws of Christ' that we should, as Christians, be obedient to?

Mark 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.

1 John 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Romans 14:5-6 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Ephesians 6:1-3 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. (2) Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) (3) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

Matthew 5:21-22 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: (22) But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

1 Peter 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or [as] a thief, or [as] an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.

Colossians 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

Galatians 5:16 [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 04:54 PM
Okay. Thank you for bearing with me.
Would you agree that the following are New Covenant 'laws of Christ' that we should, as Christians, be obedient to?


I would agree that the passages you list are NT concepts written for our understanding, edification and example.

Kahtar
Jul 26th 2008, 05:03 PM
Curious answer. So when Paul said that we should not lie to each other, you view this as only an example, or an edification? Or do you think we should actually NOT lie to each other? IE speak truth to each other instead of falsehoods?

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 26th 2008, 05:05 PM
My motivation to obey God comes from a loving heart – a love for God that through faith obeys – ie – obedient faith.

“Abraham by faith…obeyed.”Funny, that's exactly why i obey...... the only difference is that i consider the Law of Moses as something to be obeyed also.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees sit on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Shalom,
Tanja

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 06:08 PM
Curious answer. So when Paul said that we should not lie to each other, you view this as only an example, or an edification? Or do you think we should actually NOT lie to each other? IE speak truth to each other instead of falsehoods?
“Lie not one to another”An example is simply a *pattern* of something to be imitated (or avoided depending on context). Paul’s admonition to avoid lying to others is an example to be *imitated* – ie – Christians should follow the example presented in the NT and “Lie not one to another”. Why do you consider my answer “curious”? Do you not learn by example? Are we not to strive to *imitate Christ* - by example?

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 06:12 PM
Funny, that's exactly why i obey...... the only difference is that i consider the Law of Moses as something to be obeyed also.


The Law of Moses was given only to the Jews at Sinai – it was never given to Gentiles and it was never given to Christians. Along with the entire Mosaical system it was nailed to the cross of Christ. Why do you choose to go back under the shadows of Judaism?

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 06:16 PM
What do you say, Kahtar are Christians today under legal obligation to “keep” the Law of Moses as many on this board suggest? Was the Old Covenant disannulled at the cross of Christ?

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 26th 2008, 06:32 PM
The Law of Moses was given only to the Jews at Sinai – it was never given to Gentiles and it was never given to Christians. Wow, aren't the Jews ever special then? That sort of thinking abounds on both sides of the fence. Needless to say i disagree, because God even in the OT said that the stranger or sojourner who attached him/herself to Israel was to have the same law.


Along with the entire Mosaical system it was nailed to the cross of Christ. Why do you choose to go back under the shadows of Judaism?Again, i disagree, that it was nailed to the cross, what i see being nailed to the cross is the requirement for punishment.
I do not see the Law as a Shadow, written into our hearts by the Holy Spirit it's not a shadow, but life.
The only way any Law means death is through sin. And then we're in bondage, cause we will have to pay the price.
For a believer the Law is not bondage due to the Grace of God who allows us to wash our garments in His Son's blood.

Shalom,
Tanja

Kahtar
Jul 26th 2008, 06:32 PM
“Lie not one to another”
An example is simply a *pattern* of something to be imitated (or avoided depending on context). Paul’s admonition to avoid lying to others is an example to be *imitated* – ie – Christians should follow the example presented in the NT and “Lie not one to another”. Why do you consider my answer “curious”? Do you not learn by example? Are we not to strive to *imitate Christ* - by example?
Just trying to be sure I understand you. For instance, is there a difference between and 'example' to not lie and a 'command' to not lie? Are they one and the same, or different? Are they handled the same way, or differently?

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 06:51 PM
Wow, aren't the Jews ever special then? That sort of thinking abounds on both sides of the fence. Needless to say i disagree, because God even in the OT said that the stranger or sojourner who attached him/herself to Israel was to have the same law.


Actually the Jews were special – “salvation is of the Jews” – Jesus, “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” was a Jew. This doesn’t mean the Law of Moses was a perpetual law until the end of time – it wasn’t. It accomplished its purpose some 2000 years ago and it is no longer binding on God’s people – Christians live under the New Testament and it does not include the Law of Moses - never has, never will.


Again, i disagree, that it was nailed to the cross, what i see being nailed to the cross is the requirement for punishment.
What was nailed to the cross was “the bond which stood against us with its legal demands” – ie - the complete Mosaical/Levitical system which included the Torah.
"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross" (Col. 2:11-14).

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 06:53 PM
Just trying to be sure I understand you. For instance, is there a difference between and 'example' to not lie and a 'command' to not lie? Are they one and the same, or different? Are they handled the same way, or differently?
I would think that if I follow the command to not lie by the *example* found in Holy Writ I am obeying that command. What about that question regarding the Law of Moses – what say ye?

Kahtar
Jul 26th 2008, 06:55 PM
Do you feel it is a sin to lie?

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 07:00 PM
Do you feel it is a sin to lie?
What about the unanswered question? Are you exempt from answering questions?

Kahtar
Jul 26th 2008, 07:07 PM
Actually, had you read through my posts in this thread, you would already know the answer to your question. I fairly clearly answered it already.So, is it a sin to lie?

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 07:10 PM
Actually, had you read through my posts in this thread, you would already know the answer to your question. I fairly clearly answered it already.So, is it a sin to lie?
Direct me to your post.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 26th 2008, 07:13 PM
“salvation is of the Jews”The Jews were special in that they were the geneological line from which would come the Messiah. Thus salvation is of the Jews. Yeshua needed to grow up in a place that was steeped in God's commands, and brought up their offspring according to His will.
What they lacked was the Holy Spirit. Only few were full of the Spirit.

And i don't live "under" anything! I'm free to follow His commands and free through His sarifice by whom i'm released from being bound by sin under the law, as now i don't owe a debt.



What was nailed to the cross was “the bond which stood against us with its legal demands” – ie - the complete Mosaical/Levitical system which included the Torah.What is that bond with legal demands? It is not brought on by sin? Does the law put someone in bondage who follows it?
Rather that bond comes in when one transgresses the Law and breaks the Law, then one is bound by the law to pay a debt.

Tell me, do you observe the speed limit?
If you break the law, even by accident, are you free to go?
So do you sin because you have received Grace?
Is there a difference if you purposely sin or accidentally sin?
Does the Law not put you in bondage when you sin, no matter the circumstances?

Now what did Yeshua die for?

Did He die so we could purposely go on sinning?
Did He die so we could be forgiven when we sin accidentally?

Answer me that truthfully.

Thanks,
Tanja

Kahtar
Jul 26th 2008, 07:22 PM
Okay, I did the work for you and went back through the posts. Read through #42 and #51.
Now, is it a sin to lie?

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 07:32 PM
Now what did Yeshua die for?


Jesus died to save us from sin. He died to released those from the Law – the Law under which “we were bound", so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.” The “old” was disannulled at the cross the “new” is now in force and the new does not include the Law of Moses. Can you provide scriptural evidence that any Christian was ever commanded to keep the Law of Moses?
Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. (Rom 7)

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 07:35 PM
Okay, I did the work for you and went back through the posts. Read through #42 and #51.
Now, is it a sin to lie?
And I will return the favor - see my post #129.

Kahtar
Jul 26th 2008, 08:19 PM
I'll take that as a 'Yes, lying is a sin'.
If you agree that lying is a sin, why do you agree with that? Is it not one of the ten commandments?
If you believe we are commanded to not lie, then you must agree that that commandment is still in effect? It still shows us our sin?
If we are free from the law, as you have suggested, then we are free to sin.
However, if we are free from the punishment, or curse, of the law, then the punishment of the law has already been paid in our behalf, but the law remains, and still lets us know when we are sinning.
You say the 10 commandments have been nailed to the cross, and say we are now under the law of Christ. Okay. But the law of Christ is the same as the old law. Love God, love neighbor, do not lie, steal, commit adultery, use God's name in vain, worship idols, covet,etc.
So in other words, you are saying
'Love God' has been done away with, and we are now to 'Love God'.
'Do not worship idols' is done away with, and now we are to not worship idols.
'Honor your parents' is done away with, and we are now to honor our parents.
'Do not kill' has been done away with, and now we are to not kill.
I think your real argument is that the old law cannot save us, and to try to use the old law, be it the 10 commandments or the old covenant, to earn salvation is foolishness and putting ourselves back under the law, and that I agree with.
But just like you said earlier, the 'motivation to obey God comes from a loving heart – a love for God that through faith obeys – ie – obedient faith.
And from that perspective, I am saying that while obeying the ten commandments cannot save me, because I am already saved, I obey those commandments from a loving heart. I obey because I love God, and His love is written upon my heart. It has become my desire, (and I think yours) to obey God.
It is frankly silly to say that the OT command to love God is done away with and we now obey a new command to love God.
As I stated in a previous post, the 10 commandments, the law of God, is separate, though a part of, the Mosaic law. It was kept IN the ark, while the ordinances, Moses' law, was kept on the OUTSIDE of the ark, and that was commanded by God.
There have been seven covenants between God and man. Every one of those covenants have included God's law, including the latest one.
The difference between the preChrist law and the law now, under the NC, is that the law is written upon our hearts. We now, as Paul says, 'obey the spirit of the law, and not the letter'.
The letter says 'Thou shall not kill'. The spirit of the law says to love, forgive, and pray for your neighbor instead of killing him.
Obeying the letter of that law results in your not killing your neighbor, but it does not change your heart toward him. The hatred of your neighbor remains.
The spirit of the law replaces that hatred with love, and by loving him you are fulfilling the law to not kill him.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 26th 2008, 08:50 PM
Jesus died to save us from sin. He died to released those from the Law – the Law under which “we were bound", so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.”He died to release us from the punishment required for breaking the Law, not the Law itself as He Himself proclaimed that He came not to do away with the law, but to fulfil.

We were only bound under the Law by our transgression of the Law.
What we serve in the newness of the Spirit is still the same Law. The oldness of the letter pertains to serving without the Spirit while the newness is with the Spirit.
The Law remains the same as Yeshua said. (not one jot or tittle)

When we die to the Law, is when we obey it.... because we now obviously won't be held accountable for breaking it.
And for this Yeshua died, that if a believer falls God will not have to slay someone who loves him because of one slip-up.
It's called Grace.
Jas 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. (unbeliever)
Jas 2:11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
Jas 2:12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. (believer)



Tanja

losthorizon
Jul 26th 2008, 09:54 PM
I'll take that as a 'Yes, lying is a sin'.
If you agree that lying is a sin, why do you agree with that? Is it not one of the ten commandments?
If you believe we are commanded to not lie, then you must agree that that commandment is still in effect? It still shows us our sin?

The begging question is this – if the Ten Commandments were given to the Hebrew nation at Sinai (and they were) was it a sin to commit adultery before the giving of that law to Moses? (It was). I do not to steal, commit adultery, use God's name in vain, or worship idols today because it is a violation of the Decalogue – I refrain from such activity because it is condemned in the New Testament – the covenant Christians live under today.

Cain sinned against God when he murdered his brother not because it was sin under the Law of Moses (that law would not exist for centuries into the future). Cain sinned against God because murder was a sin from the beginning. No Kahtar - sorry - but your logic is a wee bit flawed here. Do you have any scriptural support that Christians today are bound by law to keep the shadows of the Decalogue? Christians are certainly not without law but they are not under the Law of Moses - we live and die under the law of Christ.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 26th 2008, 10:33 PM
(that law would not exist for centuries into the future).Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Note: Adam became a living creature....I see that as the giving of the law right there. One who does not have the Law does not have life.
Because if you do not know the Law, you're bound to screw up over and over again, and transgress it. I cannot see that God would have left Adam and Eve without instructions.

Now, sin is the transgression of the law, and the wages of sin are death, so you can see once Adam disobeyed He died.

Now look at the Ten Commandments, and see that all the commandments down from "honor your mother and your father" have been violated. Either by Adam and Eve or by the serpent.

Those are the sins they committed right there in the Garden, each one of them, because they did not look to their Father God, and Eve decided to take on a different father.
Eve chose a different God, one she thought was giving her something she thought God was withholding from her.
Eve committed adultery.... do you really think God would "invent" a Law after the crime has been committed? Is He not that powerful as to set rules before a wrong is committed?

I'm sure Cain knew what he was doing when he slew Abel.
I don't think God would have told him after the fact that what he did was wrong.

All Adam and Eve and Cain experienced severe punishment. I cannot see God punishing us that severely for something done out of ignorance.

For example there was a group of people who forgot to observe a feast that God had commanded to be observed at a certain time, and they celebrated later. God instead of striking them dead put them on the right track.

His Law is not without Mercy.... if it wasn't He would have had to strike them dead right after they failed to celebrate. If His Law was merciless, then He would have to show Himself to be merciless.

Shalom,
Tanja

Kahtar
Jul 26th 2008, 11:13 PM
The begging question is this – if the Ten Commandments were given to the Hebrew nation at Sinai (and they were) was it a sin to commit adultery before the giving of that law to Moses? (It was). I do not to steal, commit adultery, use God's name in vain, or worship idols today because it is a violation of the Decalogue – I refrain from such activity because it is condemned in the New Testament – the covenant Christians live under today.

Cain sinned against God when he murdered his brother not because it was sin under the Law of Moses (that law would not exist for centuries into the future). Cain sinned against God because murder was a sin from the beginning. No Kahtar - sorry - but your logic is a wee bit flawed here. Do you have any scriptural support that Christians today are bound by law to keep the shadows of the Decalogue? Christians are certainly not without law but they are not under the Law of Moses - we live and die under the law of Christ.

Now you really have me confused. One the one hand, you are saying the Decalogue was from the beginning, which I agree with, and then you turn around and say you're not? And you call my logic flawed?
Again, if the Decalogue and the law of Christ say the same thing, are they not the same? If not, please explain that to me.Again, if the Decalogue says not to kill, and Christ's law says not to kill, how are these two different? Please explain that to me.
And by the way, I did not say Christians today are under the law of Moses. Did you NOT read my last post?

Kahtar
Jul 26th 2008, 11:18 PM
Can you explain the difference between A and B of the following?

A) And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.
B) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

A) Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
B) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,

A) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
B) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;

A) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it...
B) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy

A) Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. (2) Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise (3) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
B) Honour thy father and thy mother:

A) Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: (22) But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
B) Thou shalt not kill.

A) Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
B) Thou shalt not commit adultery.

A) But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or [as] a thief, or [as] an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.
B) Thou shalt not steal.

A) Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
B) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

A) [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
B) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.

Brother Mark
Jul 27th 2008, 02:41 AM
The begging question is this – if the Ten Commandments were given to the Hebrew nation at Sinai (and they were) was it a sin to commit adultery before the giving of that law to Moses? (It was). I do not to steal, commit adultery, use God's name in vain, or worship idols today because it is a violation of the Decalogue – I refrain from such activity because it is condemned in the New Testament – the covenant Christians live under today.

Cain sinned against God when he murdered his brother not because it was sin under the Law of Moses (that law would not exist for centuries into the future). Cain sinned against God because murder was a sin from the beginning. No Kahtar - sorry - but your logic is a wee bit flawed here. Do you have any scriptural support that Christians today are bound by law to keep the shadows of the Decalogue? Christians are certainly not without law but they are not under the Law of Moses - we live and die under the law of Christ.

Aren't you making his point here LH? That the eternal law of God is the ten commandments? They can each be seen before Mount Sinai and in the NT as well. In other words, God put his eternal law into both covenants, new and old. His law was from the beginning and will last to the end. That's why we are told not to lie, steal, covet, etc. in both testaments.

manichunter
Jul 27th 2008, 02:44 AM
Aren't you making his point here LH? That the eternal law of God is the ten commandments? They can each be seen before Mount Sinai and in the NT as well. In other words, God put his eternal law into both covenants, new and old. His law was from the beginning and will last to the end. That's why we are told not to lie, steal, covet, etc. in both testaments.

We are not under any covenant, we are in Christ. LOL. Just tripping Horizon. Thanks for the conversation.

losthorizon
Jul 27th 2008, 03:24 AM
Now you really have me confused. One the one hand, you are saying the Decalogue was from the beginning, which I agree with, and then you turn around and say you're not? And you call my logic flawed?


First let me say that I didn’t state the Decalogue was “from the beginning” because it was not. The term is used to describe the collection of precepts written on stone and given by the Eternal to Moses on Mount Sinai and the date it was given is very specific and it took place long after “the beginning”. When Cain killed his brother he transgressed God’s law but not the Law of Moses given at Sinai – that law was not in existence.


Again, if the Decalogue and the law of Christ say the same thing, are they not the same? If not, please explain that to me.Again, if the Decalogue says not to kill, and Christ's law says not to kill, how are these two different?
The Decalogue is not the law of Christ and the law of Christ is not the law of Moses and herein lies your fuzzy logic. Let me explain – under French penal law (Droit Pénal) murder is a capital offense. Under U.S. law murder is also a capital offense – ie – it is a criminal offense under the laws of both France and the U.S. to commit murder – you do it and you go to prison in either country. Now under your logic French law must be US law because both have laws prohibiting murder. But guess what – they are not one and the same law - they have many differences.

The same is true regarding the law given under the Old Covenant and the law found under the New Covenant – under both economies we are prohibited by God from taking innocent life but that does not make them one and the same law as you are suggesting – there are differences. The New Testament reiterates and refines nine of the commandments found in the Decalogue – the fourth commandment to “keep” the sabbath day is clearly missing in action in the NT – why – because the sabbath requirement was only given to the Hebrew nation – it was never given to the Patriarchs or to Christians. This fact alone provides proof that the law of Moses is not binding on Christians today. The Christian faith is not about “day-keeping” contrary to what latter-day Sabbatarians teach. The Christian faith is not about the shadows of Judaism.

If I have a sexual relationship with a woman other than my wife I sin against her and my God not because it was a sin under the Decalogue but because it is a sin under the New Testament. If I commit murder in the US and go to prison it is not because it is a crime in France – I will be convicted because it is against US law.



And by the way, I did not say Christians today are under the law of Moses.
Are Christians today bound by the Decalogue to “keep” the seventh day of the week holy as many of our Sabbatarian friends teach?

losthorizon
Jul 27th 2008, 03:42 AM
Aren't you making his point here LH?


I don’t think I am, Mark – do you think keeping the 4th commandment of the Decalogue is “eternal”? We are taking about keeping the physical 7th day of the week as required by God and given to the Hebrew nation alone. If seventh-day keeping is eternal why do we not see anyone before the giving of the law at Sinai “keeping” that day? No record of Adam keeping that day – Noah, no – Job, no – any of the Patriarchs, no. Any record of Christians required to keep that day, no. Was any Gentile ever commanded to keep it, no. Why only the Jews? Do you keep that physical day holy as the Jews were required to do under the law of Moses? If not, why not?

losthorizon
Jul 27th 2008, 03:55 AM
We are not under any covenant, we are in Christ. LOL. Just tripping Horizon. Thanks for the conversation.
My pleasure, friend - I have enjoyed you comments. Think - "new" covenant not "old".

Kahtar
Jul 27th 2008, 04:05 AM
Amazingly, I actually understand where you are coming from. :)
However, there is one thing you have overlooked in both your premise and your example.
That is that the law of God came from the same Person. The US and France are different countries. God is the same yesterday today and forever, the same God in both testaments, the author of both covenants.
If killing under the OC was a sin against God, and killing under the NC is a sin against God, it is the same entity we are sinning against.
As regards the 4th commandment, the sabbath, it is no different than the rest of the commandments. The one difference between the old and new covenants is in the new covenant, we have been given the understanding of the spirit of the law, and that includes the sabbath law.
Jesus clarified for us the spirit of the law in the 'sermon on the mount'.
Instead of just simply not killing our neighbor, we are now shown to love him and care for him. That is the spirit of the commandment to not kill.
As for the sabbath, he has shown us that the specific day is not nearly as important as our heart. If we keep the sabbath (regardless which day we choose) by simply going through the motions, making it nothing more than a ritual, then even though we are 'keeping the sabbath', we are not fulfilling the spirit of the law, because the spirit of the law says we must worship in spirit and in truth. Paul explained that one man keeps one day holy, while another man keeps another day holy, and some keep every day holy. But we keep whichever day holy by true worship, not mere ritual.
And in the clarifying of His law, Jesus knew full well that none of us would be able to keep them perfectly, and that is the reason for His sacrifice.
He did not die to take away the law and allow us to be lawless. You yourself have said there is a law we are to keep. He died to pay the PENALTY of the law, setting us free from that penalty. Without him, we would be paying the penalty with our own death. But by accepting His death as payment in our behalf, we are no longer under the threat of death. We are set free. And now, we can worship God in spirit and in truth without fear of failure and death. And worshipping Him involves keeping His commandments.
1 John 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
You and I are really saying the same thing, with the exception that I believe the Decalogue and the laws of Christ are one and the same, and that is clearly supported by scripture, and you believe they are different, even though they say the same thing.
In other words, you view the 'love God' of the Decalogue as being different than the 'love God' of the NC, and I believe they are one and the same, from the same author.
Did the Decalogue exist before Moses? Yes, and scripture clearly shows that. Were they WRITTEN DOWN before Moses? Not that we know of.

Brother Mark
Jul 27th 2008, 01:39 PM
I don’t think I am, Mark – do you think keeping the 4th commandment of the Decalogue is “eternal”? We are taking about keeping the physical 7th day of the week as required by God and given to the Hebrew nation alone. If seventh-day keeping is eternal why do we not see anyone before the giving of the law at Sinai “keeping” that day? No record of Adam keeping that day – Noah, no – Job, no – any of the Patriarchs, no. Any record of Christians required to keep that day, no. Was any Gentile ever commanded to keep it, no. Why only the Jews? Do you keep that physical day holy as the Jews were required to do under the law of Moses? If not, why not?

Well, I see God keeping the day in Genesis 1 and 2. That's about as far back as we can go. But to some extent I agree with you. Paul wrote that we no longer live by the letter of the law but by the Spirit of the law. Do you find the spirit of the sabbath law in Hebrews 3 and 4? I do. So since God rested on the 7th, and that predated the Law of Moses, then we find the day command in the Law of Moses, and then we find the spirit of the law commanded in the NT in that Jesus is our Sabbath and we are to enter into His rest just as God rested on the 7th day, I see the law in all three places. This is the one law that I really do believe is eternal. In heaven, we will rest forever in Christ.

The other 9 can be seen in Genesis through Rev as well (in letter and spirit). God put those laws into both covenants. Why? Because they are very important to Him and are a part of His law. They came from His heart.

losthorizon
Jul 27th 2008, 01:53 PM
Amazingly, I actually understand where you are coming from. :)
However, there is one thing you have overlooked in both your premise and your example.
That is that the law of God came from the same Person. The US and France are different countries. God is the same yesterday today and forever, the same God in both testaments, the author of both covenants.


And amazingly I understand what it is you misunderstand. :) You fail to understand the true nature and meaning of our *immutable* God – the one who never changes – the one who is the same God today as He was yesterday. The God of both testaments interacts with His people in different ways (and always has) and this has never affected His immutability in any way as you suggest. He does not give the same commandments to ALL men forever. Our immutable God commanded Noah to build an ark – has He ever commanded you to build such a vessel? He commanded me to be baptized in water – something He never commanded Noah. Does the fact that ALL men for ALL time are not commanded to build an ark or be immersed in water render God something less than “the same yesterday today and forever”? Logically - I think not.

Can God give a certain “chosen people” the commandment to “keep” the seventh day holy and NOT give that command to other nations and still be the same God yesterday, today and forever? Of course He can and that is exactly what He did - thus rendering your argument above a *non-argument*. Our immutable God chose a special people – the Hebrew nation – for a *specific purpose* and gave them verify *specific laws and ordinances* that were not given to other nations before them or after them and those special laws, commandments and ordinances included the 4th commandment, special feast days, physical circumcision, animal sacrifices and the list goes on and on . Do you sacrifice red heifers to God as the Jews were instructed to do? The Eternal has the right to choose whom He wills for whatever purpose He wills and give specific laws to whomever He wills without changing His unchangeable character one iota – does He not?
For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession... The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples.

Did the Decalogue exist before Moses? Yes, and scripture clearly shows that. Were they WRITTEN DOWN before Moses? Not that we know of.
If this is your position (and it is a weak position) you will need to support and defend it with scriptures ( I do not accept the capricious whims of men) – you will need to prove to me that the Decalogue in its entirety was give to the “first man”, Adam. You will have to provide scriptural support that any of the Patriarchs were ever commanded to “keep” that day holy. You will have to show me where any Christian or any Gentile was ever commanded to keep that day. But let me save you some time - you will not find such support from the Book – why - becuase the Decalogue was given to a *specific chosen people* at a *specific period in world history* for a *specific reason* and I can provide scriptural support for all of the above. And contrary to your opposing notion these facts do not in any way affect the immutability of our unchanging sovereign God. The weekly Sabbath, feast days, animal sacrifices, new moons, etc were ALL nailed to His cross and abolished according to God's immutable word…
Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." (Col 2:14-16)

Kahtar
Jul 27th 2008, 02:30 PM
If this is your position (and it is a weak position) you will need to support and defend it with scriptures ( I do not accept the capricious whims of men)
I could certainly support and defend it with scripture. The problem with doing that is it would be a waste of time and energy, because, as you clearly stated, in the same sentence, you would not accept it from me, viewing it to be nothing more than capriciousness.
CAPRICIOUS, a. Freakish; whimsical; apt to change opinions suddenly, or to start from ones purpose; unsteady; changeable; fickle; fanciful; subject to change or irregularity; as a man of a capricious temper.

So in light of that, I will leave it to the Holy Spirit and the openness and teachableness of your heart to reveal it to you.
And, unless God has given you special wisdom above and beyond others, I seriously doubt that you understand His character any better than I or anyone else. We're all in the same boat together, my friend, and we'll all stand before Him one day and say 'Oh, I didn't understand'.
Some of us desire to learn more of our Lord, some are satisfied with the knowledge they have. ;)

manichunter
Jul 27th 2008, 03:04 PM
My pleasure, friend - I have enjoyed you comments. Think - "new" covenant not "old".


I want think neither. I will think first and second; or one that pertained to flesh and the other spirit. to think old and new is carnal as if one is bad and worse. They are both good, and happened as such for our revelation and witness of God's plan of salvation. The ramifications for thinking old and new are evident by today's Body.

losthorizon
Jul 27th 2008, 06:53 PM
I could certainly support and defend it with scripture. The problem with doing that is it would be a waste of time and energy, because, as you clearly stated, in the same sentence, you would not accept it from me, viewing it to be nothing more than capriciousness.


I would be happy to review any scriptures you might wish to present to support your notion that God’s people were bound by law to keep the seventh day of the week holy before that *specific law* was give to His chosen people (the Hebrew nation). I am simply stating I do not accept notions of men that are not found in Holy Writ. The Bible is clear regarding exactly who the Old Covenant was between – God and the nation present in Horeb (the Hebrew nation).
“Jehovah our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Jehovah made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day” (Deuteronomy 5).

So in light of that, I will leave it to the Holy Spirit and the openness and teachableness of your heart to reveal it to you.

Some of us desire to learn more of our Lord, some are satisfied with the knowledge they have.
You forgot to mention those who venture beyond what is written (uncharted territory, watch out!). The law of Christ is not about day-keeping and the Sabbath is merely *the shadow* of the rest that is in Christ Jesus - "ye shall find rest for your souls." The “Law of Moses” is not the “Law of Christ” - never has been. The law of Christ is the conceptual law of the New Testament based on faith, love and grace where we are exhorted, encouraged and commanded by the Lord to "love one another" and “bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ..."
“For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.” Romans 6: 14

Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and my load is light. Matthew 12: 28-30I have enjoyed the study and thanks again for the invite - I appreciate your time and effort. God bless. :)

keck553
Jul 28th 2008, 01:14 AM
I think the misunderstanding is the shadow Paul talks about is not the shadow Plato talks about in his cave analogy.

We're not even talking the same language here, one is Jewish thought and the other is Greek.

I think the best thing would be to define 'shadow' first.

losthorizon
Jul 28th 2008, 03:31 AM
I think the misunderstanding is the shadow Paul talks about is not the shadow Plato talks about in his cave analogy.

We're not even talking the same language here, one is Jewish thought and the other is Greek.

I think the best thing would be to define 'shadow' first.

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (Heb 10:1)I don’t think anyone is relating the “shadows” of the OT with Plato's metaphor of the sun. The author of the letter to the Hebrews (ch 10) refers to the Law of Moses as having a “shadow of good things to come” – and that good thing which was to come was the Christ. The complete Mosaical system was designed by it very weaknesses and imperfections to lead the remnant to Christ – the perfect sacrifice. Once the Christ came and inaugurated the New Testament in His blood the old Levitical system instantly “waxed old” and was no longer useful – ie – it had fulfilled its purpose and it was (in its entirety) nailed to the cross of Christ – never to be needed again.

How do you define 'shadow'?

keck553
Jul 29th 2008, 08:31 PM
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (Heb 10:1)
I don’t think anyone is relating the “shadows” of the OT with Plato's metaphor of the sun. The author of the letter to the Hebrews (ch 10) refers to the Law of Moses as having a “shadow of good things to come” – and that good thing which was to come was the Christ. The complete Mosaical system was designed by it very weaknesses and imperfections to lead the remnant to Christ – the perfect sacrifice. Once the Christ came and inaugurated the New Testament in His blood the old Levitical system instantly “waxed old” and was no longer useful – ie – it had fulfilled its purpose and it was (in its entirety) nailed to the cross of Christ – never to be needed again.

How do you define 'shadow'?

I define shadow the way God defines shadow in the TeNaKh, not the revisionist Greek definition. If you would like, I can link you to that explaination here, on this forum.

Greek thought is more pervasive then you think and it's interwoven in English translations, especially of Paul's writings.

Please bear with me as I present my argument.

A principle focus of modern biblical manuscript research is found in the idea that 'oldest is best'. Simple logic tells is that if a manuscript was found at the bottom of an ancient pile of garbage, it man not be the best source, no matter how old it is. Such can be said for Bible study. Just because a point of view is ancient, doesn't mean it's right.

Protestantism has an inherent desire to 'get back to the original', which means getting back to First Century faith and practice. This is inherent because of the basic tenet of why Protestants are not Catholics; namely - and in oversimplified terms - the Catholic Church lost it's way and forgot what the early church fathers taught. that is why, wehn a Protestant theologan wants to give greater authority for a given point, they leap-frog over a milleniia of theology and quote an early church father. This seems to make sense. The problem us, they may be making the same critical error of assumption that we see in the case of the 'early manuscripts is better' thinking. The assumption, of course is that the early church fathers would bo be in agreement with later Catholic doctrines. Maybe that's not a safe assumption. Maybe in the attempt to find the original, we do not go back far enought to cross the dividing line between the authentic and those who have gone astray.

Perhaps much of our religious tradtition is not original or authentic because we continue to read Scripture with the bias of the Western, or Greek mindset that facilitated the split between what we now call 'Judaism' and 'Christianity'. Like mose evangelicals, maybe we think the split between Judaism and Christianity was caused primarily becasuse of the Messiah. If we think that's all there is to it, we are at least partially wrong. To be sure, Messiah was a factor (certainly the most primary today), but the split did not take place around the time of the Resurrection. The split happened much, much later. Which means that some of the things we assume the Epistles to the Hebrews is speaking of were not even issues at the time.

Layer upon layer of presupposition must be removed if we are to glean the real meaning of Hebrews. For example, in the NKJB (Thomas Nelson) it says this about the Epistle to the Hebrews:

"Many Jewish believers, having stepped out of Judaism into Christianity, want to reverse thier course in order to escape persecution by their countrymen. The writer of Hebrews exhorts them to 'go on to perfection' (6:1). His appeal is based upon the superioirity of Christ over the Judaic system...In short, there is more to be gained in Christ than to be lost in Judaism. Pressing on in Christ produces tested faith, self discipline, and a visible love seen in good works."

Seems reasonable, but there are some serious anachronistic assumptions the writer of this introduction is making:

1) Judaism is the 'old religion' and Christianity is the 'new religion'.
2) Judaism is a religion that is antithetical to true faith
3) Christianity is the true religion of the Bible, albeit a later one.
4) Messiah is not only superior to, but antithetical to the 'Judaic System'.
5) The Judaic system is not about faith

Even here, the terms 'Judaism' and 'Christianity' is anachronistic. First, Judaism was not as monolithic in the First Century as it appears today. Second, 'Christianity' as a religion outside of Judaism was not in view. Certainly, it was not an 'either or' proposition.

To understand any of the Apostolic writings, one cannot separate them from the Hebrew Scriptures. If one does, as the early church fathers did, you will arrive at a sort of Theistic Platoism (which I will use the shadow analogy as an example).

So what is theistic Platoism? It is the blending of biblical concepts with Greek Philosophy. But God did not raise Greece as a Holy Nation, and so no aspect of the Bible has any relation to Greek philosophy. The evidence of this merger is found in several general tenets of evangelical thought:

1) Jesus taught that our motives are what really matters
2) Paul taught that works are the antithesis of faith
3) The visible is not real, the invisible is real

Compare the above statements with the main tenet of Platoism. Platosim is a theory of substantive reality around us is only a reflection of a higher truth. Plato argued that truth is the abstract - not the physical. When we lean toward the tenets of Platoism, we are impressed with the idea more than the physical reality.

This is not biblical. In fact the evangelical tenets listed above are false:

1) Jesus taught that motives result in commensurate actions - that sin begins in the heart.
2) Paul and James taught that there is no such thing as faith without a demostration of it (works)
3) The visible is reality, as well as the invisible.

So, why this excursion into Platoism? Because the translators saw things that way. Why? Because they were taught to see things that way. The reason why is the mistaken belief that the principle contest in the Apostolic Scripture is between Christianity and Judaism; defined by some as 'faith vs. works'. In this line of thinking, the religion before the cross was a religion of Law - but now we have grace. This apporach takes the Gospel accounts and the Book of Acts and explains away thier historical context by calling them 'transitional'. As such, the Gospels and the Book of Acts are called 'descriptive' and not 'prescriptive' in providing us examples of a normal life of faith. This line of thinking makes it appear that Jesus taught neither the essence nor the necessary understandings of a walk with HIm - and only after many years did His followers finally figure it out and distill it into a more complex theology. Theologians would have us believe in 'theological evolution' that is the 'simple' teachings of Jesus evolved into the 'complex' teachings of Paul. Does Paul trump Jesus? Does Paul trump Moses?

Marcion took this apporach, was branded a heretic. The problems is his approach was retained by the early chruch fathers. And that leads us today, using some of the theology of a person branded a heretic.

losthorizon
Jul 29th 2008, 11:25 PM
So, why this excursion into Platoism?


Yes – excellent question - why the excursion into Greek philosophy – why make something easily understood into some philosophical digression? I read through your post and couldn’t make head or tail out of much of it. Why don’t you just paraphrase in your own words what it is you think the Tanakh says about the *shadows* we are discussing here and we can discuss in more detail, I think you are thinking a bit too much on this matter – it is really not as difficult as you are making it out to be. :)