PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Fulfill the Law?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

JesusPhreak27
Jan 20th 2009, 08:25 PM
Hey everyone....

For the longest time I was under the belief that with the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ that we were free from the Law.

But earlier today while preparing to start the Gospel of Matthew in my Life Application Bible (I have a 365 day bible reading program that I started Jan 1 -- it starts with Genesis then Matthew back to Exodus etc) and it showed this as the "key verse":

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill them." (Matt 5:17)

Now as I said previously I always thought that we are no longer under the Law.

But the blurb for Matt. 5:17 states this:

"When Jesus talked about a new way to understand God's Law, he was actually trying to bring people back to its original purpose. Jesus did not speak against the Law itself, but against the abuses and excesses to which it had been subjected."

Then it prompts me to read John 1:17 which states:

"For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

The blurb for this verse states:

"Law and Grace are both aspects of God's nature that He uses in dealing with us. Moses emphasized God's Law and justice, while Jesus came to highlight God's mercy, love and forgiveness. Moses could only be the giver of the Law, while Christ came to fulfill the Law (Matt. 5:17). The nature and will of God were revealed in the Law; now the nature and will of God are revealed in Jesus Christ. Rather then coming through cold stone tablets, God's revelation (truth) now comes through a person's life. As we get to know Christ better, our understanding of God will increase."


This is probably the hardest part of my faith to figure out for me! Im so confused about what we are supposed to do in regards to the Law. And I still dont understand what Christ meant when He said that He did not come to abolish but fulfill the Law.

Help? Anyone?

Vhayes
Jan 20th 2009, 08:32 PM
There are different covenants God made at different times. In my opinion, the Levitical Law was for the nation of Israel only. If the covenant God made through Jesus was just a continuation of the old Covenant, why make Jesus die on the cross and why call it "new" and not re-newed?

When you took the mortgage out on your house, you entered a contract or a covenant with the bank. When all of your payments have been made, you no longer have to pay the bank, the obligation or covenant has been fulfilled.

The new covenant means living under the Law of Liberty that is in Christ. If the Holy Spirit guides and leads, you are indeed living under the Law of Liberty.

Does that help any at all?
V

livingwaters
Jan 20th 2009, 08:33 PM
In my opinion, Jesus fulfilled the law in the respect of forgiveness of sin by being our atonement for our sin debt. However, God made the laws(the ten commnandments) and they are to be kept, as God doesn't change, HE is always the same. Jesus said if we kept these two commandements, 1) Love thy God with all thy heart, mind, soul and strength, and 2) Love thy neighbor as thyself...they would cover the ten commandments that God gave to Moses. So, they are still in place. Alleluia~~~~The law could not abolish sin, only cover it. So, God sent Jesus to die for us, and through the shedding of HIS spotless blood, we can be saved and cleansed!! Thank YOU, Jesus...Thank YOU, Father God!!!:pp:pp

Firstfruits
Jan 20th 2009, 08:37 PM
Hey everyone....

For the longest time I was under the belief that with the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ that we were free from the Law.

But earlier today while preparing to start the Gospel of Matthew in my Life Application Bible (I have a 365 day bible reading program that I started Jan 1 -- it starts with Genesis then Matthew back to Exodus etc) and it showed this as the "key verse":

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill them." (Matt 5:17)

Now as I said previously I always thought that we are no longer under the Law.

But the blurb for Matt. 5:17 states this:

"When Jesus talked about a new way to understand God's Law, he was actually trying to bring people back to its original purpose. Jesus did not speak against the Law itself, but against the abuses and excesses to which it had been subjected."

Then it prompts me to read John 1:17 which states:

"For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

The blurb for this verse states:

"Law and Grace are both aspects of God's nature that He uses in dealing with us. Moses emphasized God's Law and justice, while Jesus came to highlight God's mercy, love and forgiveness. Moses could only be the giver of the Law, while Christ came to fulfill the Law (Matt. 5:17). The nature and will of God were revealed in the Law; now the nature and will of God are revealed in Jesus Christ. Rather then coming through cold stone tablets, God's revelation (truth) now comes through a person's life. As we get to know Christ better, our understanding of God will increase."


This is probably the hardest part of my faith to figure out for me! Im so confused about what we are supposed to do in regards to the Law. And I still dont understand what Christ meant when He said that He did not come to abolish but fulfill the Law.

Help? Anyone?

Have a look at the following scriptures:

Luke 18:31-34

Luke 24:25-27, 44-48

Psalm 22:

Isaiah 53:

These are what Christ used to explain to the Disciples what he meant in the following;

Mt 5:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

JesusPhreak27
Jan 20th 2009, 08:47 PM
There are different covenants God made at different times. In my opinion, the Levitical Law was for the nation of Israel only. If the covenant God made through Jesus was just a continuation of the old Covenant, why make Jesus die on the cross and why call it "new" and not re-newed?

When you took the mortgage out on your house, you entered a contract or a covenant with the bank. When all of your payments have been made, you no longer have to pay the bank, the obligation or covenant has been fulfilled.

The new covenant means living under the Law of Liberty that is in Christ. If the Holy Spirit guides and leads, you are indeed living under the Law of Liberty.

Does that help any at all?
V

But what confuses me sis is the fact that Hebrews says that God's Word is the same yesterday today and tommorrow. If that is the case doesnt that mean that any covenant that God makes (Mosaic, Abrahamic etc) is still in effect right?

But after reading what you wrote does that mean that we dont have to follow what the Law states?

Kahtar
Jan 20th 2009, 08:47 PM
We are not 'under' the law, per se.
It is important to understand that law does not save us, nor make us righteous.
Our faith in Jesus Christ and His payment for our sins is what saves us, and makes us righteous.
But now that we are saved, how are we to live?
The law provides us guidlines to live our daily lives. At NO TIME are we to trust in our obedience to the law for SALVATION, or for RIGHTEOUSNESS.
But, we ARE to live according to God's holy and eternal law, ie love our neighbor instead of killing him, etc.
But the Holy Spirit writes that eternal law on our hearts. In other words, He gives us the DESIRE to be obedient to Him.
Jesus did not come to destroy or to away with God's holy eternal law (this is not the oral traditions, nor even the old covenant of Moses that I am referring to).
He came to fulfill it. How did He do that? We all have sinned. The punishment for sin is death. When we break God's eternal law, as we all have, the prescribed and just punishment for breaking that law is death, ie eternal separation from God. When that death is satisfied, and the punishment of the law is complete, then the law is 'fulfilled'.
Jesus Christ paid that penalty for us, in our place, and by doing so, HE fulfilled the law in our behalf, so that WE don't have to.
Now we each have a choice. We can either accept the payment HE made for us, or we can choose to pay the penalty ourselves. Either way, a death occurs and the law is satisfied, or fulfilled.

Do not confuse the holy eternal law of God with the covenant of Moses. They are separate things. It is true that the Mosaic covenant included the eternal law of God, but the eternal law of God pre-existed the Mosaic covenant. It was from the very beginning. Each covenant, the Adamic, the Noahide, the Abrahamic, the Levitic, the Mosaic,the Davidic, AND the New Covenant, all contained the eternal law of God.
Jesus said the law of God would never pass away. He said that heaven and earth would pass away but his law would remain forever.
So how do we walk according to God's eternal law?
We love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and turn away from all other 'gods'.
We take his Name (CHRISTian) and walk in a manner that is not vain.
We keep a day set apart to spend with Him and with our families, setting aside our daily rituals of work and TV. (What day you do that is according to your own conscience. The day God picked is a good day to do it.)
We honor our parents and those in authority over us, because as we do so, we both learn and show respect for God Who is our ultimate authority.
We love our neighbor instead of hating him.
We give him Life (speak the gospel) instead of killing him.
We honor our marriage and the marriage of others.
We give to our neighbor instead of stealing from him.
We speak truth to our neighbor instead of lying to him.
We are satisfied with what God has provided us, instead of lusting and coveting what our neighbors have.
And these things the Spirit writes on our heart when we accept Christ as our Savior. Little by little as we walk this kingdom walk, we find our hearts changed. We no longer want to do those things that once brought us (temporary) pleasure, and instead desire to do good things.

JesusPhreak27
Jan 20th 2009, 08:49 PM
In my opinion, Jesus fulfilled the law in the respect of forgiveness of sin by being our atonement for our sin debt. However, God made the laws(the ten commnandments) and they are to be kept, as God doesn't change, HE is always the same. Jesus said if we kept these two commandements, 1) Love thy God with all thy heart, mind, soul and strength, and 2) Love thy neighbor as thyself...they would cover the ten commandments that God gave to Moses. So, they are still in place. Alleluia~~~~The law could not abolish sin, only cover it. So, God sent Jesus to die for us, and through the shedding of HIS spotless blood, we can be saved and cleansed!! Thank YOU, Jesus...Thank YOU, Father God!!!:pp:pp


So it means that as long as we love the Lord with all our minds body and souls and love our neighbors as we love ourselves that is all we have to do??? Because if we ACTUALLY do this then we will actually live a pleasing life to God?

This part is SO confusing......

HisLeast
Jan 20th 2009, 08:55 PM
So is the laws just the 10 commandments?
Are any of the Levitical laws included?

Should we be Torah observant? As Torah observant as we can?

This question has been very much on my mind since reading AJ Jacob's "A Year of Living Biblically".

awestruckchild
Jan 20th 2009, 09:02 PM
I have come to see that He changes me inside in regards to the ten commandments. I don't worry about anything but following where He leads me.He shows me how I murder when I get mad at someone inside no matter if I am hiding my anger from them, how sneaky I can be by saying I am doing one thing when the motive of my heart is completely different from what I have professed, how when I get my feelings hurt by someone I am really being prideful because I felt they owed me some sort of respect or honor - things like that. He just concentrates with me on my inside which I tend to think is okay just because no one else can see it and He uncovers and shows me how I've hidden my true motives from even myself.

I know lots of christians worry about their outward appearance to others but I don't know why that is never my concern. I care most what HE thinks of me.

Vhayes
Jan 20th 2009, 09:14 PM
But what confuses me sis is the fact that Hebrews says that God's Word is the same yesterday today and tommorrow. If that is the case doesnt that mean that any covenant that God makes (Mosaic, Abrahamic etc) is still in effect right?

But after reading what you wrote does that mean that we dont have to follow what the Law states?
Look at the verse in Hebrews 8
8 - Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Is this the one you were thinking of?

Jesus remains the same - God remains the same. But I don't walk in the Garden of Eden. I don't follow a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. I do not sacrifice in a temple.

God changes the manner in which He deals with man.

Does that help?
V

JesusPhreak27
Jan 20th 2009, 09:44 PM
Look at the verse in Hebrews 8
8 - Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Is this the one you were thinking of?

Jesus remains the same - God remains the same. But I don't walk in the Garden of Eden. I don't follow a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. I do not sacrifice in a temple.

God changes the manner in which He deals with man.

Does that help?
V

Sure does Sis....

So what you guys are saying is that the Law allowed the Israelites receive forgiveness for their sins (God allowed them to sacrifice animals in their place), but since Jesus paid the ultimate price and became the sacrificial Lamb we no longer have to worry about any of that.

We just have to love God with all our minds hearts bodies and souls and love one another the same way we love ourselves and this will lead us?

drew
Jan 20th 2009, 09:47 PM
Hey everyone....

For the longest time I was under the belief that with the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ that we were free from the Law.

But earlier today while preparing to start the Gospel of Matthew in my Life Application Bible (I have a 365 day bible reading program that I started Jan 1 -- it starts with Genesis then Matthew back to Exodus etc) and it showed this as the "key verse":

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill them." (Matt 5:17)

Now as I said previously I always thought that we are no longer under the Law.

But the blurb for Matt. 5:17 states this:

"When Jesus talked about a new way to understand God's Law, he was actually trying to bring people back to its original purpose. Jesus did not speak against the Law itself, but against the abuses and excesses to which it had been subjected."
I know it takes guts to disagree with the people who wrote that blurb, but I will.

I think that your "original" position is, in fact, correct - we are indeed no longer under the Law (the Torah).

I do not like the statement "Jesus did not speak against the Law itself, but against the abuses and excesses to which it had been subjected." and I am frankly surprised to see it from a presumably authoritative source (the Life Application people).

It is true that Jesus critiqued man-made distortions to the Law. But that should not, in and of itself, drive us to conclude that Jesus could not have done away with the Law. So while I think this statement from your blurb is true, it is misleadingly incomplete - Jesus (and Paul) both, I claim, declare that the Torah is now retired.

When I say that the Law is retired, I am not saying it is now OK to covet, commit adultery, etc., etc. I am asserting that, with the gift of the Spirit, the essence of Torah - what it is all about at its core - has been "written on our hearts". So there is a sense in which the Torah continues to be in force, but not as a "list of do's and don'ts" - the Spirit gives us a capability people did not have before the time of Christ. So, in a sense, we do not need the "tutor" of Torah to tell us how to live. Of course, since the Torah is God's law, if anyone claims to have the Spirit and thinks they are free to violate the 10 commandments, I suggest they are on the wrong track.

The status of the Law is very, very tricky, I suggest. After all, at times Paul declares its abolition, at other times, he affirms it.

drew
Jan 20th 2009, 09:49 PM
So is the laws just the 10 commandments?
Are any of the Levitical laws included?

Should we be Torah observant? As Torah observant as we can?
I think it is clear from Mark 7 that Jesus overturned the Levitical food laws:

In Mark 7, Jesus does indeed repudiate human add-ons to Torah. But Jesus clearly goes beyond this and overturns some of the Levitical food laws:

15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] 17When he had left the crowd and entered (P)the house, (Q)His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that [B]whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

Jesus really cannot be misunderstood here - he clearly states that all foods are clean. This cannot be reconciled with the Levitical food laws which clearly state some foods are unclean.

So the fact that Jesus also repudiates man-made additions to Torah must not be seen as His only point here. It clearly is not - in addition to repudiating such add-ons, He also declares all foods clean. And that is at variance with Torah itself, not man's distortions of it.

Julian
Jan 20th 2009, 09:51 PM
Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

HE IS the end of the law for righteousness to ALL who believe. Time to move on to the life of living in righteousness and not needing to fulfill the works of the law - for he's already fulfilled it.

theBelovedDisciple
Jan 20th 2009, 10:06 PM
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;


Even the righteousness of God [which is] by'faith'of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:



That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


Christ fullfilled the Law and In Him we have His Righteousness.. which is Righteousness by Faith.. believing on His Completed and Atoning Work on that Bloody Tree..

Vhayes
Jan 20th 2009, 10:13 PM
So it means that as long as we love the Lord with all our minds body and souls and love our neighbors as we love ourselves that is all we have to do??? Because if we ACTUALLY do this then we will actually live a pleasing life to God?

This part is SO confusing......
Colossians 2
6 - Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,
7 - having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude.
8 - See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

II Corinthians 5
7 - for we walk by faith, not by sight--
8 - we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.



It's ALL about Him and not about us and what we "do" in any way shape or form except how He works through us by the power of His Holy Spirit. You have been born again and the Spirit lives within you.



Does that make sense?

drew
Jan 20th 2009, 10:18 PM
Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

HE IS the end of the law for righteousness to ALL who believe. Time to move on to the life of living in righteousness and not needing to fulfill the works of the law - for he's already fulfilled it.
I think this is indeed a key verse and I agree with your interpretation - Jesus is the "end" of Torah in the fulfillment sense, not in the sense that the Torah was a bad thing, now happily done away with.

The Torah was a good thing, but its purpose has come to an end.

Vhayes
Jan 20th 2009, 10:21 PM
I think this is indeed a key verse and I agree with your interpretation - Jesus is the "end" of Torah in the fulfillment sense, not in the sense that the Torah was a bad thing, now happily done away with.

The Torah was a good thing, but its purpose has come to an end.
Yep!
Galatians 3
24 - Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.

JesusPhreak27
Jan 20th 2009, 11:26 PM
Colossians 2
6 - Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,
7 - having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude.
8 - See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

II Corinthians 5
7 - for we walk by faith, not by sight--
8 - we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.



It's ALL about Him and not about us and what we "do" in any way shape or form except how He works through us by the power of His Holy Spirit. You have been born again and the Spirit lives within you.



Does that make sense?

Im SO sorry to have to have you explain and re-explain this sis.....

The thing is..... last week I prayed and told God that from this moment on I want to live a life that honors Him in EVERYTHING that I do. Im tired of living a life of shame (when I stumble and look at porn or lie or get short tempered with my wife or son) and pride and just being about me..... I want my life (the WHOLE thing not just when Im in church on Wed. or Sun.) to be about Him....not me anymore.

My heart and soul ache with pain because of what I have become and what I want for my life is to become the light that Jesus talks about in Matt. 5:14-16. I want everyone I come across to be able to see His love shining through me.

That being said I need to make sure that I am doing what He wants me to; at work, when Im out in town, with my family and most importantly when Im at home on the internet with no one around.

I know that all my sins were forgiven on Calvary.... That I get.... and that I can never understand....why He died for me.... but what I want to make sure of from now on is that Im doing everything I can to live a life that is pleasing to Him.

Im SO tired of living for me......

JesusPhreak27
Jan 20th 2009, 11:28 PM
I think this is indeed a key verse and I agree with your interpretation - Jesus is the "end" of Torah in the fulfillment sense, not in the sense that the Torah was a bad thing, now happily done away with.

The Torah was a good thing, but its purpose has come to an end.

So you guys are saying that since the Torah is fulfilled (by the birth, life, death and ressurection of Jesus) that it no longer hangs on our neck like the albatross?

keck553
Jan 20th 2009, 11:42 PM
Wow. I had no idea that obeying God was such a burden for some.

JesusPhreak27
Jan 20th 2009, 11:45 PM
Wow. I had no idea that obeying God was such a burden for some.

Im sorry? What do you mean bythat? (By no means am I being disrespectful.... Im curious)

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 11:59 PM
Hey everyone....

For the longest time I was under the belief that with the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ that we were free from the Law.

But earlier today while preparing to start the Gospel of Matthew in my Life Application Bible (I have a 365 day bible reading program that I started Jan 1 -- it starts with Genesis then Matthew back to Exodus etc) and it showed this as the "key verse":

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill them." (Matt 5:17)

Now as I said previously I always thought that we are no longer under the Law.

But the blurb for Matt. 5:17 states this:

"When Jesus talked about a new way to understand God's Law, he was actually trying to bring people back to its original purpose. Jesus did not speak against the Law itself, but against the abuses and excesses to which it had been subjected."

Then it prompts me to read John 1:17 which states:

"For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

The blurb for this verse states:

"Law and Grace are both aspects of God's nature that He uses in dealing with us. Moses emphasized God's Law and justice, while Jesus came to highlight God's mercy, love and forgiveness. Moses could only be the giver of the Law, while Christ came to fulfill the Law (Matt. 5:17). The nature and will of God were revealed in the Law; now the nature and will of God are revealed in Jesus Christ. Rather then coming through cold stone tablets, God's revelation (truth) now comes through a person's life. As we get to know Christ better, our understanding of God will increase."


This is probably the hardest part of my faith to figure out for me! Im so confused about what we are supposed to do in regards to the Law. And I still dont understand what Christ meant when He said that He did not come to abolish but fulfill the Law.

Help? Anyone?

first off, the important thing is faith in God and His promises. Faith in God and His promises existed before the law. The law was a schoolmaster to prepare us for Jesus

that being said, there are 3 types of law in the OT

we are accountable for 1

The types are civic law-judgement(stoning, executions, punishments),

moral law-righteousness(do not steal, love your God etc) and

what i will call ceremonial law-sin(its called something else i forgot though, and it refers to all the feasts and celebrations and animal sacrifices all those other types of things)

that being said, in order to be righteous, it has always been by faith in God and His promises. Thats why Abraham was righteous before Moses and the Law even came.

So, to be righteous, it is by faith in God and His promises (Jesus and the gospel)

However, the moral law is still the same. There was nothing wrong with the law, the law was used to show us that we were not capable to satisfy its demands of perfection. However, just because we are saved by faith, does not mean that we live contrary to the moral law. However, we follow Gods moral law with th undertanding that we are not obeying it to be righteous, but rather because God is good and we show that we love Him by obeying Him


This is important to know when talking about things such as homosexuality. Some will say, well, they stoned people in the OT too so why dont you do that? so now you know that there were three types of law and one is still in effect, the moral law. The other two have been fulfilled in Christ. Actuallly all three have been fulfilled in Christ but we still show that we love God by obeying His moral laws. We dont have to sacrifice or stone people because Jesus has sacrificed Himself and died for our sin in our place

keck553
Jan 21st 2009, 12:01 AM
Im sorry? What do you mean bythat? (By no means am I being disrespectful.... Im curious)

Do you know what a rabbi's "burden" was referring to in Jesus' time?

Vhayes
Jan 21st 2009, 12:05 AM
Im SO sorry to have to have you explain and re-explain this sis.....

The thing is..... last week I prayed and told God that from this moment on I want to live a life that honors Him in EVERYTHING that I do. Im tired of living a life of shame (when I stumble and look at porn or lie or get short tempered with my wife or son) and pride and just being about me..... I want my life (the WHOLE thing not just when Im in church on Wed. or Sun.) to be about Him....not me anymore.

My heart and soul ache with pain because of what I have become and what I want for my life is to become the light that Jesus talks about in Matt. 5:14-16. I want everyone I come across to be able to see His love shining through me.

That being said I need to make sure that I am doing what He wants me to; at work, when Im out in town, with my family and most importantly when Im at home on the internet with no one around.

I know that all my sins were forgiven on Calvary.... That I get.... and that I can never understand....why He died for me.... but what I want to make sure of from now on is that Im doing everything I can to live a life that is pleasing to Him.

Im SO tired of living for me......
Remember the post you made about shoveling the snow and you were thinking about how hard it was? Then you had the thought that you should be grateful that you had a driveway to shovel? THAT'S what I'm talking about. you will "hear" Him - He will lead you each and every step of the way. Honest. He will correct your thoughts and your heart to be in tune with what He wants. It isn't YOU, it's HIM!

Does that make any sense at all?
V

JesusPhreak27
Jan 21st 2009, 12:23 AM
Remember the post you made about shoveling the snow and you were thinking about how hard it was? Then you had the thought that you should be grateful that you had a driveway to shovel? THAT'S what I'm talking about. you will "hear" Him - He will lead you each and every step of the way. Honest. He will correct your thoughts and your heart to be in tune with what He wants. It isn't YOU, it's HIM!

Does that make any sense at all?
V

Yea.... Im tracking Sis..... Sometimes I like to think that Im more important then I am.......:hug:

Vhayes
Jan 21st 2009, 12:27 AM
Yea.... Im tracking Sis..... Sometimes I like to think that Im more important then I am.......:hug:
Yea, that's a common thread... Adam did, David did, Solomon did, Peter did... I'd say you were in good company. :hug:

SeattleSun
Jan 21st 2009, 01:22 AM
Yep!
Galatians 3
24 - Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.

Perfect verse in this context. Thank you! Let me posit this: If God had not given the Law, could man sin against Him?

Under Mosaic Law, the priests worked 24/7. They never sat down while "on duty", making the sacrifices offered by Israel. The Law was fulfilled by the supreme sacrifice and Christ Jesus sat down.

Heb 1:3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

chad
Jan 21st 2009, 01:25 AM
Hi JesusPhreak27,

When I think of Jesus fulfilling the law, I always think of his death, ressurection and Jesus ascending to heaven and becoming the our high priest in the order of Melchezidek. And when there is a change in priesthood, there is also a change in the law.

Remember the Mosaic law was only a copy of what was in heaven. When Jesus ascended to heaven, then he became our high priest - did he not fulfil the Mosaic law. In Hebrews it says that the former law is no longer required becuase of the new priesthood.


Hey everyone....

For the longest time I was under the belief that with the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ that we were free from the Law.

But earlier today while preparing to start the Gospel of Matthew in my Life Application Bible (I have a 365 day bible reading program that I started Jan 1 -- it starts with Genesis then Matthew back to Exodus etc) and it showed this as the "key verse":

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill them." (Matt 5:17)

Now as I said previously I always thought that we are no longer under the Law.

But the blurb for Matt. 5:17 states this:

"When Jesus talked about a new way to understand God's Law, he was actually trying to bring people back to its original purpose. Jesus did not speak against the Law itself, but against the abuses and excesses to which it had been subjected."

Then it prompts me to read John 1:17 which states:

"For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

The blurb for this verse states:

"Law and Grace are both aspects of God's nature that He uses in dealing with us. Moses emphasized God's Law and justice, while Jesus came to highlight God's mercy, love and forgiveness. Moses could only be the giver of the Law, while Christ came to fulfill the Law (Matt. 5:17). The nature and will of God were revealed in the Law; now the nature and will of God are revealed in Jesus Christ. Rather then coming through cold stone tablets, God's revelation (truth) now comes through a person's life. As we get to know Christ better, our understanding of God will increase."


This is probably the hardest part of my faith to figure out for me! Im so confused about what we are supposed to do in regards to the Law. And I still dont understand what Christ meant when He said that He did not come to abolish but fulfill the Law.

Help? Anyone?

Firstfruits
Jan 21st 2009, 08:47 AM
If we are concerned with what Christ meant then why do we not take into account Christs explanation of what he said according to these scriptures?

Luke 18:31-34

Luke 24:25-27, 44-48

Psalm 22:

Isaiah 53:

These are what Christ used to explain to the Disciples what he meant in the following;

Mt 5:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

drew
Jan 21st 2009, 08:55 PM
Wow. I had no idea that obeying God was such a burden for some.
Those of us who believe that Torah has been retired do not, of course, beleive that there remains no issue of "obeying God".

drew
Jan 21st 2009, 08:59 PM
Perfect verse in this context. Thank you! Let me posit this: If God had not given the Law, could man sin against Him?
While it appears that you, Vhayes, and I agree on the "retired" status of the Torah, I would say that man can and did sin in the absence of Torah. If anyone wishes, I can make a case for this. I know there are some who think that sin "doesn't exist" in the absence of law. I think the scriptures teach that sin exists whether law is there or not.

SeattleSun
Jan 21st 2009, 09:45 PM
While it appears that you, Vhayes, and I agree on the "retired" status of the Torah, I would say that man can and did sin in the absence of Torah. If anyone wishes, I can make a case for this. I know there are some who think that sin "doesn't exist" in the absence of law. I think the scriptures teach that sin exists whether law is there or not.

That would be interesting Drew, I'd like to read your case. I'm a bit of a blank page on the subject and as I have just recently pondered it.

Lol, your case ... your thread! :D

drew
Jan 21st 2009, 09:57 PM
That would be interesting Drew, I'd like to read your case. I'm a bit of a blank page on the subject and as I have just recently pondered it.

Lol, your case ... your thread! :D
Here is an argument as to why sin exists independent of law:

Here is Romans 3:20 in the NIV:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

I take it as self-evident that the reference to “law” here is a reference to the Torah. Although it may not be obvious at a superficial reading, I suggest this text shows that Paul cannot have believed that “sin” was simply “law-breaking”.

Everyone agrees that sin existed prior to Torah. If sin is only law-breaking, then some law, call it “Law A”, must have been in place prior to delivery of Torah.

Substituting “breaking of Law A” for sin into the latter half of Romans 3:20, we get:

through the Torah we become conscious of the breaking of Law A.

The problem should already be clear. What is Law A? It must be a set of commands comprehensible to human beings – we need to understand the law in order for it to be “law” in any reasonable sense. So Law A must have the property that it allows us to identify that Law A has been broken. But what is Paul saying about Torah, if indeed “sin = lawbreaking”? He is saying that it is the Torah, not Law A, that makes us conscious of breaking Law A. But if that is so, we were not conscious of breaking Law A when we were under Law A.

How can Law A then be a law, if we need some other law to make us conscious of breaking Law A?

Therefore, since we know that Paul believes that sin has always been in the world (Romans 5:10-12), he must believe there was no law prior to Torah (yet after Adam - we know Paul understood that Adam was under the "law" of "thou shalt not eat"

So sin exists without law.

Firstfruits
Jan 22nd 2009, 09:22 AM
Jesus said he came to fulfil those things concerning himself, so what according to the law the Prophets and the Psalms are we concerned with?

Lk 18:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.

Lk 22:37 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=22&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=37) For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

Lk 24:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:

Lk 24:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Lk 24:44 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Acts 28:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

What in the Torah are we concerned with, knowing what Jesus said what he was concerned with?

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Yukerboy
Jan 22nd 2009, 12:56 PM
1 Timothy 1:9
We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,

Romans 5:19
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Ephesians 2:15
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,

Christ did not come to abolish the law. The law still stands today. However, that law was made for the ungodly, not for the born again. Those that Christ made righteous are no longer under law.

Firstfruits
Jan 22nd 2009, 01:04 PM
1 Timothy 1:9
We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,

Romans 5:19
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Ephesians 2:15
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,

Christ did not come to abolish the law. The law still stands today. However, that law was made for the ungodly, not for the born again. Those that Christ made righteous are no longer under law.



I am asking what Jesus came to fulfil according to what is written?

Jesus said he came to fulfil those things concerning himself, so what according to the law the Prophets and the Psalms are we concerned with?

Lk 18:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.

Lk 22:37 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=22&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=37) For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

Lk 24:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:

Lk 24:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Lk 24:44 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Acts 28:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

What did Jesus fulfil that is written in the law and the prophets and the Psalms?

As you have clearly stated;

The law still stands today. However, that law was made for the ungodly, not for the born again. Those that Christ made righteous are no longer under law.

Just a note, do you therefore know that you are born again?

Firstfruits

Yukerboy
Jan 22nd 2009, 01:09 PM
I am asking what Jesus came to fulfil according to what is written?

Jesus said he came to fulfil those things concerning himself, so what according to the law the Prophets and the Psalms are we concerned with?

Lk 18:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.

Lk 22:37 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=22&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=37) For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

Lk 24:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:

Lk 24:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Lk 24:44 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Acts 28:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

What did Jesus fulfil that is written in the law and the prophets and the Psalms?

Firstfruits

The prophecies concerning Him, the sacrifices being a shadow of what was to come, the law was put in charge to lead men to Christ.

Firstfruits
Jan 22nd 2009, 01:18 PM
The prophecies concerning Him, the sacrifices being a shadow of what was to come, the law was put in charge to lead men to Christ.

What therefore are the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled according to what Jesus explained to his disciples?

Lk 18:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.

Lk 22:37 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=22&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=37) For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

Lk 24:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:

Lk 24:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Lk 24:44 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Firstfruits

Walstib
Jan 22nd 2009, 05:04 PM
While it appears that you, Vhayes, and I agree on the "retired" status of the Torah, I would say that man can and did sin in the absence of Torah. If anyone wishes, I can make a case for this. I know there are some who think that sin "doesn't exist" in the absence of law. I think the scriptures teach that sin exists whether law is there or not.Hi Drew,

I would agree that sin exists without the Mosaic law. This word Torah is used in so many ways it’s hard to pin down what is meant sometimes.

If it is used to define any unwritten precept that is contrary to God’s desire for us as individuals personally I would say it has and always will be in existence.

When it is used specifically to refer to the Mosaic law *(meaning the commands given by God to the nation of Israel written down by Moses in the books he wrote) I believe one say at the very least it has changed and the regenerate are no longer under it’s tutorage.

For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. (Heb 7:12 NKJV)

Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Gal 3:21-25 NKJV)

That said, we are counselled through our conscience what we should do to be obedient to God instant by instant. Any of this counsel fully in agreement with love of God and love of everyone around us. In a word LOVE.

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more." Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."(Joh 8:7-12 NKJV)

I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offence toward God and men. (Act 24:15-16 NKJV) ……(Rom 2:11-16) (1Co 10:24-31) (Heb 9:7-12)

I the first verse shows the leaders rightly following the Mosaic law, yet I believe they come to conviction through thier conscience there is existing “law” that fulfills and encompasses the Mosaic law. Coming through the knowledge of good and evil through Adam. The spirit not the letter concept.

Main point being in all this that a “retirement” of the Mosaic law does not really address what I would call the “eternal and unwritten law”. Quite possibly the law of the Spirit of life. If one thinks every time the word law is used in scripture it refers specifically to the Mosaic law I think there will be much missing. The translators in some versions have attempted to show this in capitalizing law in some instances and not others. So with all these words I am saying there never has been nor ever will be an absence of law itself, or the need for that law to judge actions and intentions of the heart.

Interested in your thoughts for sure,
Joe

drew
Jan 22nd 2009, 06:13 PM
Ephesians 2:15
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,

Christ did not come to abolish the law. The law still stands today. However, that law was made for the ungodly, not for the born again. Those that Christ made righteous are no longer under law.
I am not sure how you this Ephesians texts as countenancing your position that the law has not abolished - the Ephesians text explicitly declare the abolition of the Torah...."by abolishing in his flesh the law...."

Emanate
Jan 22nd 2009, 06:35 PM
The law still stands today. However, that law was made for the ungodly, not for the born again. Those that Christ made righteous are no longer under law.

Just a note, do you therefore know that you are born again?
Firstfruits


The how do we justify this - 2 Tim. 3:16 All (not "only Paul") scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction (Hebrew - Torah) in righteousness:

Emanate
Jan 22nd 2009, 06:36 PM
I am not sure how you this Ephesians texts as countenancing your position that the law has not abolished - the Ephesians text explicitly declare the abolition of the Torah...."by abolishing in his flesh the law...."


Wow, talk about taking a snippet.

VerticalReality
Jan 22nd 2009, 06:46 PM
Sin certainly exists without the law. However, sin cannot be imputed where there is no law, which is why Paul said that when the commandment came he died. The only way to be free of sin is to no longer be conscious of it. When we partake of the flesh and its lust we become like Adam partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In such a case we now have a sin consciousness that Jesus came to rid us of. This presents a problem for a lot of folks because those with a conscience that is not free of sin will not enter into the throneroom of grace boldly with confidence and assurance. They will try to enter feeling like they are not worthy and they are not good enough to have their prayers answered by the Lord. Most won't come right out and say this openly, but in their heart this is what they believe. Those who have this sin consciousness will feel condemned and they will not feel assured in their heart of their salvation and position with the Lord. You can see this all the time when you hear folks pray today. Many folks pray in a very timid and unsure sort of way. They will not pray with boldness and confidence. In fact, I think a lot of folks totally miss it when it comes to prayer. Many folks come into prayer begging God to move a mountain when the Lord has told them to speak to the mountain. Again, this often comes back to the fact that folks feel like they aren't worthy or good enough for the Lord to use them in such a manner.

Anyway, having this unworthy sort of frame of mind does not identify with what the Word of God proclaims of the confident and bold believer.

Yukerboy
Jan 22nd 2009, 06:59 PM
I am not sure how you this Ephesians texts as countenancing your position that the law has not abolished - the Ephesians text explicitly declare the abolition of the Torah...."by abolishing in his flesh the law...."

He didn't come to abolish the law. It still stands today.

However...

Ephesians 2:14-16 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

Christ destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility....that is the law.

He did destroy it, for those who he makes righteous. The law still stands as strong as it ever was...for those who are ungodly.

He abolished the law for those who are saved.

He did not abolish the law for those who are not.

VerticalReality
Jan 22nd 2009, 07:05 PM
I agree with Yukerboy on this one . . .

Yukerboy
Jan 22nd 2009, 07:08 PM
I agree with Yukerboy on this one . . .

Shhh, not so loud, others may hear you. :)

drew
Jan 22nd 2009, 07:35 PM
Wow, talk about taking a snippet.
I am perfectly happy to discuss the matter of the abolition of the Law in more detail.

I will offer this as an example of an argument for the abolition of Torah:

In Mark 7, Jesus does indeed repudiate the setting aside of God’s Laws in favour of human ones. But Jesus clearly goes beyond this and overturns some of the Levitical food laws:

15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] 17When he had left the crowd and entered (P)the house, (Q)His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that [B]whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

Jesus really cannot be misunderstood here - he clearly states that all foods are clean. This cannot be reconciled with the Levitical food laws which clearly state some foods are unclean.

So the fact that Jesus also repudiates abandonment of Torah in favour of man-made laws must not be seen as His only point here. It clearly is not - in addition to repudiating such add-ons, He also declares all foods clean. And that is at variance with Torah itself, not man's distortions of it.

This may seem incoherent – if Jesus criticizes the substitution of man-made laws for Torah, surely he must be affirming Torah, mustn’t He? The answer is no. It is entirely coherent for Jesus to offer an historical critique – telling the Pharisees that they tossed aside God’s laws and replaced them with human ones – and yet go on to declare the abolition of Torah itself, as He so clearly does here. Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees does not endorse the continued applicability of Torah – He is critiquing their attitude to it in the time of its applicability, which, interestingly, comes to an end in His very declaration that all foods are indeed clean – a clear overturning of Levitical food laws themselves.

drew
Jan 22nd 2009, 07:37 PM
He abolished the law for those who are saved.

He did not abolish the law for those who are not.
Are you aware of the implications of what you are saying? You are affirming that non-believers are obliged to follow the kosher laws, the ceremonial laws, and all the other laws, while believers are not. Are you sure this is a position you want to take?

VerticalReality
Jan 22nd 2009, 07:48 PM
Are you aware of the implications of what you are saying? You are affirming that non-believers are obliged to follow the kosher laws, the ceremonial laws, and all the other laws, while believers are not. Are you sure this is a position you want to take?

It's not the Levitical law that unbelievers are under. The Word declares that those who are without the law become a law to themselves. This can be found in Romans 2. All people who walk according to the flesh are under law, which in turn brings a curse.

Yukerboy
Jan 22nd 2009, 07:50 PM
Are you aware of the implications of what you are saying? You are affirming that non-believers are obliged to follow the kosher laws, the ceremonial laws, and all the other laws, while believers are not. Are you sure this is a position you want to take?

The law is made for the ungodly, the lawbreakers. It is a position I HAVE to take.

All those commandments and regulations were put in place so that sin may increase. God wanted MORE sin to convict unbelievers with.

drew
Jan 22nd 2009, 07:54 PM
It's not the Levitical law that unbelievers are under. The Word declares that those who are without the law become a law to themselves. This can be found in Romans 2.
I do not think this is a workable position. The "law" that Paul refers to in Romans 2 is not something available to unbelievers - it is the "law" written on the heart of Gentile believers.

In Romans 2, there is a statement about the “law” being written on the heart of the Gentile:

13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Although this text is widely seen as suggesting that God’s “law” is written on the hearts of human beings in general, Paul here is instead describing the writing of the “law” on the hearts of believers (and in this context, specifically Gentile believers).

The entire discussion turns on the Greek word that has been translated here in the NASB as “instinctively” in verse 14. I am going to argue that this rendering does not properly express Paul’s intent. I will argue that Paul basis assertion is not this:

“when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively do the things of the Law…”

…but instead this:

“when Gentiles who do not have the Law by birth, do the things of the Law….

The reader should note that while the first rendering indeed suggests that pagan Gentiles have a form of law written on their hearts, the second rendering in no sense preferentially supports such a reading over a reading where it is only believing Gentiles that have the law written on their heart (the position that I hold).

The greek root word at issue is “fusei”, which is often translated as “by nature” (although not in the NASB rendering of 2:14 where it is rendered as “instinctively”). The western reader should be careful to understand this properly. Paul uses this very same word, in other contexts, to denote what is true of someone by virtue of the circumstances of their birth. One example is Ephesian 2:3:

We are Jews by natureand not sinners from among the Gentiles

Clearly, Paul means "by birth" here. He is not asserting that Jews are born with fundamentally different inner constitutions than Gentiles.

Perhaps more tellingly, we have this same root “fusei” used just a few verses further on in Romans 2:

27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?

The same Greek root “fusei” is rendered here as “physically” and as “instinctively” in verse 14. Note how the word is rendered in the YLT translation of 2:27:

and the uncircumcision, by nature, fulfilling the law, shall judge thee who, through letter and circumcision, [art] a transgressor of law.

Clearly the term “fusei” should be understood as having a “by birth” meaning here in verse 27 – being uncircumcised is a circumstance of birth for the Gentile. It seems only reasonable that Paul uses this same greek root in the same “by birth” sense only a few verses back in 2:14.

Thus, it is highly plausible that what Paul is saying in about the law in verse 14 is that the Gentiles do not possess it by the circumstances of their birth, and not that the unregenerate Gentile has an innate, or instinctive sense of the law.

In fact, note how Jeremiah, uses very same “law written on the heart” concept:

But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people

Note how the prophet uses “law written on the heart” language to describe something that will happen in the future and will which will be effective only for believers. Paul is deeply knowledgeable of Old Testament concepts and would more likely than not use “law written on the heart” language in the same way it was used in the Old Testament.

Emanate
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:00 PM
Jesus really cannot be misunderstood here - he clearly states that all foods are clean. This cannot be reconciled with the Levitical food laws which clearly state some foods are unclean.


First I will say I was referring how you chose a verse and left off the end that would give a different meaning to what you suggested.

Are you suggesting that Messiah did the quotation sign in there air and said "thus he declared all foods clean"? It is not what he said, it is what the transcriber said that he suggested. Unless, as you suggest, he did declare Leviticus a false scripture and render himself a false Messiah by failing to fulfill the law.

I would suggest that Y'shua is indeed Messiah, and that your interpretation is based in cherry picking, not context. In context, this verse has absolutely nothing to do with clean/unclean foods as it relates to Leviticus. It is about washing your hands before eating which is a command in Jewish Law (that food eaten by unwashed hands is unclean), not Torah.

VerticalReality
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:06 PM
So if Jesus totally abolished the law all together how could Paul make the following statement . . .

Galatians 5:16-18
I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

If the law is abolished then how can a person be under it if they do not walk by the Spirit?

Emanate
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:13 PM
So if Jesus totally abolished the law all together how could Paul make the following statement . . .

Galatians 5:16-18
I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

If the law is abolished then how can a person be under it if they do not walk by the Spirit?


Saul is not talking to unbelievers here. He is talking to people under the influence of the Judaizers, those teaching that Gentiles should accept all Jewish custom and convert to Judaism.

keck553
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:16 PM
Those of us who believe that Torah has been retired do not, of course, beleive that there remains no issue of "obeying God".

Well God allows anyone to believe anything they want. Don't let me stand in your way.

VerticalReality
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:17 PM
Saul is not talking to unbelievers here. He is talking to people under the influence of the Judaizers, those teaching that Gentiles should accept all Jewish custom and convert to Judaism.

I know Paul is not talking to unbelievers . . .

That was not the point.

keck553
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:18 PM
He abolished the law for those who are saved.

He did not abolish the law for those who are not.

What a terrible parent / being I would be if I choose to adopt a child, then gave him no boundaries or limits, but wring the neck of a kid down the street for breaking my window

drew
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:23 PM
Are you suggesting that Messiah did the quotation sign in there air and said "thus he declared all foods clean"? It is not what he said, it is what the transcriber said that he suggested.
I obviously do not believe that Jesus made an "air quote". But, unless you are questioning the inspiration of the gospel writer, the words seems pretty definitive - the writer of the gospel is stating that Jesus' statement amounted to a declaration that all foods are clean. And that would involve overthrowing of the Levitical food laws.

Let me ask you directly: Are you suggesting the "thus he declared all foods clean" statement to be a false conclusion? If so, you are taking a poistion on the inspiration of the scriptures that I think few here will support.


Unless, as you suggest, he did declare Leviticus a false scripture and render himself a false Messiah by failing to fulfill the law.
This assertion assumes that if Jesus were to break or overturn the Torah, this would disqualify his Messiahship. On what basis do say this? How do you know that Torah is inherently eternal? Paul clearly declares its end in Romans (chapter 10), Ephesians, and Galatians? Do you deny this? We can talk about any of these if you like.


I would suggest that Y'shua is indeed Messiah, and that your interpretation is based in cherry picking, not context. In context, this verse has absolutely nothing to do with clean/unclean foods as it relates to Leviticus. It is about washing your hands before eating which is a command in Jewish Law, not Torah.
This is a statement. In my post, I made an argument against this statement. Now that does not make my argument correct. But what you are really doing is simply asserting a position. Perhaps you can show where my argument fails?

keck553
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:23 PM
It's not the Levitical law that unbelievers are under. The Word declares that those who are without the law become a law to themselves. This can be found in Romans 2. All people who walk according to the flesh are under law, which in turn brings a curse.

No, you are under Yeshua's authority (if you accept Him). You may want to check His word out in the first 5 books, then see how He applied them to His life when He came in the flesh, and as His disciple how you are to apply them to yourself.

keck553
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:28 PM
Let me ask you directly: Are you suggesting the "thus he declared all foods clean" statement to be a false conclusion? If so, you are taking a poistion on the inspiration of the scriptures that I think few here will support.


I'll say it's a false conclusion to include what was considered NOT FOOD into the food category. Pigs and other garbage eaters were NOT considered FOOD for humans (and still aren't) by God.

Yeshua is talking about food, not sandels, glass beads, lizards, lumber or any other item GOD says is not edible for humans.

Just because some humans consider such tripe food, doesn't mean God has to, or created these items for such a purpose.

drew
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:28 PM
So if Jesus totally abolished the law all together how could Paul make the following statement . . .

Galatians 5:16-18
I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

If the law is abolished then how can a person be under it if they do not walk by the Spirit?
Paul is not saying what you infer he is saying.

You seem to think that this statement:

"Those who walk by the Spirit are not under Law"

implies this statement :

"Those who do not walk by the Spirit are under Law"

There is no such necessary implication - Paul's statement is non-committal as to whether those who do not walk by the Spirit are, or are not, under law.

Emanate
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:34 PM
Paul is not saying what you infer he is saying.

You seem to think that this statement:

"Those who walk by the Spirit are not under Law"

implies this statement :

"Those who do not walk by the Spirit are under Law"

There is no such necessary implication - Paul's statement is non-committal as to whether those who do not walk by the Spirit are, or are not, under law.


I am not under the Law either. Amen.

drew
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:36 PM
I'll say it's a false conclusion to include what was considered NOT FOOD into the food category. Pigs and other garbage eaters were NOT considered FOOD for humans (and still aren't) by God.

Yeshua is talking about food, not sandels, glass beads, lizards, lumber or any other item GOD says is not edible for humans.
You are re-defining "food" to make your position work. In any event, what Jesus says does not depend on this definition:

Here is an example Levtical food law:

And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

Clearly, the law says "do not eat" certain animals.

Now what does Jesus say?

Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,

Jesus does not appeal to any definition of what food is. His statement is general.

Is the flesh of a pig something that can "go into the man"?

Obviously yes.

Will it make him unclean?

Obviously, not.

So Jesus is overturning the Levitical statement that pigs are unclean to eat.

Emanate
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:36 PM
This is a statement. In my post, I made an argument against this statement. Now that does not make my argument correct. But what you are really doing is simply asserting a position. Perhaps you can show where my argument fails?


I am simply pointing out that this passage has zero to do with Leviticus. It is about the Jewish Law regarding hand washing.

drew
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:45 PM
I am simply pointing out that this passage has zero to do with Leviticus. It is about the Jewish Law regarding hand washing.
You are again simply repeating the very assertion that my post argues against. If you cannot find an error in my argument, the correctness of your assertion is under serious doubt. Anyone who has read my post knows that I entertain the possibility you raise and make the case that Jesus goes beyond the issue of handwashing and makes a statement about Torah itself.

You are free to simply re-assert your position, but I suggest finding the error in my argument is a better strategy. If you are right, then my argument must contain an error.

VerticalReality
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:48 PM
No, you are under Yeshua's authority (if you accept Him). You may want to check His word out in the first 5 books, then see how He applied them to His life when He came in the flesh, and as His disciple how you are to apply them to yourself.

What makes you think I have not "checked out His word", keck? Additionally, what makes you think you have the authority on these forums to point such things out to other members in the manner you did above?

Let's not allow this thread to have a fleshly attitude interrupting it.

Emanate
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:52 PM
You are again simply repeating the very assertion that my post argues against. If you cannot find an error in my argument and your assertion, the correctness of your assertion is under serious doubt. Anyone who has read my post knows that I entertain the possibility you raise and make the case that Jesus goes beyond the issue of handwashing and makes a statement about Torah itself.

You are free to simply re-assert your position, but I suggest finding the error in my argument is a better strategy. If you are right, then my argument must contain an error.


Alright, I beleieve your error is the belief that the transcriber simply blurted, out of context, a statement regarding an issue that is not even being discussed in this passage.

The other possibility being that he was agreeing with Messiah and showing that Jewish Law regarding handwashing (unclean if the hands are unwashed) to be a vain commandment of men.

drew
Jan 22nd 2009, 09:22 PM
Alright, I beleieve your error is the belief that the transcriber simply blurted, out of context, a statement regarding an issue that is not even being discussed in this passage.
I have already accounted for this in post 64 - even if that "extra" statement is not there, we still are led to the conclusion that Jesus overturned the Levitical food laws.

And while you are certainly free to do so, you are either committing to a very soft view on the inerrancy of Scripture by suggesting that what the gospel writer wrote was false, or, perhaps you are suggesting that this statement was added much later and is not in the earliest manuscripts.


The other possibility being that he was agreeing with Messiah and showing that Jewish Law regarding handwashing (unclean if the hands are unwashed) to be a vain commandment of men.
But this is, yet again, a mere re-statement of your position that does not engage my argument that Jesus was going beyond a critique of hand-washing.

keck553
Jan 22nd 2009, 10:00 PM
You are re-defining "food" to make your position work. In any event, what Jesus says does not depend on this definition:

Here is an example Levtical food law:

And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

Clearly, the law says "do not eat" certain animals.

Now what does Jesus say?

Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,

Jesus does not appeal to any definition of what food is. His statement is general.

Is the flesh of a pig something that can "go into the man"?

Obviously yes.

Will it make him unclean?

Obviously, not.

So Jesus is overturning the Levitical statement that pigs are unclean to eat.

It seems you are re-defining Scripture to make what God says is not fit for food work for you. Also there are two terms for "unclean" in Hebrew. How do you know Yeshua isn't talking about man made rulings since that was the subject of the encounter?

I'll attempt in my limited way to explain what the meaning of the Hebrew term is that the translators choose to translate as "clean."

First of all, Kasher means 'fit', 'proper'. the opposite of kasher is terfah, literally it means 'something trn', and in the Bible it refers to an animal killed by another beast (as in Exo 22:30).

An animal God said is not fit to eat in any circumstance is called 'tamei' (translated as 'unclean'). The word 'tamai' does not mean 'dirty' in Hebrew, and the opposite 'tahor' (pure) means much more than just 'clean'. Eating a creature that God says is 'tamai' is forbidden in Torah (as you know).

So the terms 'tahor' and 'tamai' are never used to describe physical cleanliness or uncleanliness, but rather a spiritual or moral state of being. The term 'tamai' is used only in relation to moral and religous deficiencies that contaminate the soul and character of man, particularly incest and idolatry, and to characterize teh absence of ritual purity. The creatures designated as Tamai were not only forbidden as food, but also for sacred purposes.

You know, "You are a Holy nation, set apart..." kind of thing?

Deut 14:2-3 - For you are a holy people, to Adonai your Elohim; and Adonai has chosen you to be a people to Him, a special treasure out of all teh peoples who are on the face of the earth. You shall not eat any abominable thing."

God said that. Yeshua is God. God doesn't change.

What did Jesus say?

Matthew 15: 1-3, 16-20
"Then the scribes and the Pharisees came to Yeshua from Jerusalem, saying. Why do your disciples transgress teh tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread. But answering He said to them, Why do you also transgress the command of Adonai on the account of your tradition? Are you also still without understanding? Do you not yet perceive that everything entering in to the mouth goes down to the belly and is thrown out into the wastebowl? But the tings which have come out of the mouth come forth from the heart, and these defile (tamai) the man. for out of the heart comes forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, lies, blastphemies. These things are the things defining the man. But eathing with unwashed hands does not defile the man.

The subject is not the food they ate, it was the hand washing rituals instituted by rabbi's (not God). Yeshua condemn those traditions (as we should), traditions not found in Scripture but applied religiously. What we are seeing here is a response of men taking the laws of God and adding all kinds of restrictions to them, making them burdensome. Yehsua told them their superior attitude and condemnation of otehrs was the problem. No where did He tell anyone those laws that had been set aside or that tehy wre free to endulge in pork rinds or any other food God (Yeshua) said was forbidden. He changed none of the Law.

Matthew 5:17-18
Do not think that I came to annul the Law or the Prophetsl I did not come to annul, but to fulfill. Truely I say to you. Until the heavens and earth pass awa, in no way shall one jot or tittle pass away from teh law until all come to pass.

This is not happned. Heaven and earth are still place.


That said, Yeshua's comment "It is not what enters a man's mouth that defiles him; what defiles a man is what comes out of his mouth" needs to be read in context, or it can be made to fit anyone's human dogma. In reference to 'what enters a man's mouth', the context of the encounter was NOT one of dietary laws, but of the Pharisaic requirements to wash the hands before eatinig. Yeshua always correctly divided God's word from man made laws and traditions. This was no exception.

keck553
Jan 22nd 2009, 10:03 PM
What makes you think I have not "checked out His word", keck? Additionally, what makes you think you have the authority on these forums to point such things out to other members in the manner you did above?

Let's not allow this thread to have a fleshly attitude interrupting it.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.

VerticalReality
Jan 22nd 2009, 10:37 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.

Then allow me to be more clear so there will be no room for confusion . . .

Drop the attitude. Address the topic of the thread, and when you address the topic of thread do so in a manner befitting a Christian.

Any further interruptions will now be referred to the Chat to the Moderators section of the forums. I believe that should be clear enough.

Yukerboy
Jan 22nd 2009, 10:39 PM
What a terrible parent / being I would be if I choose to adopt a child, then gave him no boundaries or limits, but wring the neck of a kid down the street for breaking my window

You are entitled to your view.

I shall stand by Scripture.

keck553
Jan 22nd 2009, 10:45 PM
Then allow me to be more clear so there will be no room for confusion . . .

Drop the attitude. Address the topic of the thread, and when you address the topic of thread do so in a manner befitting a Christian.

Any further interruptions will now be referred to the Chat to the Moderators section of the forums. I believe that should be clear enough.

I am asking you to show me the post you are referring to.

VerticalReality
Jan 22nd 2009, 11:00 PM
I've already quoted it.

keck553
Jan 22nd 2009, 11:11 PM
I've already quoted it.

I meant that in general terms, not you personally. It's always a caveat I use. Torah can not be established without the atonement of Yeshua, so if there is going to be any hope, it lies in His pardon. The parenthensis establishes the conditional requirement.

It wasn't pointed at you.

threebigrocks
Jan 22nd 2009, 11:12 PM
Okay, this is an official notice for everyone to calm down or this thread will have run it's course. Step back if you need to, preview posts before you post them. If there are any issues please address it in the Chat to the Moderators forum.

keck553
Jan 23rd 2009, 03:43 AM
You are entitled to your view.

I shall stand by Scripture.

Likewise my friend. No worries, He'll make it right for both of us. That will be an awesome day, yes?

Firstfruits
Jan 23rd 2009, 10:44 AM
The how do we justify this - 2 Tim. 3:16 All (not "only Paul") scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction (Hebrew - Torah) in righteousness:

2 Tim 3:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=55&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

This is true however not all scripture is applicable to those that are in Christ.

The section that mainly concerns us is instruction in righteousness, which is how we should live.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Yukerboy
Jan 23rd 2009, 02:59 PM
Likewise my friend. No worries, He'll make it right for both of us. That will be an awesome day, yes?

True, and I apologize.

It was a mean way of saying that your view, however correct it may be in our lives, has no bearing in how God treats His children.

Emanate
Jan 23rd 2009, 03:57 PM
2 Tim 3:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=55&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

This is true however not all scripture is applicable to those that are in Christ.

The section that mainly concerns us is instruction in righteousness, which is how we should live.

God bless you!

Firstfruits


I agree. We just look at the application in a different manner. The key would be "insturction in righteousness", not "instruction for righteousness".

Emanate
Jan 23rd 2009, 04:02 PM
And while you are certainly free to do so, you are either committing to a very soft view on the inerrancy of Scripture by suggesting that what the gospel writer wrote was false, or, perhaps you are suggesting that this statement was added much later and is not in the earliest manuscripts.


That is debatable, however, my position is that the added statement does not refer to the Levitical dietary laws. I will not again restate, as in my mind it does indeed address the issue you raised. I will suggest that had we the knowledge of the rabbinical debates and foolishness that surrounded Messiah, it might cause us to interpret the words of Messiah in a different light, in some cases.

keck553
Jan 23rd 2009, 04:12 PM
I posted the correct contextual response to the argument in post #70.

Firstfruits
Jan 23rd 2009, 04:25 PM
I agree. We just look at the application in a different manner. The key would be "insturction in righteousness", not "instruction for righteousness".

That my friend is agreed.

Instruction in righteousness.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

drew
Jan 23rd 2009, 06:28 PM
It seems you are re-defining Scripture to make what God says is not fit for food work for you. Also there are two terms for "unclean" in Hebrew. How do you know Yeshua isn't talking about man made rulings since that was the subject of the encounter?
I know that Jesus is not talking about man-made rulings because of what he says. When Jesus says this....

Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?

....he clearly is generalizing beyond the matter of man-made rules. There is no question - the context leading to this statement is the question of man-made rules. But there is no "rule" that says that Jesus is not allowed to turn the conversation in a different direction. Which is clearly what he does.

When Jesus says nothing that enters a man makes him unclean, He means what he says - the very content of these words show that he has left the specific issue of replacing Torah with man-made rules and is now addressing the very status of the Torah itself.

Levitical rules declared some foods unclean.

Jesus now declares all foods clean.

I do not see this can read as anything other than an overturning of Torah.

drew
Jan 23rd 2009, 06:31 PM
Matthew 5:17-18
Do not think that I came to annul the Law or the Prophetsl I did not come to annul, but to fulfill. Truely I say to you. Until the heavens and earth pass awa, in no way shall one jot or tittle pass away from teh law until all come to pass.

This is not happned. Heaven and earth are still place.
Jesus was a product of his times and culture and I suggest that we in the modern west have been a little careless in understanding the implications of this. On a surface reading, Matthew 5:18 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think that, at least in a certain specific sense, Torah has been retired. Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which, to me, unambiguously declare the abolition of the Torah, at least in terms of “rules and regulations”.

Here is Matthew 5:17-19 in the NASB:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

How can one read this text and possibly think that the prescriptions of the Torah do not remain in force, given that heaven and earth are still here?

I think that there is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Torah was retired 2000 years ago as Paul seems to so forcefully argue that it was (e.g. Eph 2:15). My proposal (building, of course, on the ideas of others – I am no Bible scholar) hinges on the assertion that in Hebrew culture apocalyptic “end of the world” language was commonly used in a specifically metaphorical mode for the specific purposes of investing commonplace events with their theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence that this was so. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of such metaphorical “end of the world” imagery being used to describe much more “mundane” events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away” is an apocalyptic metaphor.

I would appeal to the phrase “until all is accomplished” and point the reader to Jesus’ proclamation that “It is accomplished!” as He breathed His last on the Cross. Perhaps this is what Jesus is referring to. I believe that seeing it that way allows us to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Torah was retired.

Of course, the argument here is only sketch, but I present the above as a plausibility argument that there may be a way to legitimately read Jesus here as not declaring that the Torah will remain in force basically to the end of time.

drew
Jan 23rd 2009, 06:43 PM
So the terms 'tahor' and 'tamai' are never used to describe physical cleanliness or uncleanliness, but rather a spiritual or moral state of being.
Here is Leviticus 14:54-57

This is the law for all diseased infections, for scall, 95 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Lev&chapter=14#n95) 14:55 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Lev&chapter=14&verse=55) for the diseased garment, 96 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Lev&chapter=14#n96) for the house, 97 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Lev&chapter=14#n97) 14:56 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Lev&chapter=14&verse=56) for the swelling, 98 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Lev&chapter=14#n98) for the scab, 99 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Lev&chapter=14#n99) and for the bright spot, 100 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Lev&chapter=14#n100) 14:57 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Lev&chapter=14&verse=57) to teach when something is unclean and when it is clean. This is the law for dealing with infectious disease.”

This is a clear counter-example to your claim. The bolded word "unclean" is tamai, the word you said was never used in a physical sense, but rather had moral / spiritual meaning.

Here, the word is obviously being used to denote "physical unclean-ness".

Emanate
Jan 23rd 2009, 07:13 PM
I know that Jesus is not talking about man-made rulings because of what he says. When Jesus says this....

Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?

....he clearly is generalizing beyond the matter of man-made rules. There is no question - the context leading to this statement is the question of man-made rules. But there is no "rule" that says that Jesus is not allowed to turn the conversation in a different direction. Which is clearly what he does.

When Jesus says nothing that enters a man makes him unclean, He means what he says - the very content of these words show that he has left the specific issue of replacing Torah with man-made rules and is now addressing the very status of the Torah itself.

Levitical rules declared some foods unclean.

Jesus now declares all foods clean.

I do not see this can read as anything other than an overturning of Torah.


Well, I refuse to believe that Messiah spoke contrary to Torah. Nowehre in the conversation are the levitical dietery laws mentioned. I prefer to look at the issue at hand and not apply it to where I wish or want it to apply. So we see that there is no budge on this point from either side.

keck553
Jan 23rd 2009, 07:32 PM
I know that Jesus is not talking about man-made rulings because of what he says. When Jesus says this....

Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?

....he clearly is generalizing beyond the matter of man-made rules. There is no question - the context leading to this statement is the question of man-made rules. But there is no "rule" that says that Jesus is not allowed to turn the conversation in a different direction. Which is clearly what he does.

When Jesus says nothing that enters a man makes him unclean, He means what he says - the very content of these words show that he has left the specific issue of replacing Torah with man-made rules and is now addressing the very status of the Torah itself.

Levitical rules declared some foods unclean.

Jesus now declares all foods clean.

I do not see this can read as anything other than an overturning of Torah.

What you are presenting are your beliefs. But the text does not support that. The argument was over hand washing, not what was considered food. No Jew in His time would eat what God says is not fit for human consumption.

If you want to toss the Kefa (Peter) dream at me, I'll unravel the western religious replacement theology out of that too.

Even if you think Torah was 'done away with', the blood atonement did not yet exist during His ministry, so Torah was still in full effect.

If Jesus would have profaned Torah (His own word given through Moses), He would have sinned. I believe He is without sin. No where in the Gospels did Yeshua profane Torah. God says tjhat transgression of Torah is sin, and Yehsua is without sin. I will not budge from this. God said don't eat such things. Who should I trust? God's clear word or men's manipulations/interpretations of His word to fit their desires?

drew
Jan 23rd 2009, 07:43 PM
What you are presenting are your beliefs by adding to His words and context. But the text does not support that.

If Jesus would have profaned Torah (His own word given through Moses), He would have sinned. I believe He is without sin.
I am not adding anything.

I am simply pointing out the obvious:

1. The Levitical Law declares some foods unclean (with the obvious implication that eating these foods defiles you in some sense).

2. Jesus states the nothing that goes into your body defiles you.

3. Therefore, Jesus is overturning the Levitical food law.

There are other examples where Jesus breaks Torah which I plan to address in future posts. It is not "sin" for God Himself to put an end to a system of Laws He Himself has generated. Paul is clear in Ephesians 2, Galatians 3, and debatably in Romans 10 - the Torah is now retired.

Jesus does not make similar direct statements. But a statement that "nothing that goes into you defiles you" is a clear overturning of the Levitical prohibition against eating certain foods.

You seem to assume that the Torah is eternal. I would be interested in your support for this. We already have seen how Jesus' statement about the Torah lasting till heaven and earth pass away may not mean what it seems - there is strong biblical precedent for "end of the world" language being used to describe what is merely a change in the socio-political order.

The predicted fall of Babylon was described as if the cosmos were coming to an end. Well, Babylon fell and the universe did not come to an end. We need to read the scriptures with appropriate knowledge of literary devices.

keck553
Jan 23rd 2009, 08:13 PM
I am not adding anything.

I am simply pointing out the obvious:

1. The Levitical Law declares some foods unclean (with the obvious implication that eating these foods defiles you in some sense).

2. Jesus states the nothing that goes into your body defiles you.

3. Therefore, Jesus is overturning the Levitical food law.

I understand your thought process (and I deleted the 'adding' statement btw), but this simply is not the reality of it. Clean and unclean isn't that simplistic in Hebrew as you would read it in english. God says fungus is unclean. Would you eat fungus growing on rock based on your interpretation?

"What goes into a man's mouth does not make him `unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him `unclean.'" Matthew 15:11

Once more, the issue here concerned hand-washing - please read the whole passage, this one begins in 15:1. God's word really needs to stay in context.

Jesus was asked why his disciples didn't wash their hands before eating. Since their argument against his disciples came from manmade traditions, Jesus asked them why they broke Torah but not tradition, showing they put tradition higher.

He concludes by calling a crowd and declaring that true uncleanliness comes from within man, not from the food he eats. Does that make all meats clean?
The issue wasn't about abrogating God's food laws but about the traditions concerning hand-washing/eating with un-washed hands. We should be careful when making applications with verses.

Mark 7:19 "Because it goes not into the heart but into the stomach, and goes out with the waste? (He said this, making all food clean)."

Remember, Jesus is a Jew, in Israel, talking with Jews. " What is food to Jewish people? God only sanctioned *clean meats* as food for man.

Do you really think pork is considered a food in a debate among observant Jews? NO! Unclean meats aren't even up for debate here since unclean meats aren't even considered *food* by the observant Jews in this discussion!

Jesus' answer is clear. What makes a food ritually clean is God's sanctioning not washing your hands! Read in context, we see clearly that unclean meats are not up for discussion here the handwashing rituals of the Pharisaic tradition are.




There are other examples where Jesus breaks Torah which I plan to address in future posts. It is not "sin" for God Himself to put an end to a system of Laws He Himself has generated. Paul is clear in Ephesians 2, Galatians 3, and debatably in Romans 10 - the Torah is now retired.

It is not God's nature to command people to do something, then rebuke them for following His commands. God says he is unchanging and to say He is would be calling Him a liar. So, I would be honored to answer all of your examples.


Jesus does not make similar direct statements. But a statement that "nothing that goes into you defiles you" is a clear overturning of the Levitical prohibition against eating certain foods.

I have the interpretation in the correct context above.


You seem to assume that the Torah is eternal. I would be interested in your support for this. We already have seen how Jesus' statement about the Torah lasting till heaven and earth pass away may not mean what it seems - there is strong biblical precedent for "end of the world" language being used to describe what is merely a change in the socio-political order.

Hey, I didn't say it was eternal; God did. I'm just repeating His words. And why should I indulge in mystiscism and vague references using them to create a doctrine that appeals to my personal desires, putting God's aside? I can't do that.

Emanate
Jan 23rd 2009, 08:28 PM
1. The Levitical Law declares some foods unclean (with the obvious implication that eating these foods defiles you in some sense).

2. Jesus states the nothing that goes into your body defiles you.

3. Therefore, Jesus is overturning the Levitical food law.

1. Yes, that defilement is called poor health, sickness and disease.

2. Jesus stated that unwashed hands did not make a food ritually impure (unclean).

3. Wrong, people still suffer poor health because of diet.

drew
Jan 23rd 2009, 08:36 PM
I understand your thought process (and I deleted the 'adding' statement btw), but this simply is not the reality of it. Clean and unclean isn't that simplistic in Hebrew as you would read it in english. God says fungus is unclean. Would you eat fungus growing on rock based on your interpretation?
This is not a fair way to frame things.

The reason I would not eat fungus is that there may be real medical grounds for considering it to be possibly poisonous. Are you sure that fungi in that region of the world are not edible? Perhaps they are all OK to eat. But let's assume they are indeed unhealthy to eat - otherwise your objection has no traction.

Many of the other items outlawed by Torah are clearly "safe to eat". Some birds, for example, are declared unclean under Torah. And yet, as any survival expert will tell you, all birds can be safely eaten if cooked (no exceptions). So even though the Torah declares the screech owl unclean, it is actually safe to eat.

So when Jesus says "nothing that goes in you defiles you", He is make a statement about the restrictions of Torah that go above and beyond the common sense wisdom of not eating poisonous things, whether declared unclean by Torah or not.

A little common-sense is called for here. Jesus obviously is not telling his listeners to ingest things that are demonstrably unhealthy - He is clearly telling them that all things, otherwise known to be safe to eat, can, in fact, be eaten without defiling you.

And that amounts to an overturning of the Levitical food law.

Emanate
Jan 23rd 2009, 08:37 PM
It is Torah, not "common-sense medical considerations", that prevent you from eating a screech-owl, since they are otherwise "clean" to eat.


Not eating animals that eat waste would not be a similar "common-sense" approach?

keck553
Jan 23rd 2009, 09:00 PM
This is not a fair way to frame things.

The reason I would not eat fungus is that there may be real medical grounds for considering it to be possibly poisonous. Are you sure that fungi in that region of the world are not edible? Perhaps they are all OK to eat. But let's assume they are indeed unhealthy to eat - otherwise your objection has no traction.

OK.


Many of the other items outlawed by Torah are clearly "safe to eat". Some birds, for example, are declared unclean under Torah. And yet, as any survival expert will tell you, all birds can be safely eaten if cooked (no exceptions). So even though the Torah declares the screech owl unclean, it is actually safe to eat.

Lots of things can be 'safely eaten'. A few times anyway. I think the jury is in on the long term effects of eating garbage. Throughout all of this history, we have two opposing forces - God safeguarding the bloodline of Messiah, and satan trying to destroy it. Whether through nefilim, eating garbage or idol worship, he was there attempting to corrupt Yeshua's blood line. God gave these instructions as a gift. If you follow the thread of the them, you'll clearly see there are health and safety benefits that can't be ignored. Just because we as humans see a few of them and say "oh, yeah that makes sense", we are not so wise to ignore that which we do not understand through our puny scientific discovery.

It all boils down to this: I trust God. Really there is no more to it than that.

Besides, I had no idea even survival experts were more knowledgeable than the One who created them. Do you think they are?



So when Jesus says "nothing that goes in you defiles you", He is make a statement about the restrictions of Torah that go above and beyond the common sense wisdom of not eating poisonous things, whether declared unclean by Torah or not.


And so the reading between the lines go on...........and on....I'm sorry I take God's words at face value and in the context of the particular discussion. For me anyway, it works.


A little common-sense is called for here. Jesus obviously is not telling his listeners to ingest things that are demonstrably unhealthy - He is clearly telling them that all things, otherwise known to be safe to eat, can, in fact, be eaten without defiling you.

The discussion wasn't even about what was food, so it is unimportant.


And that amounts to an overturning of the Levitical food law.
OF course I disagree. You can diminish God's Torah with any phraseology or labels you want. Torah comes from God, therefore the author is Jesus. The instructions come from the Almighty God, and I am humbled to submit to His wisdom and flourish under His caring. God doesn't call something eternal, then change His mind. If that is true , then I have no hope He won't change His mind about what He promised me.

Firstfruits
Jan 23rd 2009, 09:16 PM
This is some of the Torah concerning Jesus that he came to fulfil.

Is 7:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Hos 11:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=28&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

Jer 31:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=31&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.

Is 53:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=53&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Ps 78:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=19&CHAP=78&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:

Zech 11:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=38&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

All these were fulfilled when Jesus came.

Can you tell where/when they were fulilled?

God bless!

Firstfruits

keck553
Jan 23rd 2009, 09:22 PM
um...what?

These are from the prophets. I actually had to go back to see the thread title. LOL.

Here's a question. Why did Noah eat kosher?

Firstfruits
Jan 23rd 2009, 09:30 PM
um...what?

These are from the prophets. I actually had to go back to see the thread title. LOL.

Here's a question. Why did Noah eat kosher?

Remember Jesus said he came to fulfil the law and the prophets and the Psalms. Not all scriptures have been given but all scriptures given have been fulfilled.

Lk 24:44 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

drew
Jan 23rd 2009, 10:25 PM
"What goes into a man's mouth does not make him `unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him `unclean.'" Matthew 15:11

Once more, the issue here concerned hand-washing - please read the whole passage, this one begins in 15:1. God's word really needs to stay in context.
The context argument does not work.

There is no doubt that Jesus statement that “what goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,'” (e.g. in Matthew 15) does indeed arise in the context of a discussion about hand-washing which Jesus Himself generalizes into a critique of the Pharisees for ignoring Torah and embracing man-made rules.

But it is demonstrably an over-simplification to use this fact alone to claim that what He say about “what goes into your mouth not making you unclean” is a further elaboration on this same point. Context is not really as restrictive as that. Here are two verses from Matthew 15:

10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

Consider the implications of the belief that Jesus is, in fact, not overturning the Levitical food laws, and is instead critiquing the belief that handwashing makes things impure:

1. Jesus believes that some things (e.g. pigs) that go into your body make you unclean (He would have to believe this if He is upholding the Levitical food laws).

2. Despite believing this, Jesus uses misleadingly general words to make his case against hand-washing – instead of saying “food touched by unwashed hands does not make you unclean”, He makes the entirely general statement “What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean’”. This is a very odd thing to say if you still believe that pigs and other things that can go into your mouth still make you unclean.

3. If Jesus really is critiquing a belief that hand-washing makes things unclean, He should have focused his critique on the belief that foods become impure by virtue of contact with unclean things (like unwashed hands), since that is where the food would attain it status of uncleanness on such a view. But he does not do this – instead He focuses on the “entering the mouth” event.

Imagine a doctor who wanted to give you the message that it was actually safe to eat inherently non-poisonous foods with unwashed hands, because he knows that there no germs on surfaces in this area. But imagine that the doctor also believed it was unsafe to eat, say, mud and other things (because they are inherently poisonous). Would He make this statement to you: “It is not what what enters your mouth that makes you sick,…”. Of course not! – he knows that mud, etc., still make you sick!!! And he would not express himself this way even if he were trying to talk you out of your fear that you needed to wash your hands. This is where the context argument falls flat. He would say something like “there are no germs here, so handwashing itself won’t make you sick”

4. Consider the second half of Jesus’ statement: “ What comes out of his mouth makes him unclean”. Well, this is also a problem since we have already committed to the notion that Jesus believes that some things going into the mouth pigs, etc., still make you unclean (as per the Levitical food law). Has Jesus forgotten this?

There are so many problems with this that a bald claim of a “handwashing context” is simply unable to solve – we have Jesus making misleading general statements on the “what goes in” side of the equation and we have Him forgetting things on the “what goes out” side of the equation.

People who deploy the “hand-washing context” argument almost seem to believe that Jesus is “not allowed” to shift the conversation in a different direction, as if there was this unwritten rule that such shifts in focus must be explicitly declared. Are they willing to live with all the inchoherences (the 4 points) that this leads to?

drew
Jan 23rd 2009, 10:26 PM
God doesn't call something eternal, then change His mind. If that is true , then I have no hope He won't change His mind about what He promised me.
Where does God call Torah eternal?

Alaska
Jan 23rd 2009, 11:17 PM
Gal. 3:
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Notice verse 24, "the law was our schoolmaster".
Now notice verse 25, "we are no longer under a schoolmaster".

Hence, we are no longer under "the law".

We are, however, under grace, which Jesus was full of, along with truth:

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

This truth, which Christians are under, can be put in words and defined as far as what is truth and what is not truth, and in this written form it can also be called a code of conduct or "law" if you so choose to use that word like Paul did:

1 Cor. 9:
19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

So to say "we are not under the law" [in agreement to what Paul said in Gal. 3:25 above], this does not mean that we are not under a law to God. It means we are not under the OT law as it stood in its entirety. We are, however, under a law to God, the truth, as revealed by Jesus' teaching and all else in the NT.
For example, under the NT, circumcision is nothing. Very different than under the OT.
In Matthew 5 we see 6 things that could be allowed under the OT but which are now prohibited. His authority to prohibit and change is emphasized in the prophesy concerning himself:
Deut. 18:
15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

The fact that he changed things cannot be disputed:
Heb. 7:
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The OP can relate to how the footnotes in a "bible" led the person to err and adopt a position in opposition to the truth. As in the prophecy above about Yeshua, God will require it of the people guilty of such a crime. The millstone punishment awaits those causing God's sheep to stumble. Such corrupt footnotes are the authors certificates of damnation, unless of course they can identify and repent of their crime and so find forgiveness. And we should pray for them to do so, not only for themselves but especially also for the souls they can endanger with their polluted defiling false doctrines.

keck553
Jan 23rd 2009, 11:21 PM
Where does God call Torah eternal?

Deut 4:40, 4:2, 5:29 and 12:32 should give you an indication.

The say follow the commandments, don't diminish them, add or subtract to them and do them forever.

Seems pretty clear to me.

keck553
Jan 23rd 2009, 11:26 PM
Alaska, no one here in this part of the forum asserts we are 'under the "Law".

keck553
Jan 23rd 2009, 11:44 PM
The context argument does not work.

There is no doubt that Jesus statement that “what goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,'” (e.g. in Matthew 15) does indeed arise in the context of a discussion about hand-washing which Jesus Himself generalizes into a critique of the Pharisees for ignoring Torah and embracing man-made rules.

Indeed.


But it is demonstrably an over-simplification to use this fact alone to claim that what He say about “what goes into your mouth not making you unclean” is a further elaboration on this same point. Context is not really as restrictive as that. Here are two verses from Matthew 15:


10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

Consider the implications of the belief that Jesus is, in fact, not overturning the Levitical food laws, and is instead critiquing the belief that handwashing makes things impure:


1. Jesus believes that some things (e.g. pigs) that go into your body make you unclean (He would have to believe this if He is upholding the Levitical food laws).

Jesus doesn't have to 'believe it'. He wrote it. All things were created through Him - that means pigs and Torah. He's the author.


2. Despite believing this, Jesus uses misleadingly general words to make his case against hand-washing – instead of saying “food touched by unwashed hands does not make you unclean”, He makes the entirely general statement “What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean’”. This is a very odd thing to say if you still believe that pigs and other things that can go into your mouth still make you unclean.

I assure you, in Hebrew context it is not misleading what-so-ever. The Jews at the time totally understood what He was saying. Not misleading at all. Ask any Jew, it'll be crystal clear to them what's going on here.



3. If Jesus really is critiquing a belief that hand-washing makes things unclean, He should have focused his critique on the belief that foods become impure by virtue of contact with unclean things (like unwashed hands), since that is where the food would attain it status of uncleanness on such a view. But he does not do this – instead He focuses on the “entering the mouth” event.

If you read Matthew 23, you'll see quite a critique on man made traditions and additions to Torah. Again Yeshua wasn't a westerner. You're attempting to make Him think like you think. It doesn't work that way. The words and context are basically simple to understand. It's the standard evalgelical teaching on this that caused me (in the past) such grief. As long as I was unwilling to give up (eating garbage/carrion eaters) something that God asked me to, I held on to such teachings. But in the end, the conviction of my rebellion pushed me to read it as a disciple of Yeshua would have heard and understood it. Except at least in terms of diet, they didn't have to go through the social upheavel, condemnation and mocking that happens simple because someone trusts what God said and doesn't eat ham. Of course thier Messianic faith brought them tribulation of another sort.



Imagine a doctor who wanted to give you the message that it was actually safe to eat inherently non-poisonous foods with unwashed hands, because he knows that there no germs on surfaces in this area. But imagine that the doctor also believed it was unsafe to eat, say, mud and other things (because they are inherently poisonous). Would He make this statement to you: “It is not what what enters your mouth that makes you sick,…”. Of course not! – he knows that mud, etc., still make you sick!!! And he would not express himself this way even if he were trying to talk you out of your fear that you needed to wash your hands. This is where the context argument falls flat. He would say something like “there are no germs here, so handwashing itself won’t make you sick”

Non-sequitor. Doctors aren't God.


4. Consider the second half of Jesus’ statement: “ What comes out of his mouth makes him unclean”. Well, this is also a problem since we have already committed to the notion that Jesus believes that some things going into the mouth pigs, etc., still make you unclean (as per the Levitical food law). Has Jesus forgotten this?

Well since Jesus is God, He doesn't consider pigs food fit for human consumption, so it's a non-issue.


There are so many problems with this that a bald claim of a “handwashing context” is simply unable to solve – we have Jesus making misleading general statements on the “what goes in” side of the equation and we have Him forgetting things on the “what goes out” side of the equation.

I don't have any problems with it. It works for me.


People who deploy the “hand-washing context” argument almost seem to believe that Jesus is “not allowed” to shift the conversation in a different direction, as if there was this unwritten rule that such shifts in focus must be explicitly declared. Are they willing to live with all the inchoherences (the 4 points) that this leads to?



Oh, no Drew; if God wants to 'shift' the conversation, He will make it clear that's what He is doing. If you think about what was going on in those days, seading a shift into God's word is what the Pharisees were doing and Yeshua admonished them non stop for that.

Hey, you have a fantastic weekend and thank you so much for considering my views. Peace. shalom.

Alaska
Jan 24th 2009, 12:31 AM
Jesus is emphasizing the much more important aspect of being spiritually defiled. that is his focus. What good if you are physically clean by eating the right things etc if you are defiled spiritually.
Jesus spoke of the things that come out of the heart that defile the man.
In that context he is relating the defilement to words that come out of our mouths.
In the situation of food, he is again using the situation to ephasize that what you eat doesn't defile you spiritually, it is what comes out of you in words and thoughts that defiles spiritually.

In the NT the kingdom is not meat and drink but righteousness, again placing the true righteuosness outside of the physical food you take into your body.
The NT suspends the dietary laws of the OT. What you eat is dictated by the Christian conscience and not by OT law.

What I wrote before was to answer the OP. The footnotes that caused the confusion were the counsel of fools.

keck553
Jan 24th 2009, 11:59 PM
Jesus is emphasizing the much more important aspect of being spiritually defiled. that is his focus. What good if you are physically clean by eating the right things etc if you are defiled spiritually.
Jesus spoke of the things that come out of the heart that defile the man.
In that context he is relating the defilement to words that come out of our mouths.

Sound doctrine God spoke through the prophets and spoken by Yeshua, Son of God.


In the situation of food, he is again using the situation to ephasize that what you eat doesn't defile you spiritually, it is what comes out of you in words and thoughts that defiles spiritually.

Out of context. The context was man made doctrine that instructed food was defiled by not ritual hand washing. In context though, another sound doctrine spoken by God through the prophets and spoken by the Son of God.


In the NT the kingdom is not meat and drink but righteousness, again placing the true righteuosness outside of the physical food you take into your body.

Also true in the Scripture that existed at the time of Yeshua



The NT suspends the dietary laws of the OT. What you eat is dictated by the Christian conscience and not by OT law.

This is a religious teaching of men, not supported in Scripture

SeattleSun
Jan 25th 2009, 01:51 AM
This is a religious teaching of men, not supported in Scripture

May I beg to differ?

Rom 14:20Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.

21It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.

1 Cor. 8:12And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
13Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

I like a glass of wine and go out with friends. If one friend struggles with wine, I don't drink any so as not to tempt.

If I invited people over to my home for dinner or we were out who observe the dietary laws, although I don't, I would not serve them or order pork or shrimp (or any food that could offend).

That includes my vegan buds, but I don't cook for them. ;)

keck553
Jan 25th 2009, 06:13 AM
What does this have to do with the statement that "The NT suspends God's food laws"?

Paul is talking about man made religious traditions, not God's instructions about living. And Paul is correct, of course. One bible study I go to involves a blessing with wine. At some point a brother who had a previous problem with alcohol started coming, so we switched to grape juice. This (and your examples) are a perfect application of Paul's teaching.

You know if's funny. If a dietician told me not to eat certain things, and I shared that, no one would have a problem. But when I say I count on God as my dietician, all the sudden there is a scramble to say God shouldn't be counted on as such, that He changed His mind. Well why can't I be 'clean' inside AND still obey God?

Abraham's faith had one element that we really should consider: trust. He didn't just spiritualize God's word. He actually did what God said to do. That's what faith is all about to me. To actually trust the Eternal One's Word brings life, both spiritually and physically.

(by the way I grew up in Edmonds)

Alaska
Jan 25th 2009, 08:59 AM
When the counsel was had concerning those that were persuading the Gentiles to obey the OT law (Acts 15), the only dietary restriction was concerning eating blood and things sacrificed to idols.
The NT simply does not place on believers the necessity of having to follow the OT dietary rules in order to be right with God.
We are complete in Jesus and Jesus doesn't require that adherence in His NT.
But whatsoever is not of faith is sin, so if you do not believe that you can go outside of the OT dietary plan, then you must definately not go outside of that lest it be sin in you.

But the NT places on you to not judge those not in agreement with you on this optional thing as designated by the NT, since the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.

BHS
Jan 26th 2009, 12:46 AM
Hey everyone....

For the longest time I was under the belief that with the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ that we were free from the Law.

This is probably the hardest part of my faith to figure out for me! Im so confused about what we are supposed to do in regards to the Law. And I still dont understand what Christ meant when He said that He did not come to abolish but fulfill the Law.

Help? Anyone?

JesusPhreak,

I suggest that you read Psalm 119, then meditate upon it. When you can relate to this Psalm and the Word of God the same way David did, then in my opinion, you will better understand what the "NT" is saying.

Hebrew scholars say that what Jesus meant when He said He did not come to "abolish" the law -- was that He did not come to misinterpret the law. And when He said He came rather to "fulfill" it, He meant that He came to interpret it correctly. When you read Jesus' sayings in the "NT", this interpretation can be supported.

Blessings,
BHS

Alaska
Jan 26th 2009, 03:02 AM
Gal. 2:
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

The righteousness and clarity revealed by the NT teaching, in fulfillment of the prophecies, was basically hidden to those under the OT.

Gal. 3:
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Rom. 16:
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Isa. 28:

16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.


A good example of "righteousness to the plummet" is Jesus' revelation that Moses' allowance for divorce was in contradiction to Gen. 2 and was only allowed for the hardness of their hearts.

Gal. 2:
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Christ's death was not in vain, righteousness did NOT come by the law.

keck553
Jan 26th 2009, 04:01 AM
When the counsel was had concerning those that were persuading the Gentiles to obey the OT law (Acts 15), the only dietary restriction was concerning eating blood and things sacrificed to idols.
The NT simply does not place on believers the necessity of having to follow the OT dietary rules in order to be right with God.
We are complete in Jesus and Jesus doesn't require that adherence in His NT.
But whatsoever is not of faith is sin, so if you do not believe that you can go outside of the OT dietary plan, then you must definately not go outside of that lest it be sin in you.

But the NT places on you to not judge those not in agreement with you on this optional thing as designated by the NT, since the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.


Those were initial requirements. Sanctification is a process, and maturity is hoped for. The reference to meat and drink is referring to religious man made issues, not God's instructions. :)

keck553
Jan 26th 2009, 04:02 AM
Christ's death was not in vain, righteousness did NOT come by the law.

We're not discussing salvation here.

Sirus
Jan 26th 2009, 05:11 AM
Those were initial requirements. Sanctification is a process, and maturity is hoped for. The reference to meat and drink is referring to religious man made issues, not God's instructions. :)Sanctification is no more a process than Justification is, both being accomplished by the same work of Christ at the same time, and both received by faith in that same one work of Christ. Sanctification by faith -Jesus said to Saul. A believers realization of it can be a process but that doesn't make the sanctification a process.

keck553
Jan 26th 2009, 04:33 PM
Sanctification is no more a process than Justification is, both being accomplished by the same work of Christ at the same time, and both received by faith in that same one work of Christ. Sanctification by faith -Jesus said to Saul. A believers realization of it can be a process but that doesn't make the sanctification a process.

Can you please provide some Scripture to support that statement. My walk with Messiah is more than just Spiritual.

drew
Jan 26th 2009, 06:58 PM
Deut 4:40, 4:2, 5:29 and 12:32 should give you an indication.

The say follow the commandments, don't diminish them, add or subtract to them and do them forever.

Seems pretty clear to me.
With respect to Deuteronomy 4:2:

Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

The position that I am advocating - that God has brought Torah into a state of retirement - is not challenged by the above text. It is God who has "retired" the Torah, not us. The above is a command for us to not change Torah.

But it is Jesus - God incarnate - and Paul, writing under inspiration of the Spirit, who declare its retirement.

With respect to Deuteronomy 4:40, it does not, at least in the NASB, assert the permanence of Torah:

So you shall keep His statutes and His commandments which I am giving you today, that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may live long on the land which the LORD your God is giving you for all time."

The permanence of Torah is not asserted here. What is asserted is the permanence of gift of "the Land". In english at least, the above statement is entirely non-committal in respec to the permanence of Torah.

keck553
Jan 26th 2009, 07:12 PM
Drew, in respect for this forum and not to go round and round with the same argument, I'm going to say I disagree with you and leave it at that. I've addressed your argument here dozens of times and it's gone nowhere.

You keep what God has given you and I'll keep what God has given me.

Fair enough?

God bless.

Firstfruits
Jan 26th 2009, 08:10 PM
Hey everyone....

For the longest time I was under the belief that with the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ that we were free from the Law.

But earlier today while preparing to start the Gospel of Matthew in my Life Application Bible (I have a 365 day bible reading program that I started Jan 1 -- it starts with Genesis then Matthew back to Exodus etc) and it showed this as the "key verse":

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill them." (Matt 5:17)

Now as I said previously I always thought that we are no longer under the Law.

But the blurb for Matt. 5:17 states this:

"When Jesus talked about a new way to understand God's Law, he was actually trying to bring people back to its original purpose. Jesus did not speak against the Law itself, but against the abuses and excesses to which it had been subjected."

Then it prompts me to read John 1:17 which states:

"For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

The blurb for this verse states:

"Law and Grace are both aspects of God's nature that He uses in dealing with us. Moses emphasized God's Law and justice, while Jesus came to highlight God's mercy, love and forgiveness. Moses could only be the giver of the Law, while Christ came to fulfill the Law (Matt. 5:17). The nature and will of God were revealed in the Law; now the nature and will of God are revealed in Jesus Christ. Rather then coming through cold stone tablets, God's revelation (truth) now comes through a person's life. As we get to know Christ better, our understanding of God will increase."


This is probably the hardest part of my faith to figure out for me! I'm so confused about what we are supposed to do in regards to the Law. And I still don't understand what Christ meant when He said that He did not come to abolish but fulfill the Law.

Help? Anyone?

Back to the OP: What did Jesus say he came to fulfil according to these scriptures?


Jesus said he came to fulfil those things concerning himself, so what according to the law the Prophets and the Psalms are we concerned with?

Lk 18:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.

Lk 22:37 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=22&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=37) For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

Lk 24:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:

Lk 24:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Lk 24:44 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Acts 28:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

We are looking at what is written in the law, but not about that which concerns Christ, which is what we also should be concerned with or else we will continue to go round in circles.

The gospel tells us what Christ came to fulfil and what he has fulfilled.

what have we been commanded to teach/preach?

Mk 16:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.

Lk 24:46 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=46) And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Lk 24:47 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 10:34-43
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Do we follow Paul as he followed Christ?

Acts 26:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=26&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
Acts 26:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=26&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

These are the things that Christ fulfilled.

Acts 3:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

What are we concerned with?

Firstfruits

keck553
Jan 26th 2009, 09:31 PM
FF, may I ask what you are concerned with without soliciting another question mark?

threebigrocks
Jan 26th 2009, 10:48 PM
Hebrew scholars say that what Jesus meant when He said He did not come to "abolish" the law -- was that He did not come to misinterpret the law. And when He said He came rather to "fulfill" it, He meant that He came to interpret it correctly. When you read Jesus' sayings in the "NT", this interpretation can be supported.

Blessings,
BHS

How could Christ, who is God, misinterpret the law? That is ridiculous, really, it is. It's saying Christ would misspeak against it. Swapping the word misinterpret is hardly going to reconcile with the word abolish. God doesn't misinterpret - men do.

It says that he did not come to abolish (get rid of) but to fufill. The law still remains for those who are lawless and those who look to remain under the law.

Inserterd bold is mine.

Ephesians 2
14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by abolishing (misinterpret) in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.


Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

keck553
Jan 26th 2009, 11:44 PM
Well the intent of Torah was obviously being missed. Yeshua certainly cleared that one up.

Sirus
Jan 27th 2009, 01:17 AM
Sanctification is no more a process than Justification is, both being accomplished by the same work of Christ at the same time, and both received by faith in that same one work of Christ. Sanctification by faith -Jesus said to Saul. A believers realization of it can be a process but that doesn't make the sanctification a process.Can you please provide some Scripture to support that statement. My walk with Messiah is more than just Spiritual.Act 20:32, Act 26:18, Rom 15:16, 1Co 1:2, 1Co 1:30, 1Co 6:11, Eph 5:26, 1Th 4:3-8, 1Th 5:23, 2Th 2:13, 2Ti 2:21, Heb 2:11, Heb 9:13-15, Heb 10:10, Heb 10:14, Heb 10:29, Heb 13:12, 1Pe 1:2, Jud 1:1

Now I already know that when you read some of these you will think 'process'. Most of them however plainly show it is not. If you start a thread I will take more time and try and explain the verses you may think refer to a process. If you do, it would be helpful to post those passages.

BHS
Jan 27th 2009, 01:27 AM
How could Christ, who is God, misinterpret the law? That is ridiculous, really, it is. It's saying Christ would misspeak against it. Swapping the word misinterpret is hardly going to reconcile with the word abolish. God doesn't misinterpret - men do.

It says that he did not come to abolish (get rid of) but to fufill. The law still remains for those who are lawless and those who look to remain under the law.

Inserterd bold is mine.

Ephesians 2
14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by abolishing (misinterpret) in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.


Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The reason it can mean this is that "abolish" and "fulfil" were indeed Hebrew idioms. If someone was mis-interpreting the "law" they were accused of "abolishing" it.

If you carefully read Ephesians 2:15, this does not refer to the Torah, but to the enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles, which if related to "laws" at all, related to man-made traditions.

Nor does "fulfil" mean to "get rid of". Correct definitions are to be found for those who search them out. Emanate had a full, complete and accurate definition of what it means to "fulfil" in another thread. What you are saying is that Jesus said he did not come to abolish the "law", but to "fulfil" it, i.e. get rid of it. How much sense does that make?

Blessings,
BHS

Firstfruits
Jan 27th 2009, 11:18 AM
FF, may I ask what you are concerned with without soliciting another question mark?

That which Christ fulfilled, the establishment of our salvation by his suffering and death and his return from the dead.

Lk 24:46 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=46) And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Lk 24:47 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 3:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

keck553
Jan 27th 2009, 08:38 PM
So how do we establish something?

Alaska
Jan 28th 2009, 03:51 AM
How convenient for Keck to claim all the times the NT speaks, as it were against the law, it cannot be speaking about Torah, it must be speaking about man made traditions.

The law was our schoolmaster and it happened to condemn us.
The OT ten commandments were part of that old system that is the ministry of condemnation and the ministry of death.
The NT is better and greater than the OT.
There was a change of the law as there was a change of the preisthood.
"if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain".
To claim that righteousness did come by the law is the same as saying Christ is dead in vain.

Lets say you have an old vehicle but it gets scrapped.
A new and much better vehicle is given you.
Someone says hey, that's not new, see, it's got tires and doors and an engine that's internal combustion and on and on.

So you say yes, it is new, a lot of the old things have been done away with. Some of those things are no longer necessary. Comparing the power between the two is amazing. This new one does far better.

2 Cor. 3
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:


Paul is very clearly speaking of the ten commandments. Moses' face shone as he brought the tablets down.

Ex 34:29 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=2&CHAP=34&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=29) And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
Ex 34:30 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=2&CHAP=34&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=30) And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.

So even the ten commandments, the central core of the first covenant have been done away with and crucified in the sense that a newer covenant has replaced it. And like the car analogy, some of the same things are found in both covenants. Take for example "thou shalt not commit adultery". Let's liken that to a gear in the old clunker. We've got a new car! The gear equivalent in the NT has a lot more power:
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Wasn't the OT glorious? Sure, and still is in many regards, but there is another better covenant, the NT, that in a certain respect in comparing the glory they each have, in that respect, the OT has NO glory when set alongside the far more glorious NT.

The entire OT package went with Christ to the cross. The law was crucified with him because he had to take the old package out before he could replace it with the new one. Like a wife can only have a new husband once the old one is dead.
Well the OT package has been crucified with Christ.
But that doesn't mean there is no more package.

Jesus rose from the dead. This new testament done by his blood is now in effect. A number of things have been done away with and a lot of new and better things have been added.
Primarily the new birth of the Holy Spirit and the washing of regeneration.
Hence, righteousness did NOT come by the law. If it did then Christ is dead in vain.
What remains after the old clunker is on the pile and the new car is the center of attention? What remains is a lot more glorious:
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

Paul is not putting down the invaluable accurate historical record and all the other things we learn from the OT that show us God's dealings with His people etc. God forbid: that is not thrown away.
What is thrown away and crucified is the old means of defining and attaining righteousness. Hence the NT now forbids numerous things allowed under the OT. Polygamy for example.
Ok, come clean now Keck, You reckon polygamy is good and right?

The NT is far superior than the OT like Paul repeatedly declares in Hebrews.

Heb 7:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Heb 7:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

Heb 8:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 9:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Heb 11:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Heb 11:40 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=40) God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Heb 12:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things that that of Abel.

Heb 9:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

phoneman
Jan 28th 2009, 03:59 AM
Hey everyone....

For the longest time I was under the belief that with the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ that we were free from the Law.

But earlier today while preparing to start the Gospel of Matthew in my Life Application Bible (I have a 365 day bible reading program that I started Jan 1 -- it starts with Genesis then Matthew back to Exodus etc) and it showed this as the "key verse":

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill them." (Matt 5:17)

Now as I said previously I always thought that we are no longer under the Law.

But the blurb for Matt. 5:17 states this:

"When Jesus talked about a new way to understand God's Law, he was actually trying to bring people back to its original purpose. Jesus did not speak against the Law itself, but against the abuses and excesses to which it had been subjected."

Then it prompts me to read John 1:17 which states:

"For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

The blurb for this verse states:

"Law and Grace are both aspects of God's nature that He uses in dealing with us. Moses emphasized God's Law and justice, while Jesus came to highlight God's mercy, love and forgiveness. Moses could only be the giver of the Law, while Christ came to fulfill the Law (Matt. 5:17). The nature and will of God were revealed in the Law; now the nature and will of God are revealed in Jesus Christ. Rather then coming through cold stone tablets, God's revelation (truth) now comes through a person's life. As we get to know Christ better, our understanding of God will increase."


This is probably the hardest part of my faith to figure out for me! Im so confused about what we are supposed to do in regards to the Law. And I still dont understand what Christ meant when He said that He did not come to abolish but fulfill the Law.

Help? Anyone?

Hi, I'm Phoneman and I would like to share something with you concerning this very hot topic about the law. Some say the the law is no longer, while others say you must keep it to be saved. Several Bible verses are offered to support both arguments, but each side ignores the other's verses while attempting to get their point across. Since "all scripture is given by inspiration of God", this is clearly not the way to understand God's word. The answer to this mystery is not as difficult as one might think. The Bible speaks of TWO laws: the "Moral" Law of God contained in the Ten Commandments and the "Mosaic" law, or law of Moses. Several places in the Bible make a distinction between the two. Even the Ten Commandments that were written on the two tables of stone went INSIDE the ark of the covenant, while the Mosaic law that was written on a scroll was placed OUTSIDE the ark on the side, symbolizing the separation of the two. Basically, the Law of God will last forever and ever (Psalm 111:7,8) because it will NEVER be o.k. to kill, lie, steal, have other gods before Jesus, etc. and the law of Moses was nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14). That's why today it is still wrong to steal, lie, commit adultery, etc., but bringing lambs for sacrifice, keeping the annual Jewish feast days, thank offering, sin offerings, etc. are no longer required. Isn't that simple?

The 10 Commandments existed before Mount Sinai because Cain knew better than to KILL Abel, Abraham knew better than to LIE to Pharoah and King Abelimech, Rachel knew better than to STEAL her father's belongings, Joseph knew not to commit ADULTERY with Podipher's wife (incidentally, Joseph said, "how can I commit this SIN against God?" "SIN" is defined as "transgression of the LAW" in 1 John 3:4, so the 10 Commandments had to have existed at the time of Joseph, LONG before they were given at Mount Sinai.) Even Ezekiel says that the Devil "sinned" in heaven, and if "SIN is the transgression of the law", then, once again, a law had to have existed even in Heaven, for Lucifer broke the first one when he decided he was going to be worshipped as God.

Jesus fulfilled the law, meaning he kept it perfectly so that we could be given credit for his perfection and be saved. Had He not kept all the law, and then offerred Himself as a Lamb without spot or blemish, He could have not extended His grace to us. Our salvation depended on this. "Fulfilling" the law does not "do away with it". When Jesus told John the Baptist that the act of John baptizing Him "fulfills all righteousness", He certainly didn't mean to "do away with all righteousness", for we are told over and over to be righteous all through the New Testament! The wages of sin (lawbreaking) is DEATH. But God is not only a God of Justice, He is also a God of Mercy. The problem was that if He would be just, then He could not be merciful. And if He was to be merciful, He could not be just. What was He to do? Something that shocked the entire universe and proved how much He loves us: He would become a man, live out a life of perfect obedience, and then offer Himself as a sacrifice for His own broken law. Once the sin debt was paid by Jesus, He was now free to extend GRACE, SWEET GRACE, to anyone who would put their faith in the slain Lamb of God and allow Him to bear their sins in the judgment. Those who refuse this free gift will have to bear their own sins in the judgment.

Salvation is a free gift of grace apart from obedience (Ephesians 2:8). Consequently, if a person accepts Jesus in his heart, he will naturally begin to obey God. Disobedience is sin (James 2:10) and if sin cost the life of God's only begotten Son, why would a saved person continue in sin? (Romans 6:14,15) To grow in grace means to become more Christlike everyday, and Christ was righteous and perfect. Though we may make mistakes, the pattern of a Christian life is of obedience to the Ten Commandments. Love is the fulfilling of the law, meaning if you love God, you'll keep the first four, and if you love your neighbor, you'll keep the last six. Any sin under the sun can be classified as breaking one of the Ten Commandments. If you have read down this far, then read just a little further. 1 John 2:3,4 says," Hereby we do know that we know Him if we keep His (not Moses') Commandments. He that says 'I know Him', and keeps not His Commandments is a LIAR and the truth is not in him." This doesn't mean that we don't make mistakes, but that the pattern of the life should be one of OBEDIENCE, because Christ is in us working out obedience for us. Without Christ within us, we can't keep even ONE law! (Romans 8:7) A man who claims he loves his wife, yet abuses her, steals from her, and cheats on her is obviously a LIAR. In the same way, if we love God, then we will want to stop doing the things that made it necessary for Jesus to suffer, be crucified, and, for the first time since eternity past, be separated from His Father in death. (Hebrews 6:4-6) The only difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is that in the Old Covenant, the Ten Commandments were written on stone, and in the New Covenant, the Ten Commandments are written by the Holy Spirit on our hearts. It's the SAME Ten Commandments. Obedience in not legalism. Obedience for the purpose of EARNING salvation is legalism. Obedience motivated by LOVE is the foundation of God's Heavenly government. "By this we know we love the children of God when we love God and keep His Commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His Commandments and His Commandments are not grevious."

I hope this helps clear up some of the fog concerning this topic and I'll leave you with Psalm 40:8 and Romans 7:22: "I delight to do thy will, yea thy LAW is within my heart." "For I delight in the Law of God after the inward man."

God bless- Phoneman

Alaska
Jan 28th 2009, 05:02 AM
The only difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is that in the Old Covenant, the Ten Commandments were written on stone, and in the New Covenant, the Ten Commandments are written by the Holy Spirit on our hearts.


Welcome Phoneman,
Am I correct to assume that you are a Seventh Day Adventist since you believe that we must keep Saturday holy by not working on that day after the OT system?

If what you write above is true, does that mean that everything else, meaning all the other commandments in the OT, are carried over into the NT?
So "an eye for an eye" is something that Christians can exercise?



The Bible speaks of TWO laws: the "Moral" Law of God contained in the Ten Commandments and the "Mosaic" law, or law of Moses. Several places in the Bible make a distinction between the two. Even the Ten Commandments that were written on the two tables of stone went INSIDE the ark of the covenant, while the Mosaic law that was written on a scroll was placed OUTSIDE the ark on the side, symbolizing the separation of the two. Basically, the Law of God will last forever and ever (Psalm 111:7,8) because it will NEVER be o.k. to kill, lie, steal, have other gods before Jesus, etc. and the law of Moses was nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14). That's why today it is still wrong to steal, lie, commit adultery, etc., but bringing lambs for sacrifice, keeping the annual Jewish feast days, thank offering, sin offerings, etc. are no longer required. Isn't that simple?



No, its not simple with regards to your explanation since Paul refers to the ten as having been in a sense, done away with:
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
Also in Rom. 7 Pauls reference to the law being crucified again agrees with 2 Cor. 3, that being crucified being more than merely your "Mosaic" law.
Paul is expressing a perspective that most are not tuning into.

See my last post.

I fully agree with obedience to NT doctrine, that being the measure of whether or not we know him.
But I think you are being a little too hasty in some of your conclusions.
Nowhere in the NT will you see the term "ten commandments" as in expressing that the NT declares that we are under them as they stood.
In the NT literally resting on Saturday is optional. Rom. 14

keck553
Jan 28th 2009, 07:26 PM
Alaska, you and I disagree. In the end, it doesn't matter. What matters is that we agree with God's word.

shalom

Firstfruits
Jan 28th 2009, 10:21 PM
So how do we establish something?

Thankfully we do not have to, as Christ has finished the work he was given by the Father.

All we have to do is go into all the world and preach/teach what happened to Christ and what he has fulfilled.

The plan for salvation is complete.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

phoneman
Jan 29th 2009, 04:44 AM
Alaska, thank you for responding to my post. I must restate that the Ten Commandments are separate and apart from the laws given to Moses, and as such, "eye for an eye" was "nailed to the cross".

"Eye for an eye" began at Mount Sinai and ended at the cross, according to Galatians 3:17. The Mosaic law was "added because of transgression" (Galatians 3:19) Added to what? Consider the logical progression: The first law, the Ten Commandments, was broken by the "transgressions" of Adam and Eve. After a time, the Mosaic law "was ADDED because of that TRANSGRESSION - again, the transgression of the first "Ten Commandment" law. For how long was it added? "TILL THE SEED SHOULD COME". We can't miss this. When the SEED (Christ) came, the law that was added, the Mosaic law, CEASED, and only the first law, the Ten Commandments, remains. That's why Paul asked why the people were still attempting to serve the law that was added, the Mosaic law of sacrifices, ceremonies, and circumcisions, etc. He told the Corinthians that "circumcision is nothing, circumcision is nothing, BUT KEEPING THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD" is what matters. (1 Cor. 7:19)

The laws contained in the Ten Commandments existed BEFORE Mount Sinai and will always exist, for their will be absolutely no adultery, murder, and false worship in Heaven. Jesus said it is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass than for even one portion of the law to fail. Since the Mosaic law was the schoolmaster, designed to teach the people to look for the Messiah, it stands to reason that once the Messiah came, and type met antitype, the Mosaic law ceased. Architects don't build desktop models of skyscrapers and, once the real thing is built, attempt to move everyone into the model. No, they move into the real thing. Jesus also said that anyone who breaks His commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom (meaning that those in heaven will refer to these lawless ones down here as "least"). He added that those who keep the commandments and teach others to do so will be called the greatest. Remember, this is JESUS speaking. Yes, I believe that if we love the Lord, we will strive to keep ALL of His commandments, which is our reasonable service.

The question we must consider is why some say they love Jesus, but want to do away with His law? What is wrong with His law? King David said it was perfect, Paul said it was Holy, Just and Good (incidentally, he calls the Mosaic law of the priesthood a "CARNAL" law, so this is yet another proof that the Bible distinguishes between the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law, for if there is not distinction, the same law CANNOT be both holy, just, good AND carnal at the same time.)

Let's review them and try to find something bad with them:

1) "Have no other gods before ME." Anything wrong with that? Then why get rid of it?

2) "Don't bow down and worship images". Doing so tends to lower our concept of God and avoiding this practice will maintain our reverence and respect for Him. Anything wrong with that? Then why get rid of it? Have you read what some churches that use images say about God -how their priests are able to create the Creator in their sacraments and manipulate Him at they please during their ceremonies?
3) "Don't take His name in vain." His name is "holy and reverend" according to Ps. 111, and we should always speak it and declare it with our actions with utmost respect. Anything wrong with that? Then why get rid of it?

4) "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." In an age when Satan has us running mad with distractions, is there not a blessing in Christian laborers setting aside time for God, shutting out our daily cares, and focusing totally on Jesus and His bountiful harvest? Why would we want to forget such a wonderful commandment, the ONLY commandment that our Lord began with the word "Remember"?

5) "Honor your father and mother." In an age when the elderly are shoved aside and forgotten, and our youth have utterly lost respect for their elders, would not such a commandment provide much relief? We should exalt this and the others commandments, instead of campaigning against them.

6) "Don't kill." Nuff said.

7) "Don't commit adultery." Are we having a problem with this? Are we not bombarded with pornography from morning till night so much so that even so called "family television" has now begun to incorporate one sexual inuendo after the next?

8) "Don't steal." 9) "Don't lie." 10) "Don't covet." What is wrong with any of these?

The most dangerous enemy of Christianity is not Atheism, fundamentalist Islam, or any other persecutor of our faith- it is "Christians" who say they love Jesus, but won't obey His law.
"Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?" (Luke 6:46) Yes, Jesus, why do they?

Salvation is a free gift of GRACE. Jesus offers it to us for free, and once we accept it, He says to us that, "If ye love ME, keep MY commandments." (John 14:15)

Benaiah
Jan 29th 2009, 06:33 AM
Joh 1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Notice it says the law, not the laws, the law was one unit.


Rom 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.



What "Law" is Paul referring to? he tells us in the very next verse.


Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."



2Co 3:7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,

2Co 3:9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.

What was written and engraved on stones?


Deu 4:13 "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.

phoneman
Jan 30th 2009, 03:06 AM
"Sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)

"Therefore, if we willfully sin (break the law) AFTER receiving knowledge of the truth, their is no more sacrifice for sin, but a fearful looking for unto Judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries." (Hebrews 10:26)
Question: Why is it possible for Christians to turn from following God and toward a life of sin (lawbreaking), which brings judgment, IF there is no longer a law to break? I simply love how reasonable and clear God's Word is, and how some sqirm in their vain attempts to circumvent it.

If you love God, keep the first four, including the Fourth.
If you love your neighbor, keep the last six.
"Love is the fulfilling of the law."

I pray that all would be filled with the love of God so much so that they would desire to allow Jesus to both will and do in them of His good pleasure. Since Jesus came to magnify the law, why do people confuse that mission with one of doing away with His law, especially when He Himself declares that He didn't come to do that??!!

threebigrocks
Jan 30th 2009, 03:46 PM
"Sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)

"Therefore, if we willfully sin (break the law) AFTER receiving knowledge of the truth, their is no more sacrifice for sin, but a fearful looking for unto Judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries." (Hebrews 10:26)
Question: Why is it possible for Christians to turn from following God and toward a life of sin (lawbreaking), which brings judgment, IF there is no longer a law to break? I simply love how reasonable and clear God's Word is, and how some sqirm in their vain attempts to circumvent it.

If you love God, keep the first four, including the Fourth.
If you love your neighbor, keep the last six.
"Love is the fulfilling of the law."

I pray that all would be filled with the love of God so much so that they would desire to allow Jesus to both will and do in them of His good pleasure. Since Jesus came to magnify the law, why do people confuse that mission with one of doing away with His law, especially when He Himself declares that He didn't come to do that??!!

Agreed. How and why would a person still be under grace if they choose to act according the flesh and not the spirit? Grace doesn't cover the flesh which must and will die, that is ruled by the Law.

threebigrocks
Jan 30th 2009, 03:59 PM
The reason it can mean this is that "abolish" and "fulfil" were indeed Hebrew idioms. If someone was mis-interpreting the "law" they were accused of "abolishing" it.

If you carefully read Ephesians 2:15, this does not refer to the Torah, but to the enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles, which if related to "laws" at all, related to man-made traditions.

Nor does "fulfil" mean to "get rid of". Correct definitions are to be found for those who search them out. Emanate had a full, complete and accurate definition of what it means to "fulfil" in another thread. What you are saying is that Jesus said he did not come to abolish the "law", but to "fulfil" it, i.e. get rid of it. How much sense does that make?

Blessings,
BHS

No fulfill doesn't mean abolish. We are told that the law is good and useful if used lawfully, correctly. The Law still does a work today, but not in those who have been removed from it's consequences through grace. If we operate in grace, why the law? The law remains for those who are not born again, for those who stray out from under grace. It is our tutor and points to the cross.

Fulfill means to meet all the requirements. Christ did that. I am still not understanding how you can say Christ misinterpreted the law.

keck553
Jan 30th 2009, 04:01 PM
Thankfully we do not have to, as Christ has finished the work he was given by the Father.

All we have to do is go into all the world and preach/teach what happened to Christ and what he has fulfilled.

The plan for salvation is complete.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Thank you for answering FF.

may God bless you and keep you

ProjectPeter
Jan 30th 2009, 10:46 PM
No fulfill doesn't mean abolish. We are told that the law is good and useful if used lawfully, correctly. The Law still does a work today, but not in those who have been removed from it's consequences through grace. If we operate in grace, why the law? The law remains for those who are not born again, for those who stray out from under grace. It is our tutor and points to the cross.

Fulfill means to meet all the requirements. Christ did that. I am still not understanding how you can say Christ misinterpreted the law.
Nah... what BHS is saying is that Christ came to give us the correct interpretation of the Law.

Problem with that though... Jesus didn't just correct misinterpretation... Jesus made it clear that He in fact did come to fulfill it. All of it was fulfilled in Christ.

We can jump through the same hoops (never been shy about that before so no need to start now ;)) so let's jump!

Matthew 19:7 *They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY ?"
8 *He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
9 *"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Deuteronomy 24:1 *"When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house,
2 *and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife,
3 *and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife,
4 *then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.

Jesus said... that was because of their hardness of heart that Moses allowed it. But not God.

There are others but that will be a good start to get us jumping through them same old hoops! :lol:

phoneman
Jan 31st 2009, 01:42 AM
Take the Phoneman challenge:

If any Christian out there insists that we are not obligated to obey the Ten Commandments, please declare to the world that we are now no longer obligated to refrain from worshipping Buhdda, Shiva, Brahma, Dali Lama, Mohammed, Krishna, the Babs, Maitraiya, even, Lucifer, that grand old inspirer of all false world religious institutions.

Please declare that we are no longer obligated to refrain from worshipping idols, cursing the name of the Lord, breaking the seventh day Sabbath, dishonoring our parents, killing, committing adultery, stealing, lying, and coveting.

A sinner saved by God's grace is not released from his obligation to obey the Ten Commandments any more than a death row inmate, upon receiving a pardon from the governor, is then free to go out and kill everyone he sees. People, don't throw out the whole Ten just because you disagree with one. Ask the Lord to help you embrace ALL His will.

Phoneman

BHS
Jan 31st 2009, 02:19 AM
No fulfill doesn't mean abolish. We are told that the law is good and useful if used lawfully, correctly. The Law still does a work today, but not in those who have been removed from it's consequences through grace. If we operate in grace, why the law? The law remains for those who are not born again, for those who stray out from under grace. It is our tutor and points to the cross.

Fulfill means to meet all the requirements. Christ did that. I am still not understanding how you can say Christ misinterpreted the law.

Fulfil doesn't mean abolish, but it means to get rid of? Perhaps you could explain that. My interpretation of the law is full of grace. It is there God first presents the gospel, though it may be hidden from eyes that do not see. Therefore it is our tutor that points to the cross.

Jesus did not misinterpret the law, rather He interpreted it correctly, in order to correct some of the fallacies that were added by rabbis throughout the centuries to the Lord's original instructions.

Blessings,
BHS

Sirus
Jan 31st 2009, 02:27 AM
Fulfil doesn't mean abolish, but it means to get rid of? Perhaps you could explain that. My interpretation of the law is full of grace. It is there God first presents the gospel, though it may be hidden from eyes that do not see. Therefore it is out tutor that points to the cross.

Blessings,
BHSAmen and Amen!!!
Jesus is the pinnacle of the law concerning righteousness.

btw; 'abolish' is used in the NT concerning this. (2Co 3:13, Eph 2:15, )

Firstfruits
Feb 2nd 2009, 10:22 AM
Thank you for answering FF.

may God bless you and keep you

You are most welcome my Friend,

God bless!

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Feb 2nd 2009, 10:43 AM
With regards to the following scripture, has anyone ever kept every single point in the law? because as it is written if the whole law is not followed then any thing we do according to the law automatically makes us guilty of sin.

Jas 2:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=59&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Why do you think God concludes all to be under sin?

Rom 3:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Gal 3:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

A partial law is a broken law. It is all or nothing.

Jas 2:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=59&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Yukerboy
Feb 2nd 2009, 01:05 PM
Take the Phoneman challenge:

If any Christian out there insists that we are not obligated to obey the Ten Commandments, please declare to the world that we are now no longer obligated to refrain from worshipping Buhdda, Shiva, Brahma, Dali Lama, Mohammed, Krishna, the Babs, Maitraiya, even, Lucifer, that grand old inspirer of all false world religious institutions.

Please declare that we are no longer obligated to refrain from worshipping idols, cursing the name of the Lord, breaking the seventh day Sabbath, dishonoring our parents, killing, committing adultery, stealing, lying, and coveting.

I insist that those who are born again are not obligated to obey the Ten Commandments.

The born again are now no longer obligated to refrain from worshipping Buhdda, Shiva, Brahma, Dali Lama, Mohammed, Krishna, the Babs, Maitraiya, even, Lucifer, that grand old inspirer of all false world religious institutions. However, the born again would really have to question whether they are born again or not if they did these.

The born again are no longer obligated to refrain from worshipping idols, cursing the name of the Lord, breaking the seventh day Sabbath, dishonoring our parents, killing, committing adultery, stealing, lying, and coveting. Once again, the born again would really need to question if they are born again if they do these.


A sinner saved by God's grace is not released from his obligation to obey the Ten Commandments any more than a death row inmate, upon receiving a pardon from the governor, is then free to go out and kill everyone he sees. People, don't throw out the whole Ten just because you disagree with one. Ask the Lord to help you embrace ALL His will.

His will is that the born again be made righteous and no longer under the law. The law was made for the unrighteous, the ungodly, the lawbreakers.

A sinner saved by God's grace is released from the law, including the ten commandments. Christ abolished those in His flesh for the born again.

ProjectPeter
Feb 2nd 2009, 01:30 PM
I insist that those who are born again are not obligated to obey the Ten Commandments.

The born again are now no longer obligated to refrain from worshipping Buhdda, Shiva, Brahma, Dali Lama, Mohammed, Krishna, the Babs, Maitraiya, even, Lucifer, that grand old inspirer of all false world religious institutions. However, the born again would really have to question whether they are born again or not if they did these.

The born again are no longer obligated to refrain from worshipping idols, cursing the name of the Lord, breaking the seventh day Sabbath, dishonoring our parents, killing, committing adultery, stealing, lying, and coveting. Once again, the born again would really need to question if they are born again if they do these.Why would they need to question if they are born again if they did those things?

BHS
Feb 2nd 2009, 01:48 PM
With regards to the following scripture, has anyone ever kept every single point in the law? because as it is written if the whole law is not followed then any thing we do according to the law automatically makes us guilty of sin.

Jas 2:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=59&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Why do you think God concludes all to be under sin?

Rom 3:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Gal 3:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

A partial law is a broken law. It is all or nothing.

Jas 2:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=59&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

When we sin we are quilty before God without His redeeming blood. But thanks be to Jesus Who removes the stain of our sin. Hallelujah!

Blessings,
BHS

Yukerboy
Feb 2nd 2009, 01:56 PM
Why would they need to question if they are born again if they did those things?

Because while not being under law, but under grace, they are no longer bound by the law.

However, the law of God is good and holy. That will never change. To take the law of God and claim it to be abolished to you is to say you are born again. If you believe you are born again and find yourself wanting to fulfill the desires of the flesh, then you probably have not been born again. If you are not born again, you are still under law and sin.

One of the characteristics of being born again is taking up our cross daily and desiring what the Spirit desires, not desiring to fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

The fact still stands that the born again are not obligated to do anything. The born again do as the Spirit of God works in them to will and to act according to His good pleasure.

Firstfruits
Feb 2nd 2009, 02:03 PM
When we sin we are quilty before God without His redeeming blood. But thanks be to Jesus Who removes the stain of our sin. Hallelujah!

Blessings,
BHS

Knowing that by not keeping all that is written in the law causes us to be guilty of sin, why do we continue to sin by keeping a partial law?

keeping a partial law makes us no different to those without the law and without Christ.

Rom 3:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Gal 3:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

A partial law is a broken law. It is all or nothing.

Jas 2:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=59&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Firstfruits

threebigrocks
Feb 2nd 2009, 02:35 PM
Because while not being under law, but under grace, they are no longer bound by the law.

However, the law of God is good and holy. That will never change. To take the law of God and claim it to be abolished to you is to say you are born again. If you believe you are born again and find yourself wanting to fulfill the desires of the flesh, then you probably have not been born again. If you are not born again, you are still under law and sin.

One of the characteristics of being born again is taking up our cross daily and desiring what the Spirit desires, not desiring to fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

The fact still stands that the born again are not obligated to do anything. The born again do as the Spirit of God works in them to will and to act according to His good pleasure.

So.... we aren't obligated to do anything, which I take to mean doing nothing.

Yet - we need to be willed to act, and to consciously choose to do so in judgment of our intentions to make certain it's according to God's good pleasure?

Sounds like we are obligated to align our works (no "anything there) with the will and pleasure of God. Which I'd agree with.

How does that work?

Yukerboy
Feb 2nd 2009, 02:48 PM
So.... we aren't obligated to do anything, which I take to mean doing nothing.


Correct.


Yet - we need to be willed to act, and to consciously choose to do so in judgment of our intentions to make certain it's according to God's good pleasure?

All things work to God's good pleasure and the born again.


Sounds like we are obligated to align our works (no "anything there) with the will and pleasure of God. Which I'd agree with.


The born again will do as God pleases, consciously or not. The born again may even do something that seems to be a sin, and doing it was the pleasure of God.

ProjectPeter
Feb 2nd 2009, 02:58 PM
Because while not being under law, but under grace, they are no longer bound by the law.

However, the law of God is good and holy. That will never change. To take the law of God and claim it to be abolished to you is to say you are born again. If you believe you are born again and find yourself wanting to fulfill the desires of the flesh, then you probably have not been born again. If you are not born again, you are still under law and sin.

One of the characteristics of being born again is taking up our cross daily and desiring what the Spirit desires, not desiring to fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

The fact still stands that the born again are not obligated to do anything. The born again do as the Spirit of God works in them to will and to act according to His good pleasure.So if it is a characteristic of one born again... and if one isn't doing those things that is a sign that they aren't born again... how can you say that it isn't required of those born-again? That is ultimately what you are saying... you are just going through a different door to get to that conclusion.

bosco
Feb 2nd 2009, 06:39 PM
Take the Phoneman challenge:

If any Christian out there insists that we are not obligated to obey the Ten Commandments, please declare to the world that we are now no longer obligated to refrain from worshipping Buhdda, Shiva, Brahma, Dali Lama, Mohammed, Krishna, the Babs, Maitraiya, even, Lucifer, that grand old inspirer of all false world religious institutions.

Please declare that we are no longer obligated to refrain from worshipping idols, cursing the name of the Lord, breaking the seventh day Sabbath, dishonoring our parents, killing, committing adultery, stealing, lying, and coveting.

A sinner saved by God's grace is not released from his obligation to obey the Ten Commandments any more than a death row inmate, upon receiving a pardon from the governor, is then free to go out and kill everyone he sees. People, don't throw out the whole Ten just because you disagree with one. Ask the Lord to help you embrace ALL His will.

Phoneman

Your points phoneman make a lot of sense. If the law contained what God considered to be sin, or what is not sin, and we say the law is gone, then we are free to do as we wish. When it comes to Christ in Matthew 5, we can either accept his words which weren't in parable form, or interpret them to mean something entirely different.

Bosco

Yukerboy
Feb 2nd 2009, 09:06 PM
So if it is a characteristic of one born again... and if one isn't doing those things that is a sign that they aren't born again... how can you say that it isn't required of those born-again? That is ultimately what you are saying... you are just going through a different door to get to that conclusion.

It is a characteristic of the born again to desire what the Spirit desires. As for the law and the ten commandments, the born again are not under the law. Everything is permissible to the born again. They cannot sin.

Now, if you believe you are born again and are not, then though you believe you have the freedom to do as you choose, you do not and are still under law, dead in your sins.


If the law contained what God considered to be sin, or what is not sin, and we say the law is gone, then we are free to do as we wish.

The law contains commandments from God.
Sin is transgression of the law.
The born again are free to do as they wish.
The born again are not under law, therefore the born again cannot sin.

ProjectPeter
Feb 2nd 2009, 09:08 PM
It is a characteristic of the born again to desire what the Spirit desires. As for the law and the ten commandments, the born again are not under the law. Everything is permissible to the born again. They cannot sin.

Now, if you believe you are born again and are not, then though you believe you have the freedom to do as you choose, you do not and are still under law, dead in your sins.



The law contains commandments from God.
Sin is transgression of the law.
The born again are free to do as they wish.
The born again are not under law, therefore the born again cannot sin.
I think I see where some of the confusion is beginning.

When is one born-again?

Yukerboy
Feb 3rd 2009, 12:30 AM
I think I see where some of the confusion is beginning.

When is one born-again?

One is born again when The Holy Spirit gives birth to the born again's spirit.

keck553
Feb 3rd 2009, 12:31 AM
One is born again when The Holy Spirit gives birth to the born again's spirit.

born again's spirit? Is that behind door #5??

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2009, 01:02 AM
One is born again when The Holy Spirit gives birth to the born again's spirit.
Try explaining that a bit deeper so that I don't have to assume to know what you are trying to say.

Yukerboy
Feb 3rd 2009, 01:06 AM
Try explaining that a bit deeper so that I don't have to assume to know what you are trying to say.

I honestly don't think I can go deeper.

When does one become born again? I would think when one who is chosen to be born again believes in Christ. However, if you said "state the Scripture that proves it", I don't think I could.

I know that the spirit is born of spirit and that as the wind blows, so are the born again.

I guess my best answer would be: You tell me.

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2009, 01:37 AM
I honestly don't think I can go deeper.

When does one become born again? I would think when one who is chosen to be born again believes in Christ. However, if you said "state the Scripture that proves it", I don't think I could.

I know that the spirit is born of spirit and that as the wind blows, so are the born again.

I guess my best answer would be: You tell me.
I haven't a clue what you are saying hence my asking for clarification. Scripture is what I'd be looking for but you already know what you just said ain't in Scripture... so that would be problematic because without Scripture... don't mean much. Not a slam on your part but you're going to have to give us some Scripture before the argument you make has any real merit.

bosco
Feb 3rd 2009, 02:32 AM
Excuse the interuption, but when we come to Christ in faith, we are putting aside the old man. We become a new creature in him, walking in his will, not our own. Isn't that the definition of being born again? Born in the newness of life?

Bosco

keck553
Feb 3rd 2009, 04:09 AM
Excuse the interuption, but when we come to Christ in faith, we are putting aside the old man. We become a new creature in him, walking in his will, not our own. Isn't that the definition of being born again? Born in the newness of life?

Bosco

I wonder who is 100% that way. Not me. I still kick and scream about some things.

Firstfruits
Feb 3rd 2009, 09:23 AM
It is a characteristic of the born again to desire what the Spirit desires. As for the law and the ten commandments, the born again are not under the law. Everything is permissible to the born again. They cannot sin.

Now, if you believe you are born again and are not, then though you believe you have the freedom to do as you choose, you do not and are still under law, dead in your sins.



The law contains commandments from God.
Sin is transgression of the law.
The born again are free to do as they wish.
The born again are not under law, therefore the born again cannot sin.

The born again cannot sin as long as they follow the spirit.

Gal 5:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Gal 5:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Gal 5:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Gal 5:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Firstfruits

Yukerboy
Feb 3rd 2009, 10:17 AM
John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 3:3-8 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

1 Peter 1:23
For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

1 John 2:29
If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of him.

1 John 3:9
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1 John 4:7
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.

1 John 5:1
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

1 John 5:4
for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.

1 John 5:18
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

Be back later to explain...

Yukerboy
Feb 3rd 2009, 10:20 AM
The born again cannot sin as long as they follow the spirit.

Gal 5:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Gal 5:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Gal 5:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Gal 5:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Firstfruits

The born again cannot sin. Period. End of story.

Firstfruits
Feb 3rd 2009, 11:49 AM
The born again cannot sin. Period. End of story.

As long as you walk in the Spirit.

Gal 5:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

1 John 2:29
If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of him.

1 John 3:9
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Everyone who does what is right.

Firstfruits

Yukerboy
Feb 3rd 2009, 12:56 PM
The born again walk in the Spirit.
The born again do what is right.
The born again are righteous.
The born again do not sin.
The born again cannot sin.

Yukerboy
Feb 3rd 2009, 01:10 PM
John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 3:3-8 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

1 Peter 1:23
For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

1 John 2:29
If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of him.

1 John 3:9
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1 John 4:7
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.

1 John 5:1
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

1 John 5:4
for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.

1 John 5:18
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

Be back later to explain...

From the above, we know that...

The born again are born of God, not by man's will or desire.
The born again are spirit as Spirit gives birth to spirit.
The born again are of imperishable seed.
The born again do what is right.
The born again do not and cannot sin.
The born again overcomes the world.
The born again are born again through the Word of God.

So, when you ask, when do the born again become the born again, I say that since it is through the Word of God and since faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, then it stands to reason that once God has given one ears to hear the Word of God, they have become born again.

Firstfruits
Feb 3rd 2009, 01:14 PM
The born again walk in the Spirit.
The born again do what is right.
The born again are righteous.
The born again do not sin.
The born again cannot sin.

What you are saying is that with regards to the following no one can fall.

2 Thess 2:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Sinners cannot fall since they have never believed.

Firstfruits

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2009, 01:16 PM
What you are saying is that with regards to the following no one can fall.

2 Thess 2:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Sinners cannot fall since they have never believed.

Firstfruits
Right... not able to fall from a place one has never been.

bosco
Feb 3rd 2009, 02:22 PM
I wonder who is 100% that way. Not me. I still kick and scream about some things.

Surely Keck, what you are today is not what you were in days before?? Is your idea of a good time a shot and a beer or a deep scripture study with a few like minded brethren?

Bosco

bosco
Feb 3rd 2009, 02:34 PM
The born again walk in the Spirit.
The born again do what is right.
The born again are righteous.
The born again do not sin.
The born again cannot sin.

Then being born again cannot be something done until Christ's return! The bible is simply too full of examples of people in Christ who have fallen away. In Galatians 1 Paul wrote (and marveled at) how soon some had been "removed" from he that called them. He goes on talking about how they had given way to a perverted gospel as well as man's ways. In Timothy he tells of Christians who have departed from the faith (you have to be in the faith to depart from it) as they gave way to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.

To the church at Pergmos Christ said they kept his name and not denied his faith...yet, kept the doctrine of Balaam and also the doctrine of the
Nicolaitans, which he hates. He went on to say for them to "repent" OR ELSE he will come upon them quickly and fight against them with the sword of his mouth.

Bosco

Yukerboy
Feb 3rd 2009, 02:37 PM
What you are saying is that with regards to the following no one can fall.

2 Thess 2:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=53&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Sinners cannot fall since they have never believed.

Firstfruits

Believers can fall. The born again cannot.

Emanate
Feb 3rd 2009, 02:41 PM
Surely Keck, what you are today is not what you were in days before?? Is your idea of a good time a shot and a beer or a deep scripture study with a few like minded brethren?

Bosco


C. All of the Above.

bosco
Feb 3rd 2009, 03:19 PM
C. All of the Above.

Are we to take it that your impression of Keck is that a good time for him is a shot and a beer while doing scripture studies with brethren? ;)

Bosco

Emanate
Feb 3rd 2009, 04:05 PM
Are we to take it that your impression of Keck is that a good time for him is a shot and a beer while doing scripture studies with brethren? ;)

Bosco


In moderation, lest there be a doctrinal dispute that leads to fisticuffs.

drew
Feb 3rd 2009, 04:05 PM
If you carefully read Ephesians 2:15, this does not refer to the Torah, but to the enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles, which if related to "laws" at all, related to man-made traditions.
I doubt it.

Some argue that in Ephesians 2:15, Paul is not asserting the abolition of Torah per se, but rather the abolition of man-made add-ons, or perversions, of it. I think the contextual evidence is pretty clear - Paul is talking about "actual" Torah here.

11Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit

First, let us address the matter of identifying the two groups described in this passage. I think that the two peoples that are "divided" here are the Jews and the Gentiles. One group is described as "Gentiles in the flesh", and "uncircumcision". Clearly this is the Gentiles. Paul contrasts this group with another group - the "circumcision in the flesh" people. Clearly, this second group is the Jews. He goes on to say that the first group - the Gentiles - are "excluded from Israel and foreigners to the covenants". This is a clear reference to the Jew-Gentile distinction. It is the Jew - the one circumcised in the flesh - who is under the covenant promises. So I can not see ambiguity here - Paul is describing a Jew-Gentile distinction.

Consider verse 12. Why was the Gentile excluded from citizenship in Israel? I suggest that the reason is Torah - the Torah was effectively a national charter for the Jews, it is Torah, not distortions to it, that marks out "citizenship in Israel". It is the abolition of the Torah that supports a sensible interpretation of the material from 14 on to 18, material which is all about the newly achieved unity of Jew and Gentile. How would one naturally bring Jew and Gentile together? Obviously by getting rid of the complex set of practices, ceremonies, and rituals which are for Jew and Jew only. The Torah, being for Jews only, effectively excluded the Gentile from membership in God's true family (Israel). After all, it is the Torah that marked the Jew out from her pagan neighbour.

Second, consider the Greek language used here. Paul uses the word "nomon" (rendered as “the law”) to refer to what is abolished. As has been argued in detail elsewhere, He uses this exact same word to obviously refer to Torah, not "man-made" ordnances, in these verses from Romans 3:

because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

The reader needs to ask him(her) self this question. How likely is it that the highly educated and articulate Paul would use the same "nomos" term in two places, to address the very same issue - how we are justified and what the implications of that are - and yet mean Torah in one place (Romans 3) and man-made ordnances in the other?

And to sharpen the case that the same issue is on the table in both places, notice how in the last 10 or verses of Romans 3, the justification matter has occasioned Paul to contemplate the implications re the Jew-Gentile divide. Note Romans 3:29-30:

Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

In both texts, the Jew-Gentile implications of justification are being addressed. How likely, then, is it that Paul would the same key word - nomos - in both places to denote two entirely different things?


The Ephesians text loses all unity and coherence on a reading where it is not Torah, but rather distortions of it that are being abolished. Most specifically, the abolition of (only) man-made perversions or add-ons to Torah in no way explains what Paul goes on to say about the Jew and the Gentile being brought together. How would the abolition of only the man-made add-ons to Torah bring about the unification of Jew and Gentile - if the very thing that actually demarcated the Jew from the Gentile, the Torah, remains intact? On such a view, the Torah remains as what it always was - a covenant charter for Jew and Jew only.

So if one is going to abolish something that would bring these groups together, as Paul says they have indeed been brought together, the abolution of man-man made distortions to the Torah will not do the job. Even with such distortions or add-ons abolished, the Torah itself with its myriad of prescriptions and practices specific to the Jew. would still stand as a clear boundary marker. Remember, Paul says that in Christ, "there is neither Jew nor Greek".

And what about verse 12 to 14? These verses will leave the reader anticipating that Paul will now go on to say something about how the Gentile has been brought into citizenship in Israel. To assert the abolition of only the man-made add-ons is hardly a credible next move for Paul, since such a claim leaves intact the very thing the marks the Jew from the Gentile - the Torah.

So the explanation that the Torah is being abolished reveals a coherent argument whereas the explanation that man-made add-ons (or perversions) will leave reader asking himself "How would the abolition of those things bring the Gentile into the family of God?" After all, the Torah does not need to be perverted or "added to" to make it a thing that demarcates Jew from Gentile - the Torah does that "as delivered from God" (by such things as Sabbath, purity laws, special holidays, etc.).

Emanate
Feb 3rd 2009, 04:12 PM
I doubt it.

Some argue that in Ephesians 2:15, Paul is not asserting the abolition of Torah per se, but rather the abolition of man-made add-ons, or perversions, of it. I think the contextual evidence is pretty clear - Paul is talking about "actual" Torah here.

11Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit

First, let us address the matter of identifying the two groups described in this passage. I think that the two peoples that are "divided" here are the Jews and the Gentiles. One group is described as "Gentiles in the flesh", and "uncircumcision". Clearly this is the Gentiles. Paul contrasts this group with another group - the "circumcision in the flesh" people. Clearly, this second group is the Jews. He goes on to say that the first group - the Gentiles - are "excluded from Israel and foreigners to the covenants". This is a clear reference to the Jew-Gentile distinction. It is the Jew - the one circumcised in the flesh - who is under the covenant promises. So I can not see ambiguity here - Paul is describing a Jew-Gentile distinction.

Consider verse 12. Why was the Gentile excluded from citizenship in Israel? I suggest that the reason is Torah - the Torah was effectively a national charter for the Jews, it is Torah, not distortions to it, that marks out "citizenship in Israel". It is the abolition of the Torah that supports a sensible interpretation of the material from 14 on to 18, material which is all about the newly achieved unity of Jew and Gentile. How would one naturally bring Jew and Gentile together? Obviously by getting rid of the complex set of practices, ceremonies, and rituals which are for Jew and Jew only. The Torah, being for Jews only, effectively excluded the Gentile from membership in God's true family (Israel). After all, it is the Torah that marked the Jew out from her pagan neighbour.

Second, consider the Greek language used here. Paul uses the word "nomon" (rendered as “the law”) to refer to what is abolished. As has been argued in detail elsewhere, He uses this exact same word to obviously refer to Torah, not "man-made" ordnances, in these verses from Romans 3:

because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

The reader needs to ask him(her) self this question. How likely is it that the highly educated and articulate Paul would use the same "nomos" term in two places, to address the very same issue - how we are justified and what the implications of that are - and yet mean Torah in one place (Romans 3) and man-made ordnances in the other?

And to sharpen the case that the same issue is on the table in both places, notice how in the last 10 or verses of Romans 3, the justification matter has occasioned Paul to contemplate the implications re the Jew-Gentile divide. Note Romans 3:29-30:

Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

In both texts, the Jew-Gentile implications of justification are being addressed. How likely, then, is it that Paul would the same key word - nomos - in both places to denote two entirely different things?


The Ephesians text loses all unity and coherence on a reading where it is not Torah, but rather distortions of it that are being abolished. Most specifically, the abolition of (only) man-made perversions or add-ons to Torah in no way explains what Paul goes on to say about the Jew and the Gentile being brought together. How would the abolition of only the man-made add-ons to Torah bring about the unification of Jew and Gentile - if the very thing that actually demarcated the Jew from the Gentile, the Torah, remains intact? On such a view, the Torah remains as what it always was - a covenant charter for Jew and Jew only.

So if one is going to abolish something that would bring these groups together, as Paul says they have indeed been brought together, the abolution of man-man made distortions to the Torah will not do the job. Even with such distortions or add-ons abolished, the Torah itself with its myriad of prescriptions and practices specific to the Jew. would still stand as a clear boundary marker. Remember, Paul says that in Christ, "there is neither Jew nor Greek".

And what about verse 12 to 14? These verses will leave the reader anticipating that Paul will now go on to say something about how the Gentile has been brought into citizenship in Israel. To assert the abolition of only the man-made add-ons is hardly a credible next move for Paul, since such a claim leaves intact the very thing the marks the Jew from the Gentile - the Torah.

So the explanation that the Torah is being abolished reveals a coherent argument whereas the explanation that man-made add-ons (or perversions) will leave reader asking himself "How would the abolition of those things bring the Gentile into the family of God?" After all, the Torah does not need to be perverted or "added to" to make it a thing that demarcates Jew from Gentile - the Torah does that "as delivered from God" (by such things as Sabbath, purity laws, special holidays, etc.).


The only flaw being is that Torah is very clear about Israel (not Judah) openly accepting the stranger who has joined (grafted) into the covenant as being on equal footing to the native born.

keck553
Feb 3rd 2009, 04:29 PM
Surely Keck, what you are today is not what you were in days before?? Is your idea of a good time a shot and a beer or a deep scripture study with a few like minded brethren?

Bosco

No. What I am today is definately not what I was like in days before. God's will for us is to have fellowship with Him. That means learning His character. When we learn His character, we respond to His love in a way that pleases Him, not us or our 'like minded brethren'. That produces a change in a person, I've heard it referred to as spiritual maturity.But whatever the case, I don't claim to be 100% in the will of God. As long as I have a suil of dirt around me, I still sin.

I do not accept Yuker's doctrine is what I really mean.

And I don't drink beer. Sorry.

However I do have a glass of wine with my study group after the Brakah just before Bible study.

Firstfruits
Feb 3rd 2009, 04:54 PM
Then being born again cannot be something done until Christ's return! The bible is simply too full of examples of people in Christ who have fallen away. In Galatians 1 Paul wrote (and marveled at) how soon some had been "removed" from he that called them. He goes on talking about how they had given way to a perverted gospel as well as man's ways. In Timothy he tells of Christians who have departed from the faith (you have to be in the faith to depart from it) as they gave way to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.

To the church at Pergmos Christ said they kept his name and not denied his faith...yet, kept the doctrine of Balaam and also the doctrine of the
Nicolaitans, which he hates. He went on to say for them to "repent" OR ELSE he will come upon them quickly and fight against them with the sword of his mouth.

Bosco


If being born again cannot take place until Christ returns then you are saying that no one is born of God or of his Spirit. We are not yet sons of God, God is not yet our Father, if God is not yet our Father then who is?

There are to many cancelation with what you have said.

How can we pray " our Father who art in Heaven if we do not know who we are?

God bless!

Firstfruits

drew
Feb 3rd 2009, 07:36 PM
3. If Jesus really is critiquing a belief that hand-washing makes things unclean, He should have focused his critique on the belief that foods become impure by virtue of contact with unclean things (like unwashed hands), since that is where the food would attain it status of uncleanness on such a view. But he does not do this – instead He focuses on the “entering the mouth” event.


If you read Matthew 23, you'll see quite a critique on man made traditions and additions to Torah.
Not relevant to the matter at issue. It almost seems that you are arguing as follows:

1. Jesus critiques add-ons to Torah;

2. Therefore, Jesus cannot enact or otherwise declare the abolition of Torah.

This is obviously not a valid argument whether you are making it or not.

The fact that Jesus' declaration about clean foods in Mark 7 emerges from the context of a discussion of man-made perversions of Torah does not mean that He is somehow "prohibited" from taking that conversation in a different, altough related, direction and declare the end of (part of) Torah itself.

It is a perversion of the otherwise valid appeal to context to enforce this kind of strict oversimplification, where the clear import of Jesus' words are ignored - that all foods are now clean - and his words forced into a mold into which they cannot fit. Even though the background to His statements is indeed a dicussion of man-made perversions to Torah, the content of what He actually says makes it clear He is taking the conversation in a different direction.

Imagine a discussion among fashion experts about what is "permissible". Suppose it had been widely accepted as a "universal" rule of fashion that one could not wear white between Labour Day and June 1st. Now suppose some great fashion teacher Fred is critiquing the fact that people have added further restrictions - add-ons if you will - such as "one cannot wear white on Saturdays. Imagine that, in the course of such a conversation, Fred then said:

"There is no time at which wearing white is prohibited - white is acceptable at all times of the year".

Applying the line of thinking that some are taking here, one could insist "well, the context is a discussion of add-ons to the original law, so it is impossible that the original law is being over-turned by Fred."

And yet it clearly is.

Besides, it is pretty clear that for Jesus to overturn the Levitical food laws is indeed coherent with context. Jesus could well have been making an argument of the form: "It is wrong for you mortal to distort or add-on to my Father's law. But guess what, the time has come for its repeal".

bosco
Feb 3rd 2009, 08:55 PM
If being born again cannot take place until Christ returns then you are saying that no one is born of God or of his Spirit. We are not yet sons of God, God is not yet our Father, if God is not yet our Father then who is?

There are to many cancelation with what you have said.

How can we pray " our Father who art in Heaven if we do not know who we are?

God bless!

Firstfruits

FirstFruits, I did not say we are not born again until Christ returns. I was replying to Yuker. He said nobody born again can sin. To which I posted 3 of many instances in the NT where members of the church, or members of Christ (same thing) left because they fell prey to seducing spirits, doctrines of men, so forth. My point was, if he is right, and seeing scripture shows members of the family of God turning away, being born again must not be something that happens until Christ's return.

I don't believe that...I believe that when you come in faith believing and repent of your sins and self centered life, that we put on a new creation, are a new person in Christ, the old things die away. Therefore, we are born again at that point.

Bosco

bosco
Feb 3rd 2009, 09:00 PM
No. What I am today is definately not what I was like in days before. God's will for us is to have fellowship with Him. That means learning His character. When we learn His character, we respond to His love in a way that pleases Him, not us or our 'like minded brethren'. That produces a change in a person, I've heard it referred to as spiritual maturity.But whatever the case, I don't claim to be 100% in the will of God. As long as I have a suil of dirt around me, I still sin.

I do not accept Yuker's doctrine is what I really mean.

And I don't drink beer. Sorry.

However I do have a glass of wine with my study group after the Brakah just before Bible study.

Your change can be interpreted as being born again. Essentially, you are a new person which is basically what being born again is speaking of.

The shot and beer comment was a joke...hence the silly winking emoticon.

As for Yuker, he is passionate about his beliefs but appears to be the only person in the history of the world not capable of sinning. We should all strive to be like him, I guess.;)

(Please note an additional silly winking emoticon...it was a joke)

Bosco

BHS
Feb 3rd 2009, 09:04 PM
I doubt it.

Some argue that in Ephesians 2:15, Paul is not asserting the abolition of Torah per se, but rather the abolition of man-made add-ons, or perversions, of it. I think the contextual evidence is pretty clear - Paul is talking about "actual" Torah here.

11Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit

First, let us address the matter of identifying the two groups described in this passage. I think that the two peoples that are "divided" here are the Jews and the Gentiles. One group is described as "Gentiles in the flesh", and "uncircumcision". Clearly this is the Gentiles. Paul contrasts this group with another group - the "circumcision in the flesh" people. Clearly, this second group is the Jews. He goes on to say that the first group - the Gentiles - are "excluded from Israel and foreigners to the covenants". This is a clear reference to the Jew-Gentile distinction. It is the Jew - the one circumcised in the flesh - who is under the covenant promises. So I can not see ambiguity here - Paul is describing a Jew-Gentile distinction.

Consider verse 12. Why was the Gentile excluded from citizenship in Israel? I suggest that the reason is Torah - the Torah was effectively a national charter for the Jews, it is Torah, not distortions to it, that marks out "citizenship in Israel". It is the abolition of the Torah that supports a sensible interpretation of the material from 14 on to 18, material which is all about the newly achieved unity of Jew and Gentile. How would one naturally bring Jew and Gentile together? Obviously by getting rid of the complex set of practices, ceremonies, and rituals which are for Jew and Jew only. The Torah, being for Jews only, effectively excluded the Gentile from membership in God's true family (Israel). After all, it is the Torah that marked the Jew out from her pagan neighbour.

Second, consider the Greek language used here. Paul uses the word "nomon" (rendered as “the law”) to refer to what is abolished. As has been argued in detail elsewhere, He uses this exact same word to obviously refer to Torah, not "man-made" ordnances, in these verses from Romans 3:

because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

The reader needs to ask him(her) self this question. How likely is it that the highly educated and articulate Paul would use the same "nomos" term in two places, to address the very same issue - how we are justified and what the implications of that are - and yet mean Torah in one place (Romans 3) and man-made ordnances in the other?

And to sharpen the case that the same issue is on the table in both places, notice how in the last 10 or verses of Romans 3, the justification matter has occasioned Paul to contemplate the implications re the Jew-Gentile divide. Note Romans 3:29-30:

Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

In both texts, the Jew-Gentile implications of justification are being addressed. How likely, then, is it that Paul would the same key word - nomos - in both places to denote two entirely different things?


The Ephesians text loses all unity and coherence on a reading where it is not Torah, but rather distortions of it that are being abolished. Most specifically, the abolition of (only) man-made perversions or add-ons to Torah in no way explains what Paul goes on to say about the Jew and the Gentile being brought together. How would the abolition of only the man-made add-ons to Torah bring about the unification of Jew and Gentile - if the very thing that actually demarcated the Jew from the Gentile, the Torah, remains intact? On such a view, the Torah remains as what it always was - a covenant charter for Jew and Jew only.

So if one is going to abolish something that would bring these groups together, as Paul says they have indeed been brought together, the abolution of man-man made distortions to the Torah will not do the job. Even with such distortions or add-ons abolished, the Torah itself with its myriad of prescriptions and practices specific to the Jew. would still stand as a clear boundary marker. Remember, Paul says that in Christ, "there is neither Jew nor Greek".

And what about verse 12 to 14? These verses will leave the reader anticipating that Paul will now go on to say something about how the Gentile has been brought into citizenship in Israel. To assert the abolition of only the man-made add-ons is hardly a credible next move for Paul, since such a claim leaves intact the very thing the marks the Jew from the Gentile - the Torah.

So the explanation that the Torah is being abolished reveals a coherent argument whereas the explanation that man-made add-ons (or perversions) will leave reader asking himself "How would the abolition of those things bring the Gentile into the family of God?" After all, the Torah does not need to be perverted or "added to" to make it a thing that demarcates Jew from Gentile - the Torah does that "as delivered from God" (by such things as Sabbath, purity laws, special holidays, etc.).

Sorry, I cannot agree. If the Torah was not a divisive factor between the Jew and the Gentile when it was given, why would it be here? The additions certainly did cause problems for the 1st century Gentiles. Paul speaks of this quite often. For your information "nomos" was used in a variety of situations with different meanings because there was no other word in the Greek to express what was meant. That is why the context of Paul's writings is so important.

God bless you,
BHS

bosco
Feb 3rd 2009, 09:48 PM
Sorry, I cannot agree. If the Torah was not a divisive factor between the Jew and the Gentile when it was given, why would it be here? The additions certainly did cause problems for the 1st century Gentiles. Paul speaks of this quite often. For your information "nomos" was used in a variety of situations with different meanings because there was no other word in the Greek to express what was meant. That is why the context of Paul's writings is so important.

God bless you,
BHS

I am pretty sure the question of Ephesians can be answered by looking up the meanings of the Greek word used in those verses. Regulations or ordinances, depending on your bible version, might be a good place to start.

Bosco

drew
Feb 3rd 2009, 10:32 PM
Sorry, I cannot agree. If the Torah was not a divisive factor between the Jew and the Gentile when it was given, why would it be here?
It was a divisive influence when it was given.

The prescriptions of Torah, by their very nature, marked the Jew out as a distinct special people, set aside in God's purposes. The "divisiveness" is part of God's plan.

The Torah could not help but divide Jew from Gentile - that is largely what is there to do.


For your information "nomos" was used in a variety of situations with different meanings because there was no other word in the Greek to express what was meant. That is why the context of Paul's writings is so important.
But this affirms my very argument - context shows that Paul uses nomos in exactly the same context in Ephesians 2 as he does elsewhere. That is largely what my post argues for. And in those other uses, it is clear that "nomos" denotes Torah - the written law.

I am not so much concerned with the general usage of "nomos". What is important for the argument is how Pau used the term. And Paul used it almost exclusively to denote the written law - the Torah.

BroRog
Feb 3rd 2009, 11:15 PM
I am pretty sure the question of Ephesians can be answered by looking up the meanings of the Greek word used in those verses. Regulations or ordinances, depending on your bible version, might be a good place to start.

Bosco


You are correct.

For instance, Paul talks about "the law of commandments in dogmasin", in the context of a "middle wall partition". This wall was a partition in the Temple complex that divided the Court of the Gentiles from the Court of Israel. The dogmasin: or decree, was a sign on the wall with an inscription forbidding the Gentiles from going any further upon penalty of death.

Paul's main point is to say that Jews and Gentiles have access to God through the Spirit, which unites them both in Christ. Metaphorically speaking, its as if Jesus broke down the "middle wall partition" to allow Gentiles access to the temple. In reality, his death on the cross opened the way for both Jew and Gentile to have access to God.

Paul's reference to breaking down the wall, and abolishing the law is strictly metaphorical. Christ didn't give Gentiles access to God by literally breaking down the middle wall or abolishing the "dogmasin" attached to the wall. He gave the Gentiles access to God via the Holy Spirit, not by literally breaking anything down or abolishing anything.

keck553
Feb 3rd 2009, 11:23 PM
Your change can be interpreted as being born again. Essentially, you are a new person which is basically what being born again is speaking of.

The shot and beer comment was a joke...hence the silly winking emoticon.

As for Yuker, he is passionate about his beliefs but appears to be the only person in the history of the world not capable of sinning. We should all strive to be like him, I guess.;)

(Please note an additional silly winking emoticon...it was a joke)

Bosco

Ok, got it. Sorry about that.

keck553
Feb 3rd 2009, 11:29 PM
You are correct.

For instance, Paul talks about "the law of commandments in dogmasin", in the context of a "middle wall partition". This wall was a partition in the Temple complex that divided the Court of the Gentiles from the Court of Israel. The dogmasin: or decree, was a sign on the wall with an inscription forbidding the Gentiles from going any further upon penalty of death.

Paul's main point is to say that Jews and Gentiles have access to God through the Spirit, which unites them both in Christ. Metaphorically speaking, its as if Jesus broke down the "middle wall partition" to allow Gentiles access to the temple. In reality, his death on the cross opened the way for both Jew and Gentile to have access to God.

Paul's reference to breaking down the wall, and abolishing the law is strictly metaphorical. Christ didn't give Gentiles access to God by literally breaking down the middle wall or abolishing the "dogmasin" attached to the wall. He gave the Gentiles access to God via the Holy Spirit, not by literally breaking anything down or abolishing anything.

Actually the court of Gentiles was a man made concoction. God didn't design that divide in the tabernacle. God has always welcomed the foreigner in His midst.

Paul was speaking to the arrogance of men.

Yukerboy
Feb 3rd 2009, 11:56 PM
Your change can be interpreted as being born again. Essentially, you are a new person which is basically what being born again is speaking of.

The shot and beer comment was a joke...hence the silly winking emoticon.

As for Yuker, he is passionate about his beliefs but appears to be the only person in the history of the world not capable of sinning. We should all strive to be like him, I guess.;)

(Please note an additional silly winking emoticon...it was a joke)

Bosco

Not one time will you see where the born again sinned.

As for me, I am the only one admitting I could still be sinning.

John says the born again cannot sin.
People all over this board claim they know they are born again.
Therefore, for the Bible to be right, they cannot sin.

Myself, I believe I am born again.
I may not be.
I will only know if I endure to the end.
If I do not endure, then all the time I thought I didn't sin, I did.
If I do endure, then yes, I do not sin.

keck553
Feb 4th 2009, 12:00 AM
Not one time will you see where the born again sinned.

As for me, I am the only one admitting I could still be sinning.

John says the born again cannot sin.
People all over this board claim they know they are born again.
Therefore, for the Bible to be right, they cannot sin.

Myself, I believe I am born again.
I may not be.
I will only know if I endure to the end.
If I do not endure, then all the time I thought I didn't sin, I did.
If I do endure, then yes, I do not sin.

By your standards, none of us are 'born again' and trust in God isn't counted as 'righteousness'.

Did I get that right?

BY the way, you do know that the concept of 'born from above' predates Jesus' ministry on earth, don't you?

Yukerboy
Feb 4th 2009, 12:05 AM
By your standards, none of us are 'born again' and trust in God isn't counted as 'righteousness'.

Did I get that right?

BY the way, you do know that the concept of 'born from above' predates Jesus' ministry on earth, don't you?

Many on this board claim they know they are born again.
IMHO, most of them are right, a few will be wrong.
I'm not denying the fact that people are born again.
I'm denying that people can know they are born again until they endure to the end.
However, the born again are born again at the moment they have saving faith.
In no way am I trying to say there are none who are born again.

If I know I am born again, but do not endure to the end, then I never knew I was born again, I just thought I was. This is not just my case, but the case of eveyone who believes they are born again.

keck553
Feb 4th 2009, 12:13 AM
Many on this board claim they know they are born again.
IMHO, most of them are right, a few will be wrong.
I'm not denying the fact that people are born again.
I'm denying that people can know they are born again until they endure to the end.
However, the born again are born again at the moment they have saving faith.
In no way am I trying to say there are none who are born again.

If I know I am born again, but do not endure to the end, then I never knew I was born again, I just thought I was. This is not just my case, but the case of eveyone who believes they are born again.

whew. That's not exactly what the concept means, at least according to how Yeshua referred to it. I think you would really be blessed if you studied the Jewish concept of mikvahs.

BroRog
Feb 4th 2009, 12:21 AM
Actually the court of Gentiles was a man made concoction. God didn't design that divide in the tabernacle. God has always welcomed the foreigner in His midst.

Paul was speaking to the arrogance of men.

Whether the ordinance was God given or a piece of legislation established by Israel's leaders, the point is still the same.

BroRog
Feb 4th 2009, 12:23 AM
Many on this board claim they know they are born again.
IMHO, most of them are right, a few will be wrong.
I'm not denying the fact that people are born again.
I'm denying that people can know they are born again until they endure to the end.
However, the born again are born again at the moment they have saving faith.
In no way am I trying to say there are none who are born again.

If I know I am born again, but do not endure to the end, then I never knew I was born again, I just thought I was. This is not just my case, but the case of eveyone who believes they are born again.

Peter, James, and Paul tell us how a born again believer can know they are going to persevere to the end. We don't have to wait. In fact, God makes sure we don't wait long. I can explain this if you want.

Yukerboy
Feb 4th 2009, 02:23 AM
Peter, James, and Paul tell us how a born again believer can know they are going to persevere to the end. We don't have to wait. In fact, God makes sure we don't wait long. I can explain this if you want.

You can try, but as one who believes in eternal security, you will just confirm what I already agree with Scripture that the born again will be saved. Not one will be lost. They are sealed with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee. Yada yada yada.

I agree with all that.

Peter, James, and Paul tell us the born again will persevere to the end. That is not the question. The question is, how does one know they are born again? The answer is, by persevering to the end.


whew. That's not exactly what the concept means, at least according to how Yeshua referred to it. I think you would really be blessed if you studied the Jewish concept of mikvahs.

Would Nicodemus, teacher of Israel, a rabbi, and a Pharisee know the Jewish concept of mikvahs? Yet, he was told by Christ that they would not be able to tell where the born again came from or where they were going, much like the wind. Christ, in the language that the rabbi could understand, told him that one must be born of water ("tevilah", a cleansing to purity) and of spirit (the Spirit gives birth to spirit).

BHS
Feb 4th 2009, 02:24 AM
It was a divisive influence when it was given.

The prescriptions of Torah, by their very nature, marked the Jew out as a distinct special people, set aside in God's purposes. The "divisiveness" is part of God's plan.

The Torah could not help but divide Jew from Gentile - that is largely what is there to do.

Do you have scripture to back up this thought? I doubt it, because the Torah says otherwise.




But this affirms my very argument - context shows that Paul uses nomos in exactly the same context in Ephesians 2 as he does elsewhere. That is largely what my post argues for. And in those other uses, it is clear that "nomos" denotes Torah - the written law.

I am not so much concerned with the general usage of "nomos". What is important for the argument is how Pau used the term. And Paul used it almost exclusively to denote the written law - the Torah.

Again, I don't have statistics on how many times Paul used the word "nomos", but it is plain from context that in many instances Paul was speaking about legalism, rather than the "law". You may equate the two, but they are not the same.

Blessings,
BHS

Firstfruits
Feb 4th 2009, 07:36 AM
FirstFruits, I did not say we are not born again until Christ returns. I was replying to Yuker. He said nobody born again can sin. To which I posted 3 of many instances in the NT where members of the church, or members of Christ (same thing) left because they fell prey to seducing spirits, doctrines of men, so forth. My point was, if he is right, and seeing scripture shows members of the family of God turning away, being born again must not be something that happens until Christ's return.

I don't believe that...I believe that when you come in faith believing and repent of your sins and self centered life, that we put on a new creation, are a new person in Christ, the old things die away. Therefore, we are born again at that point.

Bosco

Understood,

God bless you!

Firstfruits

bosco
Feb 4th 2009, 01:02 PM
Not one time will you see where the born again sinned.

As for me, I am the only one admitting I could still be sinning.

John says the born again cannot sin.
People all over this board claim they know they are born again.
Therefore, for the Bible to be right, they cannot sin.

Myself, I believe I am born again.
I may not be.
I will only know if I endure to the end.
If I do not endure, then all the time I thought I didn't sin, I did.
If I do endure, then yes, I do not sin.

Yuker, you know if you sin or not. The bible is what defines that understanding. If you don't backhand your wife in an arguement, steal things from work, are not of a sober mind (too much drink), are a murderer, etc. etc. etc.. Sinning is not some spiritual thing when it comes to you and I and everyone else, we have been given rules we are to follow. Yes, I understand we are born into sin, but that isn't the same as voluntary and involunatry sin.

There are only three references to being born again in the NT. The first two by Christ and no time frame as to when this occurs can be determined by his sayings. But the third gives us insight.

1Peter 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

So in truth Yuker, I am not sure we can say with certainty that being born again occurs when we repent and become a member of the family of God. There is no time frame in the two verses when born again is mentioned by Christ, and in the third, it seems tied into being incorruptable, which doesn't happen until Christ returns. (incorruptible is a word that appears only 4 times in the NT and seems tied more to Christ's return-when we are given an incorruptible crown or as Paul said, made incorruptibe)

This is different than I have believed in the past, I guess it is something I never looked into and took for granted. I will have to study this further.

It does seem you are right, those born again seemingly can't sin.


Bosco

bosco
Feb 4th 2009, 01:09 PM
By your standards, none of us are 'born again' and trust in God isn't counted as 'righteousness'.

Did I get that right?

BY the way, you do know that the concept of 'born from above' predates Jesus' ministry on earth, don't you?

I didn't know that, can you reference it?

Yesterday Keck I posted to FirstFruits and stated I believed we can be born again now. I am not denying that, BUT, if we look up the 3 instances that have the phrase "born again" in the NT, and the 4 times the word "incorruptible" appears, there is no time frame given. It actually seems to lean to being when Christ returns and we are made incorruptible. I will hold off saying that is the case, but it might be worth some folks here looking those verses up and seeing if we can explore it a little.

Bosco

Firstfruits
Feb 4th 2009, 01:53 PM
Yuker, you know if you sin or not. The bible is what defines that understanding. If you don't backhand your wife in an arguement, steal things from work, are not of a sober mind (too much drink), are a murderer, etc. etc. etc.. Sinning is not some spiritual thing when it comes to you and I and everyone else, we have been given rules we are to follow. Yes, I understand we are born into sin, but that isn't the same as voluntary and involunatry sin.

There are only three references to being born again in the NT. The first two by Christ and no time frame as to when this occurs can be determined by his sayings. But the third gives us insight.

1Peter 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

So in truth Yuker, I am not sure we can say with certainty that being born again occurs when we repent and become a member of the family of God. There is no time frame in the two verses when born again is mentioned by Christ, and in the third, it seems tied into being incorruptable, which doesn't happen until Christ returns. (incorruptible is a word that appears only 4 times in the NT and seems tied more to Christ's return-when we are given an incorruptible crown or as Paul said, made incorruptibe)

This is different than I have believed in the past, I guess it is something I never looked into and took for granted. I will have to study this further.

It does seem you are right, those born again seemingly can't sin.


Bosco


Those that do the will of God and believe, are the sons of God;

Mk 3:35 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=35) For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Rom 12:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

If we are not doing that now then we can say we are not born again.

Rom 8:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Are we or are we not Gods children?

Firstfruits

Yukerboy
Feb 4th 2009, 02:07 PM
Yuker, you know if you sin or not. The bible is what defines that understanding. If you don't backhand your wife in an arguement, steal things from work, are not of a sober mind (too much drink), are a murderer, etc. etc. etc.. Sinning is not some spiritual thing when it comes to you and I and everyone else, we have been given rules we are to follow. Yes, I understand we are born into sin, but that isn't the same as voluntary and involunatry sin.

Sin is transgression of the law.
The law was made for the unrighteous.
The born again are made righteous.
The born again are no longer under law.
The born again cannot transgress a law they are no longer under.
It is therefore impossible for the born again to sin, no matter what they do.

If one who is born again goes out and murders somebody, he did not sin.
If one who is born again backhands his wife, he did not sin.
If one who is born again steals, he did not sin.

If I am born again, I am led by the spirit.
If I am born again, everything I do is permissible, though not everything I do will be profitable.
If I am born again, my mind is controlled by the Spirit.
If I am born again, God works in me to will and to act.
If I am born again, I will do as God desires, even if it seems like sin to someone else.

BroRog
Feb 4th 2009, 02:48 PM
Peter, James, and Paul tell us the born again will persevere to the end. That is not the question. The question is, how does one know they are born again? The answer is, by persevering to the end.

If you read my post again, you will see that I said we can know NOW whether or not we will make it to the end. A Christian doesn't have to wait until the end. But I guess you neither read other people's posts nor care to understand what the Apostles said.

Firstfruits
Feb 4th 2009, 02:59 PM
Sin is transgression of the law.
The law was made for the unrighteous.
The born again are made righteous.
The born again are no longer under law.
The born again cannot transgress a law they are no longer under.
It is therefore impossible for the born again to sin, no matter what they do.

If one who is born again goes out and murders somebody, he did not sin.
If one who is born again backhands his wife, he did not sin.
If one who is born again steals, he did not sin.

If I am born again, I am led by the spirit.
If I am born again, everything I do is permissible, though not everything I do will be profitable.
If I am born again, my mind is controlled by the Spirit.
If I am born again, God works in me to will and to act.
If I am born again, I will do as God desires, even if it seems like sin to someone else.

How can you say you are born again and then say the following?

If one who is born again goes out and murders somebody, he did not sin.
If one who is born again backhands his wife, he did not sin.
If one who is born again steals, he did not sin.

This is a contradiction of the scriptures;

Gal 5:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Do you believe that which is written?

Firstfruits

bosco
Feb 4th 2009, 03:03 PM
Those that do the will of God and believe, are the sons of God;

Mk 3:35 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=35) For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Rom 12:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=12&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

If we are not doing that now then we can say we are not born again.

Rom 8:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Are we or are we not Gods children?

Firstfruits

Of course First Fruits. All I am saying is that "born again" appears 3 times in scripture and there is no clear indication as to when that happens. I have NO opinion right now...I am simply admitting that I may be wrong in how I viewed it to date.

A similar question would be, are you "incorruptible?" The answer is no. Paul wrote that when Christ returns we are made incorruptable meaning that today, we still can be. This is why we see verses of folks departing from the faith, giving way to seducing spirits, things like that.

Maybe...I am not saying it is or isn't...just saying MAYBE when we are made incorruptible is when we are born again. I am going to study this more that's all.

Bosco

Firstfruits
Feb 4th 2009, 03:29 PM
Of course First Fruits. All I am saying is that "born again" appears 3 times in scripture and there is no clear indication as to when that happens. I have NO opinion right now...I am simply admitting that I may be wrong in how I viewed it to date.

A similar question would be, are you "incorruptible?" The answer is no. Paul wrote that when Christ returns we are made incorruptable meaning that today, we still can be. This is why we see verses of folks departing from the faith, giving way to seducing spirits, things like that.

Maybe...I am not saying it is or isn't...just saying MAYBE when we are made incorruptible is when we are born again. I am going to study this more that's all.

Bosco

If the following applies to you then you must be born again.

Rom 6:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Are you not walking in newness of life or are you unsure?

Firstfruits

bosco
Feb 4th 2009, 03:40 PM
If the following applies to you then you must be born again.

Rom 6:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Are you not walking in newness of life or are you unsure?

Firstfruits

Yesterday I wrote you a post making the same point as to the definition of being born again. But, last night I decided to look up the phrase born again in scripture and like I said, it was used 3 times. Twice by Christ with no indication of timing. The last, in 1 Peter, somewhat tied it to the word incorruptible. So I looked up the word incorruptible in the NT and it appears 4 times.

Paul wrote that we are to prove all things First Fruits. So all I am doing is reasoning through this and not jumping to any conclusions. I am keeping an open mind is all I am trying to say.

While I see "being raised to walk in the newness of Christ" as possibly the definition of "born again," I must admit the tie to incorruption makes some sense. Right now we are still corruptable, when he returns we will be incorruptable....that too sounds like being born again and doesn't conflict with how Christ spoke concerning being born again.

Let's not argue this, lets study it together. Isn't that what this forum is for; growth, edification, knowledge?

Bosco

Firstfruits
Feb 4th 2009, 04:05 PM
Yesterday I wrote you a post making the same point as to the definition of being born again. But, last night I decided to look up the phrase born again in scripture and like I said, it was used 3 times. Twice by Christ with no indication of timing. The last, in 1 Peter, somewhat tied it to the word incorruptible. So I looked up the word incorruptible in the NT and it appears 4 times.

Paul wrote that we are to prove all things First Fruits. So all I am doing is reasoning through this and not jumping to any conclusions. I am keeping an open mind is all I am trying to say.

While I see "being raised to walk in the newness of Christ" as possibly the definition of "born again," I must admit the tie to incorruption makes some sense. Right now we are still corruptable, when he returns we will be incorruptable....that too sounds like being born again and doesn't conflict with how Christ spoke concerning being born again.

Let's not argue this, lets study it together. Isn't that what this forum is for; growth, edification, knowledge?

Bosco

Dear Bosco,

I hope the following scriptures will help to show that if we are truly dead to sin and now alive in the Spirit that we are born again.

Rom 7:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Rom 6:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

We must know if we are dead or alive.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Yukerboy
Feb 4th 2009, 04:09 PM
If you read my post again, you will see that I said we can know NOW whether or not we will make it to the end. A Christian doesn't have to wait until the end. But I guess you neither read other people's posts nor care to understand what the Apostles said.

I read what you said. If you think you can prove that, then feel free. I believe you will quote Scripture that tells us the born again will endure to the end. That is not the question. The question is does one know if they have been born again or does one believe they are born again.

But hey, I'm all ears, give it a shot.


How can you say you are born again and then say the following?

If one who is born again goes out and murders somebody, he did not sin.
If one who is born again backhands his wife, he did not sin.
If one who is born again steals, he did not sin.

This is a contradiction of the scriptures;

Gal 5:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Do you believe that which is written?

Firstfruits

Absolutely I believe what is written.

Do you believe what is written when Paul says those who do the works of the flesh shall not inherit the kingdom of God AND that it is no longer the born again that does the works of the flesh, but the sin abiding in the flesh that does it?

Or, was Paul wrong?

Firstfruits
Feb 4th 2009, 04:21 PM
I read what you said. If you think you can prove that, then feel free. I believe you will quote Scripture that tells us the born again will endure to the end. That is not the question. The question is does one know if they have been born again or does one believe they are born again.

But hey, I'm all ears, give it a shot.



Absolutely I believe what is written.

Do you believe what is written when Paul says those who do the works of the flesh shall not inherit the kingdom of God AND that it is no longer the born again that does the works of the flesh, but the sin abiding in the flesh that does it?

Or, was Paul wrong?

You have just asked a question and I have already given you the answer in my post.

Gal 5:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

These are the works of the flesh.

Firstfruits

keck553
Feb 4th 2009, 04:45 PM
Whether the ordinance was God given or a piece of legislation established by Israel's leaders, the point is still the same.

Well BroRog, then how do you explain the adoption of those who sojourned with Israel, Ruth and many other Gentiles who approached God? There never was a 'dividing wall' between God and man.

So, let's look at the Scripture itself.

Perhaps using the physical wall in the Temple was a bad analogy. I was attempting to make another point with it. Actually I don't think Paul was referring to the physical wall, other than perhaps metaphorically. First of all, the physical wall was still standing at the time Paul wrote Ephesians, and the terminology he uses to descrive the wall is different than the terms regularly used in that time for the dividing wall in the Temple, terms that Paul would be familiar with.

Also. the Greek "fragmos" was used in the 1st Century to identify the Oral Torah as a 'wall' or 'fence' around the written Torah, and the Pharisees were seen as 'builders of the wall.' Aspects of the Oral Torah, not the written Torah laid the foundation for the strick separation between Jew and non-Jew (in fact Peter's animal dream was about this very subject - the Oral Torah (not the written Torah) forbidding him to dine with Gentiles).

The thread throught the Gospels and the writings is pretty evident - man made rules not only separated Jews from God, they separated Jews from Gentiles in an unGodly way. I suggest teh dividing wall which was abolished by Messiah was the Rabbinic laws which had enforced a separation between Jew and Gentile in opposition to the written Torah.

The OT gives clear instructions against erecting barriers to separate Israel from the nations. The foreigner who desired to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was to be welcomed into the community and treated with teh same respect as was given to the native born:

(Exo 22:21) "You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

(Exo 23:9) "You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt.

(Lev 19:33) 'When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.
(Lev 19:34) 'The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.

(Lev 25:35) 'Now in case a countryman of yours becomes poor and his means with regard to you falter, then you are to sustain him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you.

(Deu 26:12) "When you have finished paying all the tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow, that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.

These foreigners were also to be given FULL participation in matters of Torah and Torah-life (Sabbath, gleanings, justice, festivals, worship and prayer in the Temple, And the prophets pronounce judgement agains anyone who neglects their God-given responsibilites to the 'stranger' - on the same level as orphans and widows:

(Isa 56:3) Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely separate me from His people." Nor let the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree."

(Jer 22:3) 'Thus says the LORD, "Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

(Zec 7:10) and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.'

The Rabbinic literature is not consistent on the matter of relations between the Jew and non-Jew. Clearly then, it was an issue of debate is the 1st Century because of the opposing Rabbinic views. In practice, the Rabbinic laws (not written Torah) of purity raised a strong wall of separation between the Jew and the Gentile, but this was not God's intent. With the emphasis put upon purity by most Rabbis, separation from those things which rendered a person unclean was inevitable. And, when Gentiles were added to that list, the wall was built between the Jews and the Gentiles. Accoding to Oral law (not written Torah), just casual contact with a Gentile would render a person unclean. God never said this.

It is no suprise Paul was abiding to the true intent of the Torah as written in Scripture. Just like Jesus, Paul preached what God intended, not what religious leaders desired.

BroRog
Feb 4th 2009, 05:09 PM
Well BroRog, then how do you explain the adoption of those who sojourned with Israel, Ruth and many other Gentiles who approached God? There never was a 'dividing wall' between God and man.

You must understand. My comments only apply to the Ephesians passage. That's it. In Paul's day, there was a wall that separated the Court of the Gentiles from the Court of Israel. And on that wall was a sign. Paul is using both the wall and the sign as a metaphor to make his point.

BroRog
Feb 4th 2009, 05:14 PM
I read what you said. If you think you can prove that, then feel free. I believe you will quote Scripture that tells us the born again will endure to the end.

You are not listening. How do you know what I'm going to say?


That is not the question. The question is does one know if they have been born again or does one believe they are born again.First of all, in Biblical terms "know" and "believe" are the same thing. Second of all, I'm trying to tell you, that God has provided a way that any individual can know with an absolute certainty whether he or she, personally, is born again or not.


But hey, I'm all ears, give it a shot.

I don't believe you.

bosco
Feb 4th 2009, 06:16 PM
You must understand. My comments only apply to the Ephesians passage. That's it. In Paul's day, there was a wall that separated the Court of the Gentiles from the Court of Israel. And on that wall was a sign. Paul is using both the wall and the sign as a metaphor to make his point.

Sorry to butt in BroRog, but I have been reading along with your discussion between you and Keck. I think all he is saying is that wall was not God ordained, that it was put there by man according to man, and stands outside of any law dictated by God. It was a literal wall, than in many ways was similar to others rules of that day also dictated by man and not God. Not going into a Gentile's home, or not being seen eating with them, the wall was very much like those man made decrees. At least, I see it that way.

Bosco

BroRog
Feb 4th 2009, 06:20 PM
Sorry to butt in BroRog, but I have been reading along with your discussion between you and Keck. I think all he is saying is that wall was not God ordained, that it was put there by man according to man, and stands outside of any law dictated by God. It was a literal wall, than in many ways was similar to others rules of that day also dictated by man and not God. Not going into a Gentile's home, or not being seen eating with them, the wall was very much like those man made decrees. At least, I see it that way.

Bosco

Thanks for the explanation. Appreciate it. :)

bosco
Feb 4th 2009, 06:22 PM
Dear Bosco,

I hope the following scriptures will help to show that if we are truly dead to sin and now alive in the Spirit that we are born again.

Rom 7:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Rom 6:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

We must know if we are dead or alive.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

I am beginning to wonder if this discussion is similar to asking whether or not we are saved now. There isn't anything that says when you come to God we are at that moment saved, instead, we see quotes like, "you will be saved," or "you shall be saved," or "he that endures till the end shall be saved."

In any event, I think it more than safe to say that, "through faith we are born again," and "through faith (and God's grace) we are saved." The timing issue on those two statements should be left for each of us to discern.

Bosco

Yukerboy
Feb 4th 2009, 06:43 PM
You have just asked a question and I have already given you the answer in my post.

Gal 5:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

These are the works of the flesh.

Firstfruits

I believe that. The born again walk in the Spirit and so not do the works of the flesh.

If the born again murders but had no desire to murder, it wasn't the born again that murdered, but the sin living within the born again that murdered (Romans 7:20)

Yukerboy
Feb 4th 2009, 06:47 PM
You are not listening. How do you know what I'm going to say?

First of all, in Biblical terms "know" and "believe" are the same thing. Second of all, I'm trying to tell you, that God has provided a way that any individual can know with an absolute certainty whether he or she, personally, is born again or not.

I don't believe you.

You don't have to believe me, but I am willing to see where you believe "God has provided a way that any individual can know with an absolute certainty whether he or she, personally, is born again or not."

I only see one way, and that is by enduring to the end.

As for the Bible, believing and knowing are not the same. The ones represented by the rocky soil believed for a while and then fell away. They did not know for a while and then forget.

Yukerboy
Feb 4th 2009, 06:53 PM
I am beginning to wonder if this discussion is similar to asking whether or not we are saved now. There isn't anything that says when you come to God we are at that moment saved, instead, we see quotes like, "you will be saved," or "you shall be saved," or "he that endures till the end shall be saved."

In any event, I think it more than safe to say that, "through faith we are born again," and "through faith (and God's grace) we are saved." The timing issue on those two statements should be left for each of us to discern.

Bosco

It all depends on what the saved is referring to.

Some verses refer to those who have been saved. Saved from what? Saved from their sins.

Other verses refer to those that shall be saved. Saved from what? Saved from condemnation.

The born again have been saved from their sins and will be saved from condemnation. The born again have been born again of incorruptible seed (God's seed), but have not yet been raised in a spiritual body.

BroRog
Feb 4th 2009, 07:03 PM
You don't have to believe me, but I am willing to see where you believe "God has provided a way that any individual can know with an absolute certainty whether he or she, personally, is born again or not."

I only see one way, and that is by enduring to the end.

As for the Bible, believing and knowing are not the same. The ones represented by the rocky soil believed for a while and then fell away. They did not know for a while and then forget.

I thought you were there when we had this discussion.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1884592&highlight=perseverance+Peter+Paul+James#post188459 2

This post is found under "Perseverance of the Saints" in the "Bible Chat" forum. Posted on Nov. 28 2008. I could cut and paste it here if you want.

The bottom line summary is this. Genuine faith is guaranteed to last. God tests our faith so that we know for certain that it is genuine.

keck553
Feb 4th 2009, 07:18 PM
You must understand. My comments only apply to the Ephesians passage. That's it. In Paul's day, there was a wall that separated the Court of the Gentiles from the Court of Israel. And on that wall was a sign. Paul is using both the wall and the sign as a metaphor to make his point.

Yeppers. I was just trying to separate the God stuff from the man stuff. Paul is speaking to the man-stuff.

keck553
Feb 4th 2009, 07:26 PM
It all depends on what the saved is referring to.

Some verses refer to those who have been saved. Saved from what? Saved from their sins.

Other verses refer to those that shall be saved. Saved from what? Saved from condemnation.

The born again have been saved from their sins and will be saved from condemnation. The born again have been born again of incorruptible seed (God's seed), but have not yet been raised in a spiritual body.

It's a little deeper than that Yuker. What you are saved from is slavery to sin and reborn into a bond-servent of Messiah. Physically, the Hebrews were saved from Egyptian bondage, but that didn't wipe away thier internalized slavery to Egypt. Even though they were indeed free from Egypt, they still carreid with them the scales of that bondage, whether it was idols or carried over dependancies of their former Egyptian providers. An entire generation had to be spent to 'clean' Egypt out of them.

When we are 'born from above', our 'Egypt' doesn't just disappear. We too drag lots of habits, idols and worldly ways behind us, just as those Hebrews did.

Firstfruits
Feb 4th 2009, 08:08 PM
I believe that. The born again walk in the Spirit and so not do the works of the flesh.

If the born again murders but had no desire to murder, it wasn't the born again that murdered, but the sin living within the born again that murdered (Romans 7:20)

Gal 5:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Anyone that murders shall not inherit the kingdom of God, do you believe that the murder will be judged separate from the person that committed it?

that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Firstfruits

theBelovedDisciple
Feb 4th 2009, 08:59 PM
I believe that. The born again walk in the Spirit and so not do the works of the flesh.

If the born again murders but had no desire to murder, it wasn't the born again that murdered, but the sin living within the born again that murdered (Romans 7:20)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Not to derail this thread but haven't you posted in the past.. that 'one' cannot know he/she is born again.. until the end.. so how can you know this..without even knowing your born again? as your statements in the past refer to....

How can you 'know' you are 'walking in the Spirit as a born again is called to do? and then 'not' 'know' your even born again till the end ????l

:confused:confused:confused:hmm:

Yukerboy
Feb 5th 2009, 01:07 AM
Gal 5:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Anyone that murders shall not inherit the kingdom of God, do you believe that the murder will be judged separate from the person that committed it?

that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Firstfruits

True. Those who do these things.

Yet Paul tells us that "it is no longer I who do it, but the sin abiding in my flesh that does it."


Not to derail this thread but haven't you posted in the past.. that 'one' cannot know he/she is born again.. until the end.. so how can you know this..without even knowing your born again? as your statements in the past refer to....

How can you 'know' you are 'walking in the Spirit as a born again is called to do? and then 'not' 'know' your even born again till the end ????l

You can't know, you can only believe. Knowledge comes by enduring to the end.

I believe I am born again and that means I believe I am walking in the Spirit. Therefore, anything I do I believe not to be sin.

The fact is, if I was never born again and fall away, what was sin is still sin as I still transgress the law that I would be under if I am not born again.

ProjectPeter
Feb 5th 2009, 04:01 AM
True. Those who do these things.

Yet Paul tells us that "it is no longer I who do it, but the sin abiding in my flesh that does it."



You can't know, you can only believe. Knowledge comes by enduring to the end.

I believe I am born again and that means I believe I am walking in the Spirit. Therefore, anything I do I believe not to be sin.

The fact is, if I was never born again and fall away, what was sin is still sin as I still transgress the law that I would be under if I am not born again.
But if you are born again... even though you might commit the same acts as the one not born again... to you, because you are born again, it is now no longer sin. Just sinful acts but acts not accounted to you because you are born again? Sound about right?

Firstfruits
Feb 5th 2009, 10:08 AM
True. Those who do these things.

Yet Paul tells us that "it is no longer I who do it, but the sin abiding in my flesh that does it."



You can't know, you can only believe. Knowledge comes by enduring to the end.

I believe I am born again and that means I believe I am walking in the Spirit. Therefore, anything I do I believe not to be sin.

The fact is, if I was never born again and fall away, what was sin is still sin as I still transgress the law that I would be under if I am not born again.

Knowing who Paul was, and what he has said and believed, when did he say that he had sinned?

Rom 6:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Gal 2:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) I am crucified with Christ: neverthless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Firstfruits

bosco
Feb 5th 2009, 02:03 PM
It all depends on what the saved is referring to.

Some verses refer to those who have been saved. Saved from what? Saved from their sins.

Other verses refer to those that shall be saved. Saved from what? Saved from condemnation.

The born again have been saved from their sins and will be saved from condemnation. The born again have been born again of incorruptible seed (God's seed), but have not yet been raised in a spiritual body.

And sometimes saved isn't saved. I think Paul wrote in Romans 9 quoting Isaiah where he said the remnant of Israel will be saved. But the actual quote in Isaiah says of the remnant that they will be "returned," as in, "to the land of Israel."

Bosco

Yukerboy
Feb 5th 2009, 10:46 PM
But if you are born again... even though you might commit the same acts as the one not born again... to you, because you are born again, it is now no longer sin. Just sinful acts but acts not accounted to you because you are born again? Sound about right?

Acts that used to be sinful are no longer sinful if I am born again. Correct.


Knowing who Paul was, and what he has said and believed, when did he say that he had sinned?

Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: neverthless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Firstfruits




That contradicts nothing I have said.

The old man of the born again was crucified. The body of sin (the flesh) was destroyed (reborn in the spirit), the flesh is no longer us. We do not serve sin, the born agains' minds are controlled by the Holy Spirit.

The life the born again live in the flesh (the body of sin where we no longer abide but are held captive by). The born again live by faith.


And sometimes saved isn't saved. I think Paul wrote in Romans 9 quoting Isaiah where he said the remnant of Israel will be saved. But the actual quote in Isaiah says of the remnant that they will be "returned," as in, "to the land of Israel

Saved can mean one of two things in the New Testament.

Past tense = saved from sins.
Future tense = saved from condemnation.

ProjectPeter
Feb 5th 2009, 10:55 PM
Acts that used to be sinful are no longer sinful if I am born again. Correct.
Okay... so as a heathen is was called fornication but now that you are born again... it is born-again fornication therefore it isn't sin. Fornication is allowed for the born again.

The born again thief is no longer sinning even though he still may be a thief... it just don't count any longer.

Etc etc.

You do know that Paul would call that sort of stuff words like heresy?

keck553
Feb 5th 2009, 11:36 PM
I think this thread needs a definition of sin.

ProjectPeter
Feb 5th 2009, 11:39 PM
I think this thread needs a definition of sin.
If folks need sin defined for them then they don't even need to be reading this thread or any other on the board. They need to turn off their computer and shut themselves up in the Word and learn. Things get stranger and stranger as time travels on. :)

keck553
Feb 6th 2009, 12:01 AM
If folks need sin defined for them then they don't even need to be reading this thread or any other on the board. They need to turn off their computer and shut themselves up in the Word and learn. Things get stranger and stranger as time travels on. :)

LOL. well, when I start to see hyphenated - sin it raises some really red red flags. I guess I can not understand how someone can call a sin 'not sin'...

BHS
Feb 6th 2009, 01:34 AM
It was a divisive influence when it was given.

The prescriptions of Torah, by their very nature, marked the Jew out as a distinct special people, set aside in God's purposes. The "divisiveness" is part of God's plan.

The Torah could not help but divide Jew from Gentile - that is largely what is there to do.

True, the Torah distinguished the Israelites from the rest of the world because of the wisdom seen in their commandments, giving them a light to an unbelieving world. However, the non-Jew who wanted to join himself to Israel, did so, without animosity. He was never called a "Jew", though he was treated as one who was native born. That was "Jew" and "Gentile" living and working together as one -- as Israel (a mixed multitude) following God. He was known instead as the "ger", the "sojourner" and the "alien" in their midst. There was no divisiveness in the plan of God. And when Jesus prayed that they might be one, He knew it to be the will of the Father. It was men who brought the divisiveness and enmity between "Jew" and "Gentile", not God and not His Torah.

Divisiveness occurred in the 1st century when Jews wanted Gentile Christians to become Jews (with their man-made traditions), rather than accept them as they were -- those who were grafted into Israel.

Blessings,
BHS

Yukerboy
Feb 6th 2009, 01:23 PM
Okay... so as a heathen is was called fornication but now that you are born again... it is born-again fornication therefore it isn't sin. Fornication is allowed for the born again.

The born again thief is no longer sinning even though he still may be a thief... it just don't count any longer.

Etc etc.

You do know that Paul would call that sort of stuff words like heresy?

Sin defined: Transgression of the law. (1 John 3:3)

Let's say someone who is born again fornicates.

The born again do not sin (1 John 3:9)
The sin abiding in their flesh does it (Romans 7:20)
All is permissible to the born again (1 Corinthians 10:23)
All is not beneficial (1 Corinthians 10:23)
The born again are not under law (Galatians 5:18)
The law was made for the unrighteous (1 Timothy 1:9)
The born again are made righteous (Romans 5:19)
The born again cannot transgress the law (1 John 3:9)

Yeah, I think I'm pretty sure what Paul would call that stuff. It isn't sin if one is born again. It is sin if one is not.

ProjectPeter
Feb 6th 2009, 01:25 PM
LOL. well, when I start to see hyphenated - sin it raises some really red red flags. I guess I can not understand how someone can call a sin 'not sin'...
Yeah... it is something else... no doubt.

ProjectPeter
Feb 6th 2009, 01:29 PM
Sin defined: Transgression of the law. (1 John 3:3)

Let's say someone who is born again fornicates.

The born again do not sin (1 John 3:9)
The sin abiding in their flesh does it (Romans 7:20)
All is permissible to the born again (1 Corinthians 10:23)
All is not beneficial (1 Corinthians 10:23)
The born again are not under law (Galatians 5:18)
The law was made for the unrighteous (1 Timothy 1:9)
The born again are made righteous (Romans 5:19)
The born again cannot transgress the law (1 John 3:9)

Yeah, I think I'm pretty sure what Paul would call that stuff. It isn't sin if one is born again. It is sin if one is not.
Yeah... he would tell them "do not be deceived... you are going to hell if you practice these things." No doubt. Do me a favor and start a thread in chat to ministers when you read this. I want to talk to you in there.

Firstfruits
Feb 6th 2009, 01:45 PM
Sin defined: Transgression of the law. (1 John 3:3)

Let's say someone who is born again fornicates.

The born again do not sin (1 John 3:9)
The sin abiding in their flesh does it (Romans 7:20)
All is permissible to the born again (1 Corinthians 10:23)
All is not beneficial (1 Corinthians 10:23)
The born again are not under law (Galatians 5:18)
The law was made for the unrighteous (1 Timothy 1:9)
The born again are made righteous (Romans 5:19)
The born again cannot transgress the law (1 John 3:9)

Yeah, I think I'm pretty sure what Paul would call that stuff. It isn't sin if one is born again. It is sin if one is not.

Rom 6:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Does this not say that the righteous can sin since they are without the law?

Firstfruits

Yukerboy
Feb 6th 2009, 01:48 PM
Yeah... he would tell them "do not be deceived... you are going to hell if you practice these things." No doubt. Do me a favor and start a thread in chat to ministers when you read this. I want to talk to you in there.

If he would say that, then He could contradict Christ.

The born again are the elect.
All of the elect are gatherd to Christ.
The elect (born again) cannot be deceived.

Putting the verse "in context", Paul states:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
The elect cannot be deceived, so this message is to the born again and sinners alike.
Some of the born again were those described as not inheriting the kingdom of God.
The born again have been washed, sanctified, and justified by the Spirit in the name of Christ.

The born again have been washed. What God cleans no one can make unclean.

Yukerboy
Feb 6th 2009, 01:51 PM
Rom 6:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Does this not say that the righteous can sin since they are without the law?

Firstfruits

The better translation is "by no means".

By no means would mean impossible. By no means shows that sinning while not under law is not an option.

ProjectPeter
Feb 6th 2009, 01:56 PM
If he would say that, then He could contradict Christ.

The born again are the elect.
All of the elect are gatherd to Christ.
The elect (born again) cannot be deceived.

Putting the verse "in context", Paul states:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
The elect cannot be deceived, so this message is to the born again and sinners alike.
Some of the born again were those described as not inheriting the kingdom of God.
The born again have been washed, sanctified, and justified by the Spirit in the name of Christ.

The born again have been washed. What God cleans no one can make unclean.
Yuke,

If they are clean then they ain't doing those things. If they are practicing those things then they will not inherit the kingdom of God. When Jesus was crucified it isn't that God got blood in His eyes so He can't see any longer. Don't be deceived. It is sin and it will send you to hell.

Firstfruits
Feb 6th 2009, 02:00 PM
If he would say that, then He could contradict Christ.

The born again are the elect.
All of the elect are gatherd to Christ.
The elect (born again) cannot be deceived.

Putting the verse "in context", Paul states:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
The elect cannot be deceived, so this message is to the born again and sinners alike.
Some of the born again were those described as not inheriting the kingdom of God.
The born again have been washed, sanctified, and justified by the Spirit in the name of Christ.

The born again have been washed. What God cleans no one can make unclean.

If You do any of the following then you are saying that you are under the law since only those under the law do such things.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

If you are washed and you are sanctified then you will not do such things.

Unless you are not being led of the Spirit.

Gal 5:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Firstfruits

Yukerboy
Feb 6th 2009, 04:56 PM
Yuke,

If they are clean then they ain't doing those things. If they are practicing those things then they will not inherit the kingdom of God. When Jesus was crucified it isn't that God got blood in His eyes so He can't see any longer. Don't be deceived. It is sin and it will send you to hell.

If they are clean, and they do any of these things, that does not make them unclean.

If they are born again, they are born for all time. They are not born again, then not, then renewed to repentance.

Now, I am in no way advocating that since the born again can do anything they want, that all Christians can do anything they want.

The born again, having their mind controlled by the Holy Spirit, desire to do as the Holy Spirit desires.

Sometimes, the flesh will win out over the spirit of the born again and the sin abiding in the flesh will commit evil. The person who is born again is still clean.

This is why I say the question becomes not "can the born again sin" but "make sure you are born again". The born again have no desire to fornicate, but the flesh does. If one fornicates then you have three options.

1. The person was born again and the sin abiding in the flesh sinned.
2. The person believes they were born again, were not, and sinned.
3. The person was not born again, did not believe they were born again, and sinned because they desired to sin.

I can see the misunderstanding now. I am in no way saying that it is ok to go ahead and fulfill the lusts of the flesh. It is not. The born again do not, for they are led by the Spirit. The born again will do things that are unprofitable, but it is no longer the born again that commits evil.

This is why we must make our election sure, by striving against the flesh daily and not giving in to the lusts of the flesh. By giving in (meaning no longer striving against the flesh), you are not born again. By losing the battle now and then, the born again do not sin.

ProjectPeter
Feb 6th 2009, 05:17 PM
If they are clean, and they do any of these things, that does not make them unclean.They are a washed pig heading back to the mud... a dog eating his own vomit. Their last fate will be worse for them than their first.

That lifestyle is supposed to be FORMER. Now they are to put away that nonsense.


If they are born again, they are born for all time. They are not born again, then not, then renewed to repentance.That is simply your doctrine based on a couple of verses while ignoring the vast majority of Scripture. ;)



Now, I am in no way advocating that since the born again can do anything they want, that all Christians can do anything they want.You certainly are and that is exactly what you did.


The born again, having their mind controlled by the Holy Spirit, desire to do as the Holy Spirit desires.

Sometimes, the flesh will win out over the spirit of the born again and the sin abiding in the flesh will commit evil. The person who is born again is still clean.

This is why I say the question becomes not "can the born again sin" but "make sure you are born again". The born again have no desire to fornicate, but the flesh does. If one fornicates then you have three options.

1. The person was born again and the sin abiding in the flesh sinned.
2. The person believes they were born again, were not, and sinned.
3. The person was not born again, did not believe they were born again, and sinned because they desired to sin.

I can see the misunderstanding now. I am in no way saying that it is ok to go ahead and fulfill the lusts of the flesh. It is not. The born again do not, for they are led by the Spirit. The born again will do things that are unprofitable, but it is no longer the born again that commits evil.

This is why we must make our election sure, by striving against the flesh daily and not giving in to the lusts of the flesh. By giving in (meaning no longer striving against the flesh), you are not born again. By losing the battle now and then, the born again do not sin.You are going backwards again. My recommendation. Work this stuff out in your own head Yuke instead of just flying off with the keyboard. You are dangerous in that you just well might turn into a stumbling block for someone and then enter that whole millstone around the neck and bottom of the ocean thing.

keck553
Feb 6th 2009, 05:25 PM
If they are clean, and they do any of these things, that does not make them unclean.

If they are born again, they are born for all time. They are not born again, then not, then renewed to repentance.

Now, I am in no way advocating that since the born again can do anything they want, that all Christians can do anything they want.

The born again, having their mind controlled by the Holy Spirit, desire to do as the Holy Spirit desires.

Sometimes, the flesh will win out over the spirit of the born again and the sin abiding in the flesh will commit evil. The person who is born again is still clean.

This is why I say the question becomes not "can the born again sin" but "make sure you are born again". The born again have no desire to fornicate, but the flesh does. If one fornicates then you have three options.

1. The person was born again and the sin abiding in the flesh sinned.
2. The person believes they were born again, were not, and sinned.
3. The person was not born again, did not believe they were born again, and sinned because they desired to sin.

I can see the misunderstanding now. I am in no way saying that it is ok to go ahead and fulfill the lusts of the flesh. It is not. The born again do not, for they are led by the Spirit. The born again will do things that are unprofitable, but it is no longer the born again that commits evil.

This is why we must make our election sure, by striving against the flesh daily and not giving in to the lusts of the flesh. By giving in (meaning no longer striving against the flesh), you are not born again. By losing the battle now and then, the born again do not sin.

Well then Yuker, please explain why there are 30,000 sects of 'born again' believers, a lot of them practicing lawlessness and rebellion against God's Laws. God has always allowed man to have free will. While the indwelt Spirit of God can be our teacher and convict us, He isn't going to force us to not sin. The indwelling Spirit of God still allows free will.

Our spiritual being may be awakened and cleansed through Yeshua, and our spirit has a connection with the Spirt of God, but our outer flesh is still subject to the temptations and input from the 'world'. Our 'dirt suit' is still exposed to evil and is in opposition to what the Spirit of God shows and teaches us through God's Word. In fact this is what happens when we are 'born from above'. Our spirit is awakend, connected with God, and the battle within begins. That's what Ephesians 6 is about. If our physical 'dirt suits' were not subject to sinning, we wouldn't need the armor of God.

What separates us from God is sin. There is nothing more satan desires than to separate one of God's sheep from Him. Our walk in this earth is an opportunity to learn who God is, have an awesome loving relationship with HIm and enjoy the blessings from obeying His commands, right here and now. Why wait until we die when we can enjoy our fellowship with God now? satan will whisper anything in our ear to prevent that, to make God appear to be a liar, to cause us to become decieved, leading to mistrust, leading to a less than blessed relationship with our Creator and 30,000 sects of Christianity.

I don't know about you, but I've repented more than once, both to God and to others. That means I've sinned after I accepted Messiah as my Redeemer. I'm not going to candy coat my transgressions and pretend they weren't rebellion and sin. Above all, God wants us to love Him with everything we have, to make Him the center of our being, of our universe, of our thoughts, of our teaching.

You know, even though the Hebrews literally were no longer slaves of Egypt, they still acted like slaves. They still dragged the yoke of slavery behind them. When Messiah comes to tabernacle with us, He frees us from the yoke of slavery to sin also - but that literal freedom from the bondage of sin does not mean we don't continue to drag the dead man behind us.

bosco
Feb 6th 2009, 09:51 PM
I am a little confused here. We have so many examples of big time pastors who have given way to lusts of the flesh, money, power, fame, and have gone into sin. Many have repented and straightened their lives out, I am thankful for that. But were these people not really born again when they sinned, or is what they did not sin because they were born again? Can somebody help me out here?

Bosco

InMyWildestDreams
Feb 6th 2009, 10:02 PM
If they are clean, and they do any of these things, that does not make them unclean.

If they are born again, they are born for all time. They are not born again, then not, then renewed to repentance.

Now, I am in no way advocating that since the born again can do anything they want, that all Christians can do anything they want.

The born again, having their mind controlled by the Holy Spirit, desire to do as the Holy Spirit desires.

Sometimes, the flesh will win out over the spirit of the born again and the sin abiding in the flesh will commit evil. The person who is born again is still clean.

This is why I say the question becomes not "can the born again sin" but "make sure you are born again". The born again have no desire to fornicate, but the flesh does. If one fornicates then you have three options.

1. The person was born again and the sin abiding in the flesh sinned.
2. The person believes they were born again, were not, and sinned.
3. The person was not born again, did not believe they were born again, and sinned because they desired to sin.

I can see the misunderstanding now. I am in no way saying that it is ok to go ahead and fulfill the lusts of the flesh. It is not. The born again do not, for they are led by the Spirit. The born again will do things that are unprofitable, but it is no longer the born again that commits evil.

This is why we must make our election sure, by striving against the flesh daily and not giving in to the lusts of the flesh. By giving in (meaning no longer striving against the flesh), you are not born again. By losing the battle now and then, the born again do not sin.

Excuse me, but what about "repenting and turning away from"? Repentance means turning away from towards something else.

InMyWildestDreams
Feb 6th 2009, 10:05 PM
I am a little confused here. We have so many examples of big time pastors who have given way to lusts of the flesh, money, power, fame, and have gone into sin. Many have repented and straightened their lives out, I am thankful for that. But were these people not really born again when they sinned, or is what they did not sin because they were born again? Can somebody help me out here?

Bosco


Salvation is a heart issue. The way we run our lives states clearly how our heart condition is before God.

Yukerboy
Feb 7th 2009, 12:34 AM
They are a washed pig heading back to the mud... a dog eating his own vomit. Their last fate will be worse for them than their first.

That lifestyle is supposed to be FORMER. Now they are to put away that nonsense.


True, pigs and dogs are not sheep.


That is simply your doctrine based on a couple of verses while ignoring the vast majority of Scripture.

Then surely there is Scripture denying this. Show me.


You certainly are and that is exactly what you did.

I certainly am not and that is exactly what I spoke against.


You are going backwards again. My recommendation. Work this stuff out in your own head Yuke instead of just flying off with the keyboard. You are dangerous in that you just well might turn into a stumbling block for someone and then enter that whole millstone around the neck and bottom of the ocean thing.

Everything I carefully say, I can back with Scripture AND ensure it does not conflict with any other Scripture.


Well then Yuker, please explain why there are 30,000 sects of 'born again' believers, a lot of them practicing lawlessness and rebellion against God's Laws.

Like you just showed, they are born again in quotations only.


God has always allowed man to have free will. While the indwelt Spirit of God can be our teacher and convict us, He isn't going to force us to not sin. The indwelling Spirit of God still allows free will.


You will not find freewill in the Bible, but you will find where the Spirit controls the minds of the born again AND that it is God who works in the born again to will and to act. That is the exact opposite of free will.


Our spiritual being may be awakened and cleansed through Yeshua, and our spirit has a connection with the Spirt of God, but our outer flesh is still subject to the temptations and input from the 'world'. Our 'dirt suit' is still exposed to evil and is in opposition to what the Spirit of God shows and teaches us through God's Word. In fact this is what happens when we are 'born from above'. Our spirit is awakend, connected with God, and the battle within begins. That's what Ephesians 6 is about. If our physical 'dirt suits' were not subject to sinning, we wouldn't need the armor of God.


Amen!!!!!!!


What separates us from God is sin. There is nothing more satan desires than to separate one of God's sheep from Him. Our walk in this earth is an opportunity to learn who God is, have an awesome loving relationship with HIm and enjoy the blessings from obeying His commands, right here and now. Why wait until we die when we can enjoy our fellowship with God now? satan will whisper anything in our ear to prevent that, to make God appear to be a liar, to cause us to become decieved, leading to mistrust, leading to a less than blessed relationship with our Creator and 30,000 sects of Christianity.


Sin separates man from God. Agreed.
The born again cannot sin (1 John 3:9)
Thus, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us (the born again) from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:39)

When he (Christ) has brought out all his own (The Born again), he (Christ) goes on ahead of them (The born again), and his sheep (the born again) follow him (Christ) because they (The born again) know his (Christ) voice. But they will never (never ever ever ever) follow a stranger (sin, satan, etc..); in fact, they will run away from him (sin, satan, etc.) because they do not recognize a stranger's voice.


I don't know about you, but I've repented more than once, both to God and to others. That means I've sinned after I accepted Messiah as my Redeemer. I'm not going to candy coat my transgressions and pretend they weren't rebellion and sin. Above all, God wants us to love Him with everything we have, to make Him the center of our being, of our universe, of our thoughts, of our teaching.

It is impossible for those who have tasted the heavenly gift to be brought back to repentance. You may feel you needed to repent and that's fine. Maybe you were not born again yet and did need to. But it is impossible for one who is born again to fall and then be born again again. Repentance granted by God is a gift and is once for all time. It is irrevocable.


You know, even though the Hebrews literally were no longer slaves of Egypt, they still acted like slaves. They still dragged the yoke of slavery behind them. When Messiah comes to tabernacle with us, He frees us from the yoke of slavery to sin also - but that literal freedom from the bondage of sin does not mean we don't continue to drag the dead man behind us.

The flesh is corrupt. We struggle against it daily. However, it is no longer "us".


I am a little confused here. We have so many examples of big time pastors who have given way to lusts of the flesh, money, power, fame, and have gone into sin. Many have repented and straightened their lives out, I am thankful for that. But were these people not really born again when they sinned, or is what they did not sin because they were born again? Can somebody help me out here?

Four options. Either...

1. They believed they were born again, were not, fell away, then became born again.
2. They were born again, thought they sinned, did not, repented, and remained born again.
3. They believed they were born again, were not, fell away, repented, yet will fall away again.
4. They believed they were born again, were not, fell away, repented, still not born again yet believe they are, will fall away again, and finally become born again.


xcuse me, but what about "repenting and turning away from"? Repentance means turning away from towards something else.


You repent and turn away from sin. If God has granted you repentance, you no longer sin.


Salvation is a heart issue. The way we run our lives states clearly how our heart condition is before God.

Unscriptural, but I wouldn't disagree with that.

bosco
Feb 7th 2009, 06:59 AM
Salvation is a heart issue. The way we run our lives states clearly how our heart condition is before God.


Thanks...I wasn't confused in that area, I was more talking about Yukerboy's interpretation of being "born again."

Bosco

Firstfruits
Feb 7th 2009, 12:57 PM
If they are clean, and they do any of these things, that does not make them unclean.

If they are born again, they are born for all time. They are not born again, then not, then renewed to repentance.

Now, I am in no way advocating that since the born again can do anything they want, that all Christians can do anything they want.

The born again, having their mind controlled by the Holy Spirit, desire to do as the Holy Spirit desires.

Sometimes, the flesh will win out over the spirit of the born again and the sin abiding in the flesh will commit evil. The person who is born again is still clean.

This is why I say the question becomes not "can the born again sin" but "make sure you are born again". The born again have no desire to fornicate, but the flesh does. If one fornicates then you have three options.

1. The person was born again and the sin abiding in the flesh sinned.
2. The person believes they were born again, were not, and sinned.
3. The person was not born again, did not believe they were born again, and sinned because they desired to sin.

I can see the misunderstanding now. I am in no way saying that it is ok to go ahead and fulfill the lusts of the flesh. It is not. The born again do not, for they are led by the Spirit. The born again will do things that are unprofitable, but it is no longer the born again that commits evil.

This is why we must make our election sure, by striving against the flesh daily and not giving in to the lusts of the flesh. By giving in (meaning no longer striving against the flesh), you are not born again. By losing the battle now and then, the born again do not sin.

Please, please, please, according to these scriptures who is your master?

Rom 6:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Rom 6:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Rom 6:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

You cannot serve two masters and please them both.

Mt 6:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Firstfruits

Yukerboy
Feb 7th 2009, 06:39 PM
Please, please, please, according to these scriptures who is your master?

Rom 6:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Rom 6:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Rom 6:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

You cannot serve two masters and please them both.

Mt 6:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Firstfruits

God. I never said otherwise.

The born again (the spirit that was born of spirit, it is flesh that gives birth to flesh, the flesh can never be born again) can never sin and are always serving God to obedience.

The spirit serves God, the sin in the flesh serves evil. The spirit of the born again struggles against the flesh.