PDA

View Full Version : How did theologians decide which OT laws are "moral" "civil" and "ceremonial"?



Karin
Mar 12th 2007, 10:20 PM
I understand and believe that, because Jesus was the ultimate blood sacrifice, there is no longer a requirement to fulfill the sacrificial laws of the Old Testament.

But when Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it...," what did that mean?

How do we decide whether or not an OT law is binding or not? I've heard people say that the "civil" and "ceremonial" laws are not binding but the "moral" laws are (although I believe that salvation is not contingent upon works but faith). However, I can find nowhere in Scripture that makes this distinction. Did we just decide for ourselves which laws were "moral"? Would it really please God if I did not wear mixed fabrics or did not eat pork? I have no conviction of needing to change these behaviors about myself.

I'm just trying to understand how the OT law applies to my life as a Christian.

intricatic
Mar 12th 2007, 11:10 PM
Hi! :wave:

My own personal opinion on this topic is a bit different than many people, I think. To begin with, i think it's a good idea to realize that the entire Law is one; it's a solid and united thing that either stands or falls together. However, individual laws were given for specific reasons. For instance, dietary purity Laws, which were reflections of an important teaching God was trying to impart on His people - not to consume other cultures or the practices of the cultures surrounding His chosen people. We learn this in Acts 11;


15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”
18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.” (Acts 11)We can also deduce this from Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the gospels (plus elsewhere I may not be aware of at this point);


4 Now the mixed multitude who were among them yielded to intense craving; so the children of Israel also wept again and said: “Who will give us meat to eat? 5 We remember the fish which we ate freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic; 6 but now our whole being is dried up; there is nothing at all except this manna before our eyes!”
(Numbers 11)For this, you'd perhaps have to read the entire chapter of Numbers 11. The people complained about the manna which God had gifted them with and asked God to send them meat, which the Lord obliged - He also sent a spirit of prophecy onto some select people in the crowd who began to prophecy to warn the people not to eat the meat. When the people ignored the prophets, and ignored the warnings, Joshua came to ask Moses to silence them, to which he received in reply;


29 Then Moses said to him, “Are you zealous for my sake? Oh, that all the LORD’s people were prophets and that the LORD would put His Spirit upon them!” 30 And Moses returned to the camp, he and the elders of Israel. (Numbers 11)The subject the prophets were warning the people about is made clear when the meat arrives and all who eat from it die. Was God displeased simply because they wanted to eat meat, or was it something more than that? We read in Deuteronomy;


1 “Every commandment which I command you today you must be careful to observe, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land of which the LORD swore to your fathers. 2 And you shall remember that the LORD your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. 3 So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD.
(Deuteronomy 8)This is also quoted in Matthew 4 when Jesus is tempted by Satan in the desert;


1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. 3 Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”
4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
(Matthew 4)Now, we've learned from Acts 11 that the food itself represented the Gentile nations surrounding Israel. The dietary purity laws were multifaceted in that they represented something (Gentile nations), they served as a method to test Israel as to her dedication to God, and it possibly served to act as a health code, so to speak. All the Law represented something; those who are dedicated to the Lord, who love the Lord, feast on His Word. The Law was never meant to impute righteousness to a believer, faith in God is what gives a person right standing before God, the Law is what teaches us about the love of God.

I am a gentile by birth, I was also brought into this world in separation from God - as we all are. When I came to God I was dead to Him in sin, He made me alive by the blood of the Lamb. Would it then be right to tell me to abstain from eating food that represented who I am by birth? All the Law stands united, or all the Law falls united; understanding why it was given and how it's to be followed is the hard part.


21 “ I hate, I despise your feast days,
And I do not savor your sacred assemblies.
22 Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings,
I will not accept them,
Nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings.
23 Take away from Me the noise of your songs,
For I will not hear the melody of your stringed instruments.
24 But let justice run down like water,
And righteousness like a mighty stream.
(Amos 5)
34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
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.”
(Matthew 22)

petepet
Mar 12th 2007, 11:39 PM
Hi, The whole of the Law applies to us as much as it ever did as Jesus said. The difference lies in the fulfillment.

The moral aspect of that Law is binding on all Christians. The only point to remember is that while you must keep it, it is not in order to gain merit before God. It is in order to please God. That is why Jesus expanded on it and brought out its fuller meaning in the Sermon on the Mount.

The laws of cleanness and uncleanness were intended to give a relatively primitive people an awareness of reaching for the higher life and of avoiding all connected with death and dirt. Thus the clean animals, birds and fish were those which lived in a 'pure' environment They ate pasture (chewed the cud), they did not walk in places of death (they had cloven hooves), they were not birds of prey, they swam in the clear water. The unclean were those which did scrabble and walk or swim in places of death, amidst the dirt and in the desert or the mud. All this was teaching purity of life. With the coming of Jesus these lessons were no longer necessary in the same way and so the rules were altered. We follow His way of cleanness and uncleanness, the cleanness of the heart. But the principle still applies. We still if we are wise avoid dirty food, and dirty places. We should still live clean spiritual lives. But we recognise that God can make clean what was previously unclean as He pointed out to Peter. We no longer live under desert and primitive conditions eating raw untreated food.

I still make whole offerings and sin offerings and freewill offerings. It is just that I do it through the One Who is all these offerings combined. And I offer them daily as I come to God through Him. If we walk in the light as He is in the light the blood of Jesus Christ God's Son cleanses from all sin.

I still keep holy days for as a Christian every day is a holy day, separated off to the Lord and in which I am available for His service.

So the Law has not been abrogated. It has been 'filled to the full' The real has replaced the shadow.

Kahtar
Mar 12th 2007, 11:48 PM
I have no conviction of needing to change these behaviors about myself.
I'm just trying to understand how the OT law applies to my life as a Christian.

[Forasmuch as ye are] manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 2 Corinthians 3:3
It is the Holy Spirit that write the law in our hearts.
Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, [then] have we confidence toward God. And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
1 John 3:21-24

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 13th 2007, 10:23 PM
As far as I understand it, the word "to fulfill" means to bring something to its ultimate purpose or goal, to bring something to completion. This what Jesus did to the Law - He brought the Law to its ultimate goal in the cross of Christ. Thus, the Law was abolished and in that sense no longer necessary because it found its fulfillment in the Cross of Calvary.

That answers at least part of the question; for the other part I don't have time so I will let somebody else take that. ;)

Firstfruits
Jul 5th 2007, 12:27 PM
I understand and believe that, because Jesus was the ultimate blood sacrifice, there is no longer a requirement to fulfill the sacrificial laws of the Old Testament.

But when Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it...," what did that mean?

How do we decide whether or not an OT law is binding or not? I've heard people say that the "civil" and "ceremonial" laws are not binding but the "moral" laws are (although I believe that salvation is not contingent upon works but faith). However, I can find nowhere in Scripture that makes this distinction. Did we just decide for ourselves which laws were "moral"? Would it really please God if I did not wear mixed fabrics or did not eat pork? I have no conviction of needing to change these behaviors about myself.

I'm just trying to understand how the OT law applies to my life as a Christian.

For Christ explanation of " I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfil"
Please read St Luke 24:25-27,44-48 as he expounded to his disciples.

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then he opened he their understanding that they might understand the scriptures. And said unto them, Thus it is written , and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, begining at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things.

This is also what the apostles taught concerning the things which the prophets and Moses did say should come concerning Christ.

That Christ should suffer and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and shew light unto the people and to the Gentiles. The Acts 26:22,23.

This is the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Sold Out
Jul 5th 2007, 06:02 PM
I understand and believe that, because Jesus was the ultimate blood sacrifice, there is no longer a requirement to fulfill the sacrificial laws of the Old Testament.

But when Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it...," what did that mean?

How do we decide whether or not an OT law is binding or not? I've heard people say that the "civil" and "ceremonial" laws are not binding but the "moral" laws are (although I believe that salvation is not contingent upon works but faith). However, I can find nowhere in Scripture that makes this distinction. Did we just decide for ourselves which laws were "moral"? Would it really please God if I did not wear mixed fabrics or did not eat pork? I have no conviction of needing to change these behaviors about myself.

I'm just trying to understand how the OT law applies to my life as a Christian.

You have to put the law in perspective. The ceremonial and separational laws were for the nation of Israel ONLY. These laws were in place for two reasons:

1. To set the nation of Israel apart, since they would bring forth the Messiah.
2. To proclaim the gospel through the sacrificial system. (slaying a lamb - John 1:29)

Since the law did it's work by preserving Israel to bring forth the Messiah (Jesus), it was fulfilled. This is what Jesus meant.

We believe that the moral and civil laws apply to the NT church the same as they applied to the OT saints - because they are mentioned and taught by Jesus & the apostles. Jesus mentions adultery & murder in Matthew 5. Paul refers to the moral code in all of his letters. They were speaking to the NT church.

Of course we are not saved by keeping any law, because the law is cursed (Gal 3) in regards to salvation. The law points us to Christ, and once we are saved, should be our rule of living in order to show appreciation for the One who died for us, was buried & rose again.

matthew94
Jul 5th 2007, 09:09 PM
Categorizing the law is just a way to help us understand why Jesus included some laws in the new covenant and not others. Our job is not to categorize the law, but to follow Jesus' teaching. He has 'all authority' over the lives of Christians. Later, theologians began to realize that Jesus included 'moral' type laws in the New Covenant 'as was' so to speak, but ceremonial laws, for instance, were no longer neceessary 'as was' in light of Jesus' work.

DAISHI
Jul 5th 2007, 09:40 PM
Peter and Paul emphasized not putting the Gentiles underneath additional burdens outside of faith in Christ.

Firstfruits
Jul 6th 2007, 07:49 AM
Jesus was talking about the things that were written in the Law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms concerning himself, which he came to fulfil.
From the gospels we see that he was talking about the message of the kingdom and not the the law of commandments given to Israel through Moses. These are the things he came to fulfil, and there are yet more things that he will fulfil before all is complete. So the law and the prophets and the psalms concerning Christ is not yet fulfilled.

As Jesus said in Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass till all things be fulfilled.

coffee cup
Jun 27th 2008, 11:06 PM
I understand and believe that, because Jesus was the ultimate blood sacrifice, there is no longer a requirement to fulfill the sacrificial laws of the Old Testament.

But when Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it...," what did that mean?

How do we decide whether or not an OT law is binding or not? I've heard people say that the "civil" and "ceremonial" laws are not binding but the "moral" laws are (although I believe that salvation is not contingent upon works but faith). However, I can find nowhere in Scripture that makes this distinction. Did we just decide for ourselves which laws were "moral"? Would it really please God if I did not wear mixed fabrics or did not eat pork? I have no conviction of needing to change these behaviors about myself.

I'm just trying to understand how the OT law applies to my life as a Christian.


they didnt decide. God already decide this for them by placing the laws that should always be used in the hearts of all people.
theologians only recognized this fact of God also the laws that should always be used are given again in the new testament. So some one cant claim we must also use the old saturday law for the jews before Jesus BIRTH some how.

for instance THE LAW WRITTEN IN THE HEART all people know its wrong to steal from another, all people know its wrong to murder, all people know its wrong to take another persons wife or husband.
yes sin has blured these truth but they are still there accusing even the unbeliever of sin.

But the laws that were not meant for all people of all time were never wrriten in the hearts of men.

for instance all men know there is a God we must worship. That is written in our hearts . mGo to pagan lands and you see people worshiping all sorts of strange things because of God writing it in to the hearts of men that there is a god that should be worshipped.


But what was not written in to mens heart is what day to worship or rest on . Thats why pagans have all sorts of days and times they worship or rest on .
and thats also JUST ((((one ))))reason why we christians also know the saturday as sabbath was only for the jews of the days-- before-- the comming of Christ. AND SATURDAY AS SABBATH WAS NEVER MEANT FOR ALL TIMES. the saturday law was part of the old ceremonial law that God put into place the jews had to obey this old saturday ceremonial rest law or be killed for not obeying it.

This old ceremonial law Had it purpose it kept the Jew from whom Jesus would come away from the rest of humanity so scriptures prophesy about Jesus would be fullfilled .

Firefighter
Jul 27th 2009, 11:46 PM
Most people just pick and choose the ones they want to put others under bondage with...

Tony Cross
Sep 16th 2012, 05:56 AM
I believe the law, all of it, was fulfilled and done away with when Christ died on the cross. See Col. 2:14. The Bible clearly teaches we are no longer under the law, but under grace (the law of Christ). Also see Heb. 8:13. By saying the law was fulfilled, it is meant that law had served it's purpose. It was a "schoolmaster" to bring us to Christ. I agree with you in that I find nothing in the scriptures that says only the ceremonial law was abolished.

Read the book of Hebrews which gives a lot attention to this. Paul was constantly pleading with many of the Jews who would not let go of the old law. In Gal. 5:4 he went so far to tell them that if they continued to hold onto the law, they had FALLEN FROM GRACE.

Tony Cross
Sep 16th 2012, 06:17 AM
As far as I understand it, the word "to fulfill" means to bring something to its ultimate purpose or goal, to bring something to completion. This what Jesus did to the Law - He brought the Law to its ultimate goal in the cross of Christ. Thus, the Law was abolished and in that sense no longer necessary because it found its fulfillment in the Cross of Calvary.

That answers at least part of the question; for the other part I don't have time so I will let somebody else take that. ;)

I believe this is a good answer.

JohnDB
Sep 17th 2012, 12:02 PM
OK...I happen to know this answer.

I was thinking posting a thread on this later today but you beat me to it yesterday.

The answer is in the Book of Hebrews...about when Abraham/God set up the sacrificial system and God walked the blood path.

When Abraham split the animals and God walked the blood path made between the animals it was a form of a contract that the performance of the Contract was now upon God for fulfilling the Contract. So when the Israelis sinned and brought a sacrifice to God the flow of blood from the animal was to remind God of His promise and Contract with Abraham and not to cancel the contract because of their lack of faith and committing such sins. It wasn't so much a "pay for play" system as it is sometimes perceived to be. Providing animals for sacrifice and ensuring that they were blemish free (in accordance with God being perfect and holy) spoke to the faith of a Messiah to come.

The Ten Commandments and the whole of the 613 laws were all about faith. Granted there was a performance of these Laws but mainly they were physically performed to demonstrate your faith in God and that He was going to provide the Messiah that was going to come. In Hebrew The Sabbath Day was always written in singular fashion...not a collective singular either. (That part of speech doesn't exist in Hebrew) There was only one Sabbath Day and that was the Day that Jesus was crucified. All of the Saturday's that they rested on was again to show faith that God was going to provide the Messiah and then there would be rest from this Contract of Faith with God.

The rest of the Laws were similar. Every part of Law was to set you apart in heart and appearance from the rest of the world. The Ten Commandments mostly referred to heart action and feelings. IOW if you wished to lie you were in violation of the Law whether you actually lied or not. Jesus reiterated this principle quite clearly when talking about looking at a woman with lust in your heart. They always were this way...if you didn't Love enough you were in violation of the OT Law.

In the Ancient Near Eastern cultures the Israelis were to be different...not only in heart condition but also appearance. They were not to shave their beards in a particular fashion or to wear clothing similar to other cultures in the area. When Sampson lost his last appearance of being an Israelite (hair cut) he lost his appointment as being special as well. God could not forgive his appearance or heart any longer. Every aspect of their life was different from the food that they ate and the dishes they could eat to the clothes that they would wear to the Holidays that they would observe. When they came out of Egypt they had no real culture as a society...they had been accustomed to being naked and ignorant. Now they were assigned a style and manner of clothes and were to have a complete culture of their own....even an official language complete with reading and writing. (only high brow societies at that time read and wrote a written language).

Then the Law about honoring your father and mother. There is no word for Grandfather or Grandmother in Hebrew. This commandment was in reference to Abraham and Sarah. They were the ones that had the relationship with God...not you. But you as an Israelite could share in their relationship by honoring them in your everyday life...and across time (a grand bit of it) you could give God the same proper worship that the patriarchs did that pleased God. So you couldn't start a new one because you didn't have a relationship with God. But you would see to it that your children carried on the same traditions. The area known as the Promised Land had seen many periods of urbanization and DE-urbanization. Whole cultures and societies disappeared without a trace. The Israelites still exist to this day as this culture that God created never once really went away. They have remained the same for thousands of years with hard wiring for the holy land. No one else can claim what they do.
but I digress.

The Laws of Old may have had a performance but the intent and purpose was the same yesterday as God's Laws for us today do. It is all about our faith...and whatever it takes to show that we have faith in God and what He has promised...and of our personal relationship with God.

Boo
Sep 18th 2012, 07:16 AM
The reason that we have determined that the law is separated into categories is because of what the compliance to those laws achieved.

Some laws determined how you treat others. Some laws determined how you approach God and obtain forgiveness for sins, and established a method of supporting those who cared for a worked in the tabernacles and temples. Sill others dealt with health and cleanliness issues. Violation of some could result in death while others told us how to repay for offenses toward others.

Now we are given a way to approach God and obtain release from sins. We were told by Paul to support those who minister to us - we no longer have Levites to support. We are left with those laws about how we treat others and possibly those which tell us how to care for ourselves. Fortunately, for us, we have been released from those which were replaced by the sacrifice that Jesus made for us.

Romans 10:

1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.
2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

John 8:32
Sep 18th 2012, 05:20 PM
Jesus was talking about the things that were written in the Law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms concerning himself, which he came to fulfil.
From the gospels we see that he was talking about the message of the kingdom and not the the law of commandments given to Israel through Moses. These are the things he came to fulfil, and there are yet more things that he will fulfil before all is complete. So the law and the prophets and the psalms concerning Christ is not yet fulfilled.

As Jesus said in Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass till all things be fulfilled.

Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Mat 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
Mat 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Helps if you read more of it, this has not occurred yet, notice verse 31 and put this together with...

1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Christ has not returned yet, so all this is not fulfilled.

John 8:32
Sep 18th 2012, 05:26 PM
I believe the law, all of it, was fulfilled and done away with when Christ died on the cross. See Col. 2:14. The Bible clearly teaches we are no longer under the law, but under grace (the law of Christ). Also see Heb. 8:13. By saying the law was fulfilled, it is meant that law had served it's purpose. It was a "schoolmaster" to bring us to Christ. I agree with you in that I find nothing in the scriptures that says only the ceremonial law was abolished.

If I come around tonight for a "date" with your wife and bring my truck to clean out the valuables from your house and then lie about who did it, you won't mind then will you? For after all, the law is done away.


Read the book of Hebrews which gives a lot attention to this. Paul was constantly pleading with many of the Jews who would not let go of the old law. In Gal. 5:4 he went so far to tell them that if they continued to hold onto the law, they had FALLEN FROM GRACE.

Grace, the unmerited pardon for our sins is not license to continue in them, or is it?


Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

And, of course, Christ had no idea what He was talking about...

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 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.

Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

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

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.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Hawkins
Sep 19th 2012, 03:02 AM
Romans 3:31
Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

The New Covenant was given because we can't abide by the old covenant we are subject to, not because we don't need to abide by law. The difference made is that law itself lost its effect in persecution for someone who is under the New Covenant. Under the New Covenant, people (Christians) are judged by Jesus Christ Himself instead of Law.

We are not born with the New Covenant which is gift we need to choose later when growing up. We are however born with the law attached to a covenant which we subject to. As for the Jews, they should be born with Mosaic Law and should be subject to the covenant brought them by Moses. The Gentiles are born with the Law in heart which is supposed to be with Noah's covenant.

They need to uphold the law unless specified otherwise by the Bible, that is, if any part of NT specifies that the Jews no longer need abide by a certain law, which means, a Jew under the New Covenant no longer needs to abide by that law.

The only difference is how you failed, not how you obey. In OT if you failed you are dead. In NT if you failed you are forgivable (as judged by Jesus Christ). Christians are above law because they are no longer judged by Law, they are judged by Jesus Christ instead.

However, you have one more "law" to obey if you are subject to the New Covenant, which is Jesus Christ teaching. As a result, "obeying law" is re-prioritized. The most important is to obey Christ teaching as this will directly lead to your salvation. Thus faith and repentance is the most crucial as they determines whether you are saved or not. On the other hand as part of Christ teaching Jesus said that you need to obey the commandments while Paul said that you need to uphold the law.

To me, the 'food and circumcision' argument more or less says that the gentiles don't need to obey Mosaic Law instead of saying that the Jews or Gentiles don't need to obey law.

My 2 cents.

BroRog
Sep 20th 2012, 01:38 AM
I understand and believe that, because Jesus was the ultimate blood sacrifice, there is no longer a requirement to fulfill the sacrificial laws of the Old Testament.

But when Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it...," what did that mean?

How do we decide whether or not an OT law is binding or not? I've heard people say that the "civil" and "ceremonial" laws are not binding but the "moral" laws are (although I believe that salvation is not contingent upon works but faith). However, I can find nowhere in Scripture that makes this distinction. Did we just decide for ourselves which laws were "moral"? Would it really please God if I did not wear mixed fabrics or did not eat pork? I have no conviction of needing to change these behaviors about myself.

I'm just trying to understand how the OT law applies to my life as a Christian.For a Jew living in Israel attempting to keep the covenant there is no distinction between "moral" and "civil" and "ceremonial". For one thing, to violate the civil law was immoral and so was a violation of the ceremonial law. To disobey the commandments and ordinances of God is to act immorally.

Having said that, theologians are attempting to grapple with the doctrine of salvation by grace and not by works of the law. What are the works of the law? The works of the law are the ritual practices contained in the Torah.

The Torah, or the Law contains a set of laws from which we can see the moral vision of God. All human beings are obligated to obey, copy, emulate, and strive to live according to God's moral vision. But not all human beings are obligated to keep the law according to the Jewish set of rules and rituals. The Jews living under the covenant were required to give expression to God's moral vision through ritual but the rest of humanity was not obligated to give expression to the moral vision of God through those same rituals.

In Paul's day, it was obvious that the covenant had been broken and that the nation was no longer honoring the covenant, so he felt free to practice or not practice his Judaism according to his mission to spread the Gospel to all people. He says that he acts Jewishly around the Jews in order to gain a hearing with them, but he acts like a Gentile around Gentiles in order to gain a hearing with them.

So, to answer your question. We are to give expression to God's moral vision in the way we live our life everyday, but we are not obligated to give expression to that moral vision through religious ritual.

keck553
Sep 20th 2012, 03:21 AM
Easy. The laws you don't like are ceremonial. The ones you like are moral.

Dani H
Sep 20th 2012, 03:37 AM
I'm just trying to understand how the OT law applies to my life as a Christian.

It doesn't. We are under a New Covenant with better promises, and the law we follow is that of love. If we love others, we have fulfilled that law.

The Lawgiver has suspended the old (being that He is above any law and can do that) and replaced it with the new.

No sense waffling around between two different covenants.

Barelohim
Mar 21st 2013, 02:41 PM
Right! And the * Law of Faith*, and the * Law of Liberty*, can only be kept as one abides in Him, and He abides in them. IF one thinks they can do anything, in themselves, they have missed the mark of the high calling one has in Christ.... That is why He set the bar so high. We can't! HE can! It is He who works these things out in us, through the nature that He gave us, of Himself. The Divine Natue, the very *seed* of God lives in the believer. But is it still in *seed* form, or has it been given the opportunity to start its growth?
Any branch in itself cannot bear fruit. But as it abides in the Vine, receiving the life of the Vine it has opportunity to bring forth fruit ( Christlikeness )... John 15. But please notice that there are branches in the Vine, that aren't producing the fruit of the Vine,and are near to be cut off and thrown in the fire.
So lets find out why some of these branches aren't producing, where they should by now..

Sincerely In Christ
BarElohim.

Liquid Tension
Mar 21st 2013, 09:31 PM
This thread has more lives than a cat. :lol:

That being said, I may have to go back and read through this thread.

LandShark
Mar 21st 2013, 09:41 PM
I understand and believe that, because Jesus was the ultimate blood sacrifice, there is no longer a requirement to fulfill the sacrificial laws of the Old Testament.

But when Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it...," what did that mean?

How do we decide whether or not an OT law is binding or not? I've heard people say that the "civil" and "ceremonial" laws are not binding but the "moral" laws are (although I believe that salvation is not contingent upon works but faith). However, I can find nowhere in Scripture that makes this distinction. Did we just decide for ourselves which laws were "moral"? Would it really please God if I did not wear mixed fabrics or did not eat pork? I have no conviction of needing to change these behaviors about myself.

I'm just trying to understand how the OT law applies to my life as a Christian.

Regardless of how you interpret the OT as pertaining to your life, I want to throw this out. It is very plainly stated that the whole Torah/Law/Instructions were one entity. MAN has separated out what he believes are ceremonial and what he sees as moral commands. But God did not, not by any stretch. Furthermore, most who say the ceremonial is dead ask for tithes which is very ceremonial, and the same who says the 10 commandments apply because they are moral... says don't keep the Sabbath but it is included in the 10! I see a lack of consistency in that line of reasoning.

In my view we have 613 +/- commands. Most can't be done because of many reasons. Some of those reasons are:

1. We don't live in the land and there are many commands tied us being there
2. There is no Temple and there are many commands tied to having a Temple
3. We live in the nations under secular rule not a Torah based society
4. It isn't likely you are a descendent of Aaron so the many commands tied to priests don't apply
5. You're a woman, commands given to men only don't apply to you (and vice versa)

As a family and as a congregation, we follow all that are left as best we can and if we fail we fail. We aren't saved by keeping commandments, but I do personally believe that the saved are to cease living according to their own understanding of righteousness, and instead live according to God's. Blessings on whatever you do.

Barelohim
Mar 21st 2013, 10:41 PM
When the OT laws are run through the cross, many are done away, some are changed, and some come through unchanged. And noticeably absent is the fact that the OT was not given to the Gentiles, but to the Jews.. And also, from Genesis to Revelations, the bible is a *spiritual * book, and must be understood with * spiritual * understanding, not literal. 1 Corinthians 2: 12 But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words .

Sincerely In Christ
Bar.

literaryjoe
Feb 4th 2014, 08:31 AM
... But when Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it...," what did that mean? "I have not come to end the law, but to explain it accurately and keep it completely."


How do we decide whether or not an OT law is binding or not? If it applies, it's binding. Is it for a male and you're female? It doesn't bind you. Does it apply to a priestly descendant of Levi? It's not binding to you. Does it apply only when in the land of Israel, as ruled by a Sanhedrin under theocratic rule? It's not binding. Was it given to the people of God in general so that they might be holy as He is holy? It's binding.

The Anglicans say it this way (actually so did the Baptists of the day, but I digress):
VII. Of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral. (39 Articles of Religion)


I've heard people say that the "civil" and "ceremonial" laws are not binding but the "moral" laws are (although I believe that salvation is not contingent upon works but faith). However, I can find nowhere in Scripture that makes this distinction. Did we just decide for ourselves which laws were "moral"? Would it really please God if I did not wear mixed fabrics or did not eat pork? I have no conviction of needing to change these behaviors about myself. I'm just trying to understand how the OT law applies to my life as a Christian.Such a great question! I wish more people asked it. We did not decide for ourselves (at least not as a Church, although many, many individuals do just decide for themselves). Theologians are not in universal agreement on the particulars, although we can move in descending order from those upon which there is universal agreement to those which are contested.

All Christians agree that love God, love your neighbor are eternal statutes or moral laws. The overwhelming majority of Christians agree that the 10 Commandments are eternal statues or moral laws. Many theologians call the "Holiness Code" found in Leviticus 18 - 23 a compendium of moral laws, but there is disagreement about whether the "Holiness Code" includes chapters 18-23, 19-23, 18-22, etc. And within those chapters are many specifics which very few consider moral laws or eternal statutes.

The designation or categorization of the law of God into ceremonial, civil and moral is simply a construct intended to help us wrestle with how to apply God's law to our lives. Arguments about whether the law can be accurately categorized distract from this constant: we are commanded, universally, to "be holy as I am holy" and to "be imitators of God." Therefore, given that the law describes God's character, we will benefit from considering whether any and all of God's laws tell us something about how Christ would respond or act in a particular situation.

P.S. I realize Karin apparently only made 3 posts and that was a long time ago, but I rather enjoyed myself replying to her original post's questions. Hope no one minds...

WordofGod
Feb 5th 2014, 05:21 PM
Ceremonial laws are about clean and unclean. In Christ, all things are clean.

A woman on here period is unclean. She hasn't done anything wrong, but she is unclean. Eating pork is unclean. Because in Christ, all things are made clean, then a woman on her period is not unclean. A man eating pork is not unclean.

Committing sodomy or murder was a capital offense. They didn't make the offender "unclean until evening." They made offender deserve to be executed.

literaryjoe
Feb 5th 2014, 10:27 PM
Ceremonial laws are about clean and unclean. In Christ, all things are clean.

A woman on here period is unclean. She hasn't done anything wrong, but she is unclean. Eating pork is unclean. Because in Christ, all things are made clean, then a woman on her period is not unclean. A man eating pork is not unclean.

Committing sodomy or murder was a capital offense. They didn't make the offender "unclean until evening." They made offender deserve to be executed.
Greetings, WoG. I have a question of curiosity for you regarding your perspective. I'm not sure what your end times interpretation is, but if you are Premillenial, and if all things are clean in Christ, why is the Temple system of clean/unclean, offerings other than sin offerings, etc. re-started during the Millennium?

WordofGod
Feb 6th 2014, 12:25 AM
Greetings, WoG. I have a question of curiosity for you regarding your perspective. I'm not sure what your end times interpretation is, but if you are Premillenial, and if all things are clean in Christ, why is the Temple system of clean/unclean, offerings other than sin offerings, etc. re-started during the Millennium?

I'm amillennial. I believe Jesus, being the perfect sacrifice, ended the sacrificial system once and for all. In the OT, someone [symbolically] unclean became clean through either the passage of time or by animal sacrifice. The sacrifice of Christ then makes all things clean, even if the NT hadn't told us that all things are clean in Christ. In any case, to restore sacrifice would be to deny the sufficiency of the one and only perfect sacrifice.

literaryjoe
Feb 6th 2014, 01:22 AM
I'm amillennial. Ah. Well that answers that...


I believe Jesus, being the perfect sacrifice, ended the sacrificial system once and for all. In the OT, someone [symbolically] unclean became clean through either the passage of time or by animal sacrifice. The sacrifice of Christ then makes all things clean, even if the NT hadn't told us that all things are clean in Christ. In any case, to restore sacrifice would be to deny the sufficiency of the one and only perfect sacrifice.So, in your opinion, what do you make of "But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life." Revelation 21:27 (ESV) ...forgive me, if I'm ignoring the obvious, I'm not very familiar with the amillennial position.

WordofGod
Feb 6th 2014, 02:24 PM
So, in your opinion, what do you make of "But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life." Revelation 21:27 (ESV) ...forgive me, if I'm ignoring the obvious, I'm not very familiar with the amillennial position.

The city is the New Jerusalem, the bride of Christ, the church, which Paul calls "our mother". The city has no Temple because Jesus is the Temple, as he implied when he told the Jews that when the temple is destroyed, he'd "rebuild it in three days".

In Christ, all things are clean. So, those who are "unclean" are not in Christ. And, those not in Christ are not part of the true church. Evildoers (the unregenerate) and liars (children of the father of lies) are also not in Christ and are not part of the true church. These people, the unclean and anyone who does what is detestable or false, may not enter the city.

Aijalon
Apr 16th 2014, 01:29 PM
I love how these things always gravitate to the eschatological questions rather quickly, which is why I lurk in end times chat, it all boils down to your kingdom worldview.

But to Karin's question....

What about the way in which the laws were punctuated? Some laws are puncutated with "I AM THE LORD", while others are puncutated with "it is unclean to you" and others are puncuated with "it is a perpetual ordiance forever" and there are probably some others, as well as accounting for the audience, such as "the sons of Israel" or "the sons of Aaron" or, "Aaron".

Without any pre-conceived mindset don't we have a kind of framework to go by?

I also don't like the idea that we just follow the Torah laws that we "have left", because it makes the most trivial of the laws the whole law. As was said, there is no levitical priesthood to administer the law, they were the judges of matters of the Law, so there is NO LAW at all to follow. We follow our conscience before God (Acts 24:16, Hebrews 13:18, 1 Pet 3:16).

Acts 15:29 contains the conclusion of a kind of committee of the Apostles as to what were the core remaining elements of the Law, all they could come up with were to refrain from idolatry (worship), strangled animals and blood (violence/care for the earth) and sexual immorality (honor the temple of God). That was it.

If we say that we (or perhaps only Jews) must treat the law as a whole, and we throw out the bulk of it as though it is inoperable for whatever reason, then the "whole" law which is left is but a series of crumbs. Who decides which parts are the inoperable parts that we no longer strive for? Well that would be the priests! But we don't have any!

All the righteous requirements of the Law are fulfilled in Christ. When he returns he will set things straight and rebuild a temple and all will be restored. Even in the times of the Law, in the times of the judges, Israelites did what was right in their own eyes, as a whole, this caused the society to decay, but individually this wasn't said to be the cause of anyone's backsliding. The same is true today. Without a comprehensive law based on God's laws, the nations will decay morally, but as long as we keep our own conscience clean, we're good. Your own conscince (that's the Holy Spirit by the way) convicts you of sin.

Jeanne57
Apr 21st 2014, 05:43 AM
As far as I understand it, the word "to fulfill" means to bring something to its ultimate purpose or goal, to bring something to completion. This what Jesus did to the Law - He brought the Law to its ultimate goal in the cross of Christ. Thus, the Law was abolished and in that sense no longer necessary because it found its fulfillment in the Cross of Calvary.

That answers at least part of the question; for the other part I don't have time so I will let somebody else take that. ;)
Jesus not only "fulfilled" the Law by bringing it to its ultimate purpose and goal, and therefore to completion, He also fulfilled it by KEEPING it Himself, meaning He was the only person who ever lived who never sinned. We know He kept the prescribed feasts, but whether He ever actually offered sacrifices is unclear, since He Himself was to become the Ultimate Sacrifice, the Lamb of God. He certainly wouldn't need to offer any sin sacrifices, as He never sinned. What He DIDN'T keep, was the Talmud, or the traditions and interpretations of the Law that had built up over the years, which was what the Pharisees got all riled up about.

Jeanne57
Apr 21st 2014, 07:41 AM
If I come around tonight for a "date" with your wife and bring my truck to clean out the valuables from your house and then lie about who did it, you won't mind then will you? For after all, the law is done away.



Grace, the unmerited pardon for our sins is not license to continue in them, or is it?


Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

And, of course, Christ had no idea what He was talking about...

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 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.

Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

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

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.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
So are you saying that we, as Christians, should obey the WHOLE Law as given to Moses? Jesus himself said that the two greatest commandments were to "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy might" and to "love thy neighbour as thyself." On those two laws hung all the Law and the prophets. He also said we were to obey His commandments, the chief one being that we should love one another as He loved us.

Now in your hypothetical example, would you be showing "love to your neighbour" if you did all those things you suggested? I believe the Ten Commandments still stand, as they are the basis for the legal systems in all Judeo-Christian nations today. However, Jesus never mentioned anything about what we were to wear, or what to eat; in Peter's vision, he was shown a bunch of "unclean" animals and told to "kill and eat." This vision was repeated three times, and Peter objected every time until God told him not to call unclean that which He had made clean. The meaning of this for him was that when he went to the house of Cornelius, he was to eat what was put in front of him without worrying about whether the food he was eating was "clean" or not.

Some of the Apostles also got into a big debate as to whether Gentiles who had been converted to Christ should be required to be circumcised. The Law was given to the ISRAELITES, so that doesn't mean that in order to be Christians, we must also become Jews. We are to show our faith by our works; that is, by feeding the hungry, supporting the poor, etc., and by keeping the commandments JESUS gave to His followers. This did not include the WHOLE of the Law given to Moses.

Paul was a Pharisee, and as such, was very well versed in the Law. Yet he preached to Gentiles, and did not force this Law on them as a requirement of becoming Christians. He only taught what Jesus taught. Yes, we are to separate ourselves from the world in the way we live, such as avoiding sexual immorality, watching what we say by not participating in gossip or putting other people down (one area I still have a lot of work to do in), treating others with love and kindness, whether we like them or not (something else I have trouble with), and basically showing our love for God and our fellow man. All of these things can be found throughout the NT in what the Apostles taught, and what Paul wrote to the various churches.

Jeanne57
May 5th 2014, 12:53 AM
So are you saying that we, as Christians, should obey the WHOLE Law as given to Moses? Jesus himself said that the two greatest commandments were to "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy might" and to "love thy neighbour as thyself." On those two laws hung all the Law and the prophets. He also said we were to obey His commandments, the chief one being that we should love one another as He loved us.

Now in your hypothetical example, would you be showing "love to your neighbour" if you did all those things you suggested? I believe the Ten Commandments still stand, as they are the basis for the legal systems in all Judeo-Christian nations today. However, Jesus never mentioned anything about what we were to wear, or what to eat; in Peter's vision, he was shown a bunch of "unclean" animals and told to "kill and eat." This vision was repeated three times, and Peter objected every time until God told him not to call unclean that which He had made clean. The meaning of this for him was that when he went to the house of Cornelius, he was to eat what was put in front of him without worrying about whether the food he was eating was "clean" or not.

Some of the Apostles also got into a big debate as to whether Gentiles who had been converted to Christ should be required to be circumcised. The Law was given to the ISRAELITES, so that doesn't mean that in order to be Christians, we must also become Jews. We are to show our faith by our works; that is, by feeding the hungry, supporting the poor, etc., and by keeping the commandments JESUS gave to His followers. This did not include the WHOLE of the Law given to Moses.

Paul was a Pharisee, and as such, was very well versed in the Law. Yet he preached to Gentiles, and did not force this Law on them as a requirement of becoming Christians. He only taught what Jesus taught. Yes, we are to separate ourselves from the world in the way we live, such as avoiding sexual immorality, watching what we say by not participating in gossip or putting other people down (one area I still have a lot of work to do in), treating others with love and kindness, whether we like them or not (something else I have trouble with), and basically showing our love for God and our fellow man. All of these things can be found throughout the NT in what the Apostles taught, and what Paul wrote to the various churches.
After reading through Acts 10 again, I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong about the meaning of Peter's vision. In the first place, if the vision was meant literally, then why would Peter question what it meant? (Acts 10:17).

He told Cornelius what it meant: Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

In other words, the vision was never really about food, but about people that the Jews considered unclean. God didn't change the law He had given to Moses regarding food, but I don't see anywhere in the Torah where the Israelites were not to keep company with someone of another nation who feared the same God they did. This tells me that this "law" was part of the oral tradition that Jesus specifically said was NOT part of the law of Moses.

This idea is reinforced in these verses: 34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Acts 11 also continues this theme when Peter goes back to Judea:

And the apostles and brethren that were in Judśa heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. 4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, 5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: 6 upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. 8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. 9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 10 And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. 11 And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Cśsarea unto me. 12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house: 13 and he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14 who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Again, food is not mentioned, but the fact that Peter went and ate with Gentiles. However, when others heard his story about the vision, they too realised that the vision was talking about people they considered unclean, not actual food.

Brother Mark
May 5th 2014, 01:43 AM
After reading through Acts 10 again, I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong about the meaning of Peter's vision. In the first place, if the vision was meant literally, then why would Peter question what it meant? (Acts 10:17).

He told Cornelius what it meant: Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

In other words, the vision was never really about food, but about people that the Jews considered unclean. God didn't change the law He had given to Moses regarding food, but I don't see anywhere in the Torah where the Israelites were not to keep company with someone of another nation who feared the same God they did. This tells me that this "law" was part of the oral tradition that Jesus specifically said was NOT part of the law of Moses.

This idea is reinforced in these verses: 34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Acts 11 also continues this theme when Peter goes back to Judea:

And the apostles and brethren that were in Judśa heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. 4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, 5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: 6 upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. 8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. 9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 10 And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. 11 And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Cśsarea unto me. 12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house: 13 and he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14 who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Again, food is not mentioned, but the fact that Peter went and ate with Gentiles. However, when others heard his story about the vision, they too realised that the vision was talking about people they considered unclean, not actual food.

I agree the vision was about people. However, that doesn't mean we have to toss the idea it was about food too. Though we have other scripture where God speaks to our freedom concerning food.

Col 2:16-17

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

and

Heb 9:8-10
8 The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, 9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, 10 since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.
NASU

and

Rom 14:15-17
15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
NASU

and

Mark 7:18-19
18 So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?"
NKJV

and finally, and a very strong passage concerning foods....

1 Tim 4:1-5

4 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.
NASU

Balabusha
May 5th 2014, 02:28 AM
After reading through Acts 10 again, I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong about the meaning of Peter's vision. In the first place, if the vision was meant literally, then why would Peter question what it meant? (Acts 10:17).

He told Cornelius what it meant: Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

In other words, the vision was never really about food, but about people that the Jews considered unclean. God didn't change the law He had given to Moses regarding food, but I don't see anywhere in the Torah where the Israelites were not to keep company with someone of another nation who feared the same God they did. This tells me that this "law" was part of the oral tradition that Jesus specifically said was NOT part of the law of Moses.

This idea is reinforced in these verses: 34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Acts 11 also continues this theme when Peter goes back to Judea:

And the apostles and brethren that were in Judśa heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. 4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, 5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: 6 upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. 8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. 9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 10 And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. 11 And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Cśsarea unto me. 12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the manís house: 13 and he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14 who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Again, food is not mentioned, but the fact that Peter went and ate with Gentiles. However, when others heard his story about the vision, they too realised that the vision was talking about people they considered unclean, not actual food.

Jeanne the unclean food was not that God created unclean animals, it was about not mingling with the pagans, that is why God gave Peter the vision of "kill and eat' in regards to the unclean animals, nothing is unclean. Pagans had to come to be a part of Covenant Israel, now we are to go out to them.

Sorry Bro Mark, I did not see your post until now-I would just repeat everything you wrote

Balabusha
May 5th 2014, 02:32 AM
I agree the vision was about people. However, that doesn't mean we have to toss the idea it was about food too. Though we have other scripture where God speaks to our freedom concerning food.

Col 2:16-17

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

and

Heb 9:8-10
8 The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, 9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, 10 since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.
NASU

and

Rom 14:15-17
15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
NASU

and

Mark 7:18-19
18 So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?"
NKJV

and finally, and a very strong passage concerning foods....

1 Tim 4:1-5

4 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.
NASU

The titlle of the thread is very misleading dont you think? Theologians never "decided" what is ceremonial,civil or moral

Brother Mark
May 5th 2014, 02:47 AM
The titlle of the thread is very misleading dont you think? Theologians never "decided" what is ceremonial,civil or moral

I've heard that preached though about civil, moral, ceremonial, etc. The question is reasonable one, but that's only because we (i.e. the church) have complicated it, IMO. In my simple way of thinking of things, I don't separate it like that. I see the Law of Moses as a way to run a nation that God had set apart to reveal Himself through. I am no longer under any of those laws, whether moral, ceremonial, civil, or whatever else someone wants to call it (as if it is broken up in parts anyway). I am simply called to love God and love people. Paul says the whole thing was about learning to love my neighbor and God anyway.

My personal opinion is we make this way harder than it has to be. Just love God and each other and don't worry about anything else. The rest of it is commentary on those two things anyway. The NT teaches us that loving God isn't about all the types and shadows. But the types and shadows can show us all the more about what Christ actually did for us and will lead us to love Him more.

(BTW, something that doesn't get talked about a lot is that the 10 commandments were put inside the ark but not the law of Moses.)

Balabusha
May 5th 2014, 06:50 AM
I've heard that preached though about civil, moral, ceremonial, etc. The question is reasonable one, but that's only because we (i.e. the church) have complicated it, IMO. In my simple way of thinking of things, I don't separate it like that. I see the Law of Moses as a way to run a nation that God had set apart to reveal Himself through. I am no longer under any of those laws, whether moral, ceremonial, civil, or whatever else someone wants to call it (as if it is broken up in parts anyway). I am simply called to love God and love people. Paul says the whole thing was about learning to love my neighbor and God anyway.

My personal opinion is we make this way harder than it has to be. Just love God and each other and don't worry about anything else. The rest of it is commentary on those two things anyway. The NT teaches us that loving God isn't about all the types and shadows. But the types and shadows can show us all the more about what Christ actually did for us and will lead us to love Him more.

(BTW, something that doesn't get talked about a lot is that the 10 commandments were put inside the ark but not the law of Moses.)

This is an amazing insight on your part Mark and it takes us to the book of Revelations, the revealing of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 1:1-2
The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

-We see the words "word of God" and the "Testimony of Jesus" repeated in the book

Revelation 1:9
I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.
-John is identifying himself to the 7 churches who are also suffering because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus

Revelation 12:17
And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 19
And he said to me, “These are the true sayings of God.” 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

-So we see that the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophesy and the true sayings of God-the word of God
-The commandments of God and having the testimony of Jesus are also linked.

Exodus 25:22
And there I will meet with you, and I will speak with you from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are on the ark of the Testimony, about everything which I will give you in commandment to the children of Israel.

Exodus 31:18
And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

The ark of the Testimony housed the tablets(10 commandments) of the Testimony, the 10 commandments represented the whole of the Mosaic Covenant.

1.We see the Law is contained in the Ark of the testimony
Rev 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a scroll written inside and on the back...-This was the 10 commandments
Exodus 32:15 And Moses turned and went down from the mountain, and the two tablets of the Testimony were in his hand. The tablets were written on both sides; on the one side and on the other they were written.

2. The manna was contained in the Ark of the Testimony-This is referenced throughout the OT, and Jesus declares Himself the Manna from Heaven.
-This is the short story.

3.Aaron's staff was contained in the Ark of the Testimony-This is the Preishood which changed
Hebrews 7:11
Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.[a] 15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. 17 For He testifies:[b]

“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”

Revelation 1:6
and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Jeanne57
May 5th 2014, 08:42 PM
How do you explain this then?

Matthew 5:17-19
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least.

Jesus practised the Law all through His earthly life, and taught His disciples to do the same. He also commanded them that they should teach others to follow His example.

In Colossians, we are not to act as judge against others (or let other judge us) regarding food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day; that is the job of the Holy Spirit as we submit to Him.

As for the Romans 14 passage, if I went out to eat with a Jew and ordered a bacon cheeseburger, or roast pork, would that not offend him? I'm quite certain that it would. Not only that, but it would probably cut off any further dialogue I might have with that person.

This is a video I just watched today; it's Part 1 (http://119ministries.com/pauline-paradox-series-part-1-is-the-majority-ever-wrong) of a series called The Pauline Paradox, from 119 Ministries. (There are five parts to this series, but only the first four are available yet; not sure when the fifth will be coming out.) Yes, this is a Hebrew Roots site, but most importantly, they do teach that Jesus (Yeshuah) was the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Word made flesh. They do NOT deny the deity of Christ, nor do they teach a lot of "out there" doctrine. If you have any questions about what they believe, their Faith Statement can be found under the About Us button at the top.

One of their challenges is to test everything against the Word of God, and to let them know if you find anything contrary to God's Word in their teachings. Granted, most of what they teach goes against what we have always been taught in mainstream Christianity, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Christians today still have their roots in the RCC, and while Protestants have eliminated a lot of the error taught in the RCC, they haven't removed ALL of it.

I've only watched a few of their videos, but so far what they've said makes a lot of sense. At least it does to me. But before you dismiss it totally on what I've just said, I would simply ask that you take a look at it first. They also have teachings on Acts 10 and Acts 15, that they recommend you watch before watching this series. The first one is only 11 minutes, and the second one is 32 minutes, and can be found in the Test Everything series on the menu. As I said, the link I provided goes to the first part of the Pauline Paradox series, but there is a button at the top right that says "Return to Video Menu" There are also PDF transcripts of all of the videos, so you can study what has been said.

Below the video menu are these comments:


Through our teachings our only desire is to be an effective vehicle to send out His truth. We not only encourage you but also implore you to test every written and spoken word in our teachings to the only real source of truth, His Word. As teachers we are commanded to only teach doctrine that is in agreement with the truth. According to Scripture you are commanded to test our doctrine to His Word. We are all accountable to what we believe and teach in the end. Through such a process we wish to accelerate your learning and understanding of Scripture but certainly not to add to, subtract, or replace His Word. We expect that you will find our teachings challenging yet hopefully rewarding if diligently tested. We will likely challenge your faith and your current understanding of Scripture.

Our ministry's only mission is to provide sound testable truth, not compromise it. At any time feel free to contact us for questions or comments about our material should you feel we have fallen short of that goal in any capacity. In addition, we also welcome any other comments or suggestions.

To facilitate that, there is an optional survey at the end of each video on what you thought of the teaching, how it could be made better, or what you liked or didn't like about it. Seriously, how many ministries do you know of today that are open to criticism and correction if needed? Most teachers I've encountered expect people to believe what they say without question, and if you challenge them, they automatically assume that since they are better educated than you are, you must be the one who's wrong. Very few encourage people to be as the Bereans and study for themselves what is being taught.

I have lived most of my Christian life serving myself rather than God, and I'm looking to change that. I'm also looking for the truth of what that means about how I should conduct my daily activities. My search has led me down many false paths, and I finally feel that I've found some solid ground that I can hold on to.

John 8:32
May 6th 2014, 11:23 AM
As far as I understand it, the word "to fulfill" means to bring something to its ultimate purpose or goal, to bring something to completion. This what Jesus did to the Law - He brought the Law to its ultimate goal in the cross of Christ. Thus, the Law was abolished and in that sense no longer necessary because it found its fulfillment in the Cross of Calvary.

That answers at least part of the question; for the other part I don't have time so I will let somebody else take that. ;)

So it is no longer necessary to have a Law against murder or adultery? Are you lying? Oh wait, it wouldn't matter.

Balabusha
May 7th 2014, 03:05 AM
How do you explain this then?

Matthew 5:17-19
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least.

Jesus practised the Law all through His earthly life, and taught His disciples to do the same. He also commanded them that they should teach others to follow His example.

In Colossians, we are not to act as judge against others (or let other judge us) regarding food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day; that is the job of the Holy Spirit as we submit to Him.

As for the Romans 14 passage, if I went out to eat with a Jew and ordered a bacon cheeseburger, or roast pork, would that not offend him? I'm quite certain that it would. Not only that, but it would probably cut off any further dialogue I might have with that person.

This is a video I just watched today; it's Part 1 (http://119ministries.com/pauline-paradox-series-part-1-is-the-majority-ever-wrong) of a series called The Pauline Paradox, from 119 Ministries. (There are five parts to this series, but only the first four are available yet; not sure when the fifth will be coming out.) Yes, this is a Hebrew Roots site, but most importantly, they do teach that Jesus (Yeshuah) was the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Word made flesh. They do NOT deny the deity of Christ, nor do they teach a lot of "out there" doctrine. If you have any questions about what they believe, their Faith Statement can be found under the About Us button at the top.

One of their challenges is to test everything against the Word of God, and to let them know if you find anything contrary to God's Word in their teachings. Granted, most of what they teach goes against what we have always been taught in mainstream Christianity, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Christians today still have their roots in the RCC, and while Protestants have eliminated a lot of the error taught in the RCC, they haven't removed ALL of it.

I've only watched a few of their videos, but so far what they've said makes a lot of sense. At least it does to me. But before you dismiss it totally on what I've just said, I would simply ask that you take a look at it first. They also have teachings on Acts 10 and Acts 15, that they recommend you watch before watching this series. The first one is only 11 minutes, and the second one is 32 minutes, and can be found in the Test Everything series on the menu. As I said, the link I provided goes to the first part of the Pauline Paradox series, but there is a button at the top right that says "Return to Video Menu" There are also PDF transcripts of all of the videos, so you can study what has been said.

Below the video menu are these comments:



To facilitate that, there is an optional survey at the end of each video on what you thought of the teaching, how it could be made better, or what you liked or didn't like about it. Seriously, how many ministries do you know of today that are open to criticism and correction if needed? Most teachers I've encountered expect people to believe what they say without question, and if you challenge them, they automatically assume that since they are better educated than you are, you must be the one who's wrong. Very few encourage people to be as the Bereans and study for themselves what is being taught.

I have lived most of my Christian life serving myself rather than God, and I'm looking to change that. I'm also looking for the truth of what that means about how I should conduct my daily activities. My search has led me down many false paths, and I finally feel that I've found some solid ground that I can hold on to.

A problem is going from shiny object to another shiny object Jeanne, false teachings sound great and makes sense, or else nobody would fall for it. So there is no reason to go from one avenue to another, or down a wrong path to another wrong path.
the first thing that sticks out in my mind are your words that christians have their roots in the RCC, what is happening here is a group is trying to alienate you from the church and gather you to themselves-an illuminated teacher does not do this Jeanne.
Would you be willing to go to a bible college and learn a system of studying the Bible? Videos on the internet is not the safest form of education, they are accountable to nobody

Jeanne57
May 8th 2014, 10:44 PM
A problem is going from shiny object to another shiny object Jeanne, false teachings sound great and makes sense, or else nobody would fall for it. So there is no reason to go from one avenue to another, or down a wrong path to another wrong path.
the first thing that sticks out in my mind are your words that christians have their roots in the RCC, what is happening here is a group is trying to alienate you from the church and gather you to themselves-an illuminated teacher does not do this Jeanne.
Would you be willing to go to a bible college and learn a system of studying the Bible? Videos on the internet is not the safest form of education, they are accountable to nobody
Can you show me SCRIPTURALLY where any of these teachings are wrong? They don't take Scripture out of context to try to make their points. They admit that they don't have everything figured out (NO ONE does). What they do is compare Scripture with Scripture, which I find very few people doing these days.

And no, I'm not interested in Bible college, either. Just because someone has a degree doesn't mean they are qualified Bible scholars. They all have their biases, too, and teach what they have been taught. Most Bible colleges even teach evolution! I know there are many that don't, but the vast majority of them do.

And it didn't take this particular group to tell me that all Protestant denominations have their roots in the RCC. After all, where did all the Reformers come from? The RCC. All denominations are right in some areas, and wrong in others. Otherwise, why would we have over 30,000 denominations of Christianity around the world who are all convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong?

Noeb
May 9th 2014, 12:55 AM
Can you show me SCRIPTURALLY where any of these teachings are wrong?Sure, just as much as they can make their point.



They don't take Scripture out of context to try to make their points.They don't have to.



How do you explain this then?

Matthew 5:17-19
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least.Does it matter? If you think 'Moses' every time you see the word 'law', you are going to be messed up theologically, regardless of what we say.




Jesus practised the Law all through His earthly life, and taught His disciples to do the same. He also commanded them that they should teach others to follow His example.and you think this means Gentiles should be obedient to the law of Moses?




As for the Romans 14 passage, if I went out to eat with a Jew and ordered a bacon cheeseburger, or roast pork, would that not offend him? I'm quite certain that it would. Not only that, but it would probably cut off any further dialogue I might have with that person.Not all Jews are 'Pharisaical'.




I've only watched a few of their videos, but so far what they've said makes a lot of sense. At least it does to me. But before you dismiss it totally on what I've just said, I would simply ask that you take a look at it first. They also have teachings on Acts 10 and Acts 15, that they recommend you watch before watching this series.Making two arguments out of Acts 15:1 and 5 makes no sense.



Seriously, how many ministries do you know of today that are open to criticism and correction if needed?All make the claim, just as all do here, but how many actually do?

Jeanne57
May 9th 2014, 05:57 PM
Sure, just as much as they can make their point.
And we could keep on arguing back and forth to no avail. I think I'll pass.

[QUOTE=Noeb;3124397]Does it matter? If you think 'Moses' every time you see the word 'law', you are going to be messed up theologically, regardless of what we say.
You don't think what Jesus said matters? God's law is God's law, regardless of who He originally gave it to, and God doesn't change.


and you think this means Gentiles should be obedient to the law of Moses?
What, you think God gave one set of instructions to the Israelites, and it was only for them, and another set of instructions for everybody else? THAT doesn't make sense to me.


Not all Jews are 'Pharisaical'.
Maybe I should have clarified that as Orthodox or Karaite Jew, since a lot of Jews today don't even believe in God.


Making two arguments out of Acts 15:1 and 5 makes no sense.
Maybe not to you, but it makes perfect sense to me.


All make the claim, just as all do here, but how many actually do?
Hmmm... really? I know of a lot of ministries who expect their followers to believe everything they're told because "the Holy Spirit told me," and if you start asking the wrong questions, they don't want anything to do with you. They just dismiss you as a heretic, or having a "religious spirit" or "spirit of Jezebel." I've seen too much of that to want to be a part of it.

You're free to believe whatever you want, but Matthew 5:17-19 has never made sense to me in light of what I've been taught in church all my life. Jesus said "If you love Me, keep My commandments." If Jesus was/is the Word of God, then He must be the WHOLE Word. John also defined sin as transgression of the law. What law do you think he was talking about, if not the Law God gave to Moses? If I want to please God, then I want to know what DOES please Him. God should be worshipped in the way HE wants to be worshipped, not the way WE want to worship Him. If you don't think any of the Law applies to you, fine. That's between you and God.

Noeb
May 10th 2014, 01:25 AM
And we could keep on arguing back and forth to no avail. I think I'll pass.I agree. That's why I didn't offer an argument.



You don't think what Jesus said matters?I asked if it matters what we say.



God's law is God's law, regardless of who He originally gave it to,You have acknowledged different usages for "law". Spirit of and letter of the law has been pointed out to you, which you already knew. The spirit of the law existed before, during, and after Moses, and was originally given to all men as creations in his image.



and God doesn't change.No but there's this little thing called administrations/dispensations and there's also different covenants.



What, you think God gave one set of instructions to the Israelites, and it was only for them, and another set of instructions for everybody else? THAT doesn't make sense to me.Much of Moses was explicitly for the nation of Israel only. The spirit of the law, which existed before the written, being expressed in the written through touch not taste not etc, doesn't change who God gave the written to and for what purpose.



Maybe not to you, but it makes perfect sense to me.Really? Both required circumcision and keeping the law of Moses.

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.



You're free to believe whatever you want, but Matthew 5:17-19 has never made sense to me in light of what I've been taught in church all my life.I do understand. Matthew 5 is misunderstood and wrongly taught by most. I have a thread called "Matthew 5" if you are interested. Jesus was contrasting tradition with a previous understanding, original intent of, and spirit of the law. He wasn't introducing anything new.



Jesus said "If you love Me, keep My commandments." If Jesus was/is the Word of God, then He must be the WHOLE Word. John also defined sin as transgression of the law. What law do you think he was talking about, if not the Law God gave to Moses?The spirit of the law -moral, by nature -His righteousness

Jeanne57
May 10th 2014, 10:31 AM
You have acknowledged different usages for "law". Spirit of and letter of the law has been pointed out to you, which you already knew. The spirit of the law existed before, during, and after Moses, and was originally given to all men as creations in his image.
Do you believe the law of Moses and the law of God are two different things?

Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing,
but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets

Nothing happened in the New Testament that was not prophesied in the Old Testament. Do you see ANYWHERE in the OT that the law was to be done away with, or made obsolete?


Much of Moses was explicitly for the nation of Israel only.
Remember, there was a "mixed multitude" that came out of Egypt with the Israelites, and God said the same law applied to all of them. Israel was also meant to be an example to the rest of the nations for them to follow, so why would you think that the law was ONLY for Israel?

Deuteronomy 4:6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, that shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

Obviously, certain things have been done away with. There is no more temple, and no more animal sacrifices; however, as I pointed out before, our bodies are now the temple, and we are to be living sacrifices by submitting our will to the Father's. I think we can safely say the purification rites are no longer necessary, either, since we have been purified by the blood of Christ.


The spirit of the law, which existed before the written, being expressed in the written through touch not taste not etc, doesn't change who God gave the written to and for what purpose.
Now you're misquoting Colossians 2.

Colossians 2:16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.

20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

The Christians in the church at Colossi were already observing the Jewish feasts and festivals, which are shadows and reminders of the things of Christ, just as the Lord's Supper is for us today. The Passover was a reminder of what happened in Egypt, but it also became a symbol for the crucifixion of Christ. The Feast of Trumpets was the only Jewish feast that fell on a new moon, and points to the return of Christ. (Jesus will return at the last trump, [I Thessalonians 4:16] or the final trumpet, as described in Revelation 10:7 but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.)

The "Do not taste, do not touch" was the doctrine of the Gnostics who came in and tried to teach against keeping the feasts, because they believed in worshipping angels, and denying any of the pleasures of the flesh, including food, and the feasts were all about celebrating and food. So really the Christians were being harassed because they were keeping the feasts, not because they weren't.



Really? Both required circumcision and keeping the law of Moses.

Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
The difference between verse 1 and verse 5 is that the first group in verse 1 was saying that circumcision was a CONDITION of being saved, while the second group (believers) in verse 5 was saying that circumcision should be a RESULT of being saved. Salvation is unconditional, and not a result of anything we can do to get it. The group in verse 1 said that a person could not be saved UNLESS he was circumcised. The second group was saying that BECAUSE people were saved, they should be circumcised and follow the law of Moses to show their love for, and obedience to, God. The root of salvation comes first, then the fruit of obedience, which is exactly the opposite of what the people in verse 1 said.

Paul would not have circumcised Timothy in chapter 16, regardless of what the Jews thought about it, unless he believed that it was the right thing to do, and what God wanted. Also, Acts 24:14 However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,

Now, when Paul went and preached to the Gentiles, do you think he stopped following the law, because he thought they would be offended by it? That would make about as much sense as you going out to the pub with your buddies and getting drunk with them so you could preach the Gospel to them, and then tell them that getting drunk was a sin! No, what Paul meant, was that he preached to people where they were, as he did on Mars Hill. He didn't follow their customs to gain acceptance; he merely preached to them in a way that they could understand. Jews grew up being taught the Tanakh, but the Gentiles knew nothing about it, so he had to start from there and go through the whole Bible in order to explain Christ.

Deuteronomy 10:16 and Jeremiah 4:4 both speak of circumcision of the heart; circumcision of the flesh was only an outward sign of the inward circumcision. As God said in both the OT and NT, circumcision of the flesh doesn't mean anything unless one's heart has been circumcised. Circumcision is fairly standard practice in babies at birth today, at least in the United States, but for most, it has no meaning. Many men who have been circumcised don't even believe there IS a God! So unless it is done as an act of obedience and worship, it means nothing.



I do understand. Matthew 5 is misunderstood and wrongly taught by most. I have a thread called "Matthew 5" if you are interested. Jesus was contrasting tradition with a previous understanding, original intent of, and spirit of the law. He wasn't introducing anything new.
Sure, I'll read it.


The spirit of the law -moral, by nature -His righteousness
Jesus taught the spirit of the law, yes, but He also followed the letter. But He followed the Torah (Word of God), not the Talmud (traditions of men), and He taught His disciples to do the same, and told them to teach others. He didn't specify that they were only to teach it to Jews.

Noeb
May 10th 2014, 02:46 PM
Do you believe the law of Moses and the law of God are two different things?"The spirit of the law, which existed before the written, being expressed in the written"
The Law is in Moses. The written is a reflection of the spirit. Gentiles have the Law but not Moses -Romans 1-2. You want to do away with parts of Moses and still think you are following Moses, but it doesn't work that way. You attempt to follow it all in order to complete it all. You don't do away with parts of it completely, and change parts of it to spiritual. You complain about so many denominations but what do you think this mindset does, if not spawn many different 'ways' of following God?



Do you see ANYWHERE in the OT that the law was to be done away with, or made obsolete?The discussion is whether or not Gentiles are under the law of Moses. What 'forever' means and whether or not sacrifice is re-instituted is another topic. The Law existed before, during, and after Moses.



Remember, there was a "mixed multitude" that came out of Egypt with the Israelites, and God said the same law applied to all of them.Judicially. The stranger participated religiously if they converted and were circumcised.



Israel was also meant to be an example to the rest of the nations for them to follow, so why would you think that the law was ONLY for Israel?Legislators even borrowed from the system, but they didn't adopt Judaism, neither were they supposed to.



Obviously, certain things have been done away with. There is no more temple, and no more animal sacrifices; however, as I pointed out before, our bodies are now the temple, and we are to be living sacrifices by submitting our will to the Father's. I think we can safely say the purification rites are no longer necessary, either, since we have been purified by the blood of Christ.This is not following Moses and Israel would not accept this as following Moses.



Now you're misquoting Colossians 2.Colossians wasn't even in my mind. I was thinking 'touch not the unclean thing', food laws etc....but I know that phrase in in Col 2. It's just the phrase that popped into my mind to express the law of Moses. I should not have used the phrase. It works both ways. If someone wants to observe something, like Paul, I don't care. If I don't want to observe something, I expect the same courtesy and for you to not care.



The difference between verse 1 and verse 5 is that the first group in verse 1 was saying that circumcision was a CONDITION of being saved, while the second group (believers) in verse 5 was saying that circumcision should be a RESULT of being saved.This is what they say, but the verses do not. Both verses clearly place circumcision and keeping Moses as conditions and yoke to salvation. As shown, the passage reveals neither are necessary, and that is confirmed explicitly by the Holy Ghost in the passage.



Jesus taught the spirit of the law, yes, but He also followed the letter. But He followed the Torah (Word of God), not the Talmud (traditions of men), and He taught His disciples to do the same, and told them to teach others. He didn't specify that they were only to teach it to Jews.He did not tell them to teach others to follow the letter. Simply did not. That is just your assumption. Jesus came to and spoke to the lost sheep of of Israel. He lived and taught the complete (fulfilled the law -Matt 5) understanding of the law and the prophets -love God and neighbor-

Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

and commanded this to all. He did not, ever, anywhere, teach that all are to follow the letter. That is contrary to what he gave the apostles.

Brother Mark
May 11th 2014, 09:48 PM
How do you explain this then?

Matthew 5:17-19
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least.

Well, when Jesus said "it is finished" wasn't all accomplished? Thing is, the jot and tittle have passed away unless you think that we should rebuild a temple and still make animal sacrifices.

Jeanne57
May 12th 2014, 10:41 AM
Well, when Jesus said "it is finished" wasn't all accomplished? Thing is, the jot and tittle have passed away unless you think that we should rebuild a temple and still make animal sacrifices.
Has Jesus returned yet? Have the heaven and earth passed away? Why did Paul keep making such a point of telling people he still believed the law, practised it, and taught others to do the same? Our sacrifice for sin was accomplished at the cross, yes, but all has NOT yet been fulfilled. There are still prophecies in the Bible that have not come to pass yet.

John 8:32
May 12th 2014, 01:00 PM
As far as I understand it, the word "to fulfill" means to bring something to its ultimate purpose or goal, to bring something to completion. This what Jesus did to the Law - He brought the Law to its ultimate goal in the cross of Christ. Thus, the Law was abolished and in that sense no longer necessary because it found its fulfillment in the Cross of Calvary.

That answers at least part of the question; for the other part I don't have time so I will let somebody else take that. ;)

G4137
πληρόω
plēroō
play-ro'-o
From G4134; to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.: - accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.

Means more than just "bring to completion". Means to "make replete"...

Mirriam-Webster:
re∑plete
adjective \ri-ˈplēt\

: having much or plenty of something : filled with something

: having had plenty to eat : pleasantly full

Means to "cram" as in crammed full. to level up as in to bring to a level.

When one reads Mat 5:17 in context with other statements of Christ, completion doesn't really fit...

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 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.

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Interestingly enough, the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man is misused for many reasons, but the last part of it is seldom quoted...

Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 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.

Why would having Moses and the Prophets, the Old Testament, mean anything if the Law was completed and of no further use?

Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

And Paul concurs...

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Jeanne57
May 14th 2014, 11:05 AM
G4137
πληρόω
plēroō
play-ro'-o
From G4134; to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.: - accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.

Means more than just "bring to completion". Means to "make replete"...

Mirriam-Webster:
re∑plete
adjective \ri-ˈplēt\

: having much or plenty of something : filled with something

: having had plenty to eat : pleasantly full

Means to "cram" as in crammed full. to level up as in to bring to a level.

When one reads Mat 5:17 in context with other statements of Christ, completion doesn't really fit...

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 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.

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Interestingly enough, the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man is misused for many reasons, but the last part of it is seldom quoted...

Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 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.

Why would having Moses and the Prophets, the Old Testament, mean anything if the Law was completed and of no further use?

Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

And Paul concurs...

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Very well put. Some people will try to argue that Jesus said these things because He had not yet been crucified, but I totally disagree with that theory.

Well, what about sacrifices, and the temple? Paul had those covered, too. He said that our bodies were now the temple of the Holy Spirit, and that we were to present ourselves as living sacrifices. He also said something about the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.

So the big question is, what does that mean for us as Christians today? What parts of the law should we be following, and how?

John 8:32
May 14th 2014, 12:55 PM
Well, when Jesus said "it is finished" wasn't all accomplished?

Well, was it?

Mat 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 all finished?
If it were finished, what is the sense in this?

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Where is the second coming if all were finished?

what about the Kingdom of God?

Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

The Kingdom all finished?

What about the Millenium, the GWTJ, the Lake of Fire, New Jerusalem? All finished?

Or is this what is all finished?

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: ...


Thing is, the jot and tittle have passed away unless you think that we should rebuild a temple and still make animal sacrifices.

True or false...

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

is a lie?

Or did the animal sacrifices, point to a fulfillment that is still ongoing? Does anyone today need the sacrifice of Christ? I do daily.

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The Law is still in effect, sin requires blood...

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

but the animal sacrifices could not remit sin...

Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

That was never their purpose, their purpose was...

Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

They were the example, the teacher, the schoolmaster of what was to come...

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

The animal sacrifices were not originally given with the Law to Moses...

Deu 5:22 These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.

They were added for what reason?

Jer 7:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
Jer 7:23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
Jer 7:24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.

They were added as a bloody reminder (remember Heb 10:3) that sin requires blood.

Once the ultimate sacrifice was given...

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

There is now no need for further sacrifice. We claim the one perfect Sacrifice for sins each time we approach the Father and ask forgiveness.

Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

John 8:32
May 14th 2014, 01:24 PM
Very well put. Some people will try to argue that Jesus said these things because He had not yet been crucified, but I totally disagree with that theory.

Well, what about sacrifices, and the temple? Paul had those covered, too. He said that our bodies were now the temple of the Holy Spirit, and that we were to present ourselves as living sacrifices. He also said something about the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.

So the big question is, what does that mean for us as Christians today? What parts of the law should we be following, and how?

Every part of the Law we are able to follow. There is no physical Temple and no Aaronic Priesthood, so one cannot follow those Laws. There are Laws we can and should follow...

Lev 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.

Sex acts with family is prohibited. Do we really need to debate about whether that is a good Law or not?

Lev 19:13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.
Lev 19:14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.
Lev 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
Lev 19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD.

Oh the burden of keeping these terrible Laws (rolls eyes).

Deu 22:8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

How do we apply that today? If you build a deck on your house, you need to put a handrail around it to protect someone from falling off. If you don't build a handrail and they do fall off, you have brought responsibilty on yourself for their injuries.

A wise man once helped me understand about which Laws we can obey with this illustration...

Is it right to stop at a stop sign? - yes
Should I always stop at a stop sign? - yes
Are there stop signs on Interstate Highways? - no
Then does the stop sign law apply on Interstates? - no
does that do away with stop sign laws? - no

There are Laws that we cannot obey today. That does not mean they are done away, it means they cannot be applied.

There are Laws that have had their application changed in the New Testament. Does that mean they are done away? No, it means they have to be applied differently. Perfect example is circumcision, now of the heart and not the foreskin.

There are Laws that are in full force to day. The Ten Commanments for example.

Brother Mark
May 14th 2014, 10:13 PM
Has Jesus returned yet? Have the heaven and earth passed away? Why did Paul keep making such a point of telling people he still believed the law, practised it, and taught others to do the same? Our sacrifice for sin was accomplished at the cross, yes, but all has NOT yet been fulfilled. There are still prophecies in the Bible that have not come to pass yet.


Matt 5:18-19
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
NASU

Then you are stuck. Because a letter and a stroke passed away. That's what the discourse in Hebrews 8, 9 and 10 are about.

Heb 8:13


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

So, either it was all finished when Jesus said "it is finished" or you have to obey the entire law, including the ones where the sacrificial lambs and goats, etc. are laid out. In other words, keep the letter as it was given in the OT. However, since the OT sacrifices have faded away, (which is way more than a jot or a tittle) then we know all is finished. The verse doesn't say that heaven and earth will pass away when all is finished. Just that heaven and earth will pass away if a letter of the law is changed prior to it being finished.

Same verse another version:

Matt 5:18
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
NIV

Once it is finished, then the letter can be changed. That is why Paul can tell us we live by the Spirit of the law and not the letter.

Brother Mark
May 14th 2014, 10:18 PM
True or false...

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

is a lie?

Or did the animal sacrifices, point to a fulfillment that is still ongoing? Does anyone today need the sacrifice of Christ? I do daily.

The letter is gone. (I.e. a jot and a tittle did pass away.) But the Spirit of the Law remains. That is the point of Hebrews. So either we have to live by the letter, by sacrificing a lamb, or we live by the Spirit, recognizing that THE Lamb was slain. We don't do both.

Therefore, a letter from the law has passed away.

LandShark
May 14th 2014, 10:27 PM
The letter is gone. (I.e. a jot and a tittle did pass away.)

Mat 5:18 For truly I say to you, UNTIL the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled.

I can't agree with this. I saw the post, ran outside real quick, picked up some dirt to verify, and yes indeed, Earth is still here. Therefore, to say the jots and tittles passed away without taking heaven and earth with it stands opposed to Messiah's words. I appreciate that you have your opinion, but earth is still here. Until it isn't, your statement is incorrect.

Noeb
May 14th 2014, 11:59 PM
Mat 5:18 For truly I say to you, UNTIL the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled.

I can't agree with this. I saw the post, ran outside real quick, picked up some dirt to verify, and yes indeed, Earth is still here. Therefore, to say the jots and tittles passed away without taking heaven and earth with it stands opposed to Messiah's words. I appreciate that you have your opinion, but earth is still here. Until it isn't, your statement is incorrect.Jesus is not saying every part of the law will remain until heaven and earth pass away. That's an impossibility. It simply means "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." -Luk 16:17. IOW, the law will, without a doubt, be fulfilled -Mat 5:17. Jesus completed the sacrificial system, so there's no more need of it, yet the earth remains. It was easier for heaven and earth to pass away than it was Jesus not be the perfect slain lamb of God.

This following is fulfilled and gone, yet, heaven and earth did not pass away.
Luk 18:31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.

Here's another
Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
Luk 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Yet another
Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Luk 24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
Luk 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.

LandShark
May 15th 2014, 01:21 AM
Jesus is not saying every part of the law will remain until heaven and earth pass away. That's an impossibility. It simply means "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." -Luk 16:17. IOW, the law will, without a doubt, be fulfilled -Mat 5:17. Jesus completed the sacrificial system, so there's no more need of it, yet the earth remains. It was easier for heaven and earth to pass away than it was Jesus not be the perfect slain lamb of God.

Respectfully Noeb, if it was intended to say "easier" than that Greek word would have been included in the verse. So you are adding to the verse so that it fits your paradigm. As for the sacrificial system... there is no Temple, that is why there is no sacrifices. Mind you they POINTED to his work, so don't misunderstand and think I am saying they had any value beyond pointing to him. However, after the ascension, Paul made a sacrifice. I don't buy the "he was just trying to keep from being killed" argument about it, he made a sacrifice after the death and resurrection of Messiah. Therefore, I don't reach the same conclusion you do. No problem though. Blessings.

Noeb
May 15th 2014, 02:42 AM
Respectfully Noeb, if it was intended to say "easier" than that Greek word would have been included in the verse.Why? The same Greek word doesn't have to be present to have the same meaning.



So you are adding to the verse so that it fits your paradigm.How do you figure? I didn't add anything. I said they say the same thing. Commentaries agree.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/5-18.htm



As for the sacrificial system... there is no Temple, that is why there is no sacrifices.Yet, even when there was a temple there was no God in it for the sacrifice.



Mind you they POINTED to his work, so don't misunderstand and think I am saying they had any value beyond pointing to him. However, after the ascension, Paul made a sacrifice. I don't buy the "he was just trying to keep from being killed" argument about it, he made a sacrifice after the death and resurrection of Messiah. Therefore, I don't reach the same conclusion you do. No problem though. Blessings.The passage is very clear why he did it, and it wasn't because he kept the law of Moses and the customs.

LandShark
May 15th 2014, 04:01 AM
We just see it differently Noeb. Paul said he NEVER preached against the laws and traditions of his people. He made a sacrifice in the Temple, and regardless of mainstream Christian commentaries, the word for easier is NOT in the text and if it is not in the text, you are adding it. You can believe it all you want, but the word isn't in the text and I thought man lived by "every word of God," not every word plus the ones we think need be in there. Sorry, I just can't go here with you. Blessings.

Noeb
May 15th 2014, 04:19 AM
We just see it differently Noeb. Paul said he NEVER preached against the laws and traditions of his people. He made a sacrifice in the Temple, and regardless of mainstream Christian commentaries, the word for easier is NOT in the text and if it is not in the text, you are adding it. You can believe it all you want, but the word isn't in the text and I thought man lived by "every word of God," not every word plus the ones we think need be in there. Sorry, I just can't go here with you. Blessings.What are you talking about?

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Says it right there! What? Do you think that says jots and tittles will pass from the law when heaven and earth passes? No.....no you don't, so you'll have to find another meaning. I suggest you go here, with the obvious meaning. The law will be fulfilled before heaven and earth pass. Why is that so strange to you?

LandShark
May 15th 2014, 04:28 AM
What are you talking about?

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Says it right there! What? Do you think that says jots and tittles will pass from the law when heaven and earth passes? No.....no you don't, so you'll have to find another meaning. I suggest you go here, with the obvious meaning. The law will be fulfilled before heaven and earth pass. Why is that so strange to you?

I am not following. My point is earth is here so then the law is too. Until heaven and earth pass, not one jot or tittle will pass... seems clear to me. If you see it otherwise, fine. Night!

Noeb
May 15th 2014, 05:12 AM
I am not following. My point is earth is here so then the law is too. Until heaven and earth pass, not one jot or tittle will pass... seems clear to me. If you see it otherwise, fine. Night!Do you or do you not agree, that all in the law will be fulfilled before heaven and earth pass? If yes, that's what it means. Once fulfilled, it's not fulfilled repeatedly. Jesus died and shed his blood once, not repeatedly and continually -SEE Hebrews.

Jeanne57
May 15th 2014, 09:21 AM
Every part of the Law we are able to follow. There is no physical Temple and no Aaronic Priesthood, so one cannot follow those Laws. There are Laws we can and should follow...

Lev 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.

Sex acts with family is prohibited. Do we really need to debate about whether that is a good Law or not?

Lev 19:13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.
Lev 19:14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.
Lev 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
Lev 19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD.

Oh the burden of keeping these terrible Laws (rolls eyes).

Deu 22:8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

How do we apply that today? If you build a deck on your house, you need to put a handrail around it to protect someone from falling off. If you don't build a handrail and they do fall off, you have brought responsibilty on yourself for their injuries.

A wise man once helped me understand about which Laws we can obey with this illustration...

Is it right to stop at a stop sign? - yes
Should I always stop at a stop sign? - yes
Are there stop signs on Interstate Highways? - no
Then does the stop sign law apply on Interstates? - no
does that do away with stop sign laws? - no

There are Laws that we cannot obey today. That does not mean they are done away, it means they cannot be applied.

There are Laws that have had their application changed in the New Testament. Does that mean they are done away? No, it means they have to be applied differently. Perfect example is circumcision, now of the heart and not the foreskin.

There are Laws that are in full force to day. The Ten Commanments for example.
I totally agree with all of this, but what about the dietary laws and the feasts prescribed by the law? Do they still apply?

shepherdsword
May 15th 2014, 11:18 AM
We can go back and forth on which aspects of the law have been eliminated all day long. However,there is one thing that is perfectly clear,this is all that is required ceremonially of gentiles:

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

LandShark
May 15th 2014, 12:27 PM
Do you or do you not agree, that all in the law will be fulfilled before heaven and earth pass?.

Well, yes, but it depends on definitions. You see, fulfill to many Noeb, means it is complete and thus done away with, there is no need for it any longer. But that definition makes this verse say this:

"Do not think that I came to do away with the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to do away with, but rather to do away with." Matthew 5:17

If fulfill means what most Christians take it as, then there is no need for communion. His body and blood were already broken and those prophesies as related to that event are fulfilled. So why do we continue to take the cup and bread? Because it continues to point to Him and His work. All the Law and Prophets, according to Jesus, point to Jesus and yet we live in a generation that all but calls the Law evil and a curse. I don't... and I don't subscribe to the current definition of fulfill. The Greek word Pleroo, like every word, carries many concepts and we have to use the ones in certain situations that fit the context. If somebody said, "My boss told me to take a walk," then I can't force the first definition on that word in that context. The guy was fired, not asked to go for exercise. Pleroo has more than one meaning. A combination of Thayer and Liddel-Scott says this:

Pleroo -
1. to make full: i.e. to cause to abound
2. to render full: i.e. to complete
3. to consummate: i.e. to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
4. to carry into effect, bring to realization, realize

The first thing I want to point out is that none of the above definitions can mean "do away with." If whatever state you live in had a legislative session and they discussed new interstate speeds, when they were done, and the laws were written, and the new law book printed, they will have rendered complete, brought into effect, made full the effort of their cause. Yet that effort does not mean we all HAVE TO now drive on interstates, it doesn't mean we can't, it doesn't mean we have to drive the prescribed speed, it means that they have realized their effort... pleroo.

There is one more entry between those two lexicons, and I think it best describes the context: (and this is word for word)

Pleroo - to fulfil, i.e. to cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

In other words, they pointed to Him and they detailed how God desires us to walk. He came and walked that exact path, made known the desire of God, and thus fulfilled the intent behind the letter, the Spirit behind the letter. Thus the Torah (law) is not done away with, it has been shown to us how God desires us to use it in our lives. That stands in harmony with the notion that God called the law everlasting... and if it is everlasting, if He called it everlasting, then it is everlasting, period.


If yes, that's what it means. Once fulfilled, it's not fulfilled repeatedly.

Let me show you why this is just not well thought out. And please, I don't say that meaning, "Noeb is an ignorant fool," because I don't believe that for a second. We are all raised in a culture that defines this word as you have shown here. However, when we take this line of reasoning out to any deeper conclusion, it falls very flat on it's face. The essence of Torah is love, and the first commandment is to love God with all your heart and soul. So, I ask... did Jesus love the Father with all His heart and soul? If you answer yes, then based on your comment, this command is fulfilled and we no longer have to love the Father. And if you want to now go the route of "Well, He specifically said we should," then let me dig a little further in the law. Let's say that your water main breaks and you have to dig up your front lawn to expose the pipes. You get that part of the job done but run out of light and go eat and go to bed. You do not block off the hole and while you sleep, a man cuts across your lawn and falls into the hole, breaking his back. According to the Torah, while yes he was on your property, his injury is still your fault because you did not make sure that anyone couldn't fall in. In other words, you were negligent, you must and should pay for his medical expenses. Based on your reasoning above, this guy is crap out of luck because Jesus already fulfilled the Spirit of this command and you are no longer bound to keep it. I think the word pleroo (fulfill) is actually saying the opposite... that based on how Jesus walked this thing out, you now understand the spirit behind the words and are VERY obligated to help your neighbor, even if he was trespassing! Fulfill does not mean bring an end to.

There is one more thing to consider Noeb. When it says there will be a new heaven and new earth the word in Greek is kainos, which means "to renew." In other words, it might suggest that it isn't a brand new earth, but one that has been restored to it's original picture. In that case, heaven and earth don't really "pass away" which means the verse we are talking about is an idiom... which I have believed all along anyway. It isn't saying "heaven and earth shall pass away," it is saying, "until heaven and earth pass away." But if, "until" is meant abstractly, and the heaven and earth won't ever actually pass away, then no jot or tittle of the law will either. Again, God called it eternal and the same which was on stone is what is being written on the heart. (Deut. 30:6, Ezk 11:19, Jer. 31:31-34) It isn't being "done away with," it is being moved.

LandShark
May 15th 2014, 12:33 PM
We can go back and forth on which aspects of the law have been eliminated all day long. However,there is one thing that is perfectly clear,this is all that is required ceremonially of gentiles:

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

That isn't a finishing line Shep, it is a starting point. 50 years before this council, Shamai and Hillel engaged in a debate and it was decided then what would be expected a proselyte into the Jewish religion. Hillel basically said exactly what the Acts 15 council stated, but he added that this newbie would then "learn as he began to walk." In other words, this was a starting point, enough to set you apart from your pagan ex-brethren and then you go get discipled. Shamai agreed with these terms but ADDED that the person needed to know all 613 commandments AND be circumcised. Acts 15:1-2 begins with Paul and Barnabas being confronted by those who held the cultural view (Shamai's position was accepted)... and they were saying circumcision was needed unto salvation. As a quick side note, that is not only not true, the command was for a 8 day old to be circumcised. If one wasn't circumcised on the 8th day, there is nothing they can EVER do to meet that requirement.

Anyway.... the Council simply reversed a bad decision, but what they stated was not the end result. It is understood that we WILL be discipled, taught, we would learn and grow and apply what we learn. We don't CAMP at Acts 15, we start there. Heck, Acts 15 doesn't even tell us to "love God," if Acts 15 is all that is required, I guess we don't love God?

shepherdsword
May 15th 2014, 12:46 PM
That isn't a finishing line Shep, it is a starting point. 50 years before this council, Shamai and Hillel engaged in a debate and it was decided then what would be expected a proselyte into the Jewish religion. Hillel basically said exactly what the Acts 15 council stated, but he added that this newbie would then "learn as he began to walk." In other words, this was a starting point, enough to set you apart from your pagan ex-brethren and then you go get discipled. Shamai agreed with these terms but ADDED that the person needed to know all 613 commandments AND be circumcised. Acts 15:1-2 begins with Paul and Barnabas being confronted by those who held the cultural view (Shamai's position was accepted)... and they were saying circumcision was needed unto salvation. As a quick side note, that is not only not true, the command was for a 8 day old to be circumcised. If one wasn't circumcised on the 8th day, there is nothing they can EVER do to meet that requirement.

Anyway.... the Council simply reversed a bad decision, but what they stated was not the end result. It is understood that we WILL be discipled, taught, we would learn and grow and apply what we learn. We don't CAMP at Acts 15, we start there. Heck, Acts 15 doesn't even tell us to "love God," if Acts 15 is all that is required, I guess we don't love God?

It is a finishing line to correct those that try to enforce the law on the gentiles.This was a yoke that even the apostles(or their fathers)could bear:

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

This is very clear to all of those with an objective perspective not corrupted by an agenda other than the gospel.

John 8:32
May 15th 2014, 12:53 PM
Matt 5:18-19
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
NASU

Then you are stuck. Because a letter and a stroke passed away.

A stroke and a letter of what? You are confusing the Law with the Old Covenant. A covenant is an agreement. Here is the Old Covenant....

Exo 19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
Exo 19:7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.

And what was the reply?

Exo 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

This is the Old Covenant. The agreement. Now what are the terms and conditions of the Old Covenant?

Exo 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Now there are those who would tell you that this means the Old Covenant is the Ten Commandments. It is not, it is the terms and conditions. If this Old Covenant is truly the Ten Commandments, then ALL of the Law given except Ex 20 adn Deut 5 is not included in the Old Covenant.

By the way, the Covenant made with Israel was an agreement between whom? Who was the I am ? Jesus Christ. And what happened? Christ died which allowed release of the Old Covenant.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Christ, having died, has released both parties from the Old Testament or Covenant to make a New Covenant.


That's what the discourse in Hebrews 8, 9 and 10 are about.


Heb 8:13


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

So, either it was all finished when Jesus said "it is finished" or you have to obey the entire law, including the ones where the sacrificial lambs and goats, etc. are laid out. In other words, keep the letter as it was given in the OT. However, since the OT sacrifices have faded away, (which is way more than a jot or a tittle) then we know all is finished. The verse doesn't say that heaven and earth will pass away when all is finished. Just that heaven and earth will pass away if a letter of the law is changed prior to it being finished.

What were the sacrifices? Were they instituted at Mt. Sinai?

Deu 5:22 These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.

They were not given with the Law. How did they come about?

Jer 7:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

How did that turn out?

Jer 7:23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
Jer 7:24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.

And what was the purpose of sacrifices?

Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

They taught the people an important lesson, sin requires blood. Blood must be shed for sin...

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

These sacrifices looked forward to the perfect sacrifice of Christ. They were a teacher, an instructor, a schoolmaster...

Remember Deut 5 and Jer 7 from above?

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The Law that was added was the Law of sacrifices. Now you have claimed that this Law has faded away. No, it is still in effect, sin requires blood. What we have now is exactly what Galatians says it is...

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

We have the realization of what the sacrifices looked forward to, Christ's perfect sacrifice.



Same verse another version:

Matt 5:18
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
NIV

Once it is finished, then the letter can be changed. That is why Paul can tell us we live by the Spirit of the law and not the letter.

So help me out here, when one lives by the spirit of the Law, it is OK to break the letter? As long as I think good thoughts about someone it is OK to kill them? As long as I think "spiritual" thoughts, it is OK to commit adultery? Not what Paul taught at all...

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

What does this say? It plainly says that a woman that marries a man is bound to here as long as the man lives and if she marries another it is adultery. This is the seventh Commandment, by the way.

Paul is teaching a deeper principle here. When we put to death the old man by baptism, we are free from sin and the penalty of it...

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Paul does not say the seventh Commandment is no longer valid.

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

What is the real problem? The Law?

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

No, there is another problem...

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

The problem is not the Law, the real problem is us.

LandShark
May 15th 2014, 12:55 PM
"And Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." (see - Deut. 6:5) This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (see- Lev. 19:18) On these two commandments all the Law and the Prophets hang." (Matthew 22:37-40)

Use a picture here, he said on these two commands hang ALL the Law and ALL the Prophets. So... Love God is a big nail, and you nail it half way into a wall. Love neighbor is a second big nail, that you nail to the side of the other. Now, you are looking at a wall with two nails in it... one for Love God and one for Love neighbor. Folks, you can now take the remaining 611 commandments and hang them on one of those two nails. Each and every commandments can be placed on one of those nails... for ALL THE LAW hangs on those two. Those two are underlying theme of ALL the others, and all can be filed under "love God" or "love neighbor."

The prophets do as well, because the Prophets expounded on and walked out (as best they could) the Law. Not one Prophet who is in the Bible did not walk according to the instructions of God, including Jesus. His walk was a PERFECT WALK when it comes to following the instructions and will of the Father. He is our model, He showed us what is expected, and our culture now demonizes the very things He did. He didn't spend His time demonizing commandments, He spent His time doing them. Yes He understood the Spirit behind the Letter, but you all make that sound easier... I don't think that is always the case.

Exodus 20:14 You shall not commit adultery. (Violation of the marriage bed - Webster's 1828)

Matthew 5:28 But I say to you, Everyone looking at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

He revealed the Spirit behind the Letter and that made the Letter, in this case, look easier. I think we are raised to see certain things certain ways and I am not sure that all of those ways are always accurate. King David called God's Torah (Instructions, word, law) a "delight," while modern man calls it "bondage." I think I would take David's "inspired by God" words here... and re-look at how I draw some conclusions.

LandShark
May 15th 2014, 01:04 PM
It is a finishing line to correct those that try to enforce the law on the gentiles.This was a yoke that even the apostles(or their fathers)could bear:

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

This is very clear to all of those with an objective perspective not corrupted by an agenda other than the gospel.

Shep... that yoke was man's law, not God's! I hinted at this hoping you would catch it... show me in the 613 commandments where being circumcised as an adult can be found. I am not talking about Abraham, I am talking about Sinai, where is the command to circumcise an adult? Answer... there isn't one. The command is for an 8 day old baby to be circumcised.... and since a gentile did not get circumcised on the 8th day, he can't EVER do it later because you are only 8 days old once. Is that then reason to not allow you to be part of God's people? No, of course not. First of all, salvation is a heart issue first.... second, we all sin and fall short. Just because we weren't circumcised on the proper day we can't be part of the body of Messiah? There is NO COMMAND IN THE BIBLE that says that... the notion of "circumcision unto salvation" (see Acts 15:1-2) is Jewish Halacha, it is a MAN MADE COMMANDMENT. Again, if the Acts 15 letter is all that is expected of "gentiles" who are coming into the faith, then we have two different standards for two different people when the theme of Scripture is that we ARE ONE! And where Shep, do we see not to serve another god? Where does it say not to steal? Is it ok to bear false witness now? Obviously, when just a little reason it applied, we can clearly see that there is more that is expected of us than what is written in the Acts 15 letter. Unless you think it is ok for gentiles to steal? :D

Noeb
May 15th 2014, 01:32 PM
Well, yes, but it depends on definitions. You see, fulfill to many Noeb, means it is complete and thus done away with, there is no need for it any longer. But that definition makes this verse say this:

"Do not think that I came to do away with the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to do away with, but rather to do away with." Matthew 5:17

If fulfill means what most Christians take it as, then there is no need for communion. His body and blood were already broken and those prophesies as related to that event are fulfilled. So why do we continue to take the cup and bread? Because it continues to point to Him and His work. All the Law and Prophets, according to Jesus, point to Jesus and yet we live in a generation that all but calls the Law evil and a curse. I don't... and I don't subscribe to the current definition of fulfill. The Greek word Pleroo, like every word, carries many concepts and we have to use the ones in certain situations that fit the context. If somebody said, "My boss told me to take a walk," then I can't force the first definition on that word in that context. The guy was fired, not asked to go for exercise. Pleroo has more than one meaning. A combination of Thayer and Liddel-Scott says this:

Pleroo -
1. to make full: i.e. to cause to abound
2. to render full: i.e. to complete
3. to consummate: i.e. to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
4. to carry into effect, bring to realization, realize

The first thing I want to point out is that none of the above definitions can mean "do away with." If whatever state you live in had a legislative session and they discussed new interstate speeds, when they were done, and the laws were written, and the new law book printed, they will have rendered complete, brought into effect, made full the effort of their cause. Yet that effort does not mean we all HAVE TO now drive on interstates, it doesn't mean we can't, it doesn't mean we have to drive the prescribed speed, it means that they have realized their effort... pleroo.

There is one more entry between those two lexicons, and I think it best describes the context: (and this is word for word)

Pleroo - to fulfil, i.e. to cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

In other words, they pointed to Him and they detailed how God desires us to walk. He came and walked that exact path, made known the desire of God, and thus fulfilled the intent behind the letter, the Spirit behind the letter. Thus the Torah (law) is not done away with, it has been shown to us how God desires us to use it in our lives. That stands in harmony with the notion that God called the law everlasting... and if it is everlasting, if He called it everlasting, then it is everlasting, period.



Let me show you why this is just not well thought out. And please, I don't say that meaning, "Noeb is an ignorant fool," because I don't believe that for a second. We are all raised in a culture that defines this word as you have shown here. However, when we take this line of reasoning out to any deeper conclusion, it falls very flat on it's face. The essence of Torah is love, and the first commandment is to love God with all your heart and soul. So, I ask... did Jesus love the Father with all His heart and soul? If you answer yes, then based on your comment, this command is fulfilled and we no longer have to love the Father. And if you want to now go the route of "Well, He specifically said we should," then let me dig a little further in the law. Let's say that your water main breaks and you have to dig up your front lawn to expose the pipes. You get that part of the job done but run out of light and go eat and go to bed. You do not block off the hole and while you sleep, a man cuts across your lawn and falls into the hole, breaking his back. According to the Torah, while yes he was on your property, his injury is still your fault because you did not make sure that anyone couldn't fall in. In other words, you were negligent, you must and should pay for his medical expenses. Based on your reasoning above, this guy is crap out of luck because Jesus already fulfilled the Spirit of this command and you are no longer bound to keep it. I think the word pleroo (fulfill) is actually saying the opposite... that based on how Jesus walked this thing out, you now understand the spirit behind the words and are VERY obligated to help your neighbor, even if he was trespassing! Fulfill does not mean bring an end to.

There is one more thing to consider Noeb. When it says there will be a new heaven and new earth the word in Greek is kainos, which means "to renew." In other words, it might suggest that it isn't a brand new earth, but one that has been restored to it's original picture. In that case, heaven and earth don't really "pass away" which means the verse we are talking about is an idiom... which I have believed all along anyway. It isn't saying "heaven and earth shall pass away," it is saying, "until heaven and earth pass away." But if, "until" is meant abstractly, and the heaven and earth won't ever actually pass away, then no jot or tittle of the law will either. Again, God called it eternal and the same which was on stone is what is being written on the heart. (Deut. 30:6, Ezk 11:19, Jer. 31:31-34) It isn't being "done away with," it is being moved.Thanks LandShark. I'll have to post later when I have more than this phone to type. You somewhat misunderstand me and I agree with some of what you said here. Peace.

John 8:32
May 15th 2014, 01:56 PM
"And Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." (see - Deut. 6:5) This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (see- Lev. 19:18) On these two commandments all the Law and the Prophets hang." (Matthew 22:37-40)

Use a picture here, he said on these two commands hang ALL the Law and ALL the Prophets. So... Love God is a big nail, and you nail it half way into a wall. Love neighbor is a second big nail, that you nail to the side of the other. Now, you are looking at a wall with two nails in it... one for Love God and one for Love neighbor. Folks, you can now take the remaining 611 commandments and hang them on one of those two nails. Each and every commandments can be placed on one of those nails... for ALL THE LAW hangs on those two. Those two are underlying theme of ALL the others, and all can be filed under "love God" or "love neighbor."

The prophets do as well, because the Prophets expounded on and walked out (as best they could) the Law. Not one Prophet who is in the Bible did not walk according to the instructions of God, including Jesus. His walk was a PERFECT WALK when it comes to following the instructions and will of the Father. He is our model, He showed us what is expected, and our culture now demonizes the very things He did. He didn't spend His time demonizing commandments, He spent His time doing them. Yes He understood the Spirit behind the Letter, but you all make that sound easier... I don't think that is always the case.

Exodus 20:14 You shall not commit adultery. (Violation of the marriage bed - Webster's 1828)

Matthew 5:28 But I say to you, Everyone looking at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

He revealed the Spirit behind the Letter and that made the Letter, in this case, look easier. I think we are raised to see certain things certain ways and I am not sure that all of those ways are always accurate. King David called God's Torah (Instructions, word, law) a "delight," while modern man calls it "bondage." I think I would take David's "inspired by God" words here... and re-look at how I draw some conclusions.

If I might add, there is really only one Law, LOVE.

This Law is divided into Two Great Commands:

1) Love God
2) Love your neighbor

The Two Great Commands are divided into ten parts:

1) Love God > the first four
2) Love your neighbor > the last five

I didn't skip the fifth Commandment, it is a transition. We are to honor our human parents and our heavenly parent. It is a transitional Commandment and bridges the Two Great Commandments.

Then the statutes and judgments are applications of the Ten Commandments that are applications of the Two Great Commandments which are applications of the Great Commandment.

LandShark
May 15th 2014, 02:53 PM
If I might add, there is really only one Law, LOVE.

Agreed... thus Paul is basically saying, "you can do these things, but if you have not love....."

Blessings.

Noeb
May 16th 2014, 01:14 AM
Well, yes, but it depends on definitions. You see, fulfill to many Noeb, means it is complete and thus done away with,I agree it's just not logical when taken at face value.



there is no need for it any longer.This can be a result of fulfilled. Once obligations to a contract have been fulfilled it's no longer needed. After Christ's sacrifice, animal sacrifice is no longer needed.



But that definition makes this verse say this:

"Do not think that I came to do away with the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to do away with, but rather to do away with." Matthew 5:17Not really. Christ's sacrifice ended animal sacrifice, which btw was 'law' before Moses. The shedding of blood is God's principle for dealing with sin. The principle stands for eternity, but efficacious animal sacrifices have been abolished.



If fulfill means what most Christians take it as, then there is no need for communion. His body and blood were already broken and those prophesies as related to that event are fulfilled. So why do we continue to take the cup and bread? Because it continues to point to Him and His work.Pointing to a fulfilled principle doesn't mean the fleshly action that calls the principle is to continue or continues to happen. Transubstantiation is not biblical.



The first thing I want to point out is that none of the above definitions can mean "do away with."So you still perform animal sacrifice? No, and you wouldn't even if you lived in Israel and there were a temple with God in it. The need for blood for sin remains, so the law behind the action remains, but since no more sacrifice can be made, the execution of the law is done away.



There is one more entry between those two lexicons, and I think it best describes the context: (and this is word for word)

Pleroo - to fulfil, i.e. to cause Godís will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and Godís promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

In other words, they pointed to Him and they detailed how God desires us to walk. He came and walked that exact path, made known the desire of God, and thus fulfilled the intent behind the letter, the Spirit behind the letter. Thus the Torah (law) is not done away with, it has been shown to us how God desires us to use it in our lives. That stands in harmony with the notion that God called the law everlasting... and if it is everlasting, if He called it everlasting, then it is everlasting, period.I agree, but we're not talking about the existence of principles. We are talking about the actions the ceremonial principles called for under Moses.



Let me show you why this is just not well thought out. And please, I don't say that meaning, "Noeb is an ignorant fool," because I don't believe that for a second. We are all raised in a culture that defines this word as you have shown here. However, when we take this line of reasoning out to any deeper conclusion, it falls very flat on it's face. The essence of Torah is love, and the first commandment is to love God with all your heart and soul. So, I ask... did Jesus love the Father with all His heart and soul? If you answer yes, then based on your comment, this command is fulfilled and we no longer have to love the Father.Not a good example. Like other examples given, it's just moral, not ceremonial, and has always been law. BTW, moral is also the context of Matthew 5-7, which is very telling. No one has asked if the moral law was done away. That's a bit absurd.



There is one more thing to consider Noeb. When it says there will be a new heaven and new earth the word in Greek is kainos, which means "to renew." In other words, it might suggest that it isn't a brand new earth, but one that has been restored to it's original picture. In that case, heaven and earth don't really "pass away" which means the verse we are talking about is an idiom... which I have believed all along anyway. It isn't saying "heaven and earth shall pass away," it is saying, "until heaven and earth pass away." But if, "until" is meant abstractly, and the heaven and earth won't ever actually pass away, then no jot or tittle of the law will either. Again, God called it eternal and the same which was on stone is what is being written on the heart. (Deut. 30:6, Ezk 11:19, Jer. 31:31-34) It isn't being "done away with," it is being moved.I agree. But done away doesn't mean no longer exists. John 8:32 said,

There are Laws that we cannot obey today. That does not mean they are done away, it means they cannot be applied.Better would be 'There are things that we cannot do today. That does not mean that law doesn't exist, it means it can no longer be performed.'

Jeanne57
May 16th 2014, 12:05 PM
We can go back and forth on which aspects of the law have been eliminated all day long. However,there is one thing that is perfectly clear,this is all that is required ceremonially of gentiles:

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

This says to me that they were writing to the Gentiles about the major sins first, but as they went to the synagogue every Sabbath, they would learn more of the law and follow it, as they were ready to do so.

Jeanne57
May 16th 2014, 01:56 PM
Shep... that yoke was man's law, not God's! I hinted at this hoping you would catch it... show me in the 613 commandments where being circumcised as an adult can be found. I am not talking about Abraham, I am talking about Sinai, where is the command to circumcise an adult? Answer... there isn't one. The command is for an 8 day old baby to be circumcised.... and since a gentile did not get circumcised on the 8th day, he can't EVER do it later because you are only 8 days old once. Is that then reason to not allow you to be part of God's people? No, of course not. First of all, salvation is a heart issue first.... second, we all sin and fall short. Just because we weren't circumcised on the proper day we can't be part of the body of Messiah? There is NO COMMAND IN THE BIBLE that says that... the notion of "circumcision unto salvation" (see Acts 15:1-2) is Jewish Halacha, it is a MAN MADE COMMANDMENT. Again, if the Acts 15 letter is all that is expected of "gentiles" who are coming into the faith, then we have two different standards for two different people when the theme of Scripture is that we ARE ONE! And where Shep, do we see not to serve another god? Where does it say not to steal? Is it ok to bear false witness now? Obviously, when just a little reason it applied, we can clearly see that there is more that is expected of us than what is written in the Acts 15 letter. Unless you think it is ok for gentiles to steal? :D
If this is true, then why did Paul circumcise Timothy (who was an adult) in Acts 16?

John 8:32
May 16th 2014, 05:37 PM
I totally agree with all of this, but what about the dietary laws and the feasts prescribed by the law? Do they still apply?

Why did God give the dietary laws? Because He is the Designer and Creator of the human body. He knows what fuel to put in it. Is it still applicable in the N.T.?

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Now most people either stop at verse 4 or read right over verse 5. "For it is sanctified by the word of God" what does that mean? It is set apart by the Word of God. Now where in the Word of God do we find meats set apart?

Lev 11 and Deut 14.

Lev 11:46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
Lev 11:47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

I actually believe God knows better than I what meats the body is designed for and what meats it is not designed for.

As far as Feast Days...

Lev 23:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.
Lev 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.
Lev 23:4 These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.

These are the only Feast Days given anywhere in the Bible. These are God's days, He says so. Since He says to keep them, I keep them. I do not let anyone criticize me for keeping them...

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

The Feasts of God show God's 7000 year plan. One can understand the plan of God by keeping His Feast Days. I keep them.

John 8:32
May 16th 2014, 05:44 PM
We can go back and forth on which aspects of the law have been eliminated all day long. However,there is one thing that is perfectly clear,this is all that is required ceremonially of gentiles:

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Really, they can have other gods before God? They can take God's holy name in vain? They can kill, steal, lie and lust? Are you sure this is all that is required? Or are they not required to do physical circumcision. That was the question addressed in Acts 15...

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

Now circumcision was always to be of the heart, but Israel did not have the heart to obey...

Deu 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Remember, the early church was still learning. They still practiced the sacrifices and circumcision. God had to teach them the circumcision of the heart (read conversion here).

John 8:32
May 16th 2014, 07:19 PM
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

This says to me that they were writing to the Gentiles about the major sins first, but as they went to the synagogue every Sabbath, they would learn more of the law and follow it, as they were ready to do so.

That is a very good insight!

Noeb
May 17th 2014, 03:32 AM
That is a very good insight!http://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/15-21.htm

No it's not. The passage says, the Gentiles have no instruction so we will write to them what they must do. The Jews already have their instruction.

shepherdsword
May 17th 2014, 03:47 AM
Really, they can have other gods before God? They can take God's holy name in vain? They can kill, steal, lie and lust? Are you sure this is all that is required? Or are they not required to do physical circumcision. That was the question addressed in Acts 15...

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

Now circumcision was always to be of the heart, but Israel did not have the heart to obey...

Deu 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Remember, the early church was still learning. They still practiced the sacrifices and circumcision. God had to teach them the circumcision of the heart (read conversion here).

Why are you adding to what the bible clearly says? The new commandments of Jesus were not listed either.This is because they are not fulfilled by a ritualistic ceremony or feast. This context is dealing specifically with the ceremonial aspects of the law as "having no God before" or taking God's name in vain is something no person walking in the Spirit would do. You are mixing the moral and ethical tenets of the law with the ceremonial ones. What Judiazers were doing(and still doing today)was placing a ritual as a condition of salvation in addition to a walk in the Spirit.Something that Paul clearly rebuked in both Romans and Galatians.

Jeanne57
May 17th 2014, 10:42 AM
Why did God give the dietary laws? Because He is the Designer and Creator of the human body. He knows what fuel to put in it. Is it still applicable in the N.T.?

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Now most people either stop at verse 4 or read right over verse 5. "For it is sanctified by the word of God" what does that mean? It is set apart by the Word of God. Now where in the Word of God do we find meats set apart?

Lev 11 and Deut 14.

Lev 11:46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
Lev 11:47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

I actually believe God knows better than I what meats the body is designed for and what meats it is not designed for.

As far as Feast Days...

Lev 23:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.
Lev 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.
Lev 23:4 These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.

These are the only Feast Days given anywhere in the Bible. These are God's days, He says so. Since He says to keep them, I keep them. I do not let anyone criticize me for keeping them...

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

The Feasts of God show God's 7000 year plan. One can understand the plan of God by keeping His Feast Days. I keep them.
Thank you. That was what I was hoping to hear.

LandShark
May 17th 2014, 10:50 AM
What Judiazers were doing(and still doing today)was placing a ritual as a condition of salvation in addition to a walk in the Spirit.Something that Paul clearly rebuked in both Romans and Galatians.

Agreed though one can believe we are to do these things once we belong to God without thinking doing them has anything to do with salvation.

shepherdsword
May 17th 2014, 12:13 PM
Why did God give the dietary laws? Because He is the Designer and Creator of the human body. He knows what fuel to put in it. Is it still applicable in the N.T.?

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Now most people either stop at verse 4 or read right over verse 5. "For it is sanctified by the word of God" what does that mean? It is set apart by the Word of God. Now where in the Word of God do we find meats set apart?

Lev 11 and Deut 14.

Lev 11:46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
Lev 11:47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

I actually believe God knows better than I what meats the body is designed for and what meats it is not designed for.



It sounds to me like you are failing to understand what "every" means. This is just a re-institution of the dietary freedom given under the Noahic covenant:

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

It's clear the dietary laws were abandoned after the Messiah finished his work.

LandShark
May 17th 2014, 11:36 PM
If this is true, then why did Paul circumcise Timothy (who was an adult) in Acts 16?

First of all, when I say, "can't ever do it later," I mean to be in PERFECT compliance to the command. It isn't that he can't do it, he can. Now, to eat the Pesach, and at that time there was still a Temple and still the Pesach being eaten (the passover lamb) one was to be circumcised. So that is a possible reason why he did it, another COULD be that since he traveled with Paul and Acts shows Paul going to synagogues on Sabbath, perhaps since it was THEIR rule that fellowship/membership was based on circumcision needing to be done, he did it. I don't necessarily believe the latter, I think the former is more likely. However, there is another reason I think is worth considering.... Timothy's mother was Jewish and his father was Greek (Acts 16:1), it is POSSIBLE he simply desired to align himself to the Jewish side. NOT unto salvation, he simply identified with the Jewish side of the faith.

I think the 1st and 3rd reasons have merit, I don't really buy into the 2nd... but any or none can be true. We don't know, there is little offered here we simply he DID get circumcised. And we KNOW it wasn't about salvation... after that, we are just guessing.

Blessings.

LandShark
May 17th 2014, 11:47 PM
It sounds to me like you are failing to understand what "every" means. This is just a re-institution of the dietary freedom given under the Noahic covenant:

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

It's clear the dietary laws were abandoned after the Messiah finished his work.

I don't understand that perception any longer, respectfully. I mean, a pig was not even called food by God. It isn't that it is "unclean food," it is simply unclean and not called food at all... and now it is? I just don't see it and see no support for that in the NT. But I guess that is another thread. Blessings!

Jeanne57
May 18th 2014, 11:43 PM
I don't understand that perception any longer, respectfully. I mean, a pig was not even called food by God. It isn't that it is "unclean food," it is simply unclean and not called food at all... and now it is? I just don't see it and see no support for that in the NT. But I guess that is another thread. Blessings!
Even Noah understood the difference between clean and unclean, as he was ordered to take two of every kind of animal on the ark, but seven of each CLEAN animal. Obviously, this distinction was made long before the law was given to Moses.

LandShark
May 19th 2014, 01:52 AM
Even Noah understood the difference between clean and unclean, as he was ordered to take two of every kind of animal on the ark, but seven of each CLEAN animal. Obviously, this distinction was made long before the law was given to Moses.

I understand that, I don't understand those who think the things God called unclean and didn't even call food, are somehow NOW good for food. God changed? Shep said the dietary laws were abandoned, I don't see Scripture supporting that claim at all.

Jeanne57
May 19th 2014, 04:10 AM
I understand that, I don't understand those who think the things God called unclean and didn't even call food, are somehow NOW good for food. God changed? Shep said the dietary laws were abandoned, I don't see Scripture supporting that claim at all.
I agree; I was merely pointing out that apparently, since before the Flood all (godly) people had been vegetarians, God told Noah to bring seven of all the animals that were acceptable as sacrifices onto the ark, and that once God sanctioned the eating of meat, only THOSE animals COULD be eaten. It then needed to be codified into the law, though, because the Israelites had been eating whatever they wanted (or whatever was available) while in Egypt.

LandShark
May 19th 2014, 11:58 AM
I agree; I was merely pointing out that apparently, since before the Flood all (godly) people had been vegetarians, God told Noah to bring seven of all the animals that were acceptable as sacrifices onto the ark, and that once God sanctioned the eating of meat, only THOSE animals COULD be eaten. It then needed to be codified into the law, though, because the Israelites had been eating whatever they wanted (or whatever was available) while in Egypt.

I don't think that is the point of Torah, though you might be right in that regard. The Torah very plainly exists before Mt. Sinai. I wrote an article on that once citing about 20 examples (of the about 40 I know of) where commands we generally think are unique to Sinai, are being done before, in some case many hundreds of years before. What happened at Sinai was a people were about to become a nation. The Torah was laid out in writing, and had the judgements and the ability and authority to prosecute added, so that the Torah would act as the constitution of the nation of Israel. This is why each eventual king would write a copy with his own hand from which to govern. Blessings.

John 8:32
May 19th 2014, 12:40 PM
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/15-21.htm

No it's not. The passage says, the Gentiles have no instruction so we will write to them what they must do. The Jews already have their instruction.

So a Gentile was free to commit murder? Lie? Lust? Steal? Take God's name in vain? Have other gods before God? All of this as long ans they didn't eat, things offered to idols, blood and things strangled? Oh yeah and don't fornicate? That is it? What does this mean then?

Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.


Why are you adding to what the bible clearly says? The new commandments of Jesus were not listed either.This is because they are not fulfilled by a ritualistic ceremony or feast. This context is dealing specifically with the ceremonial aspects of the law as "having no God before" or taking God's name in vain is something no person walking in the Spirit would do. You are mixing the moral and ethical tenets of the law with the ceremonial ones. What Judiazers were doing(and still doing today)was placing a ritual as a condition of salvation in addition to a walk in the Spirit.Something that Paul clearly rebuked in both Romans and Galatians.

Hmmm, I quoted scripture for what I added.

episkopos
May 19th 2014, 12:40 PM
I don't think that is the point of Torah, though you might be right in that regard. The Torah very plainly exists before Mt. Sinai. I wrote an article on that once citing about 20 examples (of the about 40 I know of) where commands we generally think are unique to Sinai, are being done before, in some case many hundreds of years before. What happened at Sinai was a people were about to become a nation. The Torah was laid out in writing, and had the judgements and the ability and authority to prosecute added, so that the Torah would act as the constitution of the nation of Israel. This is why each eventual king would write a copy with his own hand from which to govern. Blessings.

The torah of God is the law of righteousness. The torah of Moses concerns holiness....a human equivalent of the holiness standard of God but in picture (precursor) form.

The picture is rendered obsolete when the real thing has come. So it is with the holiness laws. The Sabbath rest is now entering into Christ and walking by divine power rather than in one's own strength. We cease from our own works and efforts....and enter into grace and God's provision to make us holy before Him. Circumcision is now in the heart according to the Spirit....etc

But the law of righteousness remains as a standard of what is pleasing to God.

John 8:32
May 19th 2014, 12:42 PM
It sounds to me like you are failing to understand what "every" means. This is just a re-institution of the dietary freedom given under the Noahic covenant:

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

It's clear the dietary laws were abandoned after the Messiah finished his work.

Really?

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Paul says here that what we eat is set apart by the Word of God. There are two chapters that instantly come to mind, Lev 11 and Deut 14.

John 8:32
May 19th 2014, 12:49 PM
The torah of God is the law of righteousness. The torah of Moses concerns holiness....a human equivalent of the holiness standard of God but in picture (precursor) form.

The picture is rendered obsolete when the real thing has come. So it is with the holiness laws. The Sabbath rest is now entering into Christ and walking by divine power rather than in one's own strength. We cease from our own works and efforts....and enter into grace and God's provision to make us holy before Him. Circumcision is now in the heart according to the Spirit....etc

But the law of righteousness remains as a standard of what is pleasing to God.

Funny thing is the Sabbath rest is NOWHERE said to be obsolete or changed to something else. In fact when we look at Heb 4 we find this...

Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

The word for rest is Sabbatismos, a keeping of the Sabbath. The Diaglott has this for Heb 4:9

Heb 4:9 Therefore remains a keeping of a sabbath for the people of the God.

I find it interesting that the practice of circumcision was changed from the flesh to one of the heart and it caused such an uproar that it required a church conference in Jerusalem to settle it, yet there is nary a word about a change in the Sabbath, one of the Ten Commandments.

episkopos
May 19th 2014, 12:49 PM
Disciples of Moses need to become disciples of Christ. Moses decreases so that Christ increases. But many still prefer the picture to the real thing.

John 8:32
May 19th 2014, 12:52 PM
Disciples of Moses need to become disciples of Christ. Moses decreases so that Christ increases. But many still prefer the picture to the real thing.

Some of us simply prefer to obey Christ...

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

LandShark
May 19th 2014, 12:54 PM
The torah of God is the law of righteousness. The torah of Moses concerns holiness....a human equivalent of the holiness standard of God but in picture (precursor) form.


Law of Moses and God's Law are the same.... Moses wrote the words of the LORD and thus the Torah or Law became idiomatically known as the "law of Moses." This is very well understood by Jewish and Christian theologians for a very long time. Peace!

episkopos
May 19th 2014, 12:54 PM
Funny thing is the Sabbath rest is NOWHERE said to be obsolete or changed to something else. In fact when we look at Heb 4 we find this...

Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

The word for rest is Sabbatismos, a keeping of the Sabbath. The Diaglott has this for Heb 4:9

Heb 4:9 Therefore remains a keeping of a sabbath for the people of the God.

I find it interesting that the practice of circumcision was changed from the flesh to one of the heart and it caused such an uproar that it required a church conference in Jerusalem to settle it, yet there is nary a word about a change in the Sabbath, one of the Ten Commandments.

The power of the flesh is useless. When the flesh is tired...take a nap. But the flesh cannot please God. The law is spiritual not carnal.

Concerning Hebrews 4. God said they shall not enter MY rest. Does that men they have no carnal time off? Or does that mean they shall not enter into the saving power of God who causes us to rest from our own works and walk by His power.

God never went back to work after the sabbath. We are not to go back living in our own strength. The sabbath rest of God is eternal. We cease from walking according to the flesh and walk according to the Spirit.

Carnal sabbath keepers are rejected. Spiritual sabbath of God keepers inherit the kingdom of God. Walk in the Spirit and know HIS rest, HIS peace and HIS life.

Or get into bondage with new moons and sabbaths that can never please God. We are free to choose bondage or life by what the resurrection of Christ makes available for us. How shall we neglect to great a Sabbath rest as walking in Christ?

LandShark
May 19th 2014, 12:57 PM
Disciples of Moses need to become disciples of Christ. Moses decreases so that Christ increases. But many still prefer the picture to the real thing.

Moses didn't have any disciples, he wrote the words of the LORD. And, Christ followed those words exactly, never breaking one of those commands. Since we KNOW Christ walked perfectly according to those words, are you going to be consistent and call HIM a disciple of Moses? C'mon Epi.... "This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments and His commandments are not grievous." Those words were penned by a spirit-filled disciple of Jesus. That is not what you are saying however, so who do you think we should listen to, John or you on this one?

LandShark
May 19th 2014, 01:04 PM
It is kind of weird... you actively preach against those who desire to walk in God's commandments. I really don't grasp that... if I or anyone else in this position were saying, "You must do the commandments to be saved," then you have a point. Otherwise, if we are just walking this out as we understand it, and that includes not eating shrimp or resting on Saturday, who cares? Why does it matter? I don't eat pork, I don't think God intended it to be food... so what? You do eat it, that's between you and God! We waste so much time on THIS TOPIC and for what? To see who has the greater understanding of righteousness? Tell ya what Epi... you do, you win... we will send you the trophy. I am so tired of these discussions.... bantering back and forth, trying to one up the other. Let's get into some threads where we all can glean from one another and grow!?

episkopos
May 19th 2014, 01:26 PM
Law of Moses and God's Law are the same.... Moses wrote the words of the LORD and thus the Torah or Law became idiomatically known as the "law of Moses." This is very well understood by Jewish and Christian theologians for a very long time. Peace!

Religion is secondhand knowledge...but we are called directly to abide in Christ. The law of Moses is God's law concerning the place and time of Moses. God's law is eternal. The new covenant supercedes the law of Moses while satisfying the law of righteousness. It is a heavenly holiness that replaces the old temple holiness.


Joh_3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

Moses held the picture and Christ came to accomplish the reality. The first is temporal and will vanish and the second is eternal. But one points to the other. It is the difference between a sign and an actual location.


Joh_7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

Man cannot fulfill the law of God. It requires the power of God in Christ to animate a man to walk in holiness. We are not created to please God outside His presence.

The issue is resisting the Holy Spirit...or not.

LandShark
May 19th 2014, 01:31 PM
Religion is secondhand knowledge...but we are called directly to abide in Christ. The law of Moses is God's law concerning the place and time of Moses. God's law is eternal. The new covenant supercedes the law of Moses while satisfying the law of righteousness. It is a heavenly holiness that replaces the old temple holiness.


Joh_3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

Moses held the picture and Christ came to accomplish the reality. The first is temporal and will vanish and the second is eternal. But one points to the other. It is the difference between a sign and an actual location.


Joh_7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

Man cannot fulfill the law of God. It requires the power of God in Christ to animate a man to walk in holiness. We are not created to please God outside His presence.

The issue is resisting the Holy Spirit...or not.

None of that has anything to do with me. To me, I exalt Yeshua above all and accept that what He did is the only way I can be reconciled to the Father. He is the door, my works can't open the door, and that is about that. However, none of that abrogates the fact that God desires us to walk in HIS WAYS not ours. HE dictates our steps, we do not live out our lives once we come in faith according to what WE THINK is holy and righteous... we instead live according to what HE KNOWS is holy and righteous. The difference between you and I here is simply that you are geared around what it takes to become His... and I am geared around how we walk once we are His. We really are not in conflict, at least not until you dictate how a servant of HIS is supposed to walk (or not supposed to walk) once they are His. Nuff said, I am moving on. Not looking for a fight here.

episkopos
May 19th 2014, 01:35 PM
[
Moses didn't have any disciples, he wrote the words of the LORD.

Joh_9:28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.


And, Christ followed those words exactly, never breaking one of those commands. Since we KNOW Christ walked perfectly according to those words, are you going to be consistent and call HIM a disciple of Moses?

Joh_1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Jesus did not come to spread Judaism and more pictures but a new and living way according to the power of God. Judaism was a marker and signpost...UNTIL the truth came in the flesh to empower men to be pleasing to God.



C'mon Epi.... "This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments and His commandments are not grievous." Those words were penned by a spirit-filled disciple of Jesus. That is not what you are saying however, so who do you think we should listen to, John or you on this one?

His yoke is easy and His burden is light because we are walking in Him. What was impossible for men to do on their own ...Jesus makes easy through grace. We do all things in HIS Sabbath rest. He was resurrected to bring us the power to walk as He did and not sin. Those who enter into Him overcome all things and will be seated with Him in eternity. But not all have this faith.

As for those who try keeping the law...no one has ever kept it perfectly. ALL have sinned.

LandShark
May 19th 2014, 01:45 PM
As for those who try keeping the law...no one has ever kept it perfectly. ALL have sinned.

Yes, all have sinned and we all know that means we need Messiah. Do you actually think I or others who think like me believe we don't????????? And yes, somebody did keep the whole law perfectly, Messiah himself. And, we can do ALL THINGS through him... which includes, walk in His will.

Now, I am not going to address this topic with you again Epi. You don't seem to be able to recognize very well understood Hebrew idioms (like "law of Moses" or "disciples of Moses") so there is no point to going further. Be well.

Noeb
May 19th 2014, 02:02 PM
So a Gentile was free to commit murder? Lie? Lust? Steal? Take God's name in vain? Have other gods before God? All of this as long ans they didn't eat, things offered to idols, blood and things strangled? Oh yeah and don't fornicate? That is it?When two denominations are divided do all these things need to be addressed? No.

John 8:32
May 19th 2014, 02:07 PM
Religion is secondhand knowledge...but we are called directly to abide in Christ. The law of Moses is God's law concerning the place and time of Moses. God's law is eternal. The new covenant supercedes the law of Moses while satisfying the law of righteousness. It is a heavenly holiness that replaces the old temple holiness.


Joh_3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

Moses held the picture and Christ came to accomplish the reality. The first is temporal and will vanish and the second is eternal. But one points to the other. It is the difference between a sign and an actual location.


Joh_7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

Man cannot fulfill the law of God. It requires the power of God in Christ to animate a man to walk in holiness. We are not created to please God outside His presence.

The issue is resisting the Holy Spirit...or not.

Man cannot keep the Law of God? I hear that a lot, but what Paul really wrote is this...

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The carnal unconverted man cannot keep the Law of God, yet Paul says something else entirely about himself...

Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

John 8:32
May 19th 2014, 02:10 PM
As for those who try keeping the law...no one has ever kept it perfectly. ALL have sinned.

Yep and that is what grace is all about. Forgiveness for imperfections. Paul addressed this in Rom 7...

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

LandShark
May 19th 2014, 02:19 PM
Man cannot keep the Law of God? I hear that a lot, but what Paul really wrote is this...

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The carnal unconverted man cannot keep the Law of God, yet Paul says something else entirely about himself...

Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Yes, the NT actually states otherwise...

Romans 8:6-7 - For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. (7) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Think about what Paul just wrote here..... the carnal mind stands against God BECAUSE it is not subject to the law of God. Which means, the mind that is not standing opposed to God, IS SUBJECT to the law of God.

Romans 3:31 - Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Does our living by faith abolish or make void the Law? Of course not Paul is saying, that is what proves it, establishes it, fixes it in place.

1 John 3:4 - Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

When we stand in opposition to the commandments (The Law is simply the compilation of commandments) we are standing in transgression.

We take the rebukes of the Scribes and Pharisees as blanket statements against ALL of God's Law without context. The Scribes and Pharisees were neglecting the weightier matters of the law which were justice, mercy, faith and LOVE. So justice, mercy, faith and love were all parts of God's law. In fact, they are the weightier matters of the law! They didn't walk their walk in mercy, in love, seeking and loving justice... and because of that they became self-righteous and deserved every rebuke they received. But to assume that their rebukes are against the LAW and not against THEM is, well... not a very deep conclusion.

episkopos
May 19th 2014, 03:00 PM
None of that has anything to do with me. To me, I exalt Yeshua above all and accept that what He did is the only way I can be reconciled to the Father.

I know you exalt Jesus LS. And I know you see what Jesus DID (past tense) to reconcile us to the Father. But God did not leave us to do the law in our own strength. Grace replaces law as our means. We fulfill the law by walking in the Spirit. You can't have it both ways. Christianity is not "Judaism + belief in Jesus." We are to walk as Jesus did in His power and love as He loved...and do as He did (the same performance). Jesus was put to death by law keepers. Grace makes law-keeping obsolete...and is an offense to Judaism. One cannot embrace Judaism as a means to please God. We are not to appease law-keepers. We are called to a new order...that of resurrection life.

Law-keeping KILLS grace. Grace fulfills the law. So we have to get human effort out of the equation. It is by faith. Faith makes us enter into the miraculous power of God.



He is the door, my works can't open the door, and that is about that. However, none of that abrogates the fact that God desires us to walk in HIS WAYS not ours. HE dictates our steps, we do not live out our lives once we come in faith according to what WE THINK is holy and righteous...

Nor are we to choose to do what never pleased God but was just a fore-shadowing of the power that was to come.


we instead live according to what HE KNOWS is holy and righteous.


We walk in the power of the Spirit without sin...



The difference between you and I here is simply that you are geared around what it takes to become His... and I am geared around how we walk once we are His.

Both the door and the way are according to the Spirit. You understand the door alright...but you have returned to the law as a means of pleasing God. This is a very great error. We are not being perfected by the law through human effort. We will NEVER attain the full stature of Christ in this way. Paul calls the Galatians foolish for doing this very thing. We fulfill the law by walking in the miraculous risen power of Christ. Anything less is not holy nor pleasing to God.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Gal 3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
Gal 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?





We really are not in conflict, at least not until you dictate how a servant of HIS is supposed to walk (or not supposed to walk) once they are His. Nuff said, I am moving on. Not looking for a fight here.

We are to walk according to the power of the Spirit. It is important enough to stress this as it is a life/death issue. Advocating the law as a means of advancement is a sin that leads to death.

LandShark
May 19th 2014, 03:16 PM
Law-keeping KILLS grace.

Sorry, this to me is void of reason. If I work 6 days and rest one, just like God did, just like Messiah did, I am killing His grace? If I thought that I could work my way unto salvation, I would be killing grace. However, because I think His words are eternal and that He doesn't change... and that pork for example didn't just magically become food when He said it wasn't... I am killing grace? To me that is just an incredible statement that shows you really don't have a grasp at all of what I believe and teach. This is why we just can't have a productive conversation brother, we are speaking two languages. Let's just let it go, OK. Blessings.

episkopos
May 19th 2014, 03:26 PM
Sorry, this to me is void of reason. If I work 6 days and rest one, just like God did, just like Messiah did, I am killing His grace?

If you think you are keeping the law by doing this...YES! The law-keeping spirit is anti-Christ by nature. It says...WE can do this! WE don't need the power of the risen Christ to fulfill the law.




If I thought that I could work my way unto salvation, I would be killing grace.


You are separating the door...which is Christ.... from the living WAY...which is also Christ. But Jesus said that BOTH the door and the WAY is Himself. Jesus did not say...I am the door but the law is the way, the truth and the life. We don't take on the responsibility for doing the law according to the flesh. The battle is the Lord's and His alone.



However, because I think His words are eternal and that He doesn't change... and that pork for example didn't just magically become food when He said it wasn't... I am killing grace?

You are championing the law OVER grace as a means of being perfected. But it is God who has decided that those who try doing the law are condemned by that same law. Why don't you see that? Grace empowers us to life. The law kills us. Don't embrace what kills us. Embrace what gives life.



To me that is just an incredible statement that shows you really don't have a grasp at all of what I believe and teach. This is why we just can't have a productive conversation brother, we are speaking two languages. Let's just let it go, OK. Blessings.

I know exactly what you are saying. But you would never believe my experience in Christ.

LandShark
May 19th 2014, 03:35 PM
Not a problem Epi... like I said, let's just let it ride. I don't think either of us really understands the other and rather than risking being a stumbling block to those who are reading, I would prefer to just let it drop. See ya in a different thread. Shalom!

Brother Mark
May 19th 2014, 03:44 PM
I totally agree with all of this, but what about the dietary laws and the feasts prescribed by the law? Do they still apply?

The verse that often gets quoted also gets abused. For instance, we look for heaven and earth to pass away before a jot or tittle is removed from the law, until all is accomplished. Yet, when a jot and a tittle are removed, we then shift to heaven and earth passing away.

Matt 5:17-18

17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
NASU

Jesus came to fulfill. When he did, "all was accomplished". That is why we no longer look to build a temple or to offer animal sacrifices again. Heaven and earth would pass away before the law could pass away until all was accomplished concerning Jesus fulfillment of it.

Paul clarifies the entire issue later when he wrote:

Gal 5:14
14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
NASU

We love God by loving each other. Love knows what to do and doesn't have to be told. However, our definition of love gets all convoluted. For instance, a young couple might think it is OK to be intimate before marriage because they are in love. However, love always does what is right by the other person. Love says "your benefit at my expense" while lust says "my benefit at your expense". Love then will make a relationship permanent before becoming intimate.

All the other stuff like what to eat, etc. just doesn't matter. Like God said in Genesis, all things that move can be eaten.

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

The laws of eating were about shadowing what holiness was to look like spiritually. We are to be careful to only eat clean spiritual food and not unclean spiritual food. Take those thoughts captive, think on good things, do the will of the Father, etc. The letter of the food law simply doesn't matter any more.

Brother Mark
May 19th 2014, 03:50 PM
Very well put. Some people will try to argue that Jesus said these things because He had not yet been crucified, but I totally disagree with that theory.

Well, what about sacrifices, and the temple? Paul had those covered, too. He said that our bodies were now the temple of the Holy Spirit, and that we were to present ourselves as living sacrifices. He also said something about the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.

So the big question is, what does that mean for us as Christians today? What parts of the law should we be following, and how?

It's recognizing the difference between the letter of the law and the spiritual foreshadowing of the law.

For instance, when one gets saved, they experience the feasts of Passover. That's an actual event that occurred with Israel, occurred with the church, and occurs with every individual believer. We keep that feast when we get saved. We don't HAVE to keep the letter of having the Passover feast each year because we get to live in the reality of what it foreshadowed.

The same with Pentecost. It is experienced in Israel, in the church and in each individual believer.

That's why we can offer ourselves a living sacrifice. We don't keep the letter. We keep the spirit of the law. Otherwise, we would need to rebuild a temple and offer sacrifices in it. In other words, a jot and tittle did change but not the spirit of the law. It was always ultimately about Jesus offering of Himself and us following in His suit and offering ourselves.

John 8:32
May 19th 2014, 03:54 PM
Law-keeping KILLS grace. Grace fulfills the law. So we have to get human effort out of the equation. It is by faith. Faith makes us enter into the miraculous power of God.

So we expend no effort. Christ did it all?

Paul spoke a great deal about our struggle with sin...

Heb 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Heb 12:3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
Heb 12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
Heb 12:5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Heb 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
Heb 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
Heb 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?


Nor are we to choose to do what never pleased God but was just a fore-shadowing of the power that was to come.

What do you call things that never pleased God? Obedience to the Commandments?

1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

The Apostle John tells us that keeping the Commandments is pleasing in His sight.


We walk in the power of the Spirit without sin...

Nope, that is incorrect...

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

By the Spirit we are able to obey, that is what the New Covenant is about...

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:


Both the door and the way are according to the Spirit. You understand the door alright...but you have returned to the law as a means of pleasing God. This is a very great error. We are not being perfected by the law through human effort. We will NEVER attain the full stature of Christ in this way. Paul calls the Galatians foolish for doing this very thing. We fulfill the law by walking in the miraculous risen power of Christ. Anything less is not holy nor pleasing to God.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Gal 3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
Gal 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

No one is saying we are justified by obedience or saved by the Law, but several scriptures say that sin is breaking the Law...

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

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

We are justified and reconciled by Crhist's sacrifice but not to continue in sin, the transgression of the Law...

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Grace is the forgiveness of sin but we are not to live any which way we choose because of grace.


We are to walk according to the power of the Spirit. It is important enough to stress this as it is a life/death issue. Advocating the law as a means of advancement is a sin that leads to death.

Yes, we are to walk according to the Spirit. The Spirit gives us the ability to walk in newness of life, not in the sin of the old man.

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Not freed from obedience, but freed from sin, from the power sin has over us. Namely the death penalty.

Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 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?

Whom should we obey? God! We are admonished to obey.

LandShark
May 19th 2014, 04:09 PM
All is not accomplished, all is not fulfilled... we still remain in decaying dying bodies which means aspects of his work though complete, have not been applied. There are MANY things still on the table... and yet much of Christianity walks around thinking the only thing left is to be whisked out of here.

episkopos
May 19th 2014, 04:11 PM
So we expend no effort. Christ did it all?

Paul spoke a great deal about our struggle with sin...

Heb 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Heb 12:3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
Heb 12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
Heb 12:5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Heb 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
Heb 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
Heb 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?



How much effort does it take to fly in an aircraft? Yet the law of gravity is being surpassed? So it is when we walk in Christ. We are INSIDE the anointing power of Jesus so that we can walk above the law.

Jesus fought the battle over the flesh...then invites us to cease from our battles and live in HIS victory. We enter that grace by faith...not human effort.



What do you call things that never pleased God? Obedience to the Commandments?

1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

The Apostle John tells us that keeping the Commandments is pleasing in His sight.

We keep the commandments perfectly when we walk by the power of the risen Christ who was raised for our perfect righteousness as we remain in Him and live by His power.




Nope, that is incorrect...

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.


He who sins is a slave to sin. But Jesus sets us free from the power that makes us sin. All have sinned in the past...but we are not resurrected from the dead to continue life as before. Your theology has neglected the resurrection of Christ. Power over sin is found in Christ. Enter into Christ and live.



By the Spirit we are able to obey, that is what the New Covenant is about...

See, you should pay attention to your own verse postings. :)

2Co 2:14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.


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:




No one is saying we are justified by obedience or saved by the Law, but several scriptures say that sin is breaking the Law...


We are justified by obedience. Grace is not about being a better golfer or piano player. Grace is the power that causes us to obey the law perfectly. We enter into this by faith.




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

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

We are justified and reconciled by Crhist's sacrifice but not to continue in sin, the transgression of the Law...

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

How can we sin when we are living in God's presence and power?




Grace is the forgiveness of sin but we are not to live any which way we choose because of grace.

Forgiveness is not grace. Forgiveness is called...forgiveness. Grace is the miraculous power of God on they who believe.



Y
es, we are to walk according to the Spirit. The Spirit gives us the ability to walk in newness of life, not in the sin of the old man.

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Not freed from obedience, but freed from sin, from the power sin has over us. Namely the death penalty.

LOL Freed from the responsibility of our own actions. False gospel alert.


Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 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?

Whom should we obey? God! We are admonished to obey.


We are being saved by obedience caused by grace through faith.

episkopos
May 19th 2014, 04:15 PM
All is not accomplished, all is not fulfilled... we still remain in decaying dying bodies which means aspects of his work though complete, have not been applied. There are MANY things still on the table... and yet much of Christianity walks around thinking the only thing left is to be whisked out of here.

Jesus fulfilled the law in a decaying body just as ours....no difference...and was raised so that we too can overcome just as He did. We need to learn wisdom and gain the character that supports walking in the presence of God. A fool doesn't last long in God's grace. But we learn to count all things as rubbish in order to win Christ.

The power over sin has been accomplished. We can walk by the Spirit and NOT fulfill the deeds of the flesh. Those who overcome sin in these bodies will be given new bodies. Those who don't will die.

Rev_3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

So then we become as Christ in our conduct through Him.

LandShark
May 19th 2014, 04:36 PM
Jesus fulfilled the law in a decaying body just as ours....no difference...and was raised so that we too can overcome just as He did.

We are not perfected, we still taste death... therefore, all has not been fulfilled and that is the bottom line.

episkopos
May 19th 2014, 05:40 PM
We are not perfected, we still taste death... therefore, all has not been fulfilled and that is the bottom line.

Jesus tasted death for us. But He rose again so we could walk in His perfection. Believers in Christ now walk in His life and strength.

LandShark
May 19th 2014, 05:49 PM
Jesus tasted death for us. But He rose again so we could walk in His perfection. Believers in Christ now walk in His life and strength.

Those facts do not abrogate the commandments... "If you love me," he said, "keep my commandments." Which ones? Well, he said, "I speak the words of he that sent me." So if you think we can walk outside of the commandments (which by definition is lawlessness), go ahead, but I am fairly certain that is not the message being conveyed by the balance of Scripture. Shalom!

episkopos
May 19th 2014, 06:23 PM
Those facts do not abrogate the commandments... "If you love me," he said, "keep my commandments." Which ones? Well, he said, "I speak the words of he that sent me." So if you think we can walk outside of the commandments (which by definition is lawlessness), go ahead, but I am fairly certain that is not the message being conveyed by the balance of Scripture. Shalom!

Lawlessness in "believers" is that they believe they can sin and be forgiven automatically. They believe that the Spirit makes them not responsible for their actions. THAT is lawlessness (iniquity, false balance) and a false witness of the truth. They believe "dead to sin" means "no longer responsible for sins" rather than an actual death to sin. How many modern Christians maintain that sin cannot be overcome in this flesh? We are held to a higher law...the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. So then those who do not enter THAT rest and power are seen as lawless and preaching a gospel that has no power to fulfill the law.

The Holy Spirit makes us MORE responsible for what we do. We have been given more and more is expected of us. That is why it is so important to overcome sin through the Spirit.

The wages of sin is death...even after being born anew by the Spirit. The wages of sin is never life... And, we cannot be guiltless if we fail to walk as Jesus walked if we preach Christ.

We do have an Advocate with the Father...as we learn to abide in His holiness. So we strive to enter into the sabbath rest of God and cease from the works that the flesh does. We have been given some time to do this. So we should strive daily to enter into Christ by faith so that we can walk as Jesus walked.

Blessings to you my brother... :)

Jeanne57
May 22nd 2014, 01:41 PM
Disciples of Moses need to become disciples of Christ. Moses decreases so that Christ increases. But many still prefer the picture to the real thing.
I don't see anyone preferring the picture to the real thing, any more than celebrating the Lord's Supper, as Jesus commanded is preferring the picture (or remembrance) of His sacrifice over the real thing. God told us in the OT how He wanted to be worshipped; the Sabbath was a remembrance of God resting on the seventh day, after finishing His work of creation in six days. The different feasts all looked forward to Christ, so how could their remembrance not be honouring to Him? I see Passover (a shadow of the crucifixion of Christ, Pentecost, the day the Holy Spirit filled the disciples, and the Feast of Trumpets (looking forward to the Second Coming) all commanded in the Torah. Where in the Bible, OT or NT, are Christians commanded to celebrate Christmas and Easter? Are we to worship God in the way HE said He wants to be worshipped, or worship any way we please, whether God wants it that way or not?

episkopos
May 22nd 2014, 05:33 PM
I don't see anyone preferring the picture to the real thing, any more than celebrating the Lord's Supper, as Jesus commanded is preferring the picture (or remembrance) of His sacrifice over the real thing. God told us in the OT how He wanted to be worshipped; the Sabbath was a remembrance of God resting on the seventh day, after finishing His work of creation in six days. The different feasts all looked forward to Christ, so how could their remembrance not be honouring to Him? I see Passover (a shadow of the crucifixion of Christ, Pentecost, the day the Holy Spirit filled the disciples, and the Feast of Trumpets (looking forward to the Second Coming) all commanded in the Torah. Where in the Bible, OT or NT, are Christians commanded to celebrate Christmas and Easter? Are we to worship God in the way HE said He wants to be worshipped, or worship any way we please, whether God wants it that way or not?



We are to worship God in Spirit and in truth. The sabbath rest is not taking a day off so we can feel holy. It is about entering into the rest of God in the Spirit. That is why Jesus said that we must worship in this way. In times past worshipers DID things in their own strength. But now is the time to CEASE (sabbath) from living according to the flesh in order to walk according to the Spirit.

Those who cannot fathom this turn back to the law and pick a few laws to follow in order to feel justified...and superior to others who do not put on the same show in the flesh.

Jeanne57
May 22nd 2014, 11:55 PM
Yes, the NT actually states otherwise...

Romans 8:6-7 - For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. (7) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Think about what Paul just wrote here..... the carnal mind stands against God BECAUSE it is not subject to the law of God. Which means, the mind that is not standing opposed to God, IS SUBJECT to the law of God.

Romans 3:31 - Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Does our living by faith abolish or make void the Law? Of course not Paul is saying, that is what proves it, establishes it, fixes it in place.

1 John 3:4 - Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

When we stand in opposition to the commandments (The Law is simply the compilation of commandments) we are standing in transgression.

We take the rebukes of the Scribes and Pharisees as blanket statements against ALL of God's Law without context. The Scribes and Pharisees were neglecting the weightier matters of the law which were justice, mercy, faith and LOVE. So justice, mercy, faith and love were all parts of God's law. In fact, they are the weightier matters of the law! They didn't walk their walk in mercy, in love, seeking and loving justice... and because of that they became self-righteous and deserved every rebuke they received. But to assume that their rebukes are against the LAW and not against THEM is, well... not a very deep conclusion.
I would also argue that the Pharisees were rebuked for regarding the Talmud (traditions of men) in as high or higher regard than the Torah (Law of God). Jesus called them hypocrites because they taught the law in the synagogues, but did not practice what they taught.

Jeanne57
May 23rd 2014, 04:23 AM
How much effort does it take to fly in an aircraft? Yet the law of gravity is being surpassed? So it is when we walk in Christ. We are INSIDE the anointing power of Jesus so that we can walk above the law.

Jesus fought the battle over the flesh...then invites us to cease from our battles and live in HIS victory. We enter that grace by faith...not human effort.

We keep the commandments perfectly when we walk by the power of the risen Christ who was raised for our perfect righteousness as we remain in Him and live by His power.

He who sins is a slave to sin. But Jesus sets us free from the power that makes us sin. All have sinned in the past...but we are not resurrected from the dead to continue life as before. Your theology has neglected the resurrection of Christ. Power over sin is found in Christ. Enter into Christ and live.

See, you should pay attention to your own verse postings. :)

2Co 2:14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

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:

We are justified by obedience. Grace is not about being a better golfer or piano player. Grace is the power that causes us to obey the law perfectly. We enter into this by faith.

How can we sin when we are living in God's presence and power?

Forgiveness is not grace. Forgiveness is called...forgiveness. Grace is the miraculous power of God on they who believe.

LOL Freed from the responsibility of our own actions. False gospel alert.

We are being saved by obedience caused by grace through faith.
So, are you saying you never sin anymore, since you are walking by the Spirit? Congratulations on being the only human being since Jesus to be perfect now.

I thought you just said we no longer HAVE to obey the law, and now you're saying that grace gives us the power to obey the law perfectly. So which is it? If the law is no longer in effect, then how do you define sin?

John 8:32
May 23rd 2014, 11:41 AM
Jesus fulfilled the law in a decaying body just as ours....no difference...and was raised so that we too can overcome just as He did. We need to learn wisdom and gain the character that supports walking in the presence of God. A fool doesn't last long in God's grace. But we learn to count all things as rubbish in order to win Christ.

The power over sin has been accomplished. We can walk by the Spirit and NOT fulfill the deeds of the flesh. Those who overcome sin in these bodies will be given new bodies. Those who don't will die.

Rev_3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

So then we become as Christ in our conduct through Him.

Paul seemed to struggle with it...

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.
Rom 7:16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

His intent, his thought was to obey God but he found himself sinning. He could not obey perfectly as a human, he was stillstruggling and would continue to do so until his death.

episkopos
May 23rd 2014, 12:03 PM
So, are you saying you never sin anymore, since you are walking by the Spirit? Congratulations on being the only human being since Jesus to be perfect now.


If I had a dime for every time I was subjected to this reasoning....:)

I, and many others have experienced a walk in Christ. As one walks in Christ there is no sin. If you get to know Christ you will see that there is no sin in Him. As long as we are in Him we are like Him. He is our justification before the Father. He is our salvation from condemnation. So we begin by being cleansed from all sin (through the blood of Christ) then we put on Christ and walk as He did.

If you have never seen holiness in Christ in a person you should change your circle of friends.



I thought you just said we no longer HAVE to obey the law, and now you're saying that grace gives us the power to obey the law perfectly. So which is it? If the law is no longer in effect, then how do you define sin?

We are not to try obeying the law by the power of the flesh. We obey the law perfectly through the power of the Spirit. The law is spiritual...not a list of things that make you feel you are somehow pleasing God. Whoever breaks the least commandment is guilty of all. So enter into Christ and be fully pleasing to God.

John 8:32
May 23rd 2014, 12:21 PM
If I had a dime for every time I was subjected to this reasoning....:)

I, and many others have experienced a walk in Christ. As one walks in Christ there is no sin. If you get to know Christ you will see that there is no sin in Him. As long as we are in Him we are like Him. He is our justification before the Father. He is our salvation from condemnation. So we begin by being cleansed from all sin (through the blood of Christ) then we put on Christ and walk as He did.

If you have never seen holiness in Christ in a person you should change your circle of friends.



We are not to try obeying the law by the power of the flesh. We obey the law perfectly through the power of the Spirit. The law is spiritual...not a list of things that make you feel you are somehow pleasing God. Whoever breaks the least commandment is guilty of all. So enter into Christ and be fully pleasing to God.

Yet John says...

1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

Christ says...

Rev 2:7 "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God." '

Repeated in vs 11, 17, 26, 3:12 and 21.

The Christian life is referred to as struggling against and battling against sin.

Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Eph 6:13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness,
Eph 6:15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;
Eph 6:18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints—

To me this does not portray a stroll through a flower garden but rather a battle against the Devil and our own nature...

1Co 9:24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it.
1Co 9:25 And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown.
1Co 9:26 Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air.
1Co 9:27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.

episkopos
May 23rd 2014, 12:45 PM
Yet John says...

1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.


He does say that! All have sinned and have come short of the standard of God. That is why Jesus Christ has come in the flesh like ours...so we can overcome as He did through Him.

Do you believe we are cleansed from ALL unrighteousness by the blood of Christ?

And what is the purpose of John writing his epistle...that we no longer sin..

1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

The normal state of a Christian is to be without sin... but we can be fooled by the devil into a walk in our own strength rather than reliance on Christ.

And John also says..

1Jn 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
1Jn 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.





Christ says...

Rev 2:7 "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God." '

Repeated in vs 11, 17, 26, 3:12 and 21.

The Christian life is referred to as struggling against and battling against sin.

Not so! The battle is the Lord's. We are not to struggle against sin...but we are to strive to enter Christ. In Christ there is no sin to struggle against. So our first victory is to abide in Christ. Sin is overcome in this way...NOT by human effort.


Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Eph 6:13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness,
Eph 6:15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;
Eph 6:18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints—

This is not the battle against personal sins but rather the taking on of the evil in the world. Sinners do not fight for the kingdom. Saints do. So by abiding in Christ we take on a new warfare...spiritual warfare to bring the world to Christ. So our second victory is over the world.


To me this does not portray a stroll through a flower garden but rather a battle against the Devil and our own nature...

The old nature is dead if you are in Christ. But there are 2 laws at work in the world. The law of sin and death and the new law of the Spirit of Life in Christ. When we abide in Christ we are flying above the law of sin. Christ gives us wings as eagles.


1Co 9:24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it.
1Co 9:25 And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown.
1Co 9:26 Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air.
1Co 9:27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.

We are to walk in the Spirit, fight in the Spirit, and just live by the Spirit. Paul considered that he could fall short of God's standard for him. So he ran by the Spirit and was sure to overcome through the Spirit. No man can resist all temptations in his own strength. Sooner or later the temptation will wear you down...if you are still walking by the law of sin and death (in your own strength). But the very presence of God in the Spirit removes the basic temptations away. We will be tested by the devil...yes...but this temptation is to get us away from relying on Christ and get back into our own strength...through flattery, adulation, special status...etc. Once our pride has been re-kindled we tend to do things for ourselves. The key is to remain humble by not desiring anything in this world. Pride comes before a fall. Once we have believed that anything in this life is worth having...then we fall from the law of the Spirit back into the flesh.

episkopos
May 23rd 2014, 12:59 PM
Christianity is not about trying to stop sinning in our own strength. We overcome sin by abiding in Christ.

Modern soldiers are often protected by armoured vehicles (like apc's). As long as the soldier remains (abides) in the vehicle he cannot be hurt by the bullets flying around. But if the soldier can be tempted to come out of his protective vehicle...then he can be picked off by a sniper.

So it is with the armour of Christ. As long as we remain in Christ we cannot be hurt by the temptations of this world (the arrows that fly by day). But if the devil can entice us to come out of Christ for whatever seeming benefit...then we are on our own. We sin and are separated from the presence of God. IF that happens we need to start over again through repentance and a re-entering into Christ.

Unlike the weapons of men, NO weapon can penetrate the armour of God. It is undefeatable. But we must remain IN His protection in order to remain undefeated ourselves.

John 8:32
May 23rd 2014, 02:10 PM
Christianity is not about trying to stop sinning in our own strength. We overcome sin by abiding in Christ.

It is not about trying not to sin. It is about becoming Godly. This we cannot do on our own and this we cannot have someone else do for us. It is a colloabrative effort between us and God. We develop character through obedience. Character is what we carry over into eternal life.


Modern soldiers are often protected by armoured vehicles (like apc's). As long as the soldier remains (abides) in the vehicle he cannot be hurt by the bullets flying around. But if the soldier can be tempted to come out of his protective vehicle...then he can be picked off by a sniper.

So it is with the armour of Christ. As long as we remain in Christ we cannot be hurt by the temptations of this world (the arrows that fly by day). But if the devil can entice us to come out of Christ for whatever seeming benefit...then we are on our own. We sin and are separated from the presence of God. IF that happens we need to start over again through repentance and a re-entering into Christ.

That happens daily. If this were not the case, we would not be admonished to ask forgiveness three times a day...

Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors.

Psa 55:17 Evening and morning and at noon I will pray, and cry aloud, And He shall hear my voice.



Unlike the weapons of men, NO weapon can penetrate the armour of God. It is undefeatable. But we must remain IN His protection in order to remain undefeated ourselves.

You gotta put the armor on and then fight the battle.

Jeanne57
May 24th 2014, 04:26 AM
If I had a dime for every time I was subjected to this reasoning....:)

I, and many others have experienced a walk in Christ. As one walks in Christ there is no sin. If you get to know Christ you will see that there is no sin in Him. As long as we are in Him we are like Him. He is our justification before the Father. He is our salvation from condemnation. So we begin by being cleansed from all sin (through the blood of Christ) then we put on Christ and walk as He did.

If you have never seen holiness in Christ in a person you should change your circle of friends.

We are not to try obeying the law by the power of the flesh. We obey the law perfectly through the power of the Spirit. The law is spiritual...not a list of things that make you feel you are somehow pleasing God. Whoever breaks the least commandment is guilty of all. So enter into Christ and be fully pleasing to God.
Okay, Epi, you really have me confused. You accused another poster earlier of preaching a "false gospel" when he quoted Paul as saying "it is no longer I that do these things, but sin that dwelleth in me" on the basis that you thought he was saying that we are no longer responsible for our own actions. However, YOU seem to be saying that it doesn't matter what we do in the flesh, as long as we're walking in the Spirit. (That's probably not what you meant, but that's what it sounds like.) The point is, there IS a war going on between the spirit and the flesh, and our flesh wants to do things (which we sometimes allow it to do) that our spirits know are wrong. So the question is, what is our FLESH supposed to be doing in order to walk in the SPIRIT?

Let me ask you something; do you take Communion? Do you celebrate Christmas? Easter? Why or why not? Communion, or the Lord's Supper, was instituted by Jesus Christ Himself, whereas Christmas (supposedly celebrating the birth of Jesus) and Easter (supposedly celebrating His resurrection) were both instituted by the RCC (NOT God) because they wanted to make the church look less "Jewish." They OUTLAWED the keeping of the Jewish feasts and festivals, and replaced them with their own versions. Up until then, ALL Christians observed these feasts, because the church originated with Israel, and Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah taught the Torah to the Gentiles, and these were the holy days instituted BY God. The law is what distinguishes worshippers of the One True God from all pagan forms of worship to false gods, and God does not want His people to use those same forms in their worship of Him. Paul said numerous times that he still followed the law, and John defined sin as the breaking of the law.

It's true that the law never had the power to save anyone from sin; only the blood of the perfect Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, could do that. But it is the law that defines what sin IS. Why was Jesus crucified at Passover? Because He IS the Lamb of God, (and Passover was always a shadow of what was to come, as were ALL the Jewish feasts) and is now and He is also the Lion of Judah, as He is the Davidic king that was promised through the prophets to rule Israel FOREVER. John saw Him in BOTH of these forms in his vision that we know as the book of Revelation. That's why I believe that as Christians, we are now partakers of the covenant that was given to Israel first, and now to ALL people. Jesus is the root of the olive tree that we have been grafted into, while some of the natural branches (Jews) have been cut off because of unbelief.

I heard one Protestant preacher say once that if you concentrate on all the dos the Bible talks about, you won't have time for the don'ts. I thought that was a pretty good way of putting things, because it's true.

Just so you know, I was raised in the Presbyterian church, and I was always taught, as you have been, that the law is no longer in effect for Christians. It has only been recently that I've been hearing the arguments FOR Christians following the law, and it makes sense to me. Otherwise, the NT seems to be full of contradictions; sometimes it seems to say that the law has been abolished, and sometimes it says that it's still in effect. I have never celebrated any of the Jewish feasts, and wouldn't have a clue as to how to go about doing so. However, the more I read, I realise that it's the OLD COVENANT, where salvation DEPENDED on the law that has been abolished; not the law itself.

episkopos
May 24th 2014, 10:58 AM
Okay, Epi, you really have me confused. You accused another poster earlier of preaching a "false gospel" when he quoted Paul as saying "it is no longer I that do these things, but sin that dwelleth in me" on the basis that you thought he was saying that we are no longer responsible for our own actions. However, YOU seem to be saying that it doesn't matter what we do in the flesh, as long as we're walking in the Spirit. (That's probably not what you meant, but that's what it sounds like.) The point is, there IS a war going on between the spirit and the flesh, and our flesh wants to do things (which we sometimes allow it to do) that our spirits know are wrong. So the question is, what is our FLESH supposed to be doing in order to walk in the SPIRIT?

Getting out of the way! We can't operate in 2 laws at once. Depending on what law we live by, the other will be suppressed. If we walk according to the flesh (in our own power and reasonings) then we will remain as any garden variety sinner...carnal. But if we walk according to the Spirit the power of the flesh is suppressed so that we can walk as Jesus did...doing the will of God. We can't walk in our own perceptions AND God's. Either we are in control...or God is.Of course we must be willing to do God's will..He will never force His ways on us.

For example...there are 2 LAWS concerning flight for humans. One is the law of gravity and the other the law of flight in aircraft (for humans). The power of flight is not in our flesh. But the power of flight is in an aircraft. If I try to fly by the power of my flesh...I will die. But if I enter into the aircraft I can fulfill the law of flight and rise above the law of gravity. So then I can fly as long as I abide in the aircraft. So it is with fulfilling the law of God. I can be as Jesus and fly above sin by abiding in Christ. He has the power to please God.....with Himself. It is not in me....so I don't waste my time trying to obey perfect holiness on my own. Do you know the story of Icarus?


Let me ask you something; do you take Communion? Do you celebrate Christmas? Easter? Why or why not? Communion, or the Lord's Supper, was instituted by Jesus Christ Himself, whereas Christmas (supposedly celebrating the birth of Jesus) and Easter (supposedly celebrating His resurrection) were both instituted by the RCC (NOT God) because they wanted to make the church look less "Jewish." They OUTLAWED the keeping of the Jewish feasts and festivals, and replaced them with their own versions. Up until then, ALL Christians observed these feasts, because the church originated with Israel, and Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah taught the Torah to the Gentiles, and these were the holy days instituted BY God. The law is what distinguishes worshippers of the One True God from all pagan forms of worship to false gods, and God does not want His people to use those same forms in their worship of Him. Paul said numerous times that he still followed the law, and John defined sin as the breaking of the law.


Are you with the "Hebrew roots movement"...or considering it? I ask that because the reasoning to do something heretical always comes about by pointing out another extreme that men do. But we are not called to react to what other people do...but rather follow Christ. The HRM is a way that seems logical to men...but it leads to death. You can't mix faith in Christ with copying certain Jewish attempts at the law for advancement in God. Don't follow any movements of men...follow after the Spirit.

Jesus and Paul were Jews.We are not following Christ after the flesh but after the Spirit. So that means we don't have to wear sandals and a toga. Do you see the difference between the power of the Spirit and the copying of the flesh? We are not to try copying Jesus or Paul with a fleshly observance. Neither are we just to do religious rituals as the Jews did. Granted there are 2 traditions we borrow from the Jews...2 BRIDGE traditions...that connect what was old with what is new. That is the passover of the Lord, and baptism.

4 things the early church did...


Acts 2 Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. records

But again these were not just fleshly religious habits....they brought people into intimate contact with God and one another by the same power that resurrected Jesus Christ from the dead.




It's true that the law never had the power to save anyone from sin; only the blood of the perfect Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, could do that.


It is not the blood of Christ that saves us from sin...it is the resurrection power of Christ that we are to abide in that does this. The blood of Christ cleanses us from past sins in order to be ready to enter the walk in the Spirit.




But it is the law that defines what sin IS. Why was Jesus crucified at Passover? Because He IS the Lamb of God, (and Passover was always a shadow of what was to come, as were ALL the Jewish feasts) and is now and He is also the Lion of Judah, as He is the Davidic king that was promised through the prophets to rule Israel FOREVER. John saw Him in BOTH of these forms in his vision that we know as the book of Revelation. That's why I believe that as Christians, we are now partakers of the covenant that was given to Israel first, and now to ALL people. Jesus is the root of the olive tree that we have been grafted into, while some of the natural branches (Jews) have been cut off because of unbelief.

True...but be careful by what power you wish to fulfill the law and the covenant. You are not a Jew and expected to copy Jewishness by picking and choosing laws to obey. That is an understanding based on the flesh...not the Spirit.


I heard one Protestant preacher say once that if you concentrate on all the dos the Bible talks about, you won't have time for the don'ts. I thought that was a pretty good way of putting things, because it's true.

Fleshly business does not add up to walk in the power of the Spirit. It just gets the flesh busy. But if we put to death the deeds of the flesh (sinful deeds) then we will live.


Just so you know, I was raised in the Presbyterian church, and I was always taught, as you have been, that the law is no longer in effect for Christians.


My walk is not in reaction to what men teach. The law demonstrates the power we are living by. Do we still sin? IF so, then we have not yet entered INTO Christ. So the law is a measuring stick...that is all. Enter into Christ and fulfill the law...perfectly. Seek to enter into Christ and cease from your own works. Enter the Sabbath rest of God. And stay there.



It has only been recently that I've been hearing the arguments FOR Christians following the law, and it makes sense to me.


Of course it makes sense to a human understanding. racism also makes sense to a racist. But this is not about making sense. That is a carnal reasoning. You can't follow the law...and follow Christ. You can't live in your own understanding...and God's! Choose Christ as your means to please God.



Otherwise, the NT seems to be full of contradictions; sometimes it seems to say that the law has been abolished, and sometimes it says that it's still in effect. I have never celebrated any of the Jewish feasts, and wouldn't have a clue as to how to go about doing so. However, the more I read, I realise that it's the OLD COVENANT, where salvation DEPENDED on the law that has been abolished; not the law itself.

We are to fulfill the law by entering into Christ. We are not to try doing this in our own strength....we will fail. Christianity is a new and living way in Christ that makes a man walk in the same power that Jesus did on earth. We are saved by THIS grace as we rely on faith (not human reasoning) in God.

Peace to you

Bob Carabbio
Jun 13th 2015, 08:55 PM
I understand and believe that, because Jesus was the ultimate blood sacrifice, there is no longer a requirement to fulfill the sacrificial laws of the Old Testament. I'm just trying to understand how the OT law applies to my life as a Christian.

Seems that Peter pretty much defined that issue for Gentiles in acts 15:

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

So that about covers it.

kathydixon
May 2nd 2018, 05:49 PM
................I'm just trying to understand how the OT law applies to my life as a Christian.

I have been wondering that very same thing. I grew up learning the New Testament and the topic of the Old Testament never came up. It wasn’t until I was in my 40’s that I decided to learn about the Old Testament. I found that most of the Old Testament was composed of directives the Lord gave to the Israelite people. Here are a few examples—

First, I begin with the Lord choosing them above all others -----------

(Deu 7:6 KJV) For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

(Deu 7:7 KJV) The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

(Deu 7:8 KJV) But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh King of Egypt.

(Deu 7:9 KJV) Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

(Deu 7:12 KJV) Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he swore unto thy fathers:

(Deu 7:13 KJV) And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kin, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.

The following is what they were chosen to do---------------

(Mal 3:5 KJV) And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.

(Deu 24:19 KJV) When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands.

(Deu 24:20 KJV) When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.

(Deu 24:21 KJV) When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.

(Jer 7:6 KJV) If ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt:

(Jer 22:3 KJV) Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.

(Ezek 22:7 KJV) In thee have they set light by father and mother: in the midst of thee have they dealt by oppression with the stranger: in thee have they vexed the fatherless and the widow.

(Zec 7:10 KJV) And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart.

(Exo 22:21 KJV) Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

(Exo 23:9 KJV) Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

(Lev 19:34 KJV) But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

(Lev 25:35 KJV) And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee.

(Deu 1:16 KJV) And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.

(Deu 10:18 KJV) He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.

(Deu 10:19 KJV) Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

If they do the above God will bless them and multiply them and if they do not He will not. If the Israelite people comply with the Lord's directives they will be setting an example for others to follow.

The New Testament covers Jesus’ teaching by pointing out the above and pointing out that they are not obeying God’s directives.

randyk
May 5th 2018, 07:07 AM
I have been wondering that very same thing. I grew up learning the New Testament and the topic of the Old Testament never came up. It wasn’t until I was in my 40’s that I decided to learn about the Old Testament. I found that most of the Old Testament was composed of directives the Lord gave to the Israelite people. Here are a few examples—


My own thought on the subject is that God's Law is universal and timeless for Man. It was ordained from the beginning when God made Man, male and female, *in His image, after His likeness.* So, the Law, in a nutshell, is Man's responsibility to God to be *like Him* in his character.

After the Fall, and Man failed to be like God, things changed somewhat. God's Law remained the same, but Man's separation from God's will had to be reconciled somehow. And so covenant law came into being for a stream of those who still had the knowledge of God. To live under covenant with God Man was required to do certain things, in order to be restored to the image of God. The fact Man could no longer remain perfectly aligned with God's character, however, meant that final reconciliation had not yet taken place.

Abraham was in the stream of faith, and his covenant called for circumcision, which portrayed the hope of final reconciliation. It also portrayed the hope of final reconciliation both for Abraham's descendants, Israel, and for those nations who would later follow his faith.

Israel received the covenant of the Law of Moses to continue in the path of following after God's image. To portray the hope of final reconciliation, they were called upon to practice 613 laws requiring such symbolic observances as the temple, priesthood, sacrifice, purification, dietary laws, festival laws, etc.

When Jesus came he made a new covenant in his blood, whose death did, in fact, bring final reconciliation. Those following in the stream of faith were called upon to obey him, whose own works fulfilled all of the symbols of final reconciliation. Man did not, therefore, have to obey any covenant law with symbols of final reconciliation. Instead, they were called upon only to follow Christ's example, just as in the beginning Man was called upon to follow God's image. Only now, Man was fully reconciled to God 's image by being pardoned for his sins.