PDA

View Full Version : Are Solomon's words still in affect today?



Protective Angel
Aug 29th 2014, 11:35 PM
Eccleasiates 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.



Are Solomon's words still in affect today ? The answer for me is yes.

Sojourner
Aug 29th 2014, 11:52 PM
Eccleasiates 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.



Are Solomon's words still in affect today ?

Absolutely. And it should speak volumes to Jews and other non-Christians that this is the same essential message inherent in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Aviyah
Aug 30th 2014, 01:17 AM
Yes, and that is why He took the just punishment due us.

ewq1938
Aug 30th 2014, 01:21 AM
Eccleasiates 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.





Everything has a time and a place. We cannot correctly take things from the past and always apply them exactly as they were intended in the past and apply them for today, or the future. If you believe this means we must keep all commandments including ones that have been either fulfilled or done away with in favor of a newer replacement, then I believe that would be in error.




Are Solomon's words still in affect today ? The answer for me is yes.

I would say yes, but only with proper understanding taking the changes the new covenant brought into that understanding.

Walls
Aug 30th 2014, 02:20 PM
Eccleasiates 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.



Are Solomon's words still in affect today ? The answer for me is yes.

I agree with ewq1938. The expectations of the Jew before Christ were different to the Christian looking back to John 20:22 where the Holy Spirit is breathed into the spirit of man to effect the new birth. The Jew looks for the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham and the promises of the Law. The Good Land, long life, big harvests, safety from foes and disaster and fame as the leading nation is what he aspires to. Thus, Ecclesiastes paints the limitations of a man looking for these things. The best a man under these promises can do is enjoy all these things, but at the end, the grave waits, and money, fame, long life and health all end. Thus, it is all vanity.

The Christian looks to far greater things. He may expect earthly blessing, but his view is on the Kingdom of the Heavens. His portion may be short life due to martyrdom. He may have health but nothing is guaranteed. Sickness and feebleness are the portion of many of the Lord's most diligent servants like Timothy and Paul. He may enjoy a measure of safety, but he must be prepared for danger in spreading the gospel. The Christian looks to the following;

Eternal life - having it now after rebirth and enjoying this life in the coming (future) Kingdom
Rewards stored in heaven - not in a barn
Rewards collected at resurrection - not now in this life
Fruit meet for God - not for man
Being transformed into the image of Christ
Keeping the Law of "life" in Christ Jesus - not that of Moses
Resurrection in the likeness of Christ - that is, celestial glory - not terrestrial

I personally think that the last verses of Ecclesiastes are a testimony of the wealth of keeping the Law, but secretly show it as poverty compared to knowing Christ. Paul said of the blessings of Law in Philippians 3:8;

"Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,"

Noeb
Aug 30th 2014, 02:39 PM
Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Mat 7:12 "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Mat 22:37-40 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

Jas 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well.

LandShark
Aug 30th 2014, 03:32 PM
Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Mat 7:12 "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Mat 22:37-40 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

Jas 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well.

What is interesting is if we say the Law is not for today we just said, "Murder is OK." If we say we keep the 10 commandments but not the rest, we are saying "homosexuality is ok" because there is no direct commandment that says not to do it in the NT. Yes, I am aware of Romans 1, but that isn't a direct commandment. We have demonized God's law and seemingly see it as if a mistake, when God is the author which means it is perfect.

By the way brother, "fulfill" doesn't mean "bring an end to." If that were the case, then Matthew 5:17 really says, "Do not think I have come to abolish the law or prophets, I have not come to abolish them I have come to abolish them." We force the verse to contradict itself with that position. Peace!

keck553
Aug 30th 2014, 03:45 PM
What is interesting is if we say the Law is not for today we just said, "Murder is OK." If we say we keep the 10 commandments but not the rest, we are saying "homosexuality is ok" because there is no direct commandment that says not to do it in the NT. Yes, I am aware of Romans 1, but that isn't a direct commandment. We have demonized God's law and seemingly see it as if a mistake, when God is the author which means it is perfect.

By the way brother, "fulfill" doesn't mean "bring an end to." If that were the case, then Matthew 5:17 really says, "Do not think I have come to abolish the law or prophets, I have not come to abolish them I have come to abolish them." We force the verse to contradict itself with that position. Peace!

I would argue that the moral law is written on everyone's hearts already. (Romans 2:14-15). No one needs a written commandment not to murder.

Noeb
Aug 30th 2014, 03:55 PM
What is interesting is if we say the Law is not for today we just said, "Murder is OK." If we say we keep the 10 commandments but not the rest, we are saying "homosexuality is ok" because there is no direct commandment that says not to do it in the NT. Yes, I am aware of Romans 1, but that isn't a direct commandment. We have demonized God's law and seemingly see it as if a mistake, when God is the author which means it is perfect.

By the way brother, "fulfill" doesn't mean "bring an end to." If that were the case, then Matthew 5:17 really says, "Do not think I have come to abolish the law or prophets, I have not come to abolish them I have come to abolish them." We force the verse to contradict itself with that position. Peace!That's the point. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law (Mt 5:17) and to do the law and the prophets (Mt 7:12, 22:37-40), which James repeats. How people get 'bring to an end' is beyond me. Jesus was not the first to say this, so it was nothing knew to his contemporaries. Hillel was the first as far as we know. The Sermon is about how to behave, not specific precepts, many washings, and sacrifices. So if we properly interpret Jesus' words in this context how can anyone contest? The law was as much about behavior as sacrifice. We don't sacrifice animals today but we do love God and one another. It's not complicated, but we unfortunately make it so unnecessarily.

Noeb
Aug 30th 2014, 03:56 PM
I would argue that the moral law is written on everyone's hearts already. (Romans 2:14-15). No one needs a written commandment not to murder.I agree, and would you agree the moral in the written agrees with the natural law?

keck553
Aug 30th 2014, 04:47 PM
I agree, and would you agree the moral in the written agrees with the natural law?

Of course they agree. It's God who planted both.

LandShark
Aug 30th 2014, 08:36 PM
I would argue that the moral law is written on everyone's hearts already. (Romans 2:14-15). No one needs a written commandment not to murder.

Perhaps... I rather think that the process is started, the basic moral commands are probably written there which is why a Christian can scream "no law" and then honor mom and not murder! :) But, I also believe the process is not complete until his return because when done, there will no longer be a need to teach because all will no the Lord. And quite frankly, not only do not all know the Lord, but because people are on different levels of understanding, I think that indicates there is still a need to teach. Blessings bro!

LandShark
Aug 30th 2014, 08:37 PM
That's the point. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law (Mt 5:17) and to do the law and the prophets (Mt 7:12, 22:37-40), which James repeats. How people get 'bring to an end' is beyond me. Jesus was not the first to say this, so it was nothing knew to his contemporaries. Hillel was the first as far as we know. The Sermon is about how to behave, not specific precepts, many washings, and sacrifices. So if we properly interpret Jesus' words in this context how can anyone contest? The law was as much about behavior as sacrifice. We don't sacrifice animals today but we do love God and one another. It's not complicated, but we unfortunately make it so unnecessarily.

Thanks for the clarification. You're right, the law is (still is) about behavior, about a heart condition, over actions. The actions SHOULD be driven by the heart condition. Blessings.

keck553
Aug 30th 2014, 08:57 PM
Perhaps... I rather think that the process is started, the basic moral commands are probably written there which is why a Christian can scream "no law" and then honor mom and not murder! :) But, I also believe the process is not complete until his return because when done, there will no longer be a need to teach because all will no the Lord. And quite frankly, not only do not all know the Lord, but because people are on different levels of understanding, I think that indicates there is still a need to teach. Blessings bro!

Well, i believe the entire Torah is written there, just not quantified by a code. I think anyone of sound and sober mind knows at some level when they are intentionally sinning (like not honoring their parents). But its still a law, just in a different format. (I admit I am stretching Romans 2)

LandShark
Aug 30th 2014, 09:16 PM
Well, i believe the entire Torah is written there, just not quantified by a code. I think anyone of sound and sober mind knows at some level when they are intentionally sinning (like not honoring their parents). But its still a law, just in a different format. (I admit I am stretching Romans 2)

Perhaps... but we don't actually have a verse that says the law is written there now. What we have is the promise of the Holy Spirit who is said to be acting as a down payment toward more to come (see 2 Cor. 1:22 and 5:5, an "earnest" is a down payment, a promissory payment when more is expected to come later). I still see Hebrews 8:8-11 (Jer. 31:31-34) as future tense... much of the work done to bring it to fruition, but no all implemented yet. See, once the Law is written in complete form Keck, how can we sin? It will be a part of us, as if written in our DNA... it is part of the perfection process. If that work is done, no Christian should be able to sin and yet I just saw a local pastor cheat on his wife and asked to be excused from his position at a church of 1000 people. He is crushed, the family is crushed, but if the work was complete, then how could he even have sinned? If the entire Torah is there, why do we see Christians defending homosexual activity? There are a number of examples I could give. We have an earnest which means there is more to come. That is, as I read it... if I am wrong I am wrong. :) Blessings.

LandShark
Aug 30th 2014, 09:21 PM
Regardless of whether the work is done completely or not, I think we have established that Solomon's word are for today as well?

ewq1938
Aug 30th 2014, 10:44 PM
That's the point. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law (Mt 5:17) and to do the law and the prophets (Mt 7:12, 22:37-40), which James repeats. How people get 'bring to an end' is beyond me.

It's directly from scripture:


2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

The new Testament is the same as the new Covenant.


2Co 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:

That's the ten commandments.

2Co 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
2Co 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
2Co 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
2Co 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

"done away" which is the same concept as "bring to an end". When Christ spoke of fulfilling the law, this is the end result and we should all rejoice about this. :pp


The old covenant and it's original law as a whole is written to be akin to death and bondage, being replaced by the New covenant. Why desire the first when the second was created to be a far better replacement?




Gill


The law is "that which is done away"; not merely the ceremonial law, or the judicial law, but the whole ministry of Moses, and particularly the law of the Decalogue

Matthew Henry


The law is done away, but the gospel does and shall remain, 2Co_3:11. Not only did the glory of Moses's face go away, but the glory of Moses's law is done away also; yea, the law of Moses itself is now abolished. That dispensation was only to continue for a time, and then to vanish away; whereas the gospel shall remain to the end of the world, and is always fresh and flourishing and remains glorious.


Barnes


The splendor that attended the giving of the Law; the bright shining of the face of Moses; and the ritual institutions of his religion. It was to be done away. It was never designed to be permanent. Everything in it had a transient existence, and was so designed.



And here we see the ten commandments were "done away"...in favor of something that did not represent death but represented life! Something far more glorious than the old.

Noeb
Aug 30th 2014, 11:13 PM
It's directly from scripture:


2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

The new Testament is the same as the new Covenant.


2Co 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:

That's the ten commandments.

2Co 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
2Co 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
2Co 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
2Co 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

"done away" which is the same concept as "bring to an end". When Christ spoke of fulfilling the law, this is the end result and we should all rejoice about this. :pp

The old covenant and it's original law as a whole is written to be akin to death and bondage, being replaced by the New covenant. Why desire the first when the second was created to be a far better replacement?


Gill

Matthew Henry

Barnes


And here we see the ten commandments were "done away"...in favor of something that did not represent death but represented life! Something far more glorious than the old.Jesus didn't address the OC (Mt 5-7) he said the law and the prophets.
How could it not exist if we are to fulfill its righteousness (Rom 8:4)?
How would you know you sinned without it (Rom 3:20)?
How would it be counted as sin (Rom 4:15, 7:7; 1Jn 3:4)?
2Cor 3 is not about doing away with the law but death for transgression of the law, because of the ministry of reconciliation (2Cor 3-5 -context).

2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
..........
....
2Co 4:1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
..........
......
2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Protective Angel
Aug 30th 2014, 11:14 PM
John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

15:11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.



John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Mark 12: 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.



Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

ewq1938
Aug 30th 2014, 11:34 PM
How could it not exist if we are to fulfill its righteousness (Rom 8:4)?
How would you know you sinned without it (Rom 3:20)?
How would it be counted as sin (Rom 4:15, 7:7; 1Jn 3:4)?

A new version of the law now exists in the old law's place.



2Cor 3 is not about doing away with the law but death for transgression of the law, because of the ministry of reconciliation (2Cor 3-5 -context).

It does not say that in the quoted verses. It specially speaks of the ten commandments:

2Co 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:

That's the ten commandments. Does anyone disagree?


2Co 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
2Co 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
2Co 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
2Co 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.


And then says the ten commandments were "done away".

Let's see it in more modern english:


2Co 3:7 The Law of Moses brought only the promise of death, even though it was carved on stones and given in a wonderful way. Still the Law made Moses' face shine so brightly that the people of Israel could not look at it, even though it was a fading glory.
2Co 3:8 So won't the agreement that the Spirit brings to us be even more wonderful?
2Co 3:9 If something that brings the death sentence is glorious, won't something that makes us acceptable to God be even more glorious?
2Co 3:10 In fact, the new agreement is so wonderful that the Law is no longer glorious at all.
2Co 3:11 The Law was given with a glory that faded away. But the glory of the new agreement is much greater, because it will never fade away.



2Co 3:6 Who has made us able to be servants of a new agreement; not of the letter, but of the Spirit: for the letter gives death, but the Spirit gives life.
2Co 3:7 For if the operation of the law, giving death, recorded in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the eyes of the children of Israel had to be turned away from the face of Moses because of its glory, a glory which was only for a time:
2Co 3:8 Will not the operation of the Spirit have a much greater glory?
2Co 3:9 For if the operation of the law, producing punishment, had its glory, how much greater will be the operation of the Spirit causing righteousness?
2Co 3:10 For the glory of the first no longer seems to be glory, because of the greater glory of that which comes after.


Basic concept is the first being bested by the second. But it seems people still desire the first which has a faded glory. In light of these and other scriptures I do not understand the desire for the first.

Noeb
Aug 30th 2014, 11:58 PM
A new version of the law now exists in the old law's place.Really? Why don't you outline the old and new for us so we can see these two separate and different versions.



It does not say that in the quoted verses. It specially speaks of the ten commandments:It does and I know

2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.



Basic concept is the first being bested by the second. But it seems people still desire the first which has a faded glory. In light of these and other scriptures I do not understand the desire for the first.Here's the law

2Co 3:3 And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

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

Mat 7:12 "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Mat 22:37-40 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

Jas 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well.

Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

ewq1938
Aug 31st 2014, 12:09 AM
Really? Why don't you outline the old and new for us so we can see these two separate and different versions.

You have already done it well enough:


Here's the law

2Co 3:3 And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.


To know the more specific differences would take an exhaustive study of the NT, especially that which deals with the times after Christ fulfilled the law and when the New Covenant was in effect.




It does and I know

2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Yet that does not support your belief that the verses speak of doing away with death rather than doing away with the law, which the verses refer to as the "first". That there is a second strongly supports what I and others have said.


You had claimed:
2Cor 3 is not about doing away with the law but death for transgression of the law, because of the ministry of reconciliation (2Cor 3-5 -context).

keck553
Aug 31st 2014, 12:19 AM
Perhaps... but we don't actually have a verse that says the law is written there now. What we have is the promise of the Holy Spirit who is said to be acting as a down payment toward more to come (see 2 Cor. 1:22 and 5:5, an "earnest" is a down payment, a promissory payment when more is expected to come later). I still see Hebrews 8:8-11 (Jer. 31:31-34) as future tense... much of the work done to bring it to fruition, but no all implemented yet. See, once the Law is written in complete form Keck, how can we sin? It will be a part of us, as if written in our DNA... it is part of the perfection process. If that work is done, no Christian should be able to sin and yet I just saw a local pastor cheat on his wife and asked to be excused from his position at a church of 1000 people. He is crushed, the family is crushed, but if the work was complete, then how could he even have sinned? If the entire Torah is there, why do we see Christians defending homosexual activity? There are a number of examples I could give. We have an earnest which means there is more to come. That is, as I read it... if I am wrong I am wrong. :) Blessings.

No, I don't believe you are wrong, I think were talking about two different concepts.

I'm not addressing that final work in prophecy you are referring to. I'm not saying the law has been written on our hearts in some fashion that we are compelled to obey it. In this age, people can disobey what they by nature know is wrong just as easily as they can disobey the written law.

I got my context from this:

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

Noeb
Aug 31st 2014, 12:36 AM
You have already done it well enough:


To know the more specific differences would take an exhaustive study of the NT, especially that which deals with the times after Christ fulfilled the law and when the New Covenant was in effect.


Yet that does not support your belief that the verses speak of doing away with death rather than doing away with the law, which the verses refer to as the "first". That there is a second strongly supports what I and others have said.


You had claimed:

It says, very plainly I might add, ministering of death. The law by itself (ministering of death) could not bring righteousness (Gal 2:21) and life. Just like in Romans 7 where the law does not die, the old man does.

Which part of the law and the prophets did Jesus exclude here?

Mat 7:12 "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Mat 22:37-40 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

It's a simple question. Can we have other gods, lusts, steal, lie, murder, dishonor parents, not rest, not turn the other cheek....? Which one is done away, or can we do to others and still be doing the Law and the Prophets? According to you, all of them.....Jesus, none.

ewq1938
Aug 31st 2014, 12:58 AM
It says, very plainly I might add, ministering of death. The law by itself (ministering of death) could not bring righteousness (Gal 2:21).

This is the issue:

2Co 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.


What is being said to have been "done away" that had been glorious? Death from sinning was never glorious. It was the OT law that was glorious, replaced by something "much more"glorious. That's simply what is being spoken of.

The main issue in understanding these verses is the outdated language used. It's a non issue if read in modern english.


2Co 3:7 The Law of Moses brought only the promise of death, even though it was carved on stones and given in a wonderful way. Still the Law made Moses' face shine so brightly that the people of Israel could not look at it, even though it was a fading glory.
2Co 3:8 So won't the agreement that the Spirit brings to us be even more wonderful?
2Co 3:9 If something that brings the death sentence is glorious, won't something that makes us acceptable to God be even more glorious?
2Co 3:10 In fact, the new agreement is so wonderful that the Law is no longer glorious at all.
2Co 3:11 The Law was given with a glory that faded away. But the glory of the new agreement is much greater, because it will never fade away.


And here it is even more blunt:


Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.




Which part of the law and the prophets did Jesus exclude here?

Mat 7:12 "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

This was before the new covenant was in place so it's not contextually related to this discussion. When the Old Cov. was still in place, naturally it was to be obeyed.




Mat 22:37-40 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

see above.



It's a simple question. Can we have other gods, lusts, steal, lie, murder, dishonor parents, not rest, not turn the other cheek....? Which one is done away, or can we do to others and still be doing the Law and the Prophets?

All moral laws have been continued. Ceremonial laws changed. The NT law has the same moral character as the first but differs vastly otherwise.

Noeb
Aug 31st 2014, 06:55 AM
This is the issue:

It was the OT law that was glorious,Wrong. It says the ministering of condemnation was glorious, not the law. The law w/o the Spirit is condemnation, and served a purpose. The law by itself. Because it cannot accomplish the righteousness in itself, by itself, because of weak flesh, and it gives the knowledge of sin.


The main issue in understanding these verses is the outdated language used. It's a non issue if read in modern english.

2Co 3:7 The Law of Moses brought only the promise of death, even though it was carved on stones and given in a wonderful way. Still the Law made Moses' face shine so brightly that the people of Israel could not look at it, even though it was a fading glory.
2Co 3:8 So won't the agreement that the Spirit brings to us be even more wonderful?
2Co 3:9 If something that brings the death sentence is glorious, won't something that makes us acceptable to God be even more glorious?
2Co 3:10 In fact, the new agreement is so wonderful that the Law is no longer glorious at all.
2Co 3:11 The Law was given with a glory that faded away. But the glory of the new agreement is much greater, because it will never fade away. It, and this modern English, says the glory of the ministering of condemnation (the law w/o the Spirit) faded away, but you say the law did? How did you make that jump? Especially since Jesus said loving God and neighbor is doing the law and prophets.



This was before the new covenant was in place so it's not contextually related to this discussion. When the Old Cov. was still in place, naturally it was to be obeyed.


see above.Then why did James reiterate it to the Church (Jas 2:8)? It is the discussion. Is Ecclesiastes dealing with behavior or ceremony?

Ecc 12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.



All moral laws have been continued. Ceremonial laws changed. The NT law has the same moral character as the first but differs vastly otherwise.The moral is what is being discussed, so I'm glad we agree.

Mat 7:12 "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Mat 22:37-40 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

Jas 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well.

The commandments on stone are moral laws. :o are we?
Good night.

LandShark
Aug 31st 2014, 04:46 PM
No, I don't believe you are wrong, I think were talking about two different concepts.

I'm not addressing that final work in prophecy you are referring to. I'm not saying the law has been written on our hearts in some fashion that we are compelled to obey it. In this age, people can disobey what they by nature know is wrong just as easily as they can disobey the written law.

I got my context from this:

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

I am with you, although I see these verses as future ("will also perish") ("will be judged") ("will be declared righteous"). I also really believe "under the law" is an idiom depicting guilt. So, those who are under the law (are still guilty, don't have Messiah) will be judged not through him but rather strictly by the law. There is a change in us NOW, I clearly agree with you on that, the things I once enjoyed I now won't do, and vice versa. So perhaps there is room for us both here in the sense of the 10 with an emphasis on love and mercy (which was always the underlying undertone of Torah anyway) is what has been written, and the rest will be done later as per Jer. 31 and Heb. 8.? Blessings.

keck553
Aug 31st 2014, 08:01 PM
I am with you, although I see these verses as future ("will also perish") ("will be judged") ("will be declared righteous"). I also really believe "under the law" is an idiom depicting guilt. So, those who are under the law (are still guilty, don't have Messiah) will be judged not through him but rather strictly by the law. There is a change in us NOW, I clearly agree with you on that, the things I once enjoyed I now won't do, and vice versa. So perhaps there is room for us both here in the sense of the 10 with an emphasis on love and mercy (which was always the underlying undertone of Torah anyway) is what has been written, and the rest will be done later as per Jer. 31 and Heb. 8.? Blessings.

Since God speaks from eternity, I believe that His Word is timeless and applicable (where it has application) in any age.

LandShark
Aug 31st 2014, 08:17 PM
Since God speaks from eternity, I believe that His Word is timeless and applicable (where it has application) in any age.

I surely don't disagree, my path is what it is today because of that fact brother. But there are prophetic words, and while He is from eternity, He doesn't apply things all at the same time, but at random times. There was a time for Jesus to come just as there WILL BE a time when sin will be removed. See, we are saved or are at least children of God NOW.... but we still decay and die which are the wages of sin, even though we are forgiven. A times comes when the affects will be taken away and that doesn't stand in contrast to Him speaking from eternity or His words being timeless. He did the work at one point and will apply it at another. There are things that have happened, are happening, and will happen. I don't believe based on the wording around the New Covenant that the work of writing Torah in the heart is complete because when that work is done I don't believe we can sin. Since we still can, well, I am repeating myself now! Have a great church service! Blessings.

ewq1938
Aug 31st 2014, 10:57 PM
Wrong. It says the ministering of condemnation was glorious, not the law.

You are merely misreading it IMO. The ministering of condemnation is part of the entire terminology being used to describe the law in a general entirety. Let's trust scholars and those schooled in biblical Greek to show us what is being said:

JFB:


the ministration of death — the legal dispensation, summed up in the Decalogue, which denounces death against man for transgression.
written and engraven in stones — There is no “and” in the Greek. The literal translation is, “The ministration of death in letters,” of which “engraven on stones” is an explanation. The preponderance of oldest manuscripts is for the English Version reading. But one (perhaps the oldest existing manuscript) has “in the letter,” which refers to the preceding words (2Co_3:6), “the letter killeth,” and this seems the probable reading. Even if we read as English Version, “The ministration of death (written) in letters,” alludes to the literal precepts of the law as only bringing us the knowledge of sin and “death,” in contrast to “the Spirit” in the Gospel bringing us “life” (2Co_3:6).


Clarke:


The ministration of death - Here the apostle evidently intends the law. It was a ministration, διακονια or service of death. It was the province of the law to ascertain the duty of man; to assign his duties; to fix penalties for transgressions, etc.; and by it is the knowledge of sin. As man is prone to sin, and is continually committing it, this law was to him a continual ministration of death. Its letter killed; and it was only the Gospel to which it referred that could give life, because that Gospel held out the only available atonement.
Yet this ministration of death (the ten commandments, written on stones; a part of the Mosaic institutions being put for the whole) was glorious - was full of splendor; for the apostle refers to the thunderings, and lightnings, and luminous appearances, which took place in the giving of the law; so that the very body of Moses partook of the effulgence in such a manner that the children of Israel could not look upon his face; and he, to hide it, was obliged to use a veil. All this was intended to show the excellency of that law, as an institution coming immediately from God: and the apostle gives it all its heightenings, that he may compare it to the Gospel, and thereby prove that, glorious as it was, it had no glory that could be compared with that of the Gospel; and that even the glory it had was a glory that was to be done away - to be absorbed, as the light of the stars, planets, and moon, is absorbed in the splendor of the sun. See the notes on Romans 7 (note); and see those on Exodus 19 (note), Exodus 20 (note), and Exo_34:29 (note), etc., where this subject is treated in all its details.

Barnes:


But if the ministration of death - In the previous verses, Paul had referred incidentally to the institutions of Moses, and to the superiority of the gospel. He had said that the former were engraved on stones, but the latter on the heart 2Co_3:3; that the letter of the former tended to death, but the latter to life 2Co_3:6. This sentiment he proceeds further to illustrate, by showing in what the superior glory of the gospel consisted. The design of the whole is, to illustrate the nature, and to show the importance of the ministerial office; and the manner in which the duties of that office were to be performed. That the phrase “ministration of death” refers to the Mosaic institutions, the connection sufficiently indicates.


Darby:



For the letter kills, as a rule imposed on man; the Spirit quickens, as the power of God in grace — the purpose of God communicated to the heart of man by the power of God, who imparted it to him that he might enjoy it. Now the subject of this ministry brought out the difference between it and the ministry of the law yet more strongly. The law, graven on stones, had been introduced with glory, although it was a thing that was to pass away as a means of relation between God and men. It was a ministry of death, for they were only to live by keeping it.


Gill:


But if the ministration of death,.... The apostle having observed the difference between the law and the Gospel, the one being a killing letter, the other a quickening spirit, enlarges upon it, and more, fully explains it; and proceeds to take notice of other things in which they differ; and to show the superior glory and excellency of the one to the other; for that by "the ministration of death", he means the law, as delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai, is clear from its being said to be written and engraven in stones; as that was by the finger of God himself: rightly does the apostle say, that it was both "written" and "engraven"; for the two tables of the law are expressly said to be written with the finger of God.


Mathew Henry:


He shows the difference between the Old Testament and the New, and the excellency of the gospel above the law. For, 1. The Old Testament dispensation was the ministration of death (2Co_3:7), whereas that of the New Testament is the ministration of life. The law discovered sin, and the wrath and curse of God.


There's many more but that should suffice.







The law w/o the Spirit is condemnation, and served a purpose. The law by itself. Because it cannot accomplish the righteousness in itself, by itself, because of weak flesh, and it gives the knowledge of sin.

It, and this modern English, says the glory of the ministering of condemnation (the law w/o the Spirit) faded away, but you say the law did? How did you make that jump?

There is no "jump". It is merely what is being said by Paul. Even you said it yourself apparently without realizing it: "the glory of the ministering of condemnation (the law w/o the Spirit) faded away"






Then why did James reiterate it to the Church (Jas 2:8)? It is the discussion.

Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:


James is addressing this one commandment, not suggesting the replaced OT law is still fully in effect in it's original OT state. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself is a NT moral law and it is good to remind everyone about it.






Mat 7:12 "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Mat 22:37-40 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

Jas 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well.

It doesn't help your position to quote things that were stated when the first covenant was still in effect. Only things written after the old was replaced by the New Covenant is applicable.

keck553
Aug 31st 2014, 11:18 PM
I surely don't disagree, my path is what it is today because of that fact brother. But there are prophetic words, and while He is from eternity, He doesn't apply things all at the same time, but at random times. There was a time for Jesus to come just as there WILL BE a time when sin will be removed. See, we are saved or are at least children of God NOW.... but we still decay and die which are the wages of sin, even though we are forgiven. A times comes when the affects will be taken away and that doesn't stand in contrast to Him speaking from eternity or His words being timeless. He did the work at one point and will apply it at another. There are things that have happened, are happening, and will happen. I don't believe based on the wording around the New Covenant that the work of writing Torah in the heart is complete because when that work is done I don't believe we can sin. Since we still can, well, I am repeating myself now! Have a great church service! Blessings.

It was a good service! I agree Solomon's words stand today - especially the last half of the verse.

As to the question of sin being gone...and God's work complete in our hearts...well no, Scripture doesn't even come close to saying that - otherwise we would have no command to make disciples - additionally we have instructions throughout the NT letters on how we are to renew our minds, act, what to run from, what to run to, how to treat other saints, how to treat the lost, how to love our wives..., basically how to shed all the wiggamawash baggage from our captivity....(I could go on and on...). I think these instructions convict us into repentance more than they are a list of "to do" things, but obviously the fullness of the Law is not written on our hearts.

But what really gives me hope is God's faithfulness.

Noeb
Sep 1st 2014, 01:23 AM
You are merely misreading it IMO. The ministering of condemnation is part of the entire terminology being used to describe the law in a general entirety.You have that backwards. The law is the term for the ministering of condemnation. As a commentary below says, "legal dispensation", which was not just the law but its service, function, and purpose.



Let's trust scholars and those schooled in biblical Greek to show us what is being said:

JFB:

Clarke:

Barnes:

Darby:

Mathew Henry:

There's many more but that should suffice.OK, but I agree with them, so obviously we are understanding things differently. Some of their comments on Matthew 5:17 reveal they don't agree with you at all.



There is no "jump". It is merely what is being said by Paul.It does not say the law faded away, and cannot. God's character and standard of righteousness will never fade away.



Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:


James is addressing this one commandment, not suggesting the replaced OT law is still fully in effect in it's original OT state. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself is a NT moral law and it is good to remind everyone about it.Umm....it's an OT commandment -from the law, and Jesus said it "when the first covenant was still in effect". I guess it only became applicable because James said it? I guess we can throw out 90% of what Jesus said then, along with the law and the prophets. :rolleyes:



It doesn't help your position to quote things that were stated when the first covenant was still in effect. Only things written after the old was replaced by the New Covenant is applicable.What a joke and waste of time. I'll remember this the next time you post old scripture. Enjoy your lawlessness.

ewq1938
Sep 1st 2014, 02:14 AM
What a joke and waste of time. I'll remember this the next time you post old scripture. Enjoy your lawlessness.

Such horrible things to say! There is no reason to continue speaking to you.

Sojourner
Sep 1st 2014, 02:56 AM
Noeb, your rude comments are in violation of the rules of conduct of this Christian forum. If you are unable to communicate your differences in a civil way, please refrain from communicating at all.

Noeb
Sep 1st 2014, 06:23 AM
Such horrible things to say! There is no reason to continue speaking to you.You're right, and I apologize. I should not have said "enjoy your lawlessness" since that is not what you advocate. You believe in the law of love, but it's baffling because that's the law. Love God and neighbor, from the law. Can you explain this to me?

IMINXTC
Sep 1st 2014, 06:30 AM
Eccleasiates 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.



Are Solomon's words still in affect today ? The answer for me is yes.

Yes indeed. Solomon addresses a universal truth here, without debate, at once concerning the brevity of life on Earth and the seriousness of each of our actions, whether hidden or open, in light of coming eternity.

It appears the discussion has turned to the old versus new covenants, law versus grace issues but I believe Solomon here simply admonishes the reader that time is fleeting and that each of us will someday appear before God who will weigh our works to determine what they are worth when measured in light of Him and what He has commanded us to do.

Good works are to be weighed as well as evil works - nothing is left unexamined.

The redeemed will give account every bit as surely as the condemned. While sin for the believer has been washed by the blood of Christ, there is still much which will be examined on that day for each believer.

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." 2Cor 5:10

ewq1938
Sep 1st 2014, 07:04 AM
Love God and neighbor, from the law. Can you explain this to me?

Allow me to quote myself from post 25:



All moral laws have been continued. Ceremonial laws changed. The NT law has the same moral character as the first but differs vastly otherwise.

LandShark
Sep 1st 2014, 12:25 PM
All moral laws have been continued. Ceremonial laws changed. The NT law has the same moral character as the first but differs vastly otherwise.

I am curious, how do you explain the fact that Paul, after taking the vow of a Nazarite, went to the Temple and made a sacrifice? This was long after Messiah's death, resurrection, and ascension, by at least 20-25 years. If Paul believed that the ceremonial laws were done away with, then how were his actions not blasphemous? Again, not trying to create strife, I am just wondering how you reconcile this?

keck553
Sep 1st 2014, 12:48 PM
I am curious, how do you explain the fact that Paul, after taking the vow of a Nazarite, went to the Temple and made a sacrifice? This was long after Messiah's death, resurrection, and ascension, by at least 20-25 years. If Paul believed that the ceremonial laws were done away with, then how were his actions not blasphemous? Again, not trying to create strife, I am just wondering how you reconcile this?

The temple and its order (on earth) is gone now. And access to God through a priest who makes atonement for my sin in the most Holy place is not possible today. The Book to the Hebrews tells me of another order, even, according to Scripture, is a greater (how much more) order. Malki-Tsadek. The "ceremonial" requirements given in the Law for physical Temple access aren't applicable in this order. But there still are requirements, perhaps even greater in some ways.. We can discuss those perhaps. But that does not diminish the reverence we need to have for God.

Its not that the laws are abolished, its that there (now) is no application for them. Luke tells us in Acts early believers of The Way gathered daily in the Temple. No doubt, they kept the requirements for whatever court they met in. As they should have. But they also met outside the Temple. The Holy Spirit was no less in them in either circumstance.

Paul had access to both orders in his day, but one had physical cleanliness (ceremonial) requirements, and Paul was careful to obey them, as he should have. But Paul also had direct access to the throne of grace in Rome....or anywhere.

Jesus said as much to the woman at the well (one day all will worship God, not in a physical place, but in truth and spirit).

watchinginawe
Sep 1st 2014, 01:23 PM
I am curious, how do you explain the fact that Paul, after taking the vow of a Nazarite, went to the Temple and made a sacrifice? This was long after Messiah's death, resurrection, and ascension, by at least 20-25 years. If Paul believed that the ceremonial laws were done away with, then how were his actions not blasphemous? Again, not trying to create strife, I am just wondering how you reconcile this?

K, it is easy to reconcile. Paul says his practice is to not hunt out offense. Consider:

1 Corinthians 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.


23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

Noeb
Sep 1st 2014, 02:16 PM
Allow me to quote myself from post 25:
All moral laws have been continued. Ceremonial laws changed. The NT law has the same moral character as the first but differs vastly otherwise. and I from post 26.



The moral is what is being discussed, so I'm glad we agree.
If it still exists it still exists. The ministry, not the law we agree continues, faded away by reason of a better ministry of reconciliation. The book of Hebrews says the same. The law, love God and neighbor, are in both ministries.

Protective Angel
Sep 1st 2014, 02:46 PM
Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

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?

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.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

BrianW
Sep 1st 2014, 03:23 PM
Yes indeed. Solomon addresses a universal truth here, without debate, at once concerning the brevity of life on Earth and the seriousness of each of our actions, whether hidden or open, in light of coming eternity.

It appears the discussion has turned to the old versus new covenants, law versus grace issues but I believe Solomon here simply admonishes the reader that time is fleeting and that each of us will someday appear before God who will weigh our works to determine what they are worth when measured in light of Him and what He has commanded us to do.

Good works are to be weighed as well as evil works - nothing is left unexamined.

The redeemed will give account every bit as surely as the condemned. While sin for the believer has been washed by the blood of Christ, there is still much which will be examined on that day for each believer.

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." 2Cor 5:10

Very good post brother. Can someone rep IMINXTC for me please?

Noeb
Sep 1st 2014, 03:24 PM
Very good post brother. Can someone rep IMINXTC for me please?
Done already!
.

Noeb
Sep 1st 2014, 03:39 PM
It doesn't help your position to quote things that were stated when the first covenant was still in effect. Only things written after the old was replaced by the New Covenant is applicable.What do we do with all these?

Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
Ecc 12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Pro 20:22 Say not thou, I will recompense evil; but wait on the LORD, and he shall save thee.

Pro 24:29 Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me: I will render to the man according to his work.

Act 13:29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Rom 15:21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1Co 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain

1Co 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

1Co 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:




1Pe 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
1Pe 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
>
Lev 11:45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

LandShark
Sep 1st 2014, 03:43 PM
K, it is easy to reconcile. Paul says his practice is to not hunt out offense. Consider:

1 Corinthians 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.


23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

If Jesus is the final sacrifice, and there need never be another (which is generally how it is taught) then how can one do a sacrifice without taking away from what Jesus did? Now, I have an answer, and KECK it will be included as a response to your post as well. But, I have much to get done today so probably won't have time to sit and give a thoughtful post until later. Blessings all of you!!

keck553
Sep 1st 2014, 08:12 PM
If Jesus is the final sacrifice, and there need never be another (which is generally how it is taught) then how can one do a sacrifice without taking away from what Jesus did? Now, I have an answer, and KECK it will be included as a response to your post as well. But, I have much to get done today so probably won't have time to sit and give a thoughtful post until later. Blessings all of you!!


Thank you, I look forward to it. May your day be fruitful and blessed!

(BTW, I know not all sacrifices were for atonement)

ewq1938
Sep 1st 2014, 10:24 PM
I am curious, how do you explain the fact that Paul, after taking the vow of a Nazarite, went to the Temple and made a sacrifice? This was long after Messiah's death, resurrection, and ascension, by at least 20-25 years. If Paul believed that the ceremonial laws were done away with, then how were his actions not blasphemous? Again, not trying to create strife, I am just wondering how you reconcile this?

This purification act is hardly blasphemous it simply is not something mandatory within Christianity, and as others have stated, Paul was only doing this to hopefully convert these men eventually but you have to make people comfortable with yourself or else they won't be open to you teaching them new things.

ewq1938
Sep 1st 2014, 11:15 PM
This purification act is hardly blasphemous it simply is not something mandatory within Christianity, and as others have stated, Paul was only doing this to hopefully convert these men eventually but you have to make people comfortable with yourself or else they won't be open to you teaching them new things.

I should also add that the text doesn't state Paul sacrificed any animals. Even if he had, it would just be going through the motions without the religious intent behind them especially concerning sin atonement. Paul knew that only Christ forgave sins, not animal sacrifice. I have no doubt that Paul eventually made the connection between the former animal sacrifices for sin atonement and the one time forever sacrifice of the Lamb of God which negated the need for any further animal sacrifices.

EDIT to add:

Paul definitely didn't sacrifice any animals:


Num 6:9 And if any man die very suddenly by him, and he hath defiled the head of his consecration; then he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing, on the seventh day shall he shave it.
Num 6:10 And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons, to the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:
Num 6:11 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, and make an atonement for him, for that he sinned by the dead, and shall hallow his head that same day.
Num 6:12 And he shall consecrate unto the LORD the days of his separation, and shall bring a lamb of the first year for a trespass offering: but the days that were before shall be lost, because his separation was defiled.
Num 6:13 And this is the law of the Nazarite, when the days of his separation are fulfilled: he shall be brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:
Num 6:14 And he shall offer his offering unto the LORD, one he lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings,
Num 6:15 And a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, and wafers of unleavened bread anointed with oil, and their meat offering, and their drink offerings.
Num 6:16 And the priest shall bring them before the LORD, and shall offer his sin offering, and his burnt offering:
Num 6:17 And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, with the basket of unleavened bread: the priest shall offer also his meat offering, and his drink offering.
Num 6:18 And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

As you can see, animals have no part of this until the 8th day.


Act 21:27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,
Act 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.
Act 21:29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)
Act 21:30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.

Yet still during the 7th day Paul was taken out of the Temple and did not return. Is the timing of this co-incidence? hmmmm....

LandShark
Sep 2nd 2014, 12:57 PM
Yet still during the 7th day Paul was taken out of the Temple and did not return. Is the timing of this co-incidence? hmmmm....

Let's start last first. I can't hear your tone, so I will certainly be more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But just so you know where I am at... the "hmmm" could be taken sarcastically. Kind of the the, "Well, I just set you straight, what do you think you can say now, hmm?" You might not have meant it that way, in fact, I don't believe you did, but if you did, please stop. We are brethren, we have differences of interpretation, not differences in who we call Master or Father.


I should also add that the text doesn't state Paul sacrificed any animals. Even if he had, it would just be going through the motions without the religious intent behind them especially concerning sin atonement. Paul knew that only Christ forgave sins, not animal sacrifice. I have no doubt that Paul eventually made the connection between the former animal sacrifices for sin atonement and the one time forever sacrifice of the Lamb of God which negated the need for any further animal sacrifices.

The sacrifices pointed to Messiah. We don't know he is who he is because he said so, though, that does act as an additional witness. Instead, we know that he is Messiah because he meets the descriptions the sacrificial system and Feasts declare of him. The work he did, and will do, is in line with these two pictures. So there was a day when sacrifices happened but they were never designed to appease God, appeasing God with blood is really and truly a pagan thought. False gods accepted those things to keep them from anger, whereas, our God seeks a pure and contrite heart and LOOKS for ways to bless us. The right heart-set in a man who did a sacrifice was acceptable to God because the heart-set was correct and the act pointed to one who would ultimately redeem mankind. So, if a sacrifice was done prior to the resurrection, it pointed forward to work Yeshua would do. If a sacrifice happened after, it simply pointed back at work he already did. It just POINTS, the sacrifices were designed to point to and teach us of Messiah! That is why he said, "Search the Scripture (Torah, Prophets, no "NT" in that day)... for they are that which testify of me." In the Millennial Kingdom there will be sacrifices, and when they happen, they won't take away from the work of Messiah, they will point back to it AND teach the nations the depth of his work.

Brother Keck mentioned:


The temple and its order (on earth) is gone now.

This is a fact, but does that mean they remain gone? The answer is no, because not only do we know there will be another Temple, and that sacrifices will continue in the Millennial Kingdom (again, teaching the nations about the depths of Yeshua's work NOT as a means to an end in regards to atonement. Yeshua did that work already!!!) but we also have this:

Numbers 25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

Additionally, there are many actions of the priest listed in Numbers 18 that are also and repeatedly called, "olam" (everlasting, forever, eternal, etc.). There are no Levites today because there is no Temple, the mechanism has been removed and I have a good explanation as to why, but that can be another thread. However, because the priesthood is called everlasting, then we can't sit back and allow Scripture to be pitted against Scripture, we just need to work it out.

I do so in part by recognizing that the Levitical Priesthood is a priesthood to God (as an intermediary) on behalf of His Israel, and it is also a priesthood to Israel herself (the people of God) as well as to the Temple. The priesthood of Melchizedek is a priesthood to the world, the nations. It is the royal priesthood mentioned in Exodus 19:5-6 (though they never fulfilled taking the teachings and knowledge of God to the nations), and Exodus 19 is repeated but somewhat lost in translation in 1 Peter 2:9. This is a royal priesthood, a ruling priesthood (see Rev. 20:6) and not one associated with sacrifices per se, but rather a ruling and teaching clan of priests who will minister to the nations in the Millennial Kingdom.


Paul definitely didn't sacrifice any animals:

That is possible... however, it is also possible you are wrong. While I have my doubts as to Paul taking the Vow of a Nazarite (doubts based on no mention of his hair being cut and then burned at the Temple entrance) if this was a Vow of a Nazarite, then the text not outright saying he went back on the 8th day doesn't mean he didn't. You still have an issue, if this wasn't THAT Vow, which was it? JFB commentary states, ". It was probably one made in one of his seasons of difficulty or danger, in prosecution of which he cuts off his hair and hastens to Jerusalem to offer the requisite sacrifice within the prescribed thirty days [Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 2.15.1]. This explains the haste with which he leaves Ephesus (Act_18:21), and the subsequent observance, on the recommendation of the brethren, of a similar vow (Act_21:24). This one at Corinth was voluntary, and shows that even in heathen countries he systematically studied the prejudices of his Jewish brethren." If not the Vow of a Nazarite, then a Vow related to Jewish Halacha, and that would also call for a sacrifice.

Again, your understanding of what a sacrifice was and what mine are simply are not the same. I wouldn't have any issue, if there were a Temple and I was in the land, offering the Pesach, the Passover sacrifice, because I know all I would be doing is going through a ritual that points to the work of Jesus. You do it probably ever week and don't think twice about it... you take communion. You are doing a ritual that points to something that is DONE ALREADY.... which I think is FINE! :) You are doing a memorial, an observance, a pause to give thanks for work Jesus did... and if there were still a Temple today, that is what they would be doing as well, simply pointing at work completed.

Did Paul make a sacrifice after the resurrection? Well, he clearly has a Vow on him in Acts 18 and if one from Jewish Halacha, then yes, he likely would have. And if this was a Vow of a Nazarite, then not only did he likely make a sacrifice, he did other things that would be tied to the "ceremonial law" as you call it, that also would be considered (by modern teachings) to be obsolete. For example...

Act 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

The word for "purifying" is hagnizo, Thayer and Liddel-Scott define it as "to make ceremonially clean." Perhaps a mikvah, perhaps something else. The word is used in the Septuagint (LXX - Greek OT) a number of times, here are a few to give an idea of what this word means in relation to the Law.

Num 19:12 He shall purify (hagnizo) himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify (hagnizo) not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.
Num 31:19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify (hagnizo) both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.
Num 31:23 Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified (hagnizo) with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water.

The underlying Hebrew word is qâdash, which means "to sanctify, to make ceremonially clean, to purify." So Paul did that, which is clearly from an aspect of the Torah (God's Law) you don't think should be done after the resurrection. And before you come back again with "he went through the motions," you need to think that one through. How degrading is it to the work of Messiah, if we took part in ceremonial cleansing, or sacrifices of animals, just to appease some mad people or save face? We are talking about people who willingly lost their heads or were also crucified and they were so weak that they had to appease mad people by doing obsolete things? Again, as pointed out before, the Levitical Priesthood is CLEARLY called an everlasting priesthood... which means how we take parts of Hebrews might need to be revisited.

Act 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

An offering? This is an oblation, an offering USUALLY (but not always) bloodless. The Hebrew word is minchâh, as this Greek word is found in a number of places in the GREEK OT, Isaiah 1 being a good one to look at:

Isa 1:13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.

In the above, God is tired of them "going through the motions," which is actually what you said Paul was doing. God saw no heart in their actions, and denounces it all based on that. The oblation here, same word used for Paul in Acts, is an offering brought before God in the Temple... which means we are back to more ceremonial law after the resurrection. If the ceremonial law has been done away with as you believe, Paul sinned for continuing to take part in something obsolete. You understand that, if "Christ's Law" made the ceremonial law obsolete, then taking part in that would be to take part in something that stands against Christ's law... that is what you have Paul doing here. Or, perhaps some things we thought we obsolete are not obsolete and we simply need to reconcile some things patiently, prayerfully, over time. Paul at the very least took part in OT ceremonial purification processes and made an offering in the Temple which is also part of OT ceremonial law. Either Paul was a milk-toast wimp who was scared and did these things to keep from being killed.... or..... he was a hypocrite who seemingly preached an end to something that he took part in on multiple occasions... or.... our interpretation of a few things might not completely reflect first century practices. I vote for the latter, just so you know.

Blessings.
Ken

keck553
Sep 2nd 2014, 05:31 PM
Brother Keck mentioned:

This is a fact, but does that mean they remain gone? The answer is no, because not only do we know there will be another Temple, and that sacrifices will continue in the Millennial Kingdom (again, teaching the nations about the depths of Yeshua's work NOT as a means to an end in regards to atonement. Yeshua did that work already!!!) but we also have this:

Numbers 25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

Additionally, there are many actions of the priest listed in Numbers 18 that are also and repeatedly called, "olam" (everlasting, forever, eternal, etc.). There are no Levites today because there is no Temple, the mechanism has been removed and I have a good explanation as to why, but that can be another thread. However, because the priesthood is called everlasting, then we can't sit back and allow Scripture to be pitted against Scripture, we just need to work it out.

I do so in part by recognizing that the Levitical Priesthood is a priesthood to God (as an intermediary) on behalf of His Israel, and it is also a priesthood to Israel herself (the people of God) as well as to the Temple. The priesthood of Melchizedek is a priesthood to the world, the nations. It is the royal priesthood mentioned in Exodus 19:5-6 (though they never fulfilled taking the teachings and knowledge of God to the nations), and Exodus 19 is repeated but somewhat lost in translation in 1 Peter 2:9. This is a royal priesthood, a ruling priesthood (see Rev. 20:6) and not one associated with sacrifices per se, but rather a ruling and teaching clan of priests who will minister to the nations in the Millennial Kingdom.



I have a couple of thoughts about a this, in many ways I agree (and I will expand on that), but I see some distinctions. First, I think you know that "olam" doesn't necessarily mean "forever" (translated as "everlasting.") It can mean "everlasting for an age, or epoch." Or it can mean "forever."

A glaring conflict I see in regards to the Levitical Priesthood is that Yeshua is not a Levite and it would be against God's own Law for Him to be a priest in a Levitical order. I think Saul tried it once and it didn't turn out very well for him.

But David speaks of another priestly order in Psalm 110, and it is brought out again in Hebrews - "For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also." If we can't have Scripture going against Scripture, either there are two priesthoods (both being perpetual), or "olam" is being interpreted wrongly in Numbers 25:13. Yet Paul states that, in relation to how we worship God, there is no Jew, Greek, man, woman, etc. but we are all one in Messiah.

I also see some interesting things in the story of Cornelius - you know he was unclean - legally unclean according to Torah. Yet God told Peter not to call unclean what God has called clean. That would seem like a contradiction in God's own law, because God clearly demanded this wall of separation in His House. Yet God not only declared Cornelius "clean," He filled him with His Spirit. Note that the Jews were amazed. Rightly so, because they knew what the Law said.

So here we have a Gentile who is Spirit filled, but legally (according to God's Law) still can not enter the Temple in Jerusalem. Doesn't that seem like a conflict? So how do we reconcile it? The writer of Hebrews reconciles it quite nicely, as I understand it. And the writer also goes further to say this Malki-Tsadek order is superior to the Levitical order and notes that Abram tithed to Him while Levi was still in Abram's "loins." The writer also states the superiority of a High Priest to one (Levite) who needs to atone for his own sins. And other things, as you know as the Book to the Hebrews is one big "how much more" apologetic. Anyway, this is my understanding.

But back to Hebrews, consider Hebrews 7:12 - "For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change also made in [Torah]." Note it doesn't say a change in the "covenant." What 7:12 is pointing out is that there is a different "nomos" that creates the High Priesthood of Yeshua than the nomos that created the High priesthood of Aaron. Of necessity because they operate in different domains -

"For if He were on earth, He would not be a Priest at all, seeing that there are Priests who offer the gifts according to the [Torah]. (8:4)

Yet, our Bible is not the Quran. If a later passage seems to contradict and earlier passage, we don't just say "God changed His mind." If we see contradiction, we need to default to the position that we are interpreting something incorrectly.

Yet, I think we can work within that paradigm without corrupting our reasonable service to God.

LandShark
Sep 2nd 2014, 09:07 PM
I have a couple of thoughts about a this, in many ways I agree (and I will expand on that), but I see some distinctions. First, I think you know that "olam" doesn't necessarily mean "forever" (translated as "everlasting.") It can mean "everlasting for an age, or epoch." Or it can mean "forever."

Agreed, however, because it uses olam in the verse I cited and then in another chapter uses different terminology to declare aspects to their work as being everlasting, then I believe that is the case. However, I also must acknowledge that I have no clue what they can possibly be doing after the Millennial Kingdom. I do know we won't be floating on clouds playing harps, but I think we lack information sufficient to reveal what anyone will be doing, so perhaps they will have a job?


A glaring conflict I see in regards to the Levitical Priesthood is that Yeshua is not a Levite and it would be against God's own Law for Him to be a priest in a Levitical order. I think Saul tried it once and it didn't turn out very well for him.

Agreed but not sure why you raise this point. He acts as High Priest in the heavenly realm but won't here, when he returns he returns to rule, as King and also as High Priest (if I can use that here) of the Order of Melchizedek. We do have a place to rest on however for his working within the Levitical priesthood >>IF<< that was God's intent, adoption. The ancient near east definition of adoption in that day meant to be brought into a family (or tribe) to do the work of that family (or tribe). Caleb wasn't Israel at all... yet was the leader of Judah for a time. He was adopted for that purpose... Messiah himself the same. He had no earthly father but is of the line of David? By adoption, being brought into that family to do the work of that family.


But David speaks of another priestly order in Psalm 110, and it is brought out again in Hebrews - "For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also." If we can't have Scripture going against Scripture, either there are two priesthoods (both being perpetual), or "olam" is being interpreted wrongly in Numbers 25:13. Yet Paul states that, in relation to how we worship God, there is no Jew, Greek, man, woman, etc. but we are all one in Messiah.

Do note the word for changed there, brother. It is metatithēmi and it means to transfer, the literal concept is to place one before another. That doesn't mean the other is gone, it means another has been placed before it or even ahead of it. It is the weight being placed that has been altered.. that is what that word means.


I also see some interesting things in the story of Cornelius - you know he was unclean - legally unclean according to Torah. Yet God told Peter not to call unclean what God has called clean. That would seem like a contradiction in God's own law, because God clearly demanded this wall of separation in His House. Yet God not only declared Cornelius "clean," He filled him with His Spirit. Note that the Jews were amazed. Rightly so, because they knew what the Law said.

I disagree just a little. There isn't any information that states Cornelius was unclean. Did he touch a dead thing? Did he lay in the same bed with his wife while she was during her cycle? There is nothing stated other then God's message to Peter. I believe Keck, that it wasn't Torah that was stating Cornelius was unclean, after all, it wasn't just Israelites who came out of Egypt it was also foreigners, many probably Egyptian, and they at Sinai were absorbed into the tribes... they became a part of Israel. So not being an Israelite doesn't make one unclean, it makes one a gentile.. a pagan, a heathen. It was Jewish Halacha that Peter was fighting with... ethnic pride... Torah didn't declare Cornelius unclean, what now amounts to the Talmud did.


So here we have a Gentile who is Spirit filled, but legally (according to God's Law) still can not enter the Temple in Jerusalem. Doesn't that seem like a conflict? So how do we reconcile it? The writer of Hebrews reconciles it quite nicely, as I understand it. And the writer also goes further to say this Malki-Tsadek order is superior to the Levitical order and notes that Abram tithed to Him while Levi was still in Abram's "loins." The writer also states the superiority of a High Priest to one (Levite) who needs to atone for his own sins. And other things, as you know as the Book to the Hebrews is one big "how much more" apologetic. Anyway, this is my understanding.

I am fine with that! :) The order of Mel is weightier, but that doesn't make the lesser disappear, it just reshuffled the order which again is what the word for "changed" means in Hebrews 7.


Yet, our Bible is not the Quran. If a later passage seems to contradict and earlier passage, we don't just say "God changed His mind." If we see contradiction, we need to default to the position that we are interpreting something incorrectly.

Yet, I think we can work within that paradigm without corrupting our reasonable service to God.

I agree... and my paradigm starts with these 3 words, "God doesn't change." What He is now, He always has been... what He was then He is today OR He changes. Once that sinks in and we begin to move forward, some things seem to reconcile a little better. I don't believe my paradigm is perfect, how can it be, I lack the mind of God! But I do now have more answers that stand in harmony to God's instructions from Genesis through Revelation than I had before. And of course for that I am grateful and humbled! Blessings bro!

keck553
Sep 2nd 2014, 10:14 PM
Agreed, however, because it uses olam in the verse I cited and then in another chapter uses different terminology to declare aspects to their work as being everlasting, then I believe that is the case. However, I also must acknowledge that I have no clue what they can possibly be doing after the Millennial Kingdom. I do know we won't be floating on clouds playing harps, but I think we lack information sufficient to reveal what anyone will be doing, so perhaps they will have a job?

LOL. Floating on clouds and playing a four stringed instrument is not by idea of....well life. I mean finally, when I have the strength to actually do something without getting worn out (and old), I want to do that. If God gave Adam a job (tending the garden), then I expect He'll give me one too! Whether that is in a 'different domain' than this creation...well I don't worry about that much. But God didn't give me this desire, creativity, and gifts just to build stuff here that will vanish anyway. I expect to be "employed."

But even if "olam" in this context is enduring, I believe I made room for it in my post...not sure I expressed it well though.



Agreed but not sure why you raise this point. He acts as High Priest in the heavenly realm but won't here, when he returns he returns to rule, as King and also as High Priest (if I can use that here) of the Order of Melchizedek. We do have a place to rest on however for his working within the Levitical priesthood >>IF<< that was God's intent, adoption. The ancient near east definition of adoption in that day meant to be brought into a family (or tribe) to do the work of that family (or tribe). Caleb wasn't Israel at all... yet was the leader of Judah for a time. He was adopted for that purpose... Messiah himself the same. He had no earthly father but is of the line of David? By adoption, being brought into that family to do the work of that family.

I was kind of hoping that at some point...and I know its not this age...that restoration can go back to the way it was before God had to slaughter an animal to cover Adam and Eve... I admit that I don't spend much time studying the "millennium kingdom," mostly because it will be what it will be, and I am here now....and it's pretty much a lifetime project to do whatever God has for me to do within the time He allotted me...I know I won't live long enough to see a lot of fulfillment, but I know it will be done according to God's plan...and whatever that is, well I am all in.



Do note the word for changed there, brother. It is metatithēmi and it means to transfer, the literal concept is to place one before another. That doesn't mean the other is gone, it means another has been placed before it or even ahead of it. It is the weight being placed that has been altered.. that is what that word means.

I agree.




I disagree just a little. There isn't any information that states Cornelius was unclean. Did he touch a dead thing? Did he lay in the same bed with his wife while she was during her cycle? There is nothing stated other then God's message to Peter. I believe Keck, that it wasn't Torah that was stating Cornelius was unclean, after all, it wasn't just Israelites who came out of Egypt it was also foreigners, many probably Egyptian, and they at Sinai were absorbed into the tribes... they became a part of Israel. So not being an Israelite doesn't make one unclean, it makes one a gentile.. a pagan, a heathen. It was Jewish Halacha that Peter was fighting with... ethnic pride... Torah didn't declare Cornelius unclean, what now amounts to the Talmud did.

It's more than that. The questions that remain is - did Cornelius eat unclean food? Food sacrificed to idols? Among other things, are what you mentioned - a Gentile who wanted to enter had to know these things to enter undefiled, isn't that what "conversion" was? Someone, somewhere in Temple times needed to decide how to teach Gentiles what they needed to know so as not to defile the House of God. Historically, the Great Assembly addressed these issues...well codified these issues a few generations before Jesus, as Gentiles were flocking to God in fairly large numbers. I believe it was only proper to address these elements and make some kind of standard for Gentiles. Until that standard was met, there was a special court for Gentiles. So, culturally at least if a Gentile wasn't "adopted" (circumcised and taught the basics), they were not considered "clean" to enter. Even though we have categories of clean and unclean in the Bible, I think I can make the argument from Leviticus 10 that it is also the priests job to declare the clean and unclean, and that would include "sojourners." In Ezekiel, we read that the priests could not/did not make this distinction - further evidence that they were given this task. So I don't think it was wrong that the Great Assembly (mostly priests) addressed this issue. I don't think this is a bias, I think it was just an effort to maintain the holiness of the Temple. I can see how it could have become a bias though because the (perhaps) unintended consequence was a separation which I believe led to Peter's dilemma.

It's kind of similar with church membership. Most people have to go through a class to become a member - and this isn't just Baptists and such, it's also Messianic Synagogues also. Many demand background checks. It doesn't make the members any more God's people than non members, but some standards do need to be met, and there is nothing wrong with that, IMHO. But there will always be those that are in the "inner circle" who are biased against the "outer circle." I don't expect it's much different with anyone from any timeline in history. It's just one of those human things we need to overcome.



I am fine with that! :) The order of Mel is weightier, but that doesn't make the lesser disappear, it just reshuffled the order which again is what the word for "changed" means in Hebrews 7.

I can make room in my theology for both.



I agree... and my paradigm starts with these 3 words, "God doesn't change." What He is now, He always has been... what He was then He is today OR He changes. Once that sinks in and we begin to move forward, some things seem to reconcile a little better. I don't believe my paradigm is perfect, how can it be, I lack the mind of God! But I do now have more answers that stand in harmony to God's instructions from Genesis through Revelation than I had before. And of course for that I am grateful and humbled! Blessings bro!

I do not believe God changes either. He was the same God Adam had a relationship with, Noah had a relationship with, Abraham had a relationship with, David had a relationship with, and we have a relationship with. All those covenants are layered upon each other, I do not believe any have been nullified. Some would say Jesus intensified that relationship...or at least access to God. That changed a lot of things in human history, in corporate spiritual growth...but God remains the same. No, I don't see God changing...but I do see God changing us....individually and corporately...always toward greater restoration. So my vision into this great and awesome Book that God has revealed Himself through is not about Him changing but about Him restoring the creation, progressively through greater and greater ministrations.

Of course I have to work inside a box because of my finite limitations, so I won't pull God into my box.

LandShark
Sep 2nd 2014, 10:45 PM
LOL. Floating on clouds and playing a four stringed instrument is not by idea of....well life. I mean finally, when I have the strength to actually do something without getting worn out (and old), I want to do that. If God gave Adam a job (tending the garden), then I expect He'll give me one too! Whether that is in a 'different domain' than this creation...well I don't worry about that much. But God didn't give me this desire, creativity, and gifts just to build stuff here that will vanish anyway. I expect to be "employed."

Me too and I agree... while He gave us certain abilities for today, and for the Kingdom to come, I can't see a reason why He didn't give them to us for future use as well. And to save having to clip a comment you made later... I VERY MUCH believe we will return to a time when animals were not killed. If we are being restored, then it only makes sense that we be restored to where we fell from, not to a place that happened after while in a fallen state. So I expect a garden like atmosphere and a lot of tofu! :D OK, maybe not that blasted stuff... but certainly no animal killings.


It's more than that. The questions that remain is - did Cornelius eat unclean food? Food sacrificed to idols? Among other things, are what you mentioned - a Gentile who wanted to enter had to know these things to enter undefiled, isn't that what "conversion" was? Someone, somewhere in Temple times needed to decide how to teach Gentiles what they needed to know so as not to defile the House of God. Historically, the Great Assembly addressed these issues...well codified these issues a few generations before Jesus, as Gentiles were flocking to God in fairly large numbers. I believe it was only proper to address these elements and make some kind of standard for Gentiles. Until that standard was met, there was a special court for Gentiles. So, culturally at least if a Gentile wasn't "adopted" (circumcised and taught the basics), they were not considered "clean" to enter. Even though we have categories of clean and unclean in the Bible, I think I can make the argument from Leviticus 10 that it is also the priests job to declare the clean and unclean, and that would include "sojourners." In Ezekiel, we read that the priests could not/did not make this distinction - further evidence that they were given this task. So I don't think it was wrong that the Great Assembly (mostly priests) addressed this issue. I don't think this is a bias, I think it was just an effort to maintain the holiness of the Temple. I can see how it could have become a bias though because the (perhaps) unintended consequence was a separation which I believe led to Peter's dilemma.

Well, I don't know brother... eating pork doesn't make a person unclean (see Mark 7:18-20) it is simply removed through the elimination process (#2). ;) What comes out of a man is what made him unclean, puss, and other fluids I won't mention seeing this is Bible Chat. Even eating a food offered to idols would have been a sin, but not that which made a man unclean. If you know of verses that say otherwise, please go ahead and share them, I think you know I will be happy to consider them!


It's kind of similar with church membership. Most people have to go through a class to become a member - and this isn't just Baptists and such, it's also Messianic Synagogues also. Many demand background checks. It doesn't make the members any more God's people than non members, but some standards do need to be met, and there is nothing wrong with that, IMHO. But there will always be those that are in the "inner circle" who are biased against the "outer circle." I don't expect it's much different with anyone from any timeline in history. It's just one of those human things we need to overcome.

Agreed, man hasn't changed, if anything, he has gotten worse because he is better at hiding things!


I do not believe God changes either. He was the same God Adam had a relationship with, Noah had a relationship with, Abraham had a relationship with, David had a relationship with, and we have a relationship with. All those covenants are layered upon each other, I do not believe any have been nullified. Some would say Jesus intensified that relationship...or at least access to God. That changed a lot of things in human history, in corporate spiritual growth...but God remains the same. No, I don't see God changing...but I do see God changing us....individually and corporately...always toward greater restoration. So my vision into this great and awesome Book that God has revealed Himself through is not about Him changing but about Him restoring the creation, progressively through greater and greater ministrations.

Sure... (see bold and underlined) we should EXPECT to see more error, the further back in time we look at both ourselves and the body. As we move closer, we should be growing in understanding and wisdom. If not... wow, probably time to spend more time on the knees I guess?

keck553
Sep 2nd 2014, 10:52 PM
Well, I don't know brother... eating pork doesn't make a person unclean (see Mark 7:18-20) it is simply removed through the elimination process (#2). ;) What comes out of a man is what made him unclean, puss, and other fluids I won't mention seeing this is Bible Chat. Even eating a food offered to idols would have been a sin, but not that which made a man unclean. If you know of verses that say otherwise, please go ahead and share them, I think you know I will be happy to consider them!

But certainly you need to be "ritually" clean to enter, and there is a procedure for that.




Agreed, man hasn't changed, if anything, he has gotten worse because he is better at hiding things!

LOL. Well...not from God. Which makes Solomon's words even weightier, IMHO.




Sure... (see bold and underlined) we should EXPECT to see more error, the further back in time we look at both ourselves and the body. As we move closer, we should be growing in understanding and wisdom. If not... wow, probably time to spend more time on the knees I guess?

It seems that in most everything we do, it's a lot easier to achieve 90% of the goal than that last 10% doesn't it?

ewq1938
Sep 2nd 2014, 11:41 PM
Let's start last first. I can't hear your tone, so I will certainly be more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But just so you know where I am at... the "hmmm" could be taken sarcastically. Kind of the the, "Well, I just set you straight, what do you think you can say now, hmm?" You might not have meant it that way, in fact, I don't believe you did, but if you did, please stop.

No, I certainly didn't mean it in a bad way. What I meant is I believe it may not have been a co-incidence that Paul was removed before the time to sacrifice animals. The hmmmm....signifies me thinking to myself...it's more of a poetic expression. Please assume the best :D





That is possible... however, it is also possible you are wrong. While I have my doubts as to Paul taking the Vow of a Nazarite (doubts based on no mention of his hair being cut and then burned at the Temple entrance) if this was a Vow of a Nazarite, then the text not outright saying he went back on the 8th day doesn't mean he didn't. You still have an issue, if this wasn't THAT Vow, which was it?

Everything I have read on the matter says it was the Nazarite vow. I have no reason to doubt that it was as of yet.




Again, your understanding of what a sacrifice was and what mine are simply are not the same. I wouldn't have any issue, if there were a Temple and I was in the land, offering the Pesach, the Passover sacrifice, because I know all I would be doing is going through a ritual that points to the work of Jesus.

I said something to that effect as well: "I should also add that the text doesn't state Paul sacrificed any animals. Even if he had, it would just be going through the motions without the religious intent behind them especially concerning sin atonement. Paul knew that only Christ forgave sins, not animal sacrifice."





Did Paul make a sacrifice after the resurrection? Well, he clearly has a Vow on him in Acts 18 and if one from Jewish Halacha, then yes, he likely would have.

Need evidence though. What we do know about Paul is that many Jews hated him because he was teaching things that they believed to be anti-law so saying he was "likely" to be 100 percent kosher in Judaisms religious things doesn't match up very well especially when Paul was essentially forced into taking this vow to appease the "mob" that confronted him and even then what Paul did did not stop them from going after him. I think what is actually likely is Paul was just doing what he had to to survive. Luckily the Romans intervened and Paul was saved from the mob.






How degrading is it to the work of Messiah, if we took part in ceremonial cleansing, or sacrifices of animals, just to appease some mad people or save face?

Allow me to quote what you said on a similar matter:


I wouldn't have any issue, if there were a Temple and I was in the land, offering the Pesach, the Passover sacrifice, because I know all I would be doing is going through a ritual that points to the work of Jesus.

LandShark
Sep 3rd 2014, 12:35 AM
But certainly you need to be "ritually" clean to enter, and there is a procedure for that.

Sure brother, but we are almost treating being unclean as sin. If we touch something dead, we become unclean for a time, but that isn't sin. In fact, Jesus was born unclean... think about it... the fluids that came out of a woman at birth make her unclean for weeks... and he touched them all during the birthing process. Peter considered Cornelius unclean because he wasn't Jewish, and God was saying, "Who are you to determine who I think is clean or not!" I don't think the word "unclean" is being used in the same way in relation to Cornelius as it is used when one touches death. I really think Jewish Halacha at that time considered people unclean because they weren't Jewish, and I don't think that is the case in Scripture. Heck, David's grandmother was a gentile.


It seems that in most everything we do, it's a lot easier to achieve 90% of the goal than that last 10% doesn't it?

In everything, for sure. I am in the midst of losing weight... the first 20 pounds fly off... after that, not so much! :D

LandShark
Sep 3rd 2014, 12:47 AM
No, I certainly didn't mean it in a bad way. What I meant is I believe it may not have been a co-incidence that Paul was removed before the time to sacrifice animals. The hmmmm....signifies me thinking to myself...it's more of a poetic expression. Please assume the best :D

I will, thanks! :thumbsup:


Everything I have read on the matter says it was the Nazarite vow. I have no reason to doubt that it was as of yet.

Funny, I read 4 commentaries before responding earlier and all said, and I paraphrase, "While most see this as the vow of a Nazirite....this may have been something else" Personally, I have always seen it as such and only question it on the burning of the hair issue. But, just because something isn't mentioned, doesn't mean it isn't there. I am cautious now because, having looked at Josephus, I see that there are other vows that were common in that day, not commanded but not against Scripture either... that would have called for shaving, ritual bathes, and even offerings. I just don't know... I do know that if this was a vow of a Nazirite, Paul is taking part willingly in ceremonial law after the resurrection. If it is Jewish Halacha, then he is taking part in things outside of Scripture. Now I don't have an issue with either as long as either doesn't conflict with the character of God or His authority as presented in Scripture. However, if you believe the law is dead and over with, and that ANY tradition is bad tradition, then you have issues here.


I said something to that effect as well: "I should also add that the text doesn't state Paul sacrificed any animals. Even if he had, it would just be going through the motions without the religious intent behind them especially concerning sin atonement. Paul knew that only Christ forgave sins, not animal sacrifice."

We don't disagree on that, save for I do believe he did make sacrifices. But, as I stated (and underlined) in my last post... the sacrificial system and Feasts pointed to Yeshua's work. Whether they pointed forward in time (as in Noah's day) or back in time (as in Paul's day)... they still just pointed.


Need evidence though. What we do know about Paul is that many Jews hated him because he was teaching things that they believed to be anti-law so saying he was "likely" to be 100 percent kosher in Judaisms religious things doesn't match up very well especially when Paul was essentially forced into taking this vow to appease the "mob" that confronted him and even then what Paul did did not stop them from going after him. I think what is actually likely is Paul was just doing what he had to to survive. Luckily the Romans intervened and Paul was saved from the mob.

This is where I wish I could sit down with you for one hour. I would show you using historical sources and then Scripture, how there were two different schools of Pharisaical thought and that the crowd that claimed he was forsaking Torah came from only one school, and it wasn't even all of them who claimed it. And, I might add, Paul denied that charge 2-3 times...flatly saying he did NOT teach against Moses (an idiomatic reference to God's Torah) or the traditions (things passed down) of his people.... he denied doing those things. He could have answered, "Yes, Jesus' work ended the need for these things." But he didn't, when confronted he was crystal clear, he denied the charges.


Allow me to quote what you said on a similar matter: "I wouldn't have any issue, if there were a Temple and I was in the land, offering the Pesach, the Passover sacrifice, because I know all I would be doing is going through a ritual that points to the work of Jesus."

Of course I wouldn't because I understand that the sacrifices pointed forward to the work of Yeshua and if they were able to be done now, pointed backward. I hate to ask, but did you read my whole post to you? Because I gave an example of you taking part in communion which is something that points at work already completed. By re-quoting that comment of mine, I don't think you read the whole thing? :dunno: It is fine if you didn't, but let me know so I don't waste each other's time in the future.

Peace!
Ken

keck553
Sep 3rd 2014, 01:57 AM
Sure brother, but we are almost treating being unclean as sin. If we touch something dead, we become unclean for a time, but that isn't sin. In fact, Jesus was born unclean... think about it... the fluids that came out of a woman at birth make her unclean for weeks... and he touched them all during the birthing process. Peter considered Cornelius unclean because he wasn't Jewish, and God was saying, "Who are you to determine who I think is clean or not!" I don't think the word "unclean" is being used in the same way in relation to Cornelius as it is used when one touches death. I really think Jewish Halacha at that time considered people unclean because they weren't Jewish, and I don't think that is the case in Scripture. Heck, David's grandmother was a gentile.



In everything, for sure. I am in the midst of losing weight... the first 20 pounds fly off... after that, not so much! :D

But it doesn't say God thought he was clean, it says this:

"Act 10:15    And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has made clean, do not call common."

God said He made Cornelius clean. I looked up the greek word and it says this:


G2511 (Strong)

καθαρίζω

katharizō

kath-ar-id'-zo

From G2513; to cleanse (literally or figuratively): - (make) clean (-se), purge, purify.

That tells me that if Cornelius was made clean, he was in some other state before. It just seems deeper to me than a consideration.

ewq1938
Sep 3rd 2014, 02:00 AM
Funny, I read 4 commentaries before responding earlier and all said, and I paraphrase, "While most see this as the vow of a Nazirite....this may have been something else" Personally, I have always seen it as such and only question it on the burning of the hair issue. But, just because something isn't mentioned, doesn't mean it isn't there. I am cautious now because, having looked at Josephus, I see that there are other vows that were common in that day, not commanded but not against Scripture either... that would have called for shaving, ritual bathes, and even offerings. I just don't know... I do know that if this was a vow of a Nazirite,


Maybe we can find something that would prove it better? Are there vows where you are in the temple for 8 days aside from the Nazarite?




Paul is taking part willingly in ceremonial law after the resurrection.

It wasn't willingly:

Act 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
Act 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.


An angry mob confronted him and told him to do this. It would be different if they said, "Paul would you like to join these men in a religious vow to prove you aren't against the law?"....nope, they directly told him to do it.



However, if you believe the law is dead and over with, and that ANY tradition is bad tradition, then you have issues here.

Certainly the old covenant was no longer in effect and certainly Paul taught as much. I wouldn't go as far as saying something is "bad" although animal sacrifice for sin atonement "might" be close....otherwise, these traditions simply weren't a part of Christianity and the new covenvant. There is no such a religious vow in the new covenant.






We don't disagree on that, save for I do believe he did make sacrifices.

Well he didn't in this particular case because he was removed from the temple before the proper time and was with the Roman's during the time the sacrifices would have been made. Otherwise I have not read of him sacrificing animals after his conversion.






This is where I wish I could sit down with you for one hour. I would show you using historical sources and then Scripture, how there were two different schools of Pharisaical thought and that the crowd that claimed he was forsaking Torah came from only one school, and it wasn't even all of them who claimed it.

Yet we can not know who made up that mob. We can only go by what is written:

"Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Act 21:22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come."






And, I might add, Paul denied that charge 2-3 times...flatly saying he did NOT teach against Moses (an idiomatic reference to God's Torah) or the traditions (things passed down) of his people.... he denied doing those things. He could have answered, "Yes, Jesus' work ended the need for these things." But he didn't, when confronted he was crystal clear, he denied the charges.

Yet he does in his writings so we might have to look at those situations closer to understand them properly.



I hate to ask, but did you read my whole post to you? Because I gave an example of you taking part in communion which is something that points at work already completed. By re-quoting that comment of mine, I don't think you read the whole thing? :dunno: It is fine if you didn't, but let me know so I don't waste each other's time in the future.


Yes I read an entire post before replying. I would be unable to properly reply if I didn't and in fact it's because I read your post and remembered that you said something that perfectly answered the question you posed to me hence the quote. :D

ewq1938
Sep 3rd 2014, 02:09 AM
the fluids that came out of a woman at birth make her unclean for weeks... and he touched them all during the birthing process.

I'm pretty sure the baby was not considered unclean. I went and did some reading and can only see a reference to the woman being unclean for a period of time.

LandShark
Sep 3rd 2014, 02:27 AM
I'm pretty sure the baby was not considered unclean. I went and did some reading and can only see a reference to the woman being unclean for a period of time.

It doesn't say it there... what it says is that the fluids that come out (puss, birthing fluids, relational fluids, etc.) are what you come in contact with that make you unclean. If my wife has her time and I sit on the same toilet, I am considered unclean. If I have a boil that breaks open and others touch the fluid, that makes them unclean. That is why a leper was commanded to leave the camp... leprosy as we know it today, and what Scripture is calling a leper, are two different things. If you go and take another look at it in Leviticus, you'll see that even a HOUSE can have leprosy. So, if I have relations with my wife we are both unclean... a child born then is also born unclean, he has touched the fluids which make one unclean. But remember, THIS IS NOT SIN.... being unclean means you can't go into the Temple or perform certain duties until you go through a cleansing process which differs for each thing. There isn't anything we can do to alleviate sin, but there is something we can do to alleviate uncleanliness.

LandShark
Sep 3rd 2014, 02:44 AM
Maybe we can find something that would prove it better? Are there vows where you are in the temple for 8 days aside from the Nazarite?

If it matters, I can probably find something. I have a searchable version of the Talmud and I have a thought about the difference between 7 and 8 days, I will pray about sharing it.


It wasn't willingly:

Act 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
Act 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

He could have said no. I mean, do we take this to a point where Paul, who likely had an IQ around 160ish... couldn't think for himself?


An angry mob confronted him and told him to do this. It would be different if they said, "Paul would you like to join these men in a religious vow to prove you aren't against the law?"....nope, they directly told him to do it.

The angry mob comes at the end of the vow, not the beginning. Acts 21:20 says over 20,000 JEWS believed in Yeshua AND were zealous for Torah. Verse 21 shows that a claim has been made to them that somebody (or some people) are saying Paul has been teaching against Torah, again, a claim he later denies flatly. Verse 22 and 23 have him being advised to show that these claims are wrong, the context demands that. Verse 24 has whoever is advising him saying by taking part in this vow he will show that he does not speak again Torah. Then we have a couple of verses not overly germane to this discussion. The next verse has Jews FROM ASIA stirring up the crowd. Paul could have said no at any point... he KNEW the reason he was taking part in this was to show he was not against the Torah, and HE DID IT. Which means, he can't think for himself OR.... and this is what I believe, he was not teaching against Torah. In 2 Tim 3:16 he tells us, "All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness." He was not speaking of his own letters EVEN IF he believed them to be inspired. The only "Scripture" in that day was the Torah and Prophets, the NT was another 150 years away. So Paul is telling us to be taught using the Law and Prophets.


Certainly the old covenant was no longer in effect and certainly Paul taught as much. I wouldn't go as far as saying something is "bad" although animal sacrifice for sin atonement "might" be close....otherwise, these traditions simply weren't a part of Christianity and the new covenvant. There is no such a religious vow in the new covenant.

I don't agree with you at all here, but that is another thread. One thing... you say you come close to calling animal sacrifices bad? Who authored them? God? God is perfect, God is the author of the entire covenant, the whole Text... all the sacrifices. To call them bad is to say the author is imperfect. Just wanted to throw that out for you to consider.


Well he didn't in this particular case because he was removed from the temple before the proper time and was with the Roman's during the time the sacrifices would have been made. Otherwise I have not read of him sacrificing animals after his conversion.

Regardless, he is still willingly taking part in ceremonial laws you believe are obsolete. He could have said no, he could have set the record straight right then and there... but he didn't, he shaved his head and took the vow and made the offering.


Yet we can not know who made up that mob.

Yes we can, they were Jews from Asia who came in and stirred up the other Jews in the area... it plainly states that.

Blessings.
Ken

Protective Angel
Sep 3rd 2014, 02:46 AM
Adding a little humor here. :hug:


Some of you guys posts are like trying to read Greek. It's all Greek to me. ;)

LandShark
Sep 3rd 2014, 02:50 AM
It is time to re-read this very carefully. This is Jesus speaking, and it is a parable, but I will bolden some points worth considering.

Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Luke 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
Luke 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Luke 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him (Lazarus) to my father's house:
Luke 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Luke 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luke 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Like 2 Tim 3:16, Jesus is saying that the Torah (idiomatically called Moses here because Moses is who wrote it down) and Prophets are enough to hear the message that can save. That is NOT what we teach today, not even close. But there is no mistaking Jesus' words here!

LandShark
Sep 3rd 2014, 02:51 AM
Adding a little humor here. :hug:


Some of you guys posts are like trying to read Greek. It's all Greek to me. ;)

Greek is definitely Greek to me! :) I can read Hebrew and am getting better discerning the different forms of the words, but Greek is just, wow. I just don't have the time. Fortunately though, I have a very close friend who is sincerely one of the world's foremost experts in Koine Greek. I bend his ear all the time! :)

LandShark
Sep 3rd 2014, 03:04 AM
But it doesn't say God thought he was clean, it says this:

"Act 10:15    And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has made clean, do not call common."

God said He made Cornelius clean. I looked up the greek word and it says this:


G2511 (Strong)

καθαρίζω

katharizō

kath-ar-id'-zo

From G2513; to cleanse (literally or figuratively): - (make) clean (-se), purge, purify.

That tells me that if Cornelius was made clean, he was in some other state before. It just seems deeper to me than a consideration.

Let me think about it some more bro? I still think we are talking about a metaphoric statement. I mean, God does cleanse us... the Holy Spirit comes in and begins to clean house, we all believe that and so do I. So from THAT perspective I can say, "Yes, he was cleansed." But is that to mean as compared to say, "Having touched death?" I just don't think we are talking about the same type of uncleanliness even though the word is the same here. But, like I said... let me sleep on it... pray about it... my head is becoming mush tonight. I think I will turn in. :D Blessings!

Protective Angel
Sep 3rd 2014, 03:24 AM
It is time to re-read this very carefully. This is Jesus speaking

Luke 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luke 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Like 2 Tim 3:16, Jesus is saying that the Torah (idiomatically called Moses here because Moses is who wrote it down) and Prophets are enough to hear the message that can save. That is NOT what we teach today, not even close. But there is no mistaking Jesus' words here!

:hmm:

Though one rose from the dead (is included) . Meaning to me, that event, on top of, Moses and Prophets was enough.

From the American standard
LK 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead.

ewq1938
Sep 3rd 2014, 04:54 AM
He could have said no.

I don't think it would have been a wise choice.



I mean, do we take this to a point where Paul, who likely had an IQ around 160ish... couldn't think for himself?

I don't think that is called for. I have not insulted Paul's intelligence or questioned his ability to think for himself. I can tell from his writings he is intelligent, but guessing at his IQ level is more than I would attempt just because it's pure speculation.




The angry mob comes at the end of the vow, not the beginning.

Well there was a group at the start that needed Paul to try to prove that he was more like them than what they had heard, and a more angry mob came later but there was quite a number of people there at the beginning:

Act 21:16 There went with us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge.
Act 21:17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
Act 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
Act 21:19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Act 21:22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
Act 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;


I think this group is a smaller representation of the mob that later comes and removes Paul from the Temple but it's still a "mob" in the sense that they confront Paul and TELL him what he has to do rather than ask.







I don't agree with you at all here, but that is another thread. One thing... you say you come close to calling animal sacrifices bad? Who authored them? God? God is perfect, God is the author of the entire covenant, the whole Text... all the sacrifices. To call them bad is to say the author is imperfect. Just wanted to throw that out for you to consider.

You have merely misunderstood me. God no longer takes pleasure in sacrifices, and no longer wants them. I think it "might" be wrong for someone, especially a Christian, to religiously sacrifice animals at all.

Heb_10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.








Regardless, he is still willingly taking part in ceremonial laws you believe are obsolete. He could have said no, he could have set the record straight right then and there... but he didn't, he shaved his head and took the vow and made the offering.

I disagree with most of this.




Yes we can, they were Jews from Asia who came in and stirred up the other Jews in the area... it plainly states that.

I do not see that written quite as you have worded it, sorry.

ewq1938
Sep 3rd 2014, 04:57 AM
Like 2 Tim 3:16, Jesus is saying that the Torah (idiomatically called Moses here because Moses is who wrote it down) and Prophets are enough to hear the message that can save. That is NOT what we teach today, not even close. But there is no mistaking Jesus' words here!

That is because you cannot be saved that way any longer. There is a new way, a better way, and Jesus started it and people like Paul brought it to the world :D

Dmcal57
Sep 3rd 2014, 07:13 AM
Eccleasiates 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.



Are Solomon's words still in affect today ? The answer for me is yes.

If by commandments you mean placing yourself under the law of Moses, I say absolutely not! The Scriptures make it very clear from every angle that we are no longer under that first covenant.
Christ met the righteous requirements of the Law on our behalf, they were nailed to the cross and made obsolete. That husband is dead to us, because the law only makes us conscious of sin
and brings wrath when we fail at it. We are under a new covenant! We follow Christ and are led by the Spirit. If we are attempting to walk as our Lord walked, then we will strive to love all people
as ourselves, keep control of our bodies and make Godly decisions in everything we do in Christ, but we are not under the commands and regulations of the law. If we sin, we confess our
sin and he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. As the Scripture says, anyone who desires to be circumcised, putting themselves under the law, has been
alienated from Christ and has wandered away from grace. Regarding the Law vs. Grace, Acts.15:5-10 pretty much kills the idea of whether or not we should remain under the law, as well the most
of the book of Galatians, Roman's, Hebrews and other select Scriptures.

ewq1938
Sep 3rd 2014, 07:17 AM
If by commandments you mean placing yourself under the law of Moses, I say absolutely not! The Scriptures make it very clear from every angle that we are no longer under that first covenant.
Christ met the righteous requirements of the Law on our behalf, they were nailed to the cross and made obsolete. That husband is dead to us, because the law only makes us conscious of sin
and brings wrath when we fail at it. We are under a new covenant! We follow Christ and are led by the Spirit. If we are attempting to walk as or Lord walked, then we will strive to love all people
as ourselves, keep control of our bodies and make Godly decisions in everything we do in Christ, but we are not under the commands and regulations of the law. If we sin, we confess our
sin and he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. As the Scripture says, anyone who desires to be circumcised, putting themselves under the law, has been
alienated from Christ and has wandered away from grace. Regarding the Law vs. Grace, Acts.15:5-10 pretty much kills the idea of whether or not we should remain under the law, as well the most
of the book of Galatians, Roman's, Hebrews and other select Scriptures.

Amen brother... .

Dmcal57
Sep 3rd 2014, 08:41 AM
Amen brother... .

Much thanks for the rep and I second that, Amen!

LandShark
Sep 3rd 2014, 11:33 AM
:hmm:

Though one rose from the dead (is included) . Meaning to me, that event, on top of, Moses and Prophets was enough.

From the American standard
LK 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead.

Agreed, I am not trying to take anything away from anything written in the NT. Just saying, God inspired Moses to write down all the things He expects of His people, and the things He desires us to avoid. The Prophets expounded on them as do the Apostolic Writings. The gospels show how they were to be walked out... Jesus did that perfectly. :) Blessings.

LandShark
Sep 3rd 2014, 11:39 AM
That is because you cannot be saved that way any longer. There is a new way, a better way, and Jesus started it and people like Paul brought it to the world :D


You never could be saved by that way! Where did you get the idea you EVER could? The Torah and Prophets testify of Messiah, he said so himself. "Search the Scripture, for in them you think you have eternal life, but they are that which TESTIFY OF ME." There was no NT in that day, the reference was to the only "scripture" of the day, the Torah and Prophets (and Psalms). The information needed to be saved was in there, IS IN THERE, and that is what Jesus was saying. He could have sent somebody back from the dead, but they already had the information... it was contained in the Torah and Prophets... and if they won't hear that, they won't hear somebody from the dead.

LandShark
Sep 3rd 2014, 11:50 AM
If by commandments you mean placing yourself under the law of Moses, I say absolutely not! The Scriptures make it very clear from every angle that we are no longer under that first covenant.
Christ met the righteous requirements of the Law on our behalf, they were nailed to the cross and made obsolete. That husband is dead to us, because the law only makes us conscious of sin
and brings wrath when we fail at it. We are under a new covenant! We follow Christ and are led by the Spirit. If we are attempting to walk as our Lord walked, then we will strive to love all people
as ourselves, keep control of our bodies and make Godly decisions in everything we do in Christ, but we are not under the commands and regulations of the law. If we sin, we confess our
sin and he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. As the Scripture says, anyone who desires to be circumcised, putting themselves under the law, has been
alienated from Christ and has wandered away from grace. Regarding the Law vs. Grace, Acts.15:5-10 pretty much kills the idea of whether or not we should remain under the law, as well the most
of the book of Galatians, Roman's, Hebrews and other select Scriptures.

Brother, there is much I could address here. But I will say only this much. "Under the law" and "under grace" are idioms. They are an abstract thought presented to depict a literal undertone. When somebody, "Kicks the bucket," they don't really kick a bucket, it means they have died... it is an idiom. The law is not a blanket one pulls up and gets "under," the phrase is idiomatic. And what it means is quite simple.... to be "under the law" is to be guilty, deserving of punishment. To be under grace means to be forgiven, it means we are under the coverture of our husband, Messiah. So, we who walk in faith are no longer "under the law" (guilty of sin) we are now "under grace" (forgiven, free to worship and walk without fear of condemnation). So, when we cease being under the law because we came in faith to Messiah and are now under grace, that does not abrogate the Commandments of God. This is why messiah said, "If you love me keep my commandments." Keep in mind, he is the same God that gave the commandments at Sinai. John said, "this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments." What was nailed to the cross was not the law, if you don't believe me, go look at the Greek. You won't find nomos (law) in that verse, you will find dogma... which is defined as civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical decrees. It CAN be speaking of a God made decree, but it would be then the decree of death for sin. The idea that "Do not murder" was nailed to the cross, is simply wrong. The word nomos in ANY form is not in the verse. So for us to say, "He nailed the law to the cross" is adding to Scripture.

I truly don't care what you or anyone else believe. We all have to walk this thing out as best we understand and as we feel convicted by God. We all answer, as individuals, to Him alone. I am simply going to say, "don't take anything for granted." Look up every word, don't rely on 21st century dictionaries to define words that had different meanings in 1611. Words like gentiles, righteousness, and others were preserved from the earlier English bibles to the modern. The problem is, those words and many others no longer are defined as they once were. I have read some of your posts, I think you have a heart for God and a desire to grow, but don't just rely on what amounts to church bylaws. Your post above was fine, but it was as if toeing the party line. And as an example so as to be understood... you say we are now to walk only by the Spirit. True, but... you also say we are to walk as our Lord walked, also true. The problem is, our Lord followed the same Torah you say was done away with. We can't follow him if the parameters which defined his walk are removed... which you just did by nailing them to the cross. Prove all things brother, which means fairly and prayerfully consider all things. Peace!

LandShark
Sep 3rd 2014, 12:36 PM
I don't think it would have been a wise choice.

You haven't caught my inferences so I am just going to state it... you can't paint Paul as a pillar of the faith, a defender of the truth, one who would stand up in satan's face and rebuke him harshly, and then allow him to cower down because of some mob who thinks he is teaching against Torah! You can't have it both ways, he isn't one of the hallmarks of strength AND one who takes part in things he doesn't believe in to appease those who want to do him harm. If he took the vow of a Nazirite, is was not to appease anyone, and it was not out of fear of others... It was because he believed in the action or he is a hypocrite! If you believe that this aspect of the Scripture was now "nailed to the cross," then he should not be taking part in that AT ALL so as not to create any confusion. Yet, not only does he take part, not only does he NOT say "NO!," he later denies teaching against the stuff you believe he taught against. It is fine if YOU THINK it wouldn't have been wise, but unless you are saying that Paul only did this thing because he FEARED MAN, then he did this thing because he believed in doing it.


I don't think that is called for. I have not insulted Paul's intelligence or questioned his ability to think for himself. I can tell from his writings he is intelligent, but guessing at his IQ level is more than I would attempt just because it's pure speculation.

I am guessing based on the words and phrases he uses... he thought on a higher level than most. That isn't the point, however. You are basically saying he took this vow either out of fear or because he was manipulated into it. Either way, that paints him as weak. Your position, respectfully, removes Paul's ability to be a pillar of the faith, because your position has allowed him to be manipulated by fear of man.


Well there was a group at the start that needed Paul to try to prove that he was more like them than what they had heard, and a more angry mob came later but there was quite a number of people there at the beginning:

If you go back to Acts 21:20, you will see "many thousands." Two things about that, first, if you go back and read the whole chapter up until that point, you will learn that the "many thousands of Jews" are the Jews in Jerusalem who were part of the Church of Jerusalem of which James was the head. Now, the word for "many thousands" is murias, which means 10,000, but it is plural which means it is AT LEAST 20,000 Jews who believe Yeshua is Messiah and who kept Torah that lived in Jerusalem. Then the chapter shifts, to one man or a few of them (James and the elders) who are talking to Paul about claims being made about Paul and why he should do this thing we are talking about. Paul does the vow, and during the week he is doing it, Jews >>FROM ASIA<< come in and rile up the multitude. So Paul didn't take the vow because 20,000 Jews had him cornered, he took the vow because he believe he SHOULD. It was while he was taking it that the multitude began to rise against him. If you read the chapter from start to finish, that is what is being said.

Brother.... he either took the vow in agreement to show he was not teaching against Torah as per the claims against him.... or..... he took the vow because he was manipulated into doing so. The latter paints him as a weak!


I think this group is a smaller representation of the mob that later comes and removes Paul from the Temple but it's still a "mob" in the sense that they confront Paul and TELL him what he has to do rather than ask.

The people talking to Paul and encouraging him to do this vow, the people YOU are calling a mob.... are seen here:

Act 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

That isn't some unruly "mob," it is James, the head of the Church of Jerusalem and the church leadership for the same. I promise you, that was a calm and reasonable discussion... not some "mob" as you keep calling them!


You have merely misunderstood me. God no longer takes pleasure in sacrifices, and no longer wants them. I think it "might" be wrong for someone, especially a Christian, to religiously sacrifice animals at all.

God >>NEVER<< took "pleasure" in them in that sense. They were always a means to an end that pointed at the one who COULD actually deal with sin and death. As for not wanting them, I would in general agree, but there are too many verses that indicate Millennial Kingdom sacrifices AT LEAST by the nations, not by God's Israel. My belief is that we won't be doing them, we are already perfected at that point. But we will be teaching the nations and part of that teaching will be them coming to do sacrifices in Jerusalem. If you doubt others will be alive during the Millennial Kingdom, I can supply more than enough verses to prove it.


I disagree with most of this.

That is fine, nobody said we had to agree on everything. I am pretty sure Paul and Peter were not in agreement on some things, to the point of almost a public fight. We don't have to agree on the details, but we do have to be unified on the bigger picture items.


I do not see that written quite as you have worded it, sorry.

Just remove any bias (we all have biases, so don't think that was some kind of dig) and re-read it. Paul comes into Jerusalem, meets with James and the elders of the congregation of Jerusalem which has over 20,000 members. At that time, James and the elders tell Paul that others are saying he is teaching against Torah. James and the elders suggest Paul take part in this vow to prove otherwise... which Paul does because, as I have stated, Paul flatly denies teaching against Torah 2-3 times in Acts. So, he takes the vow, and at the end of the week, Jews from Asia stirred up the multitude, which is already identified as the Jews in Jerusalem who believed on Yeshua and were zealous for Torah. Verse 22 seems to be a hang up for you, I suggest looking at it through a few different versions.

watchinginawe
Sep 3rd 2014, 12:59 PM
In the above, God is tired of them "going through the motions," which is actually what you said Paul was doing. God saw no heart in their actions, and denounces it all based on that. The oblation here, same word used for Paul in Acts, is an offering brought before God in the Temple... which means we are back to more ceremonial law after the resurrection. If the ceremonial law has been done away with as you believe, Paul sinned for continuing to take part in something obsolete. You understand that, if "Christ's Law" made the ceremonial law obsolete, then taking part in that would be to take part in something that stands against Christ's law... that is what you have Paul doing here. Or, perhaps some things we thought we obsolete are not obsolete and we simply need to reconcile some things patiently, prayerfully, over time. Paul at the very least took part in OT ceremonial purification processes and made an offering in the Temple which is also part of OT ceremonial law. Either Paul was a milk-toast wimp who was scared and did these things to keep from being killed.... or..... he was a hypocrite who seemingly preached an end to something that he took part in on multiple occasions... or.... our interpretation of a few things might not completely reflect first century practices. I vote for the latter, just so you know.

Acts 21:17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

I certainly have not studied this out in order to defend or discover an otherwise important position, so my points may not have much sharpness. But as a Christian over the years, I have contemplated from time to time when reading through Acts why Paul was compelled to do clearly contrary to his feelings on the matter in Acts 21. I easily could have seen Paul withstanding James, but he submitted. I do not think Paul submitted for James' stated reasons, but rather for the reason I have already posted which Paul shared to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 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. 23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

Paul gives three classes of folks above. Jews, Gentiles, and those so destitute so as not to know the difference. Paul was all things to all men for the Gospel's sake. But also, from a personal comportment point of view, we also have the following check from the Apostle Paul. We have to remember, it wasn't like they had all met in Jerusalem and decided to make a Christian temple separate from the Jewish temple and commence new rituals. These were Jewish customs, traditions, interwoven with their way of life:

Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

So Paul was very much a "when in Jerusalem, do as the Jews" kind of guy. He would not show offence to the traditions and so took James' advice. But as I said, for His reasons, not necessarily James'.

The period is very interesting as well. You have Christians in the Temple from not long after Jesus' ascension. Now for me, I think you are too abrupt in timing in saying "what about sacrifices after Jesus' sacrifice?" God has a plan. The Gospel is going to be preached for a generation, even in the temple. Many Jews are going to believe. I am going to go back to the beginning of Paul's journey and pick up on something very ironic and important in my opinion. It begins like this:

Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith. 8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. 10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. 12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, 13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: 14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.

Ah, it is yet in the future, when the place will be destroyed. But these are false witnesses you say? Stephen never counters this accusation and is put to death for it. We know Jesus preached it as well. These were the charges against Stephen. Who would destroy the place? Who would change the customs? When would this occur?

After delivering his long sermon, Stephen is stoned, and the irony is set up:

57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, 58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

I propose God did in 70 A.D exactly as Stephen apparently preached in the early church. In 70 A.D. the Temple was destroyed and with it all the ceremonial rituals thereof. Furthermore, I believe God did it right on time, in the fullness of time, even as it was prophesied. As keck553 offered, the drawing down of that curtain has been effective to this date. No Temple, No priests, No sacrifices. Customs? Traditions? Sure. Temple system? :no:

Galatians 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. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

K, you seem to have put a lot of stock in a future temple and a future millennium and future sacrifices. It isn't important to my argument above, but I don't believe that either. I think the sacrificing is done for. I will leave end time views for the other forums, but you did bring it up and I wanted to at least mention it.

LandShark
Sep 3rd 2014, 01:44 PM
K, you seem to have put a lot of stock in a future temple and a future millennium and future sacrifices. It isn't important to my argument above, but I don't believe that either. I think the sacrificing is done for. I will leave end time views for the other forums, but you did bring it up and I wanted to at least mention it.

Stock? No... there are just a handful of verses that are pretty clear that they will happen. If true, then any theology that rules them out can't be correct and needs to be revisited. That isn't easy when we factor in our emotional attachments to our beliefs, which is something I had to deal with too. Not easy, but it has to be faced. Now, as for the rest of your comments which I appreciate... When Paul said to be a Jew to a Jew and a gentile to a gentile... that does NOT mean that when dealing with drug addicts he would take drugs, or with sex addicts he would go have indiscriminate sex. What the comment means is we need to be able to discern where a person is on their walk and speak to them on that level while encouraging them to continue taking steps forward. A "Jew to a Jew" does not mean going and taking part in things that Jesus supposedly did away with. That negates his works, we are to be a light, a shining beacon, DIFFERENT than the others so that people see God in our walk and our words. If we compromise and take part in things that are beneath the character of God in order to win people on that level we are profaning God to win people to God? No... and while I don't have the same view of the OT you do, the fact that you think these things were done away with means Paul can't be doing them to win the Jews without putting Messiah to an open shame for taking part in things that are were done away with by Messiah's work. Sorry... I just can't go here with you.

And by the way, I don't think Paul was putting Messiah to an open shame... because I don't believe taking a vow of a Nazirite or resting on the Sabbath were done away with. I see his actions as consistent with his words... namely...

Act 28:17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

Act 25:7 And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.
Act 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

And what were the complaints? That he taught against the laws of Moses, which is an idiomatic reference to the laws of God. He denies these charges... so the notion that Paul taught that the Law was done away with is either wrong or Paul is lying in the above two verses. I am not going for shock value here Watching (:D ), I am being serious. He denies teaching against the customs and laws of his people. Either he is lying when he denies those charges, or our interpretation of what is being said in some of his letters is wrong. Because both are not correct. Blessings!!!

mailmandan
Sep 3rd 2014, 02:04 PM
Eccleasiates 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Are Solomon's words still in affect today? The answer for me is yes.

Amen! Jesus said in John 14:15, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." In John 15:10, Jesus said, "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love." In 1 John 2:3, we read - "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments." In 1 John 3:24, we read - "Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us."

watchinginawe
Sep 3rd 2014, 03:14 PM
Stock? No... there are just a handful of verses that are pretty clear that they will happen. If true, then any theology that rules them out can't be correct and needs to be revisited. That isn't easy when we factor in our emotional attachments to our beliefs, which is something I had to deal with too. Not easy, but it has to be faced. Now, as for the rest of your comments which I appreciate... When Paul said to be a Jew to a Jew and a gentile to a gentile... that does NOT mean that when dealing with drug addicts he would take drugs, or with sex addicts he would go have indiscriminate sex. What the comment means is we need to be able to discern where a person is on their walk and speak to them on that level while encouraging them to continue taking steps forward. A "Jew to a Jew" does not mean going and taking part in things that Jesus supposedly did away with. That negates his works, we are to be a light, a shining beacon, DIFFERENT than the others so that people see God in our walk and our words. If we compromise and take part in things that are beneath the character of God in order to win people on that level we are profaning God to win people to God? No... and while I don't have the same view of the OT you do, the fact that you think these things were done away with means Paul can't be doing them to win the Jews without putting Messiah to an open shame for taking part in things that are were done away with by Messiah's work. Sorry... I just can't go here with you.

And by the way, I don't think Paul was putting Messiah to an open shame... because I don't believe taking a vow of a Nazirite or resting on the Sabbath were done away with. I see his actions as consistent with his words... namely...

Act 28:17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

Act 25:7 And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.
Act 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

And what were the complaints? That he taught against the laws of Moses, which is an idiomatic reference to the laws of God. He denies these charges... so the notion that Paul taught that the Law was done away with is either wrong or Paul is lying in the above two verses. I am not going for shock value here Watching (:D ), I am being serious. He denies teaching against the customs and laws of his people. Either he is lying when he denies those charges, or our interpretation of what is being said in some of his letters is wrong. Because both are not correct. Blessings!!!

K, I will only say that you somehow have missed my point and framed things along the way you want to see them again. That is fine because I took a pretty good bit of care in presenting the thought, so it shouldn't be hard to fish out what you missed. Paul participated before it was done away with, that was my point plain and simple. You do not view 70 A.D. as an eschatological event, but something else apparently. Anyway, you completely mis-characterize my viewpoint in saying that I believe Paul put Messiah to open shame. I took care to present exactly the opposite, but you were blinded by your automatic refusal to disagree.

But as I also offered, this isn't one of my main things and I can already tell that if I dwell long here, and gauging by your response above, I will not have a happy feely exchange.

I will point out lastly that the last passage I offered above from Galatians claimed that God did away with the distinction between Jew and Gentile by faith in Christ. Paul's conclusion in the next chapter regarding the law?

Galatians 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

So the only thing you fail to see is God's plan. Jesus comes, ministers, dies on the cross, is buried, and raised the third day. Paul said "the fulness of the time was come". Jesus said it was expedient for Him to go, for if He went to the Father, He would send the Comforter. Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come...

Now there was a time between the two events. I hope most of us here expect Jesus' return. But there are things prophesied between Jesus' death and resurrection and His return. The promise of the Holy Ghost is one. And the destruction of the temple is another. We don't go back to the time between Jesus' resurrection and the giving of the Holy Ghost and say that is God's plan. The same is true for the period before the destruction of the temple and the end of the temple system. We don't look to that as the norm, God brought it to a close.

Also, any system which didn't accept Gentiles into their court was going to go, period. Let's look at some of the "why" God brought the curtain down on that scene:

Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.
...
Acts 22:21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. 22 And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.

God's plan is not to reform the Temple system. It is done now, gone bye bye. Put your faith in Jesus Christ where there is liberty, step out from the tutor and schoolmaster.

Anyway, way more than I wanted to offer, especially when someone completely misses the point and says that my view was that Paul was putting Jesus' sacrifice to open shame. Sheesh.

Dmcal57
Sep 3rd 2014, 03:28 PM
Amen! Jesus said in John 14:15, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." In John 15:10, Jesus said, "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love." In 1 John 2:3, we read - "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments." In 1 John 3:24, we read - "Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us."

By Jesus saying "Keep my commands" he wasn't speaking about keeping the Law of Moses, but his commandment is for believers to love one another.

mailmandan
Sep 3rd 2014, 03:35 PM
By Jesus saying "Keep my commands" he wasn't speaking about keeping the Law of Moses, but his commandment is for believers to love one another.

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Is the moral aspect of the Law of Moses detached from these two great commandments?

watchinginawe
Sep 3rd 2014, 04:16 PM
And what were the complaints? That he taught against the laws of Moses, which is an idiomatic reference to the laws of God. He denies these charges... so the notion that Paul taught that the Law was done away with is either wrong or Paul is lying in the above two verses. I am not going for shock value here Watching ( ), I am being serious. He denies teaching against the customs and laws of his people. Either he is lying when he denies those charges, or our interpretation of what is being said in some of his letters is wrong. Because both are not correct. Blessings!!!

This may need some more. No, you are wrong about the complaints brought against Paul. I provided the accusations in my last post.

Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.
...
Acts 22:21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. 22 And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.

So this is what got him arrested, and what commenced the riot when he tried to defend himself. For the record, here are the official charges brought against Paul. They are not what you suggest:

Acts 24:1 And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul. ... 5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: 6 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.

Accused exactly like the crowd accused. Paul's defense? Nothing about defending the law as you suggest. In fact, let's see what he defends:

Acts 24:12 And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city: 13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.

14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: 15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. 16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void to offence toward God, and toward men.

The case against Paul is not how you frame it. Paul is not defending himself by saying he teaches the law everywhere he goes.

You referenced these verses from Acts 25 as Paul offering his defense that he did not teach contrary to the law of Moses:

Acts 25:7 And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. 8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.


That is terrible LandShark. Paul is offering defense on Capital charges. You have to post the verses to know what Paul is defending against. We already have the formal charges I have given above, that he polluted the Temple. Paul says he was not guilty, for they supposed he had brought Trophimus into the Temple (Acts 21:29). He says the following to Festus:

Acts 25:10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. 11 For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.

So much for shock value. Paul is testifying truthfully. He was not guilty of anything worthy of death. Besides, he was a Roman citizen.

Acts 28:17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. 18 Who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of death in me. 19 But when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had ought to accuse my nation of. 20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
...
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. 24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.

One would think reading your post that Paul was teaching the Law in Rome as the star student of Gamaliel. Paul simply states why it is he is in chains, again stating his innocence and why he appealed to Caesar (v. 17-19).

What is Paul using the occasion for? Really, we could go back to all of his defenses and ask the same thing. What was Paul using the occasions for? To testify of the Law, or teaching the law and how it integrated with Christianity? Or was it the concept of how that had been fulfilled and there was now the new hope looking forward in Jesus Christ? Paul leverages his Judaism to good advantage in gaining some to Christ, but he does not carry out the remainder of his life as a Jew practicing the law and separating himself from Gentiles. It would be pointless anyway. The closing of the Book of Acts:

Acts 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, 26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: 27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. 29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.

keck553
Sep 3rd 2014, 04:34 PM
Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Is the moral aspect of the Law of Moses detached from these two great commandments?

Good question, because the original author of that axiom was Hillel (a generation before Jesus) - but Hillel didn't stop there. This was his original statement -


That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

Note that discipleship was not left out of Hillel's advise. We can not just "love our neighbor" our way and expect to be correct. Biblical love does not exist in a vacuum. If we are going to abide in God, we must love God's way, and for that we need to be what Hillel instructed and what Jesus called us to be - disciples. Meaning we have to learn God's will. We do that by -

"Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will."

Where is our definite, indisputable source for that? A commentary? A self help book? Our feelings? Nope. Its God's Word. And central to that is His Law. That is where we "go and learn."

Noeb
Sep 3rd 2014, 04:55 PM
Not to mention Jesus was teaching the law and the prophets in Matthew 5-7.

keck553
Sep 3rd 2014, 05:36 PM
Let me think about it some more bro? I still think we are talking about a metaphoric statement. I mean, God does cleanse us... the Holy Spirit comes in and begins to clean house, we all believe that and so do I. So from THAT perspective I can say, "Yes, he was cleansed." But is that to mean as compared to say, "Having touched death?" I just don't think we are talking about the same type of uncleanliness even though the word is the same here. But, like I said... let me sleep on it... pray about it... my head is becoming mush tonight. I think I will turn in. :D Blessings!

Well I thought about it also and I had a glimpse of something...difficult to verbalize. But here's what was swirling around my cranium...

God used unclean animals to teach Peter the lesson, so I am associating "unclean" with "unclean." I'm not saying "unclean" is a sin; it is simply a state an Israelite could find themselves in. Also, the term "tahor" and "Tumah" are the same words used to describe an unclean animal and a human who is ritually unclean and can't enter the Temple.

Not to sidetrack, but there was nothing a Eunuch could do to enter, but God made provision for the Ethiopian in Gaza that Philipp encountered. That Ethiopian had direct access to the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16) but still no access to the Temple. It's just further evidence that there are two priestly systems at play here, both legitimate, both with differing procedures for access.

So it is the access that I was pondering over - the physical Temple had physical requirements, but the Throne of grace not made with hands had spiritual requirements. Remember Yeshua told the woman at the well that the time would come when there would be no physical place to worship, but worship would be in spirit and in truth. That is the place I believe God led Cornelius and the Ethiopian to. It's a different order. We are not there physically so the physical requirements do not apply. But there are spiritual requirements, and they are clearly detailed in the Apostolic Scriptures.

So in matters of worship, yes - there is a clear division of two systems I believe the Book to the Hebrews presents the Levitical system as imperfect and the Malki-Tsadek system as perfect (that would be the default if God is ministering as High Priest). However I also read a stern warning in Hebrews regarding the profaning "greater" system (Zion) as compared to the "lessor" system (Sinai):

"Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?"

With the greater comes much more responsibility. That should indeed cause Believers in Jesus to work out their salvation in fear and trembling, as it is written -

"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,"

So those were the thoughts swirling around in my head.

Protective Angel
Sep 3rd 2014, 06:28 PM
If by commandments you mean placing yourself under the law of Moses, I say absolutely not! The Scriptures make it very clear from every angle that we are no longer under that first covenant.
.

So what do you say to these scriptures? :hug:


Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

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?

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.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Protective Angel
Sep 3rd 2014, 06:36 PM
By Jesus saying "Keep my commands" he wasn't speaking about keeping the Law of Moses, but his commandment is for believers to love one another.

Are you saying the ten commandments mean nothing? :confused

LandShark
Sep 3rd 2014, 08:41 PM
K, I will only say that you somehow have missed my point and framed things along the way you want to see them again. That is fine because I took a pretty good bit of care in presenting the thought, so it shouldn't be hard to fish out what you missed. Paul participated before it was done away with, that was my point plain and simple. You do not view 70 A.D. as an eschatological event, but something else apparently. Anyway, you completely mis-characterize my viewpoint in saying that I believe Paul put Messiah to open shame. I took care to present exactly the opposite, but you were blinded by your automatic refusal to disagree.

Don't take anything personal here, it certainly wasn't meant to be! I don't take 70AD as a eschatological event, I take it as punishment, nothing more. The Israelites were in the wilderness for 40 years as punishment because of all the issues they had. The Temple was destroyed 40 years after Yeshua was crucified, and there is actually a passage in the Talmud, and I will look to find it again... that states, and I have to paraphrase this, "We must have wronged somebody." So I see the event as punishment for their rejection and also what was needed to eventually scatter the Jews back into the nations to preserve them. All in one place they would have been gone long ago... scattered into the nations and they are protected as a people, for the most part.

LandShark
Sep 3rd 2014, 08:46 PM
By Jesus saying "Keep my commands" he wasn't speaking about keeping the Law of Moses, but his commandment is for believers to love one another.

The two NEW commandments weren't new, both were repeated from the Torah. Interestingly the word for new there is kainos which means RENEW. In other words, by sharing them as he did he was giving them a fresh face, a rejuvenation, revealing the spirit behind the letter... kainos, renewed. Anyway.... Jesus said the two main or top commandments were LOVE GOD and LOVE NEIGHBOR. Then he said, "upon these two hang >>ALL OF THE LAW AND PROPHETS.<< Not, "done away with," but categorized by one of those two. Think of "love God" as one big nail that you hammer half way into the wall. Then think of "love neighbor" as another big nail hammered halfway into the wall. Two big nails, side by side, and you can go through every one of the remaining 611 commandments and hang them on love God or love neighbor. "Upon these two hang ALL the law and prophets." Blessings.

ewq1938
Sep 3rd 2014, 11:12 PM
You never could be saved by that way! Where did you get the idea you EVER could?

The scriptures of course. And, of course it was possible be saved it was just far harder. Example, finish the sin atonement rituals etc, then die of a heart attack before sinning again...you will receive eternal life on judgment day.

ewq1938
Sep 3rd 2014, 11:45 PM
You haven't caught my inferences so I am just going to state it... you can't paint Paul as a pillar of the faith, a defender of the truth, one who would stand up in satan's face and rebuke him harshly, and then allow him to cower down because of some mob who thinks he is teaching against Torah! You can't have it both ways, he isn't one of the hallmarks of strength AND one who takes part in things he doesn't believe in to appease those who want to do him harm. If he took the vow of a Nazirite, is was not to appease anyone, and it was not out of fear of others... It was because he believed in the action or he is a hypocrite! If you believe that this aspect of the Scripture was now "nailed to the cross," then he should not be taking part in that AT ALL so as not to create any confusion. Yet, not only does he take part, not only does he NOT say "NO!," he later denies teaching against the stuff you believe he taught against. It is fine if YOU THINK it wouldn't have been wise, but unless you are saying that Paul only did this thing because he FEARED MAN, then he did this thing because he believed in doing it.

I understand your way of seeing it but I totally disagree. I think the scriptures show him being confronted and told what he had to do to appease these people that were angry at him. What the scriptures describe him as doing is nothing bad or anything and before everything is completed the mob had gotten even more angry and could not resist going after Paul not even caring about the completion of the Nazarite vow.




I am guessing based on the words and phrases he uses... he thought on a higher level than most. That isn't the point, however. You are basically saying he took this vow either out of fear or because he was manipulated into it. Either way, that paints him as weak.

We all have weaknesses and fears. Peter denied Christ, Paul sometimes had weakness, even Christ had a weak moment and was strengthened. Besides, it was smart of Paul to go ahead and appease them to try to keep the peace.




So Paul didn't take the vow because 20,000 Jews had him cornered, he took the vow because he believe he SHOULD.

No Christian is mandated to take such a vow. It has no relation to Christianity nor the New Covenant therefore Paul certainly didn't volunteer for this. He was confronted and told what he had to do.





The people talking to Paul and encouraging him to do this vow, the people YOU are calling a mob.... are seen here:

Act 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

That isn't some unruly "mob," it is James, the head of the Church of Jerusalem and the church leadership for the same. I promise you, that was a calm and reasonable discussion... not some "mob" as you keep calling them!

Those that told Paul what he had to do are the representatives of either a mob or one that was quickly forming which culminated in Paul being forcefully removed from the temple. He might even have been murdered if it were not for the Romans.




That is fine, nobody said we had to agree on everything. I am pretty sure Paul and Peter were not in agreement on some things, to the point of almost a public fight. We don't have to agree on the details, but we do have to be unified on the bigger picture items.

yes


Just remove any bias (we all have biases, so don't think that was some kind of dig) and re-read it. Paul comes into Jerusalem, meets with James and the elders of the congregation of Jerusalem which has over 20,000 members. At that time, James and the elders tell Paul that others are saying he is teaching against Torah. James and the elders suggest Paul take part in this vow to prove otherwise... which Paul does because, as I have stated, Paul flatly denies teaching against Torah 2-3 times in Acts. So, he takes the vow, and at the end of the week, Jews from Asia stirred up the multitude, which is already identified as the Jews in Jerusalem who believed on Yeshua and were zealous for Torah. Verse 22 seems to be a hang up for you, I suggest looking at it through a few different versions.

Again, I don't see it as you see it.

watchinginawe
Sep 4th 2014, 01:18 AM
Don't take anything personal here, it certainly wasn't meant to be! I don't take 70AD as a eschatological event, I take it as punishment, nothing more. The Israelites were in the wilderness for 40 years as punishment because of all the issues they had. The Temple was destroyed 40 years after Yeshua was crucified, and there is actually a passage in the Talmud, and I will look to find it again... that states, and I have to paraphrase this, "We must have wronged somebody." So I see the event as punishment for their rejection and also what was needed to eventually scatter the Jews back into the nations to preserve them. All in one place they would have been gone long ago... scattered into the nations and they are protected as a people, for the most part.

What I took "personal" was what I perceived to be your breezing of my post. You had determined in your mind that there was only two ways to look at it and figured my post represented the way you disagreed with and then you assailed it. I was a bit disappointed how it was that you hadn't taken the time to actually see my point, that the things Paul partook of in Jerusalem had not yet been done away with at that time. They were still in practice, God had not ended them just yet. The Levitical Priesthood, the sacrificial system, the Temple; that system was brought to a close a little later and that seems to be the state of things until now nearly 2,000 years later.

Whether one sees 70 A.D. as an eschatological event probably depends on whether they see the first advent of Christ and the giving of the Holy Ghost as eschatological events. I think I'll just leave it at that.

Blessings

LandShark
Sep 4th 2014, 01:40 AM
What I took "personal" was what I perceived to be your breezing of my post. You had determined in your mind that there was only two ways to look at it and figured my post represented the way you disagreed with and then you assailed it. I was a bit disappointed how it was that you hadn't taken the time to actually see my point, that the things Paul partook of in Jerusalem had not yet been done away with at that time. They were still in practice, God had not ended them just yet. The Levitical Priesthood, the sacrificial system, the Temple; that system was brought to a close a little later and that seems to be the state of things until now nearly 2,000 years later.

Whether one sees 70 A.D. as an eschatological event probably depends on whether they see the first advent of Christ and the giving of the Holy Ghost as eschatological events. I think I'll just leave it at that.

Blessings

You're assuming a lot of things about a person you don't even know. I will write back later or in the morning... going to read some Scripture with the family. Blessings.

watchinginawe
Sep 4th 2014, 01:49 AM
You're assuming a lot of things about a person you don't even know. I will write back later or in the morning... going to read some Scripture with the family. Blessings.

:lol: Please K, don't take anything personal there. Honestly. I was simply telling you how I saw your post. It simply did not address my view, but it did hold heavy criticism for it.

But let's leave it, I did enjoy looking at the Scripture.

ewq1938
Sep 4th 2014, 02:39 AM
Are you saying the ten commandments mean nothing? :confused I would say they have a newer, deeper meaning, especially in the case of the Sabbath. Much of the rest of the Sinai law has been fulfilled or perhaps retired having no necessity within the New Covenant. All standard laws concerning morality naturally are still things God would consider sinful to commit such as stealing and lying etc. But now we do not have the former formal Priesthood, various religious rituals, even circumcision of a male is no longer mandatory.

Dmcal57
Sep 4th 2014, 02:46 AM
I'm saying that we are no longer under the law of Moses, as we are no longer under that covenant. We follow Christ and are led by the Spirit. For example, for as long as I have been a Christian,
I have never even contemplated the commandments and regulations of the law, but I keep them because he gave me his spirit and his words are written on my heart. I confess my sins daily
and I am covered by Christ. Jesus said " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ ; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”
This sums up everything that law and prophet's had to say. We are free in Christ! We are not subject to abstain from certain foods, or the observance of holy or feasts, etc. We are saved by
grace through faith and this not of our own selves, it is the gift of God, not by works. As Paul said:

"For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the law--I stopped trying to meet all its requirements--so that I might live for God."

We ought to look to Christ as the author and finisher of our faith, for he met the righteous requirements of the law on our behalf and paid the penalty for sin by the shedding of his blood.
No, my eyes are not on the law, but on Christ who accomplished the law where I was unable to. It is God who justifies the wicked.

ewq1938
Sep 4th 2014, 02:54 AM
I'm saying that we are no longer under the law of Moses, as we are no longer under that covenant. We follow Christ and are led by the Spirit. For example, for as long as I have been a Christian,
I have never even contemplated the commandments and regulations of the law, but I keep them because he gave me his spirit and his words are written on my heart. I confess my sins daily
and I am covered by Christ. Jesus said " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ ; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”
This sums up everything that law and prophet's had to say. We are free in Christ! We are not subject to abstain from certain foods, or the observance of holy or feasts, etc. We are saved by
grace through faith and this not of our own selves, it is the gift of God, not by works. As Paul said:

"For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the law--I stopped trying to meet all its requirements--so that I might live for God."

We ought to look to Christ as the author and finisher of our faith, for he met the righteous requirements of the law on our behalf and paid the penalty for sin by the shedding of his blood.
No, my eyes are not on the law, but on Christ who accomplished the law where I was unable to. It is God who justifies the wicked.

Amen. The original version of the law served it's purpose but rejoice that God has given a new law that is better suited for a New Covenant :D


Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Galatians 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Galatians 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Galatians 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

He concludes:

Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

LandShark
Sep 4th 2014, 11:22 AM
I'm saying that we are no longer under the law of Moses, as we are no longer under that covenant. We follow Christ and are led by the Spirit. For example, for as long as I have been a Christian, I have never even contemplated the commandments and regulations of the law, but I keep them because he gave me his spirit and his words are written on my heart.

Again, "under the law" is simply an idiom for being guilty, and that you no longer are. To go back "under the law" is not the keep the commandments, it is to renounce Christ. As for the rest of what you said above, I agree wholeheartedly. However, there is an aside here... the mark of the new covenant is having the Torah (Law) written on the heart. God had, at Sinai, commanded Israel to keep it there themselves, they were unable, at least, not 24/7. Later, in the Prophets (see Ezekiel 11:19 as one example) there is talk of taking that which was one stone, and moving it to the heart. The Schoolmaster comments Paul shares, are along these lines... the schoolmaster (Torah on stone) led us to Christ THROUGH WHOM the same is taken from the stone and written on the heart. Yet here is the deal... that work isn't anywhere close to complete... it was started, it is a process, but won't be complete until he returns. The completion of that work is a major part of the perfecting process. What we have now, in the Spirit, is a down payment toward the time when the Torah is completely in the heart and not stone (written). In 2 Cor. 1:22 and 5:5 Paul validates what I am saying by writing that the Spirit in us right now is an "earnest" (a down payment) toward more to come. An earnest, by definition, declares more to come. Personally, I think we got 10% down and the rest when he comes. But the idea brother, that the law is done away with, is just not Scripture. It is how we interpret parts of Scripture, but when we go there we are unknowingly pitting Scripture against Scripture.

As for Paul's statement that you shared ("For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the law--I stopped trying to meet all its requirements--so that I might live for God")..... when we try to keep the law to gain favor with God, to be saved, to be set-apart or for any other reason outside of love, it condemns us because we are not saved by the law. Paul also wrote, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Faith comes by hearing... so when we hear God say, "Don't do X," and when we don't we establish the law.


We are not subject to abstain from certain foods, or the observance of holy or feasts, etc. We are saved by grace through faith and this not of our own selves, it is the gift of God, not by works.

And therein lies the problem, most Christians are trying to tie obedience to God to salvation, that can't be the case. Works don't save in ANY form, and I don't refrain from catfish or keep Tabernacles to get saved, I do it because God gave certain commands He called everlasting. Tabernacles provides a good example here.... At Sinai Moses writes the law and in it is a command to keep Tabernacles. So, Israel keeps it until Jesus at which time it is done away with. However, it really isn't done away with for long because when he comes back and reigns, we do Tabernacles again. We did it for a couple of thousand years, got rid of it for a couple of thousand years, and then bring it back for 1000 years??? How does that make any sense? I am being serious... they did it because it was a command, it was removed because Christ somehow fulfilled it and then it comes back.

LandShark
Sep 4th 2014, 11:48 AM
I understand your way of seeing it but I totally disagree. I think the scriptures show him being confronted and told what he had to do to appease these people that were angry at him. What the scriptures describe him as doing is nothing bad or anything and before everything is completed the mob had gotten even more angry and could not resist going after Paul not even caring about the completion of the Nazarite vow.

You use the very word I claim makes Paul look weak, and then say you don't agree with me. :) We are to be steadfast in our faith, not wavering, not compromising, living by the words of the Lord and not fearing man. Paul write most of the words I just shared... and yet your position has him taking part in what you believe is an obsolete practice in order to appease man. You're welcome to believe that, but if taking that vow was done away with and no longer part of the faith, I see Paul as willing to die over it rather than compromise and appease man.


We all have weaknesses and fears. Peter denied Christ, Paul sometimes had weakness, even Christ had a weak moment and was strengthened. Besides, it was smart of Paul to go ahead and appease them to try to keep the peace.

Christ was God in the flesh who humbled himself in fashion as a man, made himself lower than the angels, for the suffering of death. The only weak moment in his life was when he went 40 days without food and water and it was a deliberate weakening so that he could face what Adam faced. Both were Adams, both came into the world without sin, both were tempted, one gave in and the result was death, the other did not and reversed the process bringing life. Peter was crucified upside down, by his request, as he did not believe himself worthy to be killed in the same manner as his Lord. Paul had his head taken off, he died for the faith. The Paul you are now picturing is a Paul that would have lied in order to avoid the axe, at least, that is what you appear to be inferring. To have Paul take part in something you believe Jesus got rid of in order to appease man is like saying it would have been ok for Paul to offering a Passover Lamb in order to be redeemed, if that made those around him happy. I just don't see this... I see Jesus as the ULTIMATE picture of strength and I see Paul saying, "Follow me as I follow Messiah." Not, "Follow me as I take part in outdated rituals to keep people from hurting me."


No Christian is mandated to take such a vow. It has no relation to Christianity nor the New Covenant therefore Paul certainly didn't volunteer for this. He was confronted and told what he had to do.

I never said nor thought you were mandated to do it. I said, James and the other elders suggested it in order to show that Paul was NOT doing what was charged to him, namely, teaching that the Torah had been done away with. Paul could have said no and ran, he could have said no and faced the music and died there, he did not have to appease angry men. EW, look... your belief is that the Torah is not for today, not for Paul's day, it had been done away with, nailed to the CROSS not the side of the Temple. Now whatever you believe you believe, but if you believe that God gave a command through the work of Jesus to make the OT Law of no effect, then to do it is to do that which stood on contrast to Jesus' work. You have Paul doing OT law rituals to appease man. If I held your view of the Law I could NEVER go here. Because it has Paul going against the work of God. And, since it is Paul's writings that supposedly declare all the things you believe in this area, then you have Paul saying one thing and doing another.


Those that told Paul what he had to do are the representatives of either a mob or one that was quickly forming which culminated in Paul being forcefully removed from the temple. He might even have been murdered if it were not for the Romans.

We all have a bias, many of them. A number of years ago I reached a point where I was tired of religion, tired of reading one thing and having my pastor insist on another. Only to, once we were alone, have him admit to my face that what I was reading was correct but that he couldn't be expected to teach these people on that truth, so "don't come back here again." I bounced around for a year, got frustrated even more, and didn't leave the faith but put it on a shelf for 6 months to a year before coming back and telling God, "I want to walk in truth as best I can under the conditions I am in. Guide me, lead me... if you saying become a Jehovah's Witness, I will. If you say become a Mormon, I will." I was serious... not looking to join a cult, rather, telling God, "Not my will but yours be done." Over time things began to come into place, certain people crossed paths into my life and I am where I am now. I am saying this to tell you, I DON'T CARE if you are right and I am wrong... I look that that as an opportunity to rejoice because it means upon realizing this that I am about to draw closer to God. We can't read with a bias, we have to just let it say what it says. And if you read that whole chapter start to finish, rather than pick out the verses you want to address, you'll find that the Church of Jerusalem which was headed by James and had over 20,000 Jews who were members and who followed Yeshua and kept the commandments were the subject. The elders OF THAT CONGREGATION and James are who Paul is talking to when he is told, "People are saying X about you." He heeds to their warning, takes the vow to show he isn't doing what is claimed (remember, the claim is he is teaching not to do the law, so he does this act from the law to show them that isn't the case) and during that week... Jews FROM ASIA come in, point the finger, and begin to stir the pot and cause trouble. Paul flees at that point. If you want to see that in another order, fine... but at least read the chapter with a pen and paper in hand and write out the order without bias. I think you'll see, the above order of events is exactly the order they happen in.


Again, I don't see it as you see it.

You don't have to.... we are saved by the grace of God through our faith in Jesus Christ... period... end of story. The rest are details, and we agree on most of the details. The only place we disagree, truly, is on the law. You (and many others) see it as not for today, and I don't believe God called it everlasting and then changed His mind. So, I don't care that you eat catfish and don't keep the Feasts. That is between you and God not you and I and I still have no problem calling you brethren. I hope you have the same respect with me when I refrain from pork and don't buy on Saturday. I am not trying to force that on you...

LandShark
Sep 4th 2014, 11:53 AM
Whether one sees 70 A.D. as an eschatological event probably depends on whether they see the first advent of Christ and the giving of the Holy Ghost as eschatological events. I think I'll just leave it at that.

The giving of the Spirit is not a new thing. We have David crying out on behalf of himself in one place, and Israel in another, begging that God not remove His Spirit from them. In Exodus 35 we find God filling certain men with His Spirit to build His tabernacle... that is how God did it, EW. When God builds a thing, the Tabernacle for example, He fills those people with His Spirit. What was Acts 2 about? What was the gospels about? They are about God building a church (congregation, assembly of people).... He is building just like He was building in Exodus 35 and so, He filled the builders with the Spirit. Even today we continue to build and edify and have His Spirit to guide us in that endeavor. It isn't all the Spirit we will get, but rather an earnest (see 2 Cor. 1:22 and 5:5) to hold us over until we get the rest.

watchinginawe
Sep 4th 2014, 01:39 PM
The giving of the Spirit is not a new thing. We have David crying out on behalf of himself in one place, and Israel in another, begging that God not remove His Spirit from them. In Exodus 35 we find God filling certain men with His Spirit to build His tabernacle... that is how God did it, EW. When God builds a thing, the Tabernacle for example, He fills those people with His Spirit. What was Acts 2 about? What was the gospels about? They are about God building a church (congregation, assembly of people).... He is building just like He was building in Exodus 35 and so, He filled the builders with the Spirit. Even today we continue to build and edify and have His Spirit to guide us in that endeavor. It isn't all the Spirit we will get, but rather an earnest (see 2 Cor. 1:22 and 5:5) to hold us over until we get the rest.

Jesus Christ is not a new thing either. I would hardly call His birth, ministry, death on the cross, resurrection the third day, and ascension just par for the course of how God has always done it.

Now, if one sees Jesus as just restoring the good ole way that God intended, then the Holy Spirit was just able to come and resume after a long pause, just after Jesus came and set things right. But that isn't the way things were and are.

It sounds real good what you are talking about, the building of the tabernacle, how it is now that we are as a church the tabernacle of God, but to say that "He is building just like He was building in Exodus 35", you cause me great concern as regards the New Testament and how you view it. You make it sound like any old Joel could walk into the Tabernacle and right on in behind the veil to the Holy place and strike up a convo with God. Or maybe that wasn't even needed, they could do it right where they stood, needing no intercessor at all, no priesthood, no method of approach.

So you have overreached in your teaching, embellishing the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament and minimizing the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament to a "congregation" and saying they are the same. That is upside down and doesn't even attempt to get to the New Testament model in Jesus Christ.

LandShark, I am not going to hire up a Priesthood, build a Tabernacle, build the things commanded, etc. in order to commune with God. Why not?

I believe in the Priesthood of the (every) believer with the abidance of the Holy Spirit without the fixtures of Exodus 35 and without a particular ethnic heritage, human intercessor, or ritual. Note that is on an individual basis first, not congregational. I don't join up to a congregation to participate in God's building of His church.

On the Day of Pentecost, after the Holy Ghost was given, did they set about building the apparatus by which humanity could approach God? It is debated a lot and part of history that certain of the church felt that was what the Roman Catholic Church ultimately did. They re-instituted a "church" like unto was built in Exodus 35, complete with the layers and the priests and the high priest. If you like that model, where the Holy Spirit is doing it that way, then you ought to give them a look.

But for me, I like the Jesus model, that's the one for me! The one He explained to His disciples. I can't find that one in the Old Testament on a "whosover believeth in Him" model. :no: Jesus Christ hadn't come yet, the New Testament in Jesus' blood had not yet happened, the Holy Ghost hadn't been poured out on all flesh yet.

John 14:22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

The above is a promise. Note Judas' question is how will, as in when the time comes. The time hadn't come yet, Jesus' ministry wasn't done, the giving of the Holy Ghost was a future event.

John 16:6 But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

LandShark
Sep 4th 2014, 02:16 PM
Jesus Christ is not a new thing either. I would hardly call His birth, ministry, death on the cross, resurrection the third day, and ascension just par for the course of how God has always done it.

True, but when the rich man asked for Lazarus to be sent back to warn his brothers, he was told, "they have Moses and the Prophets." We don't know Jesus is Christ because he said to Peter, "very good, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you." We know he is Christ because he fits the descriptions. He walked out what was previously written of him to walk out. And, he did not come to create a new religion, Christianity in the first century was a sect of Judaism with it's members still going to the synagogues and hearing the Torah read week after week.


Now, if one sees Jesus as just restoring the good ole way that God intended, then the Holy Spirit was just able to come and resume after a long pause, just after Jesus came and set things right. But that isn't the way things were and are.

The word repent in English means "to turn away from." What the English does not do is give a destination to turn to once you have turned away from. Hebrew does, teshuvah is a call to come BACK... Jesus said, "I have not been sent BUT to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." And his message was, "Repent (teshuvah) for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." He wasn't merely telling people to turn away from sin, he was calling them to walk a certain PATH that includes dying to oneself and living as God desires. The Spirit teaches us, what? How to do new things or how to walk as Jesus walked? And how did he walk? Doing new things or not sinning? Sin, according to John, is living outside of God's Law (1 John 3:4).


It sounds real good what you are talking about, the building of the tabernacle, how it is now that we are as a church the tabernacle of God, but to say that "He is building just like He was building in Exodus 35", you cause me great concern as regards the New Testament and how you view it. You make it sound like any old Joel could walk into the Tabernacle and right on in behind the veil to the Holy place and strike up a convo with God. Or maybe that wasn't even needed, they could do it right where they stood, needing no intercessor at all, no priesthood, no method of approach.

Not at all... you are getting from me bits and pieces of what could easily be a short book. WE are the Temple of the Spirit, collectively we are the Tabernacle (metaphorically speaking) and this is a building that has been under construction for 2000 years. I believe we are nearing the end. As for the last sentence... I don't know where you get that idea from. I am not talking about who can and can't go into the Tabernacle, I simply made a point that when God builds He fills those He needs to do the work with His Spirit. That is what happened in Acts 2... a new tabernacle was being built, out of mankind. Collectively we are the tabernacle and we were filled with the Spirit to do this work.


So you have overreached in your teaching, embellishing the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament and minimizing the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament to a "congregation" and saying they are the same. That is upside down and doesn't even attempt to get to the New Testament model in Jesus Christ.

The NT model cannot contradict anything stated before that was called everlasting, period. If God called something everlasting and then changed His mind, we cannot place our hope in Jesus now because He might just change His mind again.


LandShark, I am not going to hire up a Priesthood, build a Tabernacle, build the things commanded, etc. in order to commune with God.

OY, I didn't say we needed a Temple to commune with God, we ARE the Temple. However, most all scholars across most denominations look at verses in Ezekiel, Isaiah, and other places and see another Temple being built, one which will see sacrifices made in the Millennial Kingdom. Instead of ignoring those verses, I am simply trying to reconcile them. The Levitical priesthood was called an EVERLASTING PRIESTHOOD by God Himself. So, it is everlasting, whether my theology has an answer for it or not... it is everlasting. I don't think WE need to do sacrifices, we have what the sacrifices pointed to. But, people will survive the days to come and will come to Jerusalem and take part in Feasts, make sacrifices (see Zech 14:16-19) and they will learn through the pictures. That isn't us, we will already have been perfected and will be the ones teaching.


I believe in the Priesthood of the (every) believer with the abidance of the Holy Spirit without the fixtures of Exodus 35 and without a particular ethnic heritage, human intercessor, or ritual. Note that is on an individual basis first, not congregational. I don't join up to a congregation to participate in God's building of His church.

I have no idea why you think I would think otherwise. This is why I read but did not respond to some of your stuff... you assume many things and I just don't have the time to correct every misunderstanding you have about my beliefs. When did I say heritage had anything to do with it? I have made it CLEAR that foreigners (non-Israelites) came out of Egypt with Israel and eventually were accepted as Israel. It wasn't their ethnicity of heritage that caused them to become adopted into Israel, it was their heart for God. What has changed? Nothing.... GOD DOES NOT CHANGE!!!!!!!!!! This is and ALWAYS HAS BEEN and ALWAYS WILL BE, about the heart-condition.


On the Day of Pentecost, after the Holy Ghost was given, did they set about building the apparatus by which humanity could approach God? It is debated a lot and part of history that certain of the church felt that was what the Roman Catholic Church ultimately did. They re-instituted a "church" like unto was built in Exodus 35, complete with the layers and the priests and the high priest. If you like that model, where the Holy Spirit is doing it that way, then you ought to give them a look.

Again, I just don't have time to walk you through this. The building being built is the church, not a physical construct but a PEOPLE. As each person is added to the body, the "building" gets larger. I don't understand why I have to even explain this.


But for me, I like the Jesus model, that's the one for me! The one He explained to His disciples. I can't find that one in the Old Testament on a "whosover believeth in Him" model. :no: Jesus Christ hadn't come yet, the New Testament in Jesus' blood had not yet happened, the Holy Ghost hadn't been poured out on all flesh yet.

The Jesus model? The Jesus who walked the Torah perfectly, who took part in EVERY Feast, rested on Sabbath, refrained from unclean meat... that is the model you follow? If we are going to claim we follow Him and do as He did... we best do what He did. But we don't, we spiritualize anything we don't understand and then explain away the rest so we end up with a completely new religion in Christianity, that in no way resembles in appearance of actions, the model of the first century.


The above is a promise. Note Judas' question is how will, as in when the time comes. The time hadn't come yet, Jesus' ministry wasn't done, the giving of the Holy Ghost was a future event.

What is the point? If I said the giving of the Spirit in Acts 2 was because the body/church/bride/Temple of God was about to be built because the disciples were now being sent out to do this very task, then of course the promise of the giving of the Spirit was future tense. But how in the world does that mean nobody had the Spirit before then? There isn't 15 Spirits... God is >>A<< Spirit, God is ONE. The God who spoke in Genesis 1 is the God who was manifested in the flesh for the suffering of death. And it is the same God who is in you now. That is why the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of the Son, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of your Father, the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, etc. etc. etc. One Spirit, that's it... and His being given in Acts 2 was not a new thing.. it was a UNIQUE THING, but it wasn't new. We have very clear Scripture to show God giving His Spirit before Acts 2, and cries for God to not remove His Spirit from His people.

watchinginawe
Sep 4th 2014, 04:32 PM
True, but when the rich man asked for Lazarus to be sent back to warn his brothers, he was told, "they have Moses and the Prophets." We don't know Jesus is Christ because he said to Peter, "very good, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you." We know he is Christ because he fits the descriptions. He walked out what was previously written of him to walk out. And, he did not come to create a new religion, Christianity in the first century was a sect of Judaism with it's members still going to the synagogues and hearing the Torah read week after week. There is much more to it than that. As I have allowed, there was a time where the Gospel was brought to Jews and to Gentiles, separately. Jews still didn't congregate with Gentiles. You have me wondering who you allow yourself to congregate with. Do you eat with sinners? I mean, come on. Do the uncircumcised pollute your holy place? Those were realities in the first century.

The Doctors of the Torah didn't receive much from Jesus' teaching. He didn't seem to spend much time ministering to them either. The ones that garnered His attention were not the Torah observant, at least by the standards of the day. Yes, Jesus was Jewish, else He would not have been Jesus. Those assembled in the upper room were Jews. They later preached in the Temple. They were arrested several times too for preaching. Maybe they thought things would go along that way, that Christianity would be the new Judaism. Hey, the Temple was still there, the Priesthood, the Christians were preaching to the Jews, even a contingent of priests had become obedient to the faith; and then what?

When Jesus came on the scene, there were no Gospels, no book of Acts, no Epistles of Paul, and so forth. Perhaps you just skip these over or discount them or something. But we know there is a "then what". And even more, we have history and the closing down of the whole act in 70 A.D. It didn't seem that Christianity was the New Judaism.

As I posted before, here is the conclusion of the Book of Acts after Paul preaches the Gospel to the Jews in Rome just a few years before the destruction of the Temple:

Acts 28:20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
...
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.

24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.

25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, 26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: 27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.

30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, 31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

Now, if Paul was teaching Torah, why did the Jews not believe? What was the big deal? What could they not swallow that Paul was preaching? (hint: Do a search on "offense of the cross")

So here we see Paul's custom, as is the custom in the New Testament (before the the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.), the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles. Verse 28 is prophetic, control of the church would also move from a Jerusalem based Jewish "sect" to a world wide Gospel of "the salvation of God".


The word repent in English means "to turn away from." What the English does not do is give a destination to turn to once you have turned away from. Hebrew does, teshuvah is a call to come BACK... Jesus said, "I have not been sent BUT to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." And his message was, "Repent (teshuvah) for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." He wasn't merely telling people to turn away from sin, he was calling them to walk a certain PATH that includes dying to oneself and living as God desires. The Spirit teaches us, what? How to do new things or how to walk as Jesus walked? And how did he walk? Doing new things or not sinning? Sin, according to John, is living outside of God's Law (1 John 3:4).

See the above. Paul was not preaching for the Jews of Rome to return to God's law. That was not and is not the Gospel, nor the "hope of Israel".

Peter and John weren't preaching a return to Torah in the Temple when they were arrested on more than one occasion. The fact is that Jesus' message wasn't complete as I have pointed in my post before. He would have to finish His ministry, be resurrected, ascend, and then send the promise of the Father. All of that is part of it. That is FORWARD, not backward. The Kingdom of heaven is at hand. Now we get to the reason why I said how one views the events of the first advent of Jesus Christ and the Promise of the Holy Ghost are eschatological or not probably would influence their view regarding the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. being the same. You seem to be making a defense along the lines of Jesus Christ as messenger. That to me is very bad juju LandShark. These events are nothing short of the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, or as some would say, the inauguration of the Kingdom of heaven, now waiting on those things which have yet to conclude. We are in those days, beginning at that time by the announcement of John the Baptist.

The message is forward, not backward. The Testament is New, by blood, once and for all. not backward, in obedience and works.

Repentance:

Repent is to first consider your wrong belief or action. One needs to understand what it is they are turning from. There are many ways this is presented in the New Testament. I like the Repent / Believe model. It shows how one changes their mind about a thing and forms belief. Jesus says this to the Chief Priests and Elders who challenged Him, those who were observing Torah, about those who were not observing Torah:

Matthew 21:23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?

24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? 26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.

27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. 29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. 30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. 31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

So we see in the above that the repentance of the publicans and the harlots resulted in belief. And we see that what the missing ingredient to the Chief Priests' and Elders' belief was repentance. Even in the face of evidence they would not change their mind, but instead hardened their hearts.

I like how Paul sums up John's message: Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. The publicans and the harlots believed. They surely did. But they needed Him most too.

I like to put it like this concerning repentance, whether to obedience or belief. Repentance is what happens before what happens happens.

Don't know if it takes Hebrew to understand that or not.


Not at all... you are getting from me bits and pieces of what could easily be a short book. WE are the Temple of the Spirit, collectively we are the Tabernacle (metaphorically speaking) and this is a building that has been under construction for 2000 years. I believe we are nearing the end. As for the last sentence... I don't know where you get that idea from. I am not talking about who can and can't go into the Tabernacle, I simply made a point that when God builds He fills those He needs to do the work with His Spirit. That is what happened in Acts 2... a new tabernacle was being built, out of mankind. Collectively we are the tabernacle and we were filled with the Spirit to do this work.
...
The NT model cannot contradict anything stated before that was called everlasting, period. If God called something everlasting and then changed His mind, we cannot place our hope in Jesus now because He might just change His mind again.
I liked your illustration as a shadow of the New. I disliked your quantification, i.e. same, as in no different, nothing new. i.e. nothing eschatological. That is fine too, if you haven't considered it in that sense. But I am sensing that you don't see the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the giving of the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost as anything really different at all to the Old Testament. You started reading in Genesis and found your Salvation before leaving Deuteronomy with the first few everlastings.

This is already way too long, but the following does seem to answer my questions and I will defer it to its own post.

watchinginawe
Sep 4th 2014, 04:36 PM
The Jesus model? The Jesus who walked the Torah perfectly, who took part in EVERY Feast, rested on Sabbath, refrained from unclean meat... that is the model you follow? If we are going to claim we follow Him and do as He did... we best do what He did. But we don't, we spiritualize anything we don't understand and then explain away the rest so we end up with a completely new religion in Christianity, that in no way resembles in appearance of actions, the model of the first century.

New religion in Christianity? Really? Model of first century? Where? Corinth? Galatia? Colosse? Philippi? Rome? Or just where you want to pick?

You are calling us to what Gospel exactly LandShark?

Do as He did? So here is the Gospel according to LandShark:

Jesus was Jewish. Jesus lived as a Jew.

Therefore, to be a follower of Jesus, we must live as Jesus, a first century Jew.

All else is a completely new religion called Christianity.

You know what? I am not even upset. I am trying to figure out how in the world to share the Gospel with you. Honestly. We are way too far apart to even begin a discussion.

How is it you are able to participate here? This stuff has to be so foreign to you.

But it is a bit surprising to find you evangelizing us. But I hope we can return the favor. :hug:

watchinginawe
Sep 4th 2014, 05:09 PM
What is the point? If I said the giving of the Spirit in Acts 2 was because the body/church/bride/Temple of God was about to be built because the disciples were now being sent out to do this very task, then of course the promise of the giving of the Spirit was future tense. But how in the world does that mean nobody had the Spirit before then? There isn't 15 Spirits... God is >>A<< Spirit, God is ONE. The God who spoke in Genesis 1 is the God who was manifested in the flesh for the suffering of death. And it is the same God who is in you now. That is why the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of the Son, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of your Father, the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, etc. etc. etc. One Spirit, that's it... and His being given in Acts 2 was not a new thing.. it was a UNIQUE THING, but it wasn't new. We have very clear Scripture to show God giving His Spirit before Acts 2, and cries for God to not remove His Spirit from His people.

LandShark, the point is simple. It was a promise of the Father, as part of His plan of salvation. There was sequence to it too, it could not occur until after Jesus' ministry. These are direct interventions of God in human history. Jesus tells the disciples this in Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. And again, just before His ascension in Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Is Peter just stating what had always been in effect when he states the following? Or is this the fulfillment of the promise and the beginning of the time where the promise is in effect?

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

Yeah, this is something new that God has made good on, He brought it to pass in human history, we can point to the day as the Day of Pentecost. The New Testament is chalk full of fulfilled promises just like that one. They were promised, then they were fulfilled, and then the time where the promise was efficacious began and continues until now. That would be called the New Testament. :eek::eek::eek:

LandShark
Sep 4th 2014, 07:57 PM
New religion in Christianity? Really? Model of first century? Where? Corinth? Galatia? Colosse? Philippi? Rome? Or just where you want to pick?

You are calling us to what Gospel exactly LandShark?

Do as He did? So here is the Gospel according to LandShark:

Jesus was Jewish. Jesus lived as a Jew.

Therefore, to be a follower of Jesus, we must live as Jesus, a first century Jew.

All else is a completely new religion called Christianity.

You know what? I am not even upset. I am trying to figure out how in the world to share the Gospel with you. Honestly. We are way too far apart to even begin a discussion.

How is it you are able to participate here? This stuff has to be so foreign to you.

But it is a bit surprising to find you evangelizing us. But I hope we can return the favor. :hug:

I have no idea what you are talking about, any of it. It is as if we are speaking two different languages. It happens I guess, especially in forums like this. But evangelizing you? Seriously? :D

I believe that Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh... who took that form for the suffering of death, to reverse the curse of sin and death. He lived sinlessly, died, and was raised on the third day as the First Fruits of many to come. We are saved by His grace alone, through our faith in Him and His work. Once we belong to Him, He fills us with His Spirit which not only comforts and teaches but gives us the strength to walk in our calling. We also at that time cease living according to our understanding of righteousness, we no longer call the shots, He does... for He is Lord and we but mere servants. We die to ourselves, and live for Him. He instructs us, we obey because He is Lord. >>HE<< is LORD! HE determines what is good and acceptable and that which needs to be avoided because it stands in contrast to His character!

That is what I believe... if you believe differently, I can't help you. But what I just shared, I will NOT waver on... so if you feel the need to evangelize me, please save it... I have no desire to hear another gospel! Peace!

LandShark
Sep 4th 2014, 08:01 PM
And just to avoid any issues with any members, I won't open this thread again. Sorry... but I clearly have upset one member, I have no desire to have that affect on anyone else. Blessings! :)

keck553
Sep 4th 2014, 08:41 PM
And just to avoid any issues with any members, I won't open this thread again. Sorry... but I clearly have upset one member, I have no desire to have that affect on anyone else. Blessings! :)

Did you happen to catch my post #87 in all this clutter?

LandShark
Sep 4th 2014, 09:34 PM
Well I thought about it also and I had a glimpse of something...difficult to verbalize. But here's what was swirling around my cranium...

God used unclean animals to teach Peter the lesson, so I am associating "unclean" with "unclean." I'm not saying "unclean" is a sin; it is simply a state an Israelite could find themselves in. Also, the term "tahor" and "Tumah" are the same words used to describe an unclean animal and a human who is ritually unclean and can't enter the Temple.

Not to sidetrack, but there was nothing a Eunuch could do to enter, but God made provision for the Ethiopian in Gaza that Philipp encountered. That Ethiopian had direct access to the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16) but still no access to the Temple. It's just further evidence that there are two priestly systems at play here, both legitimate, both with differing procedures for access.

So it is the access that I was pondering over - the physical Temple had physical requirements, but the Throne of grace not made with hands had spiritual requirements. Remember Yeshua told the woman at the well that the time would come when there would be no physical place to worship, but worship would be in spirit and in truth. That is the place I believe God led Cornelius and the Ethiopian to. It's a different order. We are not there physically so the physical requirements do not apply. But there are spiritual requirements, and they are clearly detailed in the Apostolic Scriptures.

So in matters of worship, yes - there is a clear division of two systems I believe the Book to the Hebrews presents the Levitical system as imperfect and the Malki-Tsadek system as perfect (that would be the default if God is ministering as High Priest). However I also read a stern warning in Hebrews regarding the profaning "greater" system (Zion) as compared to the "lessor" system (Sinai):

"Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?"

With the greater comes much more responsibility. That should indeed cause Believers in Jesus to work out their salvation in fear and trembling, as it is written -

"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,"

So those were the thoughts swirling around in my head.

I like what you have written, and sadly, yes, I did miss this in the shuffle... my apologies! You're dead right... two systems and we are not in need of the Levitical at this time. In fact, I am not sure we ever will again because even though I believe the sacrifices will be done in the Millennial Kingdom, I do NOT believe they are for us nor do I believe we will be doing them. MAYBE we will (?) but if we do it certainly will be just like communion today... as a memorial that points to work already done. Now, I think the Order of Melchizedek is an order to the world... to the nations... and there will be nations after the final battles. So, we rule and reign with Messiah in this priestly order to the nations, teaching THEM (not us, we will have been perfected by now) about Yeshua but they will learn the same way we learned... the same way the rich man was told his brothers would have to learn, through the pictures. This was Israel's commission at Sinai Keck, to take Torah to the nations. They didn't do it then, it will be done later. Or... we go to heaven and play harps on those clouds, I don't know! :D

keck553
Sep 4th 2014, 09:49 PM
I like what you have written, and sadly, yes, I did miss this in the shuffle... my apologies! You're dead right... two systems and we are not in need of the Levitical at this time. In fact, I am not sure we ever will again because even though I believe the sacrifices will be done in the Millennial Kingdom, I do NOT believe they are for us nor do I believe we will be doing them. MAYBE we will (?) but if we do it certainly will be just like communion today... as a memorial that points to work already done. Now, I think the Order of Melchizedek is an order to the world... to the nations... and there will be nations after the final battles. So, we rule and reign with Messiah in this priestly order to the nations, teaching THEM (not us, we will have been perfected by now) about Yeshua but they will learn the same way we learned... the same way the rich man was told his brothers would have to learn, through the pictures. This was Israel's commission at Sinai Keck, to take Torah to the nations. They didn't do it then, it will be done later. Or... we go to heaven and play harps on those clouds, I don't know! :D

Well, I guess I'll find what to do when I get there...but I'm a quick learner....

No harps. I know we won't have harps. And no squatting on clouds either. Trust me on this one. No...wait...trust God that He wouldn't do that to us.

LandShark
Sep 4th 2014, 09:52 PM
Well, I guess I'll find what to do when I get there...but I'm a quick learner....

It says we will rule and reign, we are told we are priests... there is little additional info. Whatever He has for us, you're right, we'll figure it out and be blessed to be a part!


No harps. I know we won't have harps. And no squatting on clouds either. Trust me on this one. No...wait...trust God that He wouldn't do that to us.

But I saw it in a cartoon and I know I read an article on the internet - it has to be true!!!

;)

keck553
Sep 4th 2014, 09:56 PM
It says we will rule and reign, we are told we are priests... there is little additional info. Whatever He has for us, you're right, we'll figure it out and be blessed to be a part!

I'm not a natural leader. Maybe I'll do the bookwork?




But I saw it in a cartoon and I know I read an article on the internet - it has to be true!!!

;)

There just has to be a special place of wet noodle lashing for the idiot who started that harp and cloud thing.

LandShark
Sep 4th 2014, 10:02 PM
There just has to be a special place of wet noodle lashing for the idiot who started that harp and cloud thing.

Why, that would be non-other than Walt Disney! :D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-4qyU19-i8

ewq1938
Sep 4th 2014, 10:26 PM
You use the very word I claim makes Paul look weak, and then say you don't agree with me. :) We are to be steadfast in our faith, not wavering, not compromising, living by the words of the Lord and not fearing man. Paul write most of the words I just shared... and yet your position has him taking part in what you believe is an obsolete practice in order to appease man. You're welcome to believe that, but if taking that vow was done away with and no longer part of the faith, I see Paul as willing to die over it rather than compromise and appease man.

I'm going to just agree to disagree because I don't think further discussion on this will benefit the discussion.




I never said nor thought you were mandated to do it. I said, James and the other elders suggested it in order to show that Paul was NOT doing what was charged to him,

While James was present, nothing states that he agreed with this idea and the one who did the speaking to Paul telling him what to do is also not named or identified. Speculating who exactly it was doesn't help anything really. It boils down to many Jews believing that Paul was teaching against the things they believed religiously and they wanted to essentially find out if it was true and making him take the Vow was the initial resolution but it did not work.




namely, teaching that the Torah had been done away with. Paul could have said no and ran, he could have said no and faced the music and died there, he did not have to appease angry men. EW, look... your belief is that the Torah is not for today, not for Paul's day, it had been done away with, nailed to the CROSS not the side of the Temple. Now whatever you believe you believe, but if you believe that God gave a command through the work of Jesus to make the OT Law of no effect, then to do it is to do that which stood on contrast to Jesus' work. You have Paul doing OT law rituals to appease man. If I held your view of the Law I could NEVER go here. Because it has Paul going against the work of God. And, since it is Paul's writings that supposedly declare all the things you believe in this area, then you have Paul saying one thing and doing another.

All I can say is that Paul in no way has gone against the work of God after his conversion. The law was fulfilled and nailed to the cross, and a new covenant with a new law was made in effect by Christ. This began the Christian religion.




Over time things began to come into place, certain people crossed paths into my life and I am where I am now. I am saying this to tell you, I DON'T CARE if you are right and I am wrong... I look that that as an opportunity to rejoice because it means upon realizing this that I am about to draw closer to God. We can't read with a bias, we have to just let it say what it says.


Amen.




You don't have to.... we are saved by the grace of God through our faith in Jesus Christ... period... end of story. The rest are details, and we agree on most of the details. The only place we disagree, truly, is on the law. You (and many others) see it as not for today, and I don't believe God called it everlasting and then changed His mind.

The law remains in a newer better form.




So, I don't care that you eat catfish and don't keep the Feasts. That is between you and God not you and I and I still have no problem calling you brethren. I hope you have the same respect with me when I refrain from pork and don't buy on Saturday. I am not trying to force that on you...

I don't mind what you do or don't do but those things are part of the old law that were not carried forth into the new. That is the only reason I don't practice those same things.

LandShark
Sep 4th 2014, 10:43 PM
While James was present, nothing states that he agreed with this idea

Acts 21:18b Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.... >> if you don't think the head of the Church of Jerusalem who was in the room at the time had nothing to do with this, fine.


The law was fulfilled and nailed to the cross...The law remains in a newer better form.....I don't mind what you do or don't do but those things are part of the old law that were not carried forth into the new.

The Law was nailed to the cross, the law REMAINS but in a better form... the law was not carried over to the new. I don't even know what to say about this. I will say goodbye and simply suggest that you go to Col. 2:14, the ONLY TIME anything but Yeshua was said to be nailed to the cross, and please locate in the Greek manuscripts the word NOMOS. The word for Law is not in that verse AT ALL. But, you keep saying the "Law was nailed to the cross" which truly EW, is you adding to Scripture. The word Law is not in the verse. Be well and blessings to you and yours! :)

keck553
Sep 4th 2014, 10:52 PM
Why, that would be non-other than Walt Disney! :D




But that the dread of something after death, —
The undiscover'd country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, — puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know naught of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought;
And enterprises of great pith and moment,
With this regard, their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.

ewq1938
Sep 4th 2014, 11:12 PM
In fact, I am not sure we ever will again because even though I believe the sacrifices will be done in the Millennial Kingdom, I do NOT believe they are for us nor do I believe we will be doing them. MAYBE we will (?) but if we do it certainly will be just like communion today... as a memorial that points to work already done.

Sorry...but the Ezekiel chapters 40 plus commonly thought to be the future Millennium is not at all the Millennium. That is an entirely different and complex issue for another thread. It's mistakenly used to justify the idea of keeping feasts and whatnot from the first Cov. based on the errant belief that we shall be doing these things and sacrifices in the future.

LandShark
Sep 4th 2014, 11:19 PM
Sorry...but the Ezekiel chapters 40 plus commonly thought to be the future Millennium is not at all the Millennium. That is an entirely different and complex issue for another thread. It's mistakenly used to justify the idea of keeping feasts and whatnot from the first Cov. based on the errant belief that we shall be doing these things and sacrifices in the future.

That is your interpretation... that's fine, why keep pushing? Many others see it differently AND it isn't like those 3-4 chapters are the only references. But, whatever you believe is fine, I don't desire to have this discussion anymore. One day I will spend the time and show you, and others who have asked, why it is a renewed covenant and not a new one. It is in the context of many passages, and it is in the wording used in the Hebrew texts (and NT Greek). We don't see this all the same way and that is fine. In the end, we are saved by grace through faith and NOT works, period, end of story. The rest is details my friend, hardly worth dividing over. :) My sincere prayer of blessings for you this day!

keck553
Sep 4th 2014, 11:19 PM
Sorry...but the Ezekiel chapters 40 plus commonly thought to be the future Millennium is not at all the Millennium. That is an entirely different and complex issue for another thread. It's mistakenly used to justify the idea of keeping feasts and whatnot from the first Cov. based on the errant belief that we shall be doing these things and sacrifices in the future.

I would really look forward to reading this thread.....and learning.

ewq1938
Sep 4th 2014, 11:24 PM
Acts 21:18b Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.... >> if you don't think the head of the Church of Jerusalem who was in the room at the time had nothing to do with this, fine.

It doesn't describe his role in this. It is a mistake to assume things that are not written clearly. You keep speaking of reading things with a BIAS affecting how something is understood. I suggest that very issue could be wrongly influencing how you are viewing these scriptures.




The Law was nailed to the cross, the law REMAINS but in a better form... the law was not carried over to the new. I don't even know what to say about this. I will say goodbye and simply suggest that you go to Col. 2:14, the ONLY TIME anything but Yeshua was said to be nailed to the cross, and please locate in the Greek manuscripts the word NOMOS. The word for Law is not in that verse AT ALL. But, you keep saying the "Law was nailed to the cross" which truly EW, is you adding to Scripture. The word Law is not in the verse. Be well and blessings to you and yours! :)

I haven't added to scripture ever in my life brother.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.


That is the law and calling it law is not adding anything to scripture. Have you looked at the Greek word there?

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of <b>ordinances</b> that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.





G1378
δόγμα
dogma
dog'-mah
From the base of G1380; <b>a law</b> (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical): - decree, ordinance.


Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;



1378

1378 dogma {dog'-mah}

from the base of 1380; TDNT - 2:230,178; n n

AV - decree 3, ordinance 2; 5

1) doctrine, decree, ordinance
1a) of public decrees
1b) of the Roman Senate
1c) of rulers
2) <b>the rules and requirements of the law of Moses</b>; carrying a
suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment
3) of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living



Lets use that wording:

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of [<b>the rules and requirements of the law of Moses</b>] that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.


Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in [<b>the rules and requirements of the law of Moses</b>]; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;


Please accept these corrections in the friendly spirit they are intended :D

ewq1938
Sep 4th 2014, 11:27 PM
I would really look forward to reading this thread.....and learning.

Hmmm, I shall post what I have on it then. Please look at it with fresh eyes. I came to this based on my own studies, not from being taught it.

LandShark
Sep 4th 2014, 11:31 PM
Please accept these corrections in the friendly spirit they are intended :D

Dogma is not nomos, what was nailed to the cross was not nomos, it was dogma... and, most lexicons define dogma as, "man made decrees." That said, I disagree with them, I believe this is speaking of God made decrees but not "do not steal" which is LAW. What was nailed to the cross was our guilt, the decree that stated "DEATH!" That was nailed to the cross... "a man lying with a man as he would a woman" was NOT nailed to the cross. And when you say, "The Law was done away with," you just legalized a whole bunch of abominations.

Again, no sense in going further... I appreciate your tone, let's leave it on a higher note. Blessings!

keck553
Sep 4th 2014, 11:32 PM
Hmmm, I shall post what I have on it then. Please look at it with fresh eyes. I came to this based on my own studies, not from being taught it.

The only bias I have right now is that I reject the idea that Jesus is going to slaughter a sheep in some future Temple. Admittedly I would have to overcome that through more than apologetics.

ewq1938
Sep 5th 2014, 12:26 AM
Dogma is not nomos, what was nailed to the cross was not nomos, it was dogma... and, most lexicons define dogma as, "man made decrees."

Which?

I posted definitions showing dogma is law and it is law that was nailed to the cross. Along with other scriptures speaking of the new replacing the old, it is a clear picture.

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;


And both words are used here for the Law and here the old law is said to have been abolished. In the other, nailed to the cross...same essential meanings. Don't worry, the best parts of the old law are anew in the new law that is for Christians.




That said, I disagree with them, I believe this is speaking of God made decrees but not "do not steal" which is LAW. What was nailed to the cross was our guilt, the decree that stated "DEATH!" That was nailed to the cross... "a man lying with a man as he would a woman" was NOT nailed to the cross. And when you say, "The Law was done away with," you just legalized a whole bunch of abominations.

No I haven't. You never seem to recognize that I have said all moral laws are part of the new law. Please DO NOT continue to assert that I "legalized a whole bunch of abominations". That is not appreciated. It's a misrepresentation.

LandShark
Sep 5th 2014, 12:34 AM
Which?

I posted definitions showing dogma is law and it is law that was nailed to the cross. Along with other scriptures speaking of the new replacing the old, it is a clear picture.

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;


And both words are used here for the Law and here the old law is said to have been abolished. In the other, nailed to the cross...same essential meanings. Don't worry, the best parts of the old law are anew in the new law that is for Christians.

If I moved to Contro so my answers are not picked up and riff raft finds this forum, and I went over every single verse that you can find that shows the law was fulfilled AND showed how the covenant made at Sinai has been renewed, would you change your position? I don't think so, and I don't care if you believe what you do, that is between you and God. So I would just assume let this drop because to over-come your post, it will mean a few hours at least to compile the notes and verses. And since you seem to want to turn me into a clone of you, at least in regards to doctrine, then it would be a waste of my time to go any further. I recognized this before, asked that we let it go... and you keep posting. So, respectfully, keep posting, I am done with this thread... or at least this aspect of this discussion. I don't want to waste either of our time.

I will add just one point... you quoted Col. 2 first and THAT I said, did not have nomos... dogma was nailed to the cross. There is no other verses that speak of nailing anything to the cross save for Messiah himself. You then brought in another verse... and you'll continue to do that until I address them all, and then you'll start over with Col. 2. I know that might sound crazy, but I have had this discussion for about 15 years with hundreds of different people and that is what happens every time the person on the other end doesn't see what I am sharing. So... thanks! :)


No I ahven't You never seem to recognize that I have said all moral laws are part of the new law. Please DO NOT continue to assert that I "legalized a whole bunch of abominations". That is not appreciated. It's a misrepresentation.

What are the moral laws? The 10 commandments? Which of the remaining 603 are moral in your view?

LandShark
Sep 5th 2014, 12:35 AM
The only bias I have right now is that I reject the idea that Jesus is going to slaughter a sheep in some future Temple. Admittedly I would have to overcome that through more than apologetics.

Just so you know Keck, even >>IF<< there are future sacrifices, Yeshua is the high priest of another order, I don't think he would be taking the life of an animal anyway. Prepare it? I don't know, but not kill it.

ewq1938
Sep 5th 2014, 12:55 AM
I will add just one point... you quoted Col. 2 first and THAT I said, did not have nomos... dogma was nailed to the cross.


Dogma is another word for the Law. Sure it can have a lesser meaning but in context this was clearly the law.




What are the moral laws? The 10 commandments? Which of the remaining 603 are moral in your view?

There is no need to go through each one. Moral laws deal with moralities. Ceremonial laws and gone and they deal with ceremonial things.

keck553
Sep 5th 2014, 12:55 AM
Just so you know Keck, even >>IF<< there are future sacrifices, Yeshua is the high priest of another order, I don't think he would be taking the life of an animal anyway. Prepare it? I don't know, but not kill it.

I believe it was with great sadness that God had to kill an animal to cover Adam and Eve.

ewq1938
Sep 5th 2014, 01:17 AM
I believe it was with great sadness that God had to kill an animal to cover Adam and Eve.

And a greater sadness over the reason why he killed it.

watchinginawe
Sep 5th 2014, 02:29 AM
I have no idea what you are talking about, any of it. It is as if we are speaking two different languages. It happens I guess, especially in forums like this. But evangelizing you? Seriously? :D

I believe that Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh... who took that form for the suffering of death, to reverse the curse of sin and death. He lived sinlessly, died, and was raised on the third day as the First Fruits of many to come. We are saved by His grace alone, through our faith in Him and His work. Once we belong to Him, He fills us with His Spirit which not only comforts and teaches but gives us the strength to walk in our calling. We also at that time cease living according to our understanding of righteousness, we no longer call the shots, He does... for He is Lord and we but mere servants. We die to ourselves, and live for Him. He instructs us, we obey because He is Lord. >>HE<< is LORD! HE determines what is good and acceptable and that which needs to be avoided because it stands in contrast to His character!

That is what I believe... if you believe differently, I can't help you. But what I just shared, I will NOT waver on... so if you feel the need to evangelize me, please save it... I have no desire to hear another gospel! Peace!


And just to avoid any issues with any members, I won't open this thread again. Sorry... but I clearly have upset one member, I have no desire to have that affect on anyone else. Blessings! :)

LandShark, I am not upset. And thank you for the PM. I am a bit baffled about some things you say. I think you are geared a particular way, so when things are fed in, they are processed in a way which seeks an equivalence in the Old Testament, or something like that. I am fine with your testimony above, and would only say that your words point to particular events which changed the way humanity has relationship with God. These were promises, the promises were fulfilled, and we are the beneficiaries of the promises enacted. You may not see that as "new", or whatever term you used that Jesus did not come to do, but it changed the world in my opinion.

I wanted to recap the discussion about Paul and sacrifices:



If Jesus is the final sacrifice, and there need never be another (which is generally how it is taught) then how can one do a sacrifice without taking away from what Jesus did?
...
Paul at the very least took part in OT ceremonial purification processes and made an offering in the Temple which is also part of OT ceremonial law. Either Paul was a milk-toast wimp who was scared and did these things to keep from being killed.... or..... he was a hypocrite who seemingly preached an end to something that he took part in on multiple occasions... or.... our interpretation of a few things might not completely reflect first century practices. I vote for the latter, just so you know.


The period is very interesting as well. You have Christians in the Temple from not long after Jesus' ascension. Now for me, I think you are too abrupt in timing in saying "what about sacrifices after Jesus' sacrifice?" God has a plan. The Gospel is going to be preached for a generation, even in the temple. Many Jews are going to believe.
...
9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. 10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. 12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, 13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: 14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.

I propose God did in 70 A.D exactly as Stephen apparently preached in the early church and was stoned for. In 70 A.D. the Temple was destroyed and with it all the ceremonial rituals thereof. Furthermore, I believe God did it right on time, in the fullness of time, even as it was prophesied. As keck553 offered, the drawing down of that curtain has been effective to this date. No Temple, No priests, No sacrifices. Customs? Traditions? Sure. Temple system? :no:

When the Roman General Titus destroyed the Temple, the Levitical Priesthood, the sacrificial system, and the Temple order came to a conclusion in human history. It isn't coincidence that elements of Stephen's preaching were construed as they accused him. No, Jesus would not Himself destroy the Temple. But like the period of time between Jesus' resurrection and the giving of the Holy Ghost, we also have a period of time after the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross and the end of sacrifices.

The point really isn't about Paul either. Solving it for Paul still leaves open a large number of the Jerusalem Church and its leaders in open error. As I proposed, I don't see it this way, this was an inter-Temple period of Christianity in Jerusalem where syncretism of the Jewish rites were practiced by the Jewish Christians. This is perfectly in line with Jesus as well, who did the same, telling the cleansed leper in Matthew 8:4 to show himself to the priest, and to make the offering Moses commanded. That would not be possible today. One could testify of their cleansing, but the Levitical system referred to by Jesus is no more. While I didn't re-post the references, I believe Paul submitted to James' request in order to not offend these Christians. This was not the time to preach the Gospel as he did to the Gentiles.

I see the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. as an eschatological event, one closing the period of history where it was relevant. So it is the marker for when sacrifices ceased. Of course, the Birth of Christ marks the beginning of the period of history where His ministry and work are relevant. Along with that, after Jesus' resurrection and ascension, the Holy Ghost was given on the Day of Pentecost. These events through 70 A.D. were the opening events of the eschaton in my opinion. We now wait for the concluding events. That is where we are.

So, as I said before, whether one sees 70 A.D. as an eschatological event probably depends on whether they see the first advent of Christ and the giving of the Holy Ghost as eschatological events. And again, I think I'll just leave it at that. If you want to answer to anything or clarify, please do.

Dmcal57
Sep 5th 2014, 02:44 AM
Just so you know Keck, even >>IF<< there are future sacrifices, Yeshua is the high priest of another order, I don't think he would be taking the life of an animal anyway. Prepare it? I don't know, but not kill it.

Hi LandShark,

Regarding Israel, keep in mind that God is going to be picking up where he left off with Israel and completing that last 'seven'. We know by the grace of God, that Jesus accomplished the purpose for which the law was given, but because they
did not recognize Jesus as their Messiah, they still consider themselves to be under the Law of Moses. The time that is coming, is the time of Jacobs trouble, namely the last 3 1/2 years of that seven year period.

keck553
Sep 5th 2014, 03:32 AM
And a greater sadness over the reason why he killed it.

Indeed. .

LandShark
Sep 6th 2014, 04:18 PM
I think you are geared a particular way, so when things are fed in, they are processed in a way which seeks an equivalence in the Old Testament, or something like that.

I think you recognize there is no reason to continue this discussion. So I just want to throw this in... I do have a paradigm that I filter everything through. I will share it in a moment but let me say I filter everything through it. It is the first question I ask when I hear ANY teaching. Here it is, "God does not change." That is the basis for my study, the very foundation through which I read Scripture. God does not change, and He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Therefore, anything I hear that causes Him to change, causes His character to change, causes His reputation to change, causes His wording to change when terms like "everlasting" or phrases like "throughout all your generations" are used by Him... I reject it. Not the person sharing it, but the thing said. I might not (and never will) have every answer, but starting any discussion on doctrine with, "Does God change in this picture?" answers far more questions than not. I respect you and appreciate you and see you as brethren, of course, why wouldn't I? But some of the things you have said, some of the verses you have shared, not only cause God to change, they contrast many other verses stated within the Word. I have not addressed ANY of that, mainly because we are in the wrong section of this forum AND because of time, I have a fairly full plate. So, I see no reason to continue here... I have said all I am allowed to in this section of the forum and seeing you have made it clear I am out on a cliff about to fall to my death and you are on stable ground, there is no reason to waste our time taking this to the other section and take it deeper. So, let's just let it go. Blessings to you and yours!

LandShark
Sep 6th 2014, 04:22 PM
I believe it was with great sadness that God had to kill an animal to cover Adam and Eve.

I do too... He created the animal and called it "good." I can't imagine how it made Him feel, but I do believe it was tempered with the understanding that He knew when He created Adam that time would come. God is outside the timeline, I think the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world" proves to us, at least in His mind, that He saw it all the way through till the end. Blessings brother!

LandShark
Sep 6th 2014, 04:29 PM
Dogma is another word for the Law. Sure it can have a lesser meaning but in context this was clearly the law.

No it is not... Nomos (Torah - Law) can be one law but more often than not is the category that contains many. When it comes to God's law, we have His law which contains 613 commandments plus statutes and judgements. Dogma is a decree, a single decree, many decrees would be categorized in the biblical sense as law.

That which is done away with is our guilt, that is what was at enmity with us and God. Our guilt, sin, is what separated us from God. Why would God have nailed Yom Kippur to a cross when it STILL points to work yet to be done? He didn't, our GUILT, the handwriting of ordinances, the decrees that said we deserved DEATH was nailed to the cross, that's it. Not the commandments, but the judgements against us!


There is no need to go through each one. Moral laws deal with moralities. Ceremonial laws and gone and they deal with ceremonial things.

Then why do you do communion? That is very clearly both a ceremonial act and a ritual that points at something already completed... so why do it? I do a Passover dinner just like Jesus did, and I am taking part in outdated ceremonial laws... and you weekly or monthly take part in a ritual that came out of that very dinner that points to work completed. I am a legalist and you are not? Perhaps you can understand why I think that is inconsistent? Blessings... Peace!

LandShark
Sep 6th 2014, 04:45 PM
So, as I said before, whether one sees 70 A.D. as an eschatological event probably depends on whether they see the first advent of Christ and the giving of the Holy Ghost as eschatological events. And again, I think I'll just leave it at that. If you want to answer to anything or clarify, please do.

I just wanted to address this briefly... everything God does is an eschatological event because, since Adam, God has been working through a progression of people and time until we reach a point of full and complete restoration. However, that doesn't mean that every event that has happened must be fit into the Scripture somewhere. We have a world's history of events to choose from and a very small book, trying to fit everything in is not reasonable, not possible, and not God's desire. Perhaps the Temple's destruction is supposed to be, I don't think so other than to mark one of two major events that eventually pushed the people of faith away from Judea and out in force to the world. THAT is an eschatological event because reaching the world before the end is God's stated desire. Otherwise, I simply don't share your view here, no big deal! :D

ewq1938
Sep 6th 2014, 09:39 PM
I think you recognize there is no reason to continue this discussion. So I just want to throw this in... I do have a paradigm that I filter everything through. I will share it in a moment but let me say I filter everything through it. It is the first question I ask when I hear ANY teaching. Here it is, "God does not change." That is the basis for my study, the very foundation through which I read Scripture. God does not change, and He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Therefore, anything I hear that causes Him to change, causes His character to change, causes His reputation to change, causes His wording to change when terms like "everlasting" or phrases like "throughout all your generations" are used by Him... I reject it.

While God doesn't change, what God wants from us can and has changed. That's evident reading through the scriptures. God has changed the law and says so very plainly: Heb_7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

I think your ridged way of rejecting things that you feel God would not change will be non-beneficial for you...I pray you re-think this.

LandShark
Sep 6th 2014, 09:42 PM
While God doesn't change, what God wants from us can and has changed. That's evident reading through the scriptures. God has changed the law and says so very plainly: Heb_7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

I think your ridged way of rejecting things that you feel God would not change will be non-beneficial for you...I pray you re-think this.

Not at all, one needs a standard derived from Scripture (like, "God does not change") or we end up recreating Him in any image we desire.

As for your verse... the word for change means "to transfer." Please look it up. It doesn't even mean the Levitical has ended, it means "the weight has shifted from one to another." The Order of Mel was prophesied to come into play, which means it isn't even new anyway.

ewq1938
Sep 6th 2014, 09:43 PM
Then why do you do communion? That is very clearly both a ceremonial act and a ritual that points at something already completed... so why do it? I do a Passover dinner just like Jesus did, and I am taking part in outdated ceremonial laws... and you weekly or monthly take part in a ritual that came out of that very dinner that points to work completed. I am a legalist and you are not? Perhaps you can understand why I think that is inconsistent? Blessings... Peace!

Communion was a new Ceremony started by Christ to signify something new. It is part of the New Covenant not the old Cov. The Ceremonies that no longer apply now are the ones from the Old Cov.

LandShark
Sep 6th 2014, 09:50 PM
Communion was a new Ceremony started by Christ to signify something new. It is part of the New Covenant not the old Cov. The Ceremonies that no longer apply now are the ones from the Old Cov.

First, to be clear... I am not against communion. That said.... it is a weekly ritual that points to something that has ALREADY HAPPENED. He already shed his blood, he already gave his body, this is a "memorial" which by definition means "something preserved for a MEMORY." It is in the past, you do it... and yet demean keep Passover which is where communion came from. That is really inconsistent EW... and your comment about it being part of the new covenant verses the old covenant???? You don't realize what you are saying, and yet you are trying to speak with authority. Something NEW??? No, the cup he held up and said, "this is my blood" is the 3rd cup drank during the Passover Seder, it is called the "Cup of Redemption." The bread he held up was the Afikomen, a piece of matza that was once the middle piece of three wrapped in linen. During dinner, that middle piece of three (the son??) is hidden (buried) and the children would have gone to find it. When it was found it was brought out of it's hiding place (resurrection) and it was THAT PIECE of bread he held up and called his body. You see this as meaningless, I see this as God using pictures to teach us.

ewq1938
Sep 6th 2014, 09:58 PM
Not at all, one needs a standard derived from Scripture (like, "God does not change") or we end up recreating Him in any image we desire.

As for your verse... the word for change means "to transfer." Please look it up.



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


G3331
μετάθεσις
metathesis
met-ath'-es-is
From G3346; transposition, that is, transferral (to heaven), disestablishment (of a law): - change, removing, translation.


G3331
μετάθεσις
metathesis
Thayer Definition:
1) transfer: from one place to another
2) to change
2a) of things instituted or established
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G3346
Citing in TDNT: 8:161, 1176


When speaking of physical things then the word means a physical transfer but in this situation concerning the law changing, it's literally changing what now is commanded as law and what is no longer commanded as law. Like I've said, the Ceremonial parts of the old were changed and like the Strong's says, there was a "disestablishment". Not of everything but parts of it since all laws regarding morality are still in place.

ewq1938
Sep 6th 2014, 10:07 PM
First, to be clear... I am not against communion. That said.... it is a weekly ritual that points to something that has ALREADY HAPPENED. He already shed his blood, he already gave his body, this is a "memorial" which by definition means "something preserved for a MEMORY." It is in the past, you do it... and yet demean keep Passover which is where communion came from. That is really inconsistent EW...


I didn't create any of this so don't blame me. God has done whatever changes He has decided to make. We have no place to complain about it.




and your comment about it being part of the new covenant verses the old covenant???? You don't realize what you are saying, and yet you are trying to speak with authority.

What I have said has been said by Christians that preceded me from the start of Christianity and the early church. If there is any authority in the words said, it hails from them not myself. You are the one bolding everything like you are "shouting" and over using question marks "?????" That isn't a friendly way to converse brother. We are to be civil with each other.

LandShark
Sep 6th 2014, 10:48 PM
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.


G3331
μετάθεσις
metathesis
met-ath'-es-is
From G3346; transposition, that is, transferral (to heaven), disestablishment (of a law): - change, removing, translation.


G3331
μετάθεσις
metathesis
Thayer Definition:
1) transfer: from one place to another
2) to change
2a) of things instituted or established
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G3346
Citing in TDNT: 8:161, 1176


When speaking of physical things then the word means a physical transfer but in this situation concerning the law changing, it's literally changing what now is commanded as law and what is no longer commanded as law. Like I've said, the Ceremonial parts of the old were changed and like the Strong's says, there was a "disestablishment". Not of everything but parts of it since all laws regarding morality are still in place.

Pick and choose which definitions fits your paradigm, that is fine. What I do when I am in doubt, is take that NT Greek word back to the LXX and see where and how it is also used in the OT (as well as other places in the NT). Then I go and find what underlying Hebrew word is found in the places used in the OT, and see how it is defined. That is a good manner of study, especially for the book of Hebrews, because it was written in Hebrew.

LandShark
Sep 6th 2014, 10:49 PM
I didn't create any of this so don't blame me. God has done whatever changes He has decided to make. We have no place to complain about it.

God doesn't change... either that is true or the verse that says that is wrong.

Now, have your last say, but I really don't want to bother with this. We are not edifying one another, we are not edifying anyone reading... we need to just back off and bless one another. Peace!

ewq1938
Sep 6th 2014, 11:14 PM
Pick and choose which definitions fits your paradigm, that is fine.

Yet I have not done that. I have sided with Greek scholars that centuries ago knew what the correct meaning was here and translated it accordingly. It is your burden to attempt to prove they were wrong.

ewq1938
Sep 6th 2014, 11:17 PM
God doesn't change... either that is true or the verse that says that is wrong.


God doesn't change but you are adding to that, that God cannot change his laws which apply to his people or change how others things are to be understood or celebrated.

Sojourner
Sep 6th 2014, 11:44 PM
As Landshark has correctly pointed out, the content of the current exchange is unedifying and unfruitful, and therefore serves no useful purpose. The thread has long since deviated from the question about the relevance of Solomon's words to us today, as per the OP, and has morphed instead into an Old Covenant versus New Covenant debate.

Regarding the point of the OP:

Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Are these words still relevant today? Jesus said that His commandments were the commandments of God Himself, and that if we would have a right relationship with Him, we are to faithfully keep them. He also taught that our deepest secrets will all be made manifest at the judgment one day.

Based on the instructions to Christians to keep the commandments of Jesus--which are the commandments of His Father; and based on what we know about the future judgment seat of Christ, it's very clear that the quoted words of Solomon are indeed still valid for believers today. Please confine further comments in this thread to this topic.

ewq1938
Sep 6th 2014, 11:59 PM
As Landshark has correctly pointed out, the content of the current exchange is unedifying and unfruitful, and therefore serves no useful purpose. The thread has long since deviated from the question about the relevance of Solomon's words to us today, as per the OP, and has morphed instead into an Old Covenant versus New Covenant debate.

Regarding the point of the OP:

Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Are these words still relevant today? Jesus said that His commandments were the commandments of God Himself, and that if we would have a right relationship with Him, we are to faithfully keep them. He also taught that our deepest secrets will all be made manifest at the judgment one day.

Based on the instructions to Christians to keep the commandments of Jesus--which are the commandments of His Father; and based on what we know about the future judgment seat of Christ, it's very clear that the quoted words of Solomon are indeed still valid for believers today. Please confine further comments in this thread to this topic.

I believe Solomon would agree that updating the basic statement would be in order so I will quote Jesus:

Joh_14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Joh_14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Joh_15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.


The Gospel or good news contains modern information for the followers of God that Solomon did not know of.

Sojourner
Sep 7th 2014, 01:40 AM
I believe Solomon would agree that updating the basic statement would be in order so I will quote Jesus:

Joh_14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Joh_14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Joh_15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.


The Gospel or good news contains modern information for the followers of God that Solomon did not know of.

It's a given that the new covenant is a fulfillment of the old, and that those who lived under the old saw things differently than we do today from our vantage point. It's also a given that for all intents and purposes, the resurrection of Jesus marked a transition point between the two covenants by His fulfilling of the law and the prophets.

But times and circumstances notwithstanding, obeying God under the old covenant is no different than obeying God under the new. It's simply that the commandments under the new are made known by His Anointed One rather than Moses or the prophets.

Likewise, Solomon's somber warning that every soul will one day give an account before God for his or her life is just as valid today as it was when he said it. So then, with regard to the OP:

1. is it still true that we are to obey the commandments of God?
2. is it still true that we will give an account for our words and deeds, whether good or bad?

ewq1938
Sep 7th 2014, 02:09 AM
1. is it still true that we are to obey the commandments of God?

Most, but not all depending on when the commandment was given and if it was fulfilled or replaced and/or retired in favor of something better.



2. is it still true that we will give an account for our words and deeds, whether good or bad?

yep, all will be judged one day.

Protective Angel
Sep 7th 2014, 02:28 AM
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? GOD FORBID.

ewq1938
Sep 7th 2014, 03:03 AM
And to be "under" something means to be under it's authority or rule. Whether it's under a King, or under the law, or under Christ or even under the influence. Solomon was under that law but it was appropriate at that time in history.

ewq1938
Sep 7th 2014, 03:50 AM
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? GOD FORBID.

Amen. Being under grace does not mean we can sin simply because we know we can ask for forgiveness verbally. That would be abusive to the process :D

LandShark
Sep 7th 2014, 04:13 AM
Yet I have not done that. I have sided with Greek scholars that centuries ago knew what the correct meaning was here and translated it accordingly. It is your burden to attempt to prove they were wrong.

One of my dear friends is one of the world's foremost authorities on Koine Greek and he writes the curriculum other scholars learn and teach from. And... while my Greek is not what my Hebrew is, I know enough. A dogma is a decree, church bylaws are dogma...

Strong's - dogma From the base of G1380; a law (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical): - decree, ordinance.

>> Notice it is NOT a God made law, it is a civil or secular, a ceremonial or church but NOT a God made law.

Dogma - Thayer Definition:1) doctrine, decree, ordinance
1a) of public decrees
1b) of the Roman Senate
1c) of rulers

>> Again, all three subcategories which detail "doctrine, decree, or ordinance," are PUBLIC, ROMAN, or RULERS.... not God made. Dogma is man made.

LandShark
Sep 7th 2014, 04:14 AM
As Landshark has correctly pointed out, the content of the current exchange is unedifying and unfruitful, and therefore serves no useful purpose.

Thanks for the reminder... I am out of this thread. EW, you are welcome to PM me. Blessings all! :)

LandShark
Sep 7th 2014, 04:26 AM
Amen. Being under grace does not mean we can sin simply because we know we can ask for forgiveness verbally. That would be abusive to the process :D

Promise, my last post in this thread. :) This was an after thought...

I agree with the comment but what is sin? Biblically, what is sin?

1 John 3:4 Everyone practicing sin also practices lawlessness, because sin is lawlessness.

>> That isn't secular lawlessness.... Now, I will leave this thread. Please PM me if you want to continue any discussion on this. Blessings!!!! :)

Sojourner
Sep 7th 2014, 03:43 PM
While we strive to keep threads on topic, this is a discussion board, so we encourage and facilitate healthy, productive dialogue--even if there is a respectful disagreement on points of contention and perspectives. If you guys want to pursue your current exchange, you do indeed have the PM option. However, you are also free to start another thread dedicated to the topic of your choice.
:thumbsup: