|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/9/2008 3:49:54 PM
|
|
|
LBolt
Posts: 954
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
McCloed: Say have you been hanging around Ms Paula White lately? Where do get that the temple has these seperate walls. That they mean what you wrote.
It's like when I accidently flipping channels this morning on the television. Which I ran across Paula's program. She found A Jewish rabbi who was explaining the yom kipper.
Honestly, I don't even have cable!  So I can't really tell Paula White is talking about. I think it's best that we pray for and not criticize our sister in the LORD. It appears that she is studying the word Hebraicly and what I hope and pray is that YAH will iron out and purge everything wrong in her and in all of ours life.
quote:
It simply has no more authority over the person whose spouse has died.
That was always the case my dear friend. If your spouse died you were free to remarry.
_____________________________
Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding...she shall give to thine head an ornament of grace..---Proverbs 4:7
www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-60604-743-9
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/9/2008 6:15:05 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1492
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
That is exactly what Paul wants us to understand. Being a new creation is a state of being. And that state of being is measured by the works of godly love, not externals that count for nothing like circumcision (how is your heart changed by circumcision? How does it prove you have a new heart?), even though God plainly commanded them to be performed in the previous covenant (we now know that was for purposes of illustration).
Yes, how is your heart changed by baptism? How does it prove you have a new heart?
quote:
And we know exactly what being a new creation means:
" 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." (Galatians 5:6)
" 15Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation." (Galatians 6:16)
These verses refer to salvation.
quote:
Being a new creation means having a faith that finds expression in acts of godly love. Love is the evidence of the presence of the new creation, not circumcision. This is what counts above outward circumcision. So much so that Paul tells the Galatians not to do it.
It should not be done for salvation. That is the context into which Paul is speaking, as the beginning of Acts 15 points out.
quote:
Jews have taken false comfort in the security of literal circumcision and have relied on that work of the law/ flesh for confirmation of being in covenant with God. And they insisted that the Gentiles must also conform that way, too. And with good reason. It's directly commanded in the law. But we see through Paul's teaching that it was only an illustration of the greater truth of spiritual circumcision which now makes the literal obsolete, just as the illustration of the Levitical system was made obsolete and laid aside (discarded) in favor of the greater truth of Christ's sacrifice.
Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."
Some men from Judea not all. Also, the Word of the Creator as recorded by Moses does not require it for salvation. It has always been an illustration and the illustration still fits, so I still use it to remind me of the Creators provision, even though I have more details tha Daniel may have had.
quote:
There is no honest reason to think that "The law of Moses" does not mean 'the law of Moses' in Acts 15 as he received it from God and wrote it down. I don't think it's fair to redefine the meaning of something that is otherwise self explanatory in order to create a defense for a doctrine. It's funny to see law get redefined to mean rabbinal law by some, and then when the NT is specific about what law, it still isn't accepted as the law of Moses.
Acts 15:1, the reason for the Council decision, does not say "The law of Moses". It says, "the custom taught by Moses". There is no custom taught by Moses in the Word of the Creator as recorded by Moses. Som what are they refering to? These men make clear what they mean in verse 5. "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." Remeber, this is clarifying verse 1, where we see we are talking about salvation. Therefore, whenever we refer to this issue, we must realze that we are talking about having Gentiles be circumcised and observant for salvation. As stated above the purpose is and always has been illustration and not salvation.
quote:
Ask Eli. His buffoonary is what caused God to end the 'everlasting' covenant with Levi. This might be a stumbling block to some, but we know the 'everlasting' gets it's fulfillment in the true spiritual fulfillment God intended all along.
The death of Eli's sons did not end the Levitical covenant. There were other Cohans and there are Cohans to this day.
quote:
Circumcision of the heart really is a distinct 'mark in the flesh', peculiar to the people of God that fulfills the requirement of the law. There's something missing in the flesh of every Spirit sealed believer--the evil deeds of our old nature. Largely personal, like literal circumcision, but quite obvious when visible.
Are we back to spongee definitions. If "Circumcision of the heart really is a distinct 'mark in the flesh'", then physical circumcision was not necessary in the time of Moses. For he says of the children of Israel, (Dt 30:6) "The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live."
quote:
Christ's sacrifice is a bigger stretch to accept as the legitimate fulfillment of the law of animal sacrifice for sin than spiritual circumcision is for literal circumcision, yet we both know it fully and legitimately fulfills that requirement of the covenant. I've been saying this over and over now--the law does not have to be fulfilled to the letter of the law (meaning the personal variation that most law keepers defend) in order for the law to be fulfilled properly. We have direct and irrefutable proof of this in the acceptable sacrifice of Christ in place of animals.
There is nothing in the Word of the Creator as recorded by Moses that precludes sacrifice of the Messiah from being the full reality that the animal sacrifices represent. Therefore, we need not insist that verses that do not talk directly to the Messiah's sacrifice must be directly related to that sacrifice.
quote:
He's plainly telling them not to be circumcised as required under the law.
No, he tells them not to be circumcised as required by the "custom taught by Moses". See explanation above.
quote:
People in your camp say circumcision is part of 'keeping God's commands', and some say that disobedience to an OT command will keep a person outside of the New Jerusalem. Paul obviously doesn't believe that.
This is the falicy of association. By putting two beliefs side by side one taints the other. Circumcision is a commandment, but is not required for salvation. The people you speak of are the ones Paul is speaking against and so am I.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
...Second, it could be translated, for by it the people recieved the law. So, the purpose of the priesthood was for instruction. In verse 12, we see the laws of the preisthood as we understood it, not the whole law, was exchanged for laws that included a Priest that could not only instruct but save. Now, this is not a violation of the previous laws but an addendum if you will. It is not a violation, because the Messiah never entered the Holy Place of the earthly Tabernacle, but entered The Holy of Holies in Heaven, of which the Temple is just an illustration. Therefore, there need not be a doing away with the previous law, though Paul does imply the old(priesthood) will pass away. This could be because of the distruction of the temple or maybe The Messiah will be the only priest in His Temple. Either way that does not effect the laws we can observe now, since there is no Temple at this time.
quote:
I don't think it matters all too much. The point is vs. 12. He's making the connection between an obsolete system of sacrifice and the law that accompanied that system, and how one must change with the other. See, the law can, and has changed. God's not speaking the same things today as he was then.
The Creator providing Himself a better sacrifice than He has revealed previously does not make the previous revelation totally irrelavent. Even if it does, extending such an understanding to all of His previous revelation is throwing the baby pictures out with the bath water. If we need no illustrations, then we need no written Scriptures at all. That includes the writings of Paul.
quote:
The law did not make provision for the forgiveness of all sins. Some were unforgivable. But those unforgivable ones under the law are forgivable apart from the law through the grace of God we have now fully disclosed in Jesus Christ.
"38"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:38-39)
It is not the purpose of "the law" to forgive sins, sins are forgiven based on the promise of the Creator. The purpose at best was to keep us from sin and remind us of the promise. However, we used it as an opportunity to sin and failed to remember the promise.
This is the mistake that these men from Judea made. Like you, they believed that observance forgave sin. No wonder they got it wrong when the Messiah came. Those who focused on the promise, ie Simeon, saw the Messiah for who he was.
quote:
I'm not sure what the surety of God's promise to conform us to the image of Christ means to this part of the discussion. One day we will be like him, when we see him--promise. Everyone who has been chosen has a predetermined destiny. And that is to look like Jesus. Hallelujah!
"2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure." (1 John 3:2-3)
Yes, everyone includes those who lived prior to the Sacrifice of the Messiah.
quote:
The Holy Spirit abides in the New Covenant. You could only have it as long as you obeyed in the Old Covenant (true in another aspect in the New Covenent). What you say destroys the significance of the new role of the Holy Spirit in this New Covenant as if there is no change whatsoever between life as a believer now and life then under the law. You destroy the gospel message. Serving God according to the law is not the gospel message.
Of course it's not. The gospel is as 1 Cor 15 tells us is the life, sacrifice and ressurrection of the Messiah on our behalf. This does not preclude the Spirit of the Creator from abiding with those who lived before the Sacrifice.
quote:
quote:
As stated above, faith was credited to him as righteousness, here Paul is refering to Gen 15:6. Circumcision isn't even mentioned until Chpt 17. Therefore, Abram knew he was saved without circumcision.
God added this condition later. There is no evidence whatsoever that Abraham knew he could ignore God's command to be circumcised. I don't think he could have. That would have been proof that he really didn't believe and as a result have been declared righteous. For Abraham it would have been impossible to be declared righteous and then turn right around and disobey God's direct command to be circumcised. Whose sermon series on justification by faith did he have to teach him what happened when he believed God in Genesis 15? That's the glory and revelation of the New Covenant, not the old, though we know several people in the OT walked in that eternal truth without knowing the full extent of it.
Do you believe it is necessary to be baptised for salvation? If Abram could have lost his salvation by disobeying, why can't we. And by the same token, if Abram was counted a rightious only because he had been circumcised afterwords, why isn't our salvation contingent on our being baptised later? It is the Creator who would have assured him. A sermon series is not required for one to understand salvation by grace. After all, faith comes by hearing the Word of the Creator.
quote:
Being cutoff from the people of God is being cutoff from the covenant:
"11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)- 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ (not through the law of circumcision).
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations." (Eph. 2:11-14 paranthetical/ emphasis mine)
The operative term here is "by those who call themselves 'the circumcision'". It is these people who excluded the Gentiles, taking away their hope, not the Creator. These are the ones we saw before who required circumcision and . . . for salvation. In fact many Gentiles were included in Israel. The passage quoted begins with a therefore, meaning it is also in a greater context. That context is the passage from which comes the quote regarding salvation by grace through faith. Therefore because we are saved by grace the law, as defined by 'the circumcision' and the wall of hostility have been abolished, with regard to salvation.
quote:
A few select people discovered the grace of God outside and above the condemnation of the law during the OT period. But their obligation was still to fulfill the literal requirements of the law. David confirms this in Psalm 51 after he was held blameless before God for his deeds worthy of death under the law because of his broken and contrite spirit. Afterwhich he says...
"19 Then there will be righteous sacrifices, whole burnt offerings to delight you; then bulls will be offered on your altar."
Even from this example we can see that our NT obligation is quite different than David's even though he experienced the same grace we have. We walk in the fullness of the grace he received yet we are not obligated to the system of animal sacrifice he was obligated to (even if the Temple was here), as it had not yet been rendered obsolete by the manifest work of Christ.
I now ask you, what sermon series did these few hear that explained salvation by grace? I would submit that the Word of the Creator as recorded by Moses was helpful with that. I believe others would also have seen it to had they focused on the promise first. It is your contention that this has changed. I do not believe that point has been proven yet.
quote:
Right. It's to believe, and love your brother. But even love itself is multi-faceted.
To start with, Paul excludes circumcision from 'God's commands' when he talks about 'keeping God's commands', making a clear distinction about what that means.
"19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts." (1 Cor. 7:19)
Obviously, the lawful command to be circumcised is not included in the 'keeping God's commands' that we are exhorted to keep in the NT (Romans 2 has another example). And James helps us understand what 'doing right' means:
"27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:27).
Love is actually only one of the fruit of the Spirit (though it's obvious that all the fruit of the Spirit is ultimately an expression of godly love for others). God's commands encompass all of the fruit of the Spirit, but especially the command to love, as the NT repeatedly teaches.
Self-control is also one of the fruit of the Spirit. Some sins don't readily translate into harm to our neighbor, like looking at porn. The connection between keeping oneself pure and considering the well-being of our neighbor aren't always directly connected. This can help us understand the distinction both James and John make about actively loving others through acts of compassion and keeping oneself pure. If 'keeping oneself pure' means going to church only on Saturday's then that's what you must do for conscience sake. But there is other scriptural information to help us know that some OT laws are not what constitutes 'keeping oneself pure' in the New Covenant.
As pointed out earlier, this circumcision is related to those who require it for salvation. If it were about physical circumcision , why whould he say, "Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised." How does one who is physically circumcised become uncircumcised?
This is not as obvious as you make it appear. I see it as whether one is "circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses" or not doesn't matter. What matters is keeping the commnadments as the Creator directed. As stated before, we have no "custom taught by Moses" in the Scriptures. So, this circumcision Paul is talking about is not the biblical circumcision, but some rabbinic ritual.
Now these things you list are signs, but as you seem to be pointing out they are not the only signs nor do they exclude the commands recorded by Moses.
quote:
It is the example of his character that we walk after.
"...God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil..." (Acts 10:38)
That is what he is remembered for and what distinguished him far and above mere mortals, not what day of the week he went to church on, or what festival he attented. This is what we are to strive for and to imitate in our own lives.
That is your contention. I see no conflict between this list and that which was actually delivered to Moses. What some attribute to Moses, that is another story.
quote:
Paul makes the very clear distinction between being under the authority of the law and being under the authority of the Spirit. A distinction you demolish completely as if they are one and the same thing. It's misleading and incorrect to teach that the law and the Spirit are equal. Just another example of undermining the message of the gospel that shines far and above the ministry of the law.
As I said before, we are under the authority of the Spirit of the Creator and that written Scriptures are but a finite representation of the infinite Creator.
quote:
The law is not the gospel. In fact the law veils the gospel. Concentrating on the externals of the law actually veils the infinately more important command to love your neighbor as yourself. Only in the Spirit (not the law) does love take it's number one place in the heart of the individual believer as the preeminent will of God.
As I stated before the gospel is laid out for us in 1 Cor 15 as the life, sacrifice and ressurrection of the Messiah on our behalf. Now if one obsesses over extrabiblical details as the men from Judea in Acts 15 did, then one does miss that. That said, I do agree it is only through the Spirit of the Creator that we can do His will.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/9/2008 6:24:40 PM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 976
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LBolt
...Sponge, I want to tell brother that I appreciate the gift and call of God on your life. Even though we disagree, your words have challenged me to really examine mine own heart. I just want to tell you this publicly (in blogland...LOL!).
I thank you very much. Believe me, this is a real blessing to me right now. I firmly believe we do not need to agree to be a blessing to each other. I have been very blessed by the thought provoking views that get shared here. We inspire each other to meditate and think on the things of God just the way he intended. Praise him forever.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LBolt
Jesus as we know is a Jew, born of the stock of Judah, from the natural lineage of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. So He is speaking to natural seed.
Exactly true. Even though Jesus is every bit a Jew, his ethnicity doesn't translate into me now having to act and look like the natural people of Israel according to the law. Receiving the Holy Spirit, and as a result being grafted into the body of Jesus, is the fulfillment of the promise of Abraham's blessing. The attributes of Jesus that matter, especially to us gentiles, are his spiritual attributes, not his natural ones. It is by those that I have been established in Christ.
I'm a complete and indistinguishable member of Jesus Christ--the real nation and servant of God--because of the Holy Spirit. Now my obligation is to serve God via that same Holy Spirit, not the law. If we had been established in Christ by the law, then our obligation would be to the law. But as it is, we have been justified by faith by the Holy Spirit, and now we justify (show) ourselves to be in Christ the same way we were justified into Christ--by faith by the Holy Spirit. No law of external worship put me into Christ, or sustains me in Christ. I have no obligation to those worship laws.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LBolt
Because we are born again through our faith in Messiah Jesus, the "middle wall of partition" which Shaul (Paul) calls the "enmity" was the division in the Temple set up by people who believed that non-Jews, who had not undergone all the rituals of Judiasm, could not enter into the inner court in the House of God. This "middle wall" received it's power from the Oral Law and/or the traditions of man.
Correct me if I'm wrong (the details of the law are many), but no one could have anything to do with the Temple and it's ministry unless you were a Levite. And even they were limited amongst themselves by tribal family as to what they could and could not touch. By law, God was inaccessable to the commom man, and not totally accessable to even the Levites themselves, save for the reigning High Priest. And even he could only approach God one day a year. The law actually legislated your distance and inaccesibilty to God. IOW, by law you were limited from fellowship with God to one extent or another.
And it wasn't Rabbinical law that established this distance and inaccessability. The very law of God did that. And it is that law that is the enmity between us and God that prevented the gentiles (particularly) from approaching God, and limited the access of the Israelites themselves (according to tribe and family). That's the law, the wall of enmity that got taken away in Christ. Now we all have equal and unhindered access to face to face communion with God through a common Spirit. The same Spirit that is in Jesus, and through whom he ministered directly and unhindered to the Father.
I don't see this as rabbinical prohibition being taken away in Christ. It's the law of Moses itself that legislated one's inaccessibility to God. The law is what established our distance from God. The criteria used to determine that distance is spelled out in the law in matters of natural lineage, family and tribal descendancy, circumcision, etc...). The debt of those requirements has been nailed to the cross with Jesus.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/9/2008 6:40:08 PM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 976
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LBolt
quote:
It simply has no more authority over the person whose spouse has died.
That was always the case my dear friend. If your spouse died you were free to remarry.
Do you believe that Romans 7 is teaching us that we were once married to the flesh, but as believers that spouse has died and we are now set free from the law that governed that marriage to the flesh (even kept us in it) and can now be joined to Jesus? I tried to explain this to Bthread. Did you follow that discussion at all? If I followed him correctly, he seemed to resist the notion that we have not been married to God all along from the beginning, essentially suggesting that he didn't believe the law belonged to our old relationship with the flesh, but that it was the essence of our original and rightful relationship with Jesus restored at the cross. Not true at all for us gentiles.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/9/2008 7:44:40 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1492
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
Sorry ,I feel bad for I was the one who nagged you and joked about it, Blue. But it is hurting the image of a good,godly man you undoubtedly are.Trust me women and gay men are much better in the issues of image and making impression. Straight men know nothing about it.
I must admit, I have always cared more about being clear than being sensitive. I hope you realize that generalizations regarding straight men are no less offensive than they are with nregard to other groupings. Many men just deal with it, because we have discrimination is defined by those who are in power. For some time our government has been seeking to control our lives and therefore, see outspoken men as a threat.
quote:
Overusing Hebraisms sends the wrong message, somewhat "holier the thou"... Here's 3 K or so active members on CW don’t mind using the words Jesus, God, Matthew, etc.Those words mean the world to them. It has to be respected here.It was unwillingly pushing the idea that God loves an American or Chinese less for addressing him in their language; and its not worthy of a man of your caliber of spiritual knowledge.
Thank you, for the compliment. It is my desire for clarity that has led to such knowledge. I am in no way an Hebrew scholar. I prefer to use biblical terms because the shift of english from agreed upon definitions to common use has led to great confusion in detailed discussion. This thread is an example of that. English terms have many connotations attached that tie interpretation to Catholic/Reform theology. If we use biblical terms, we can avoid much of this confusion.
quote:
When you deserve praise-watch me, I will honestly give it. For example your devotion to Blue Thread I presume, refers to tzitzit.Very praiseworthy, i know enough/done enough studies to realise the importance of it. Why rabbinazis got rid of blue, including in Messianic churches.. God only knows. It is to me similar to substituting Chicken for Lamb for Passover, another brilliant invention of those idiots.
Not to throw stones, but to show something you might not have noticed. I beghin with the presumption that people have reasons for what they do. If they don't, I then try to help them find those reasons, presuming they wish to continue in those beliefs. I think the chicken thing has to do with the fact there is no Temple, so to insist on the appearance of a sacrifice when there can not be one makes no sense.
quote:
But in the end what matters is neither traditions in food no clothing, but Love for God and brethren.
Yes, as Lev 19 defines this, interaction in the attempt to avoid errors and build community is what living ones brother is about.
Maybe it would be esier for people to understand where I am coming from if my avitar was the vulcan(Star Trek) form of the shin sign.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/9/2008 7:58:52 PM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 976
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
...how is your heart changed by baptism? How does it prove you have a new heart?
If it was given to serve that capacity, like circumcision was given to Abraham as an outward sign of being in the covenant, you'd have a point. Until God assigns baptism the same weigth and gravity and purpose as OT circumcision, there is no comparison possible in regard to it being considered a sign of salvation. Why would we even think that anyway? The NT teaching for centuries now is that godly character is the evidence of salvation, not baptism or any other work of the flesh.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
And we know exactly what being a new creation means:
" 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." (Galatians 5:6)
" 15Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation." (Galatians 6:16)
These verses refer to salvation.
Then you must be saying that Paul is telling the Galatians that being a new creation is what counts toward saving a person. It's obvious he's telling them that being a new creation is the 'work', or the obedience, that counts toward evidence of salvation, not salvation itself, and that being a new creation is the required 'work' that we must strive toward as believing children of God, not circumcision.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
Being a new creation means having a faith that finds expression in acts of godly love. Love is the evidence of the presence of the new creation, not circumcision. This is what counts above outward circumcision. So much so that Paul tells the Galatians not to do it.
It should not be done for salvation. That is the context into which Paul is speaking, as the beginning of Acts 15 points out.
But it's not the only context as I've pointed out. It's impossible to ignore the fact that Paul is saying that the character of a new creation is what we are to 'do' now that we are saved--not get circumcised.
He's addressing both meanings of 'justification'. And I believe it's because you can't separate the two. We ultimately will show ourselves as being saved the same way we think we were saved. That's why it's so important to strive after the works of faith (love) and not works of the law (circumcision, etc.) as a child of God. It assures that you have indeed been saved by faith and not mislead by works of the law.
No love in a person's life is the warning sign to them that serves to either confirm or deny the reality of a saving faith. Godly character, not works of the OT, tell us we really have been born again. It is wrong and dangerous to rely on obedience to circumcsion, or other laws of worship, as the sign of saving faith. It's a false and deceiving comfort, but so natural for us to lean on. It's easy to see that's the reason why the NT exhorts us to nurture godly character as the way to 'make ones calling and election sure' (even contrasting that with works of the law) so that none of us are deceived and are condemned.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
Jews have taken false comfort in the security of literal circumcision and have relied on that work of the law/ flesh for confirmation of being in covenant with God. And they insisted that the Gentiles must also conform that way, too. And with good reason. It's directly commanded in the law. But we see through Paul's teaching that it was only an illustration of the greater truth of spiritual circumcision which now makes the literal obsolete, just as the illustration of the Levitical system was made obsolete and laid aside (discarded) in favor of the greater truth of Christ's sacrifice.
Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."
Some men from Judea not all. Also, the Word of the Creator as recorded by Moses does not require it for salvation. It has always been an illustration and the illustration still fits, so I still use it to remind me of the Creators provision, even though I have more details tha Daniel may have had.
You're kidding yourself if you think someone could have full knowledge of what the law said to do to not be cut off from the covenant and then not do it in direct defiance of that law. Don't you realize you are saying the law was not binding at all then during this time? How could God punish transgression of the law if it was actually optional the way you say? How could transgression of the law be an indicator of not being saved if what you say is true? Transgression of the law during this time meant not being saved. It was not a meaningless indicator of one's separation from God. And the Bible says it is that separation and resulting disobedience to the law that condemned us. Are you saying it was not? Your argument is wholly unfitting for one who defends the ministry of the law, not to mention completely contrary to what the Bible says disobedience to the law meant.
< Message edited by SpongeBlog -- 10/9/2008 8:10:06 PM >
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/9/2008 9:43:56 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2380
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
I must admit, I have always cared more about being clear than being sensitive. I hope you realize that generalizations regarding straight men are no less offensive than they are with nregard to other groupings.
O sweet Lord!! Merciful Jesus.It didnt even ring the bell at least somewhere in the back of your mind that possibly that was a joke?!! You amazed me profoundly, Bluethread.I clearly immensely overestimated your abilities, and am i profusely apologize for that.
Now i see how " always assume the best of people" that my parents taught me can sadly backfire.
quote:
I prefer to use biblical terms because the shift of english from agreed upon definitions to common use has led to great confusion in detailed discussion. This thread is an example of that. English terms have many connotations attached that tie interpretation to Catholic/Reform theology. If we use biblical terms, we can avoid much of this confusion.
Messianics (and yours) usage of terms here are not Biblical as much as they are Judaistic.
Your manner if often akin saying : " Gay(merry, cheerful people) parade took place in SF today". Gay doesnt mean merry and cheerful now in this context. Your translation of meaning and the actual meaning do not match.
And as I pointed out many times already it causes clear confusion because, my dear friend, Judaism denies Jesus is Lord, or if you prefer, the Messiah. Catholic/Reform doesnt, which makes their terms much closer to our position then Judaistic.
quote:
O:
It is to me similar to substituting Chicken for Lamb for Passover, another brilliant invention of those idiots.
BT: I think the chicken thing has to do with the fact there is no Temple, so to insist on the appearance of a sacrifice when there can not be one makes no sense.
 So because there is no Temple the Messiah's sacrifice can be represented by Chicken not Lamb? Blue, you just made my day.
quote:
Maybe it would be esier for people to understand where I am coming from if my avitar was the vulcan(Star Trek) form of the shin sign.
Enlighten dear,for i never seen the movie. I do know it is very old and has many fans.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/9/2008 9:55:26 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2380
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
That way the OT doesn't end up being only a Jewish book, but a useful guide to understanding God's relationship with all the nations of the world through the Holy Spirit, and so we don't all end up wearing those skull cap thingys thinking we have to live like traditional Jews
thingys come in very handy for a lot of very vain middleaged jewish pinheads :) they love it!
Is it the same reason the american baseball cap was invented ?( partially the reason, before i am accused of being politically incorrect by some fellows here)
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/9/2008 10:13:24 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2380
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
I am in no way an Hebrew scholar
Thank God for that. Last thing we need here is a few of those, Biblical hebrew scholars/analysts, Usually those also have enough knowldege of aramaic to be dangerous. Watch the debate go down the toilet, those cant agree with each other they are worse then rabbi.
The thread would become a theological bordello, to put it mildly, and I would be out of here in no time.
Lord be praised, the revelation of the Lord's word can come to a person reading it in any language, His ways are not the same as human scientific knowledge comes about...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/10/2008 9:06:08 AM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
Most protestants don't understand the meaning of "works of the law" in Romans 3:28. A study of Isaiha 1 will help alot with that. In that passage God chastises the Jews for the very laws that he commanded of them. The sacrifices, etc. Why? Because they were not taking care of the widow and the orphan. A study of galations is very important in all of this. In their Paul clearly addesses works of the law that should not be done AT ALL. But he never says we should not love our neighbor. Quite the opposite. He says
[13]
For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another.
[14] For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
We are to fullfill the law and do as Christ commanded. That in fact means following the commandments. Heb 12 even says that we are to resist sin to the point of death. But we are to go beyond the law of the commandments. We are to take care of the widow and the orphan. For God never gave up on that. James 1 says "pure religion is to take care of the widow and the orphan". The law of love is what we follow when we become Christians and it is what we are judged by at death or Romans 2:4-8 makes no sense.
[4] Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
[5] But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
[6] For he will render to every man according to his works:
[7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
[8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
God gives the grace to do this and grace must be completed in us. TO him be all praise and glory! (eph 3:20-21)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/10/2008 10:47:05 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2380
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Geraldh
[8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
God gives the grace to do this and grace must be completed in us. TO him be all praise and glory! (eph 3:20-21)
Amen. Absolutely, and i am sure both camps here agree.
********************************************
Blue,
the purity of your intentions is unquestionable, its obvious you want people to understand the position your hold. I don’t have as much experience studying the Scriptures as you or Spongie,neither have I been a Christian for long, so I surely enjoy your exchange
But re: your unique way of using terminology maybe I was unclear in yesterday's post.
This is my problem, please do explain what I am missing here- When you use a hebrew word(Engl. translation), like: Yochanan(John), Yeshua(Jesus) Mikva( baptism ) or Mikvah ( ritual washing), Ha Torah (Torah) Ruach Ha Chedosh(The Holy Spirit) and such-people read only the English word, so the transliterated hebrew version only adds to the amount of text and serves no other purpose for the majority of readers, unless they are messianics and like that style of presentation.
When you use the words Adonai, Messaiah etc, w/t translating them, people see it as Triune God and Jesus, respectively. So what is the purpose of using the different words,I don’t quite understand?
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/10/2008 11:26:34 AM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 3605
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Maybe it would be esier for people to understand where I am coming from if my avitar was the vulcan(Star Trek) form of the shin sign.
Enlighten dear,for i never seen the movie. I do know it is very old and has many fans.
HEY!!! It ain't that old. LOL.
And it was the hand sign of salutation. lol.
And I do it very well............
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/11/2008 3:41:45 AM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 976
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Acts 15:1, the reason for the Council decision, does not say "The law of Moses". It says, "the custom taught by Moses". There is no custom taught by Moses in the Word of the Creator as recorded by Moses. Som what are they refering to? These men make clear what they mean in verse 5. "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
The custom of Rabbi Moses is the law of Moses. People like to assail 'rabbinical' law and rely on it as a convenient argument to interpret Paul's teaching, but God clearly gave them binding authority to pass judgements that were to be followed as the law.
"2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." (Matt. 23:2-3)
Moses just did a better job of writing rabbinical law. Just because someone greater than Moses is here and has passed truer judgements that trump those judgements doesn't mean Moses's judgements were any less binding and lawful than the actual law of God. Until that correction came from the supreme Rabbi it would have been unconsciencealbe, even sinful, to disobey Moses. But it's clear the head Elder, the head Rabbi has come and changed things.
Much more could be said about this. I don't want to take the time to go there now.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
The death of Eli's sons did not end the Levitical covenant. There were other Cohans and there are Cohans to this day.
They will never hold the office of High Priest again. That's what God's judgement against the tribe of Levi was all about. I see again that I was wrong in thinking we all knew that.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
Circumcision of the heart really is a distinct 'mark in the flesh', peculiar to the people of God that fulfills the requirement of the law. There's something missing in the flesh of every Spirit sealed believer--the evil deeds of our old nature. Largely personal, like literal circumcision, but quite obvious when visible.
Are we back to spongee definitions. If "Circumcision of the heart really is a distinct 'mark in the flesh'", then physical circumcision was not necessary in the time of Moses.
It was necessary, because they didn't know that it counted for nothing. They were commanded to carry out the literal with no explanations attached. Just as it would have been necessary for the Apostles to avoid the actual leaven of the Pharisees had Jesus not told them that it really wasn't about literal leaven. I know you get this, but you seem bound and determined to resist my point. Until a person knows what things God intended for illustrative purposes, but hasn't disclosed to that person, that person has no excuse whatsoever to not behave according to the literal illustration. There is no way you can honestly deny this.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
For he says of the children of Israel, (Dt 30:6) "The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live."
Who here is suggesting circumcision of the heart is not an OT understanding???? Jeremiah 9:25-26 is an even better scripture to prove that.
"25 "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh- 26 Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab and all who live in the desert in distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart."
And, as you surely must notice, Jeremiah does not go so far as to straight out say that circumcision of the heart removes the necessity of literal circumcision, like Paul does. That truth is fully unveiled in the New Covenant. It would be completely contrary to the rule of the law at this time to say you can forego the literal in favor of the spiritual. Only in Christ is the authority of the law ended. I'll be revisiting this scripture.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
Christ's sacrifice is a bigger stretch to accept as the legitimate fulfillment of the law of animal sacrifice for sin than spiritual circumcision is for literal circumcision, yet we both know it fully and legitimately fulfills that requirement of the covenant. I've been saying this over and over now--the law does not have to be fulfilled to the letter of the law (meaning the personal variation that most law keepers defend) in order for the law to be fulfilled properly. We have direct and irrefutable proof of this in the acceptable sacrifice of Christ in place of animals.
There is nothing in the Word of the Creator as recorded by Moses that precludes sacrifice of the Messiah from being the full reality that the animal sacrifices represent. Therefore, we need not insist that verses that do not talk directly to the Messiah's sacrifice must be directly related to that sacrifice.
Huh?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
People in your camp say circumcision is part of 'keeping God's commands', and some say that disobedience to an OT command will keep a person outside of the New Jerusalem. Paul obviously doesn't believe that.
...Circumcision is a commandment, but is not required for salvation.
Are you saying circumcision is not a law unto salvation, but the others are, and that's why he's making the distinction? I know you don't believe that, so just explain why the law of circumcision is not included in Paul's 'keeping God's commands' completely contrary to the Torah observant camp that argues that 'keeping God's commands' means all of the OT laws. I have already proved from the NT that Paul's fight is against the actual law of circumcision, not a weird rabbinical tradition.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
The Creator providing Himself a better sacrifice than He has revealed previously does not make the previous revelation totally irrelavent. Even if it does, extending such an understanding to all of His previous revelation is throwing the baby pictures out with the bath water. If we need no illustrations, then we need no written Scriptures at all. That includes the writings of Paul.
Written words, OT and NT, are enough. It's foolish to think the written words of the OT fail to provide an effective illustration of what God unveiled spiritually in the NT. It's not necessary to practice the old illustration to the letter to fully understand and appreciate the spiritual. Here's what the NT says about continuing the old...
"9Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them. 10We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat." (Heb. 13:9-10)
"...the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order." (Heb. 9:9-10)
"8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do." (1 Cor. 8:8)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
The law did not make provision for the forgiveness of all sins. Some were unforgivable. But those unforgivable ones under the law are forgivable apart from the law through the grace of God we have now fully disclosed in Jesus Christ.
"38"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:38-39)
It is not the purpose of "the law" to forgive sins, sins are forgiven based on the promise of the Creator. The purpose at best was to keep us from sin and remind us of the promise. However, we used it as an opportunity to sin and failed to remember the promise.
God plainly said one was forgiven if they offered up the sacrifice he stipulated. Here's my chance to prove to you that obedience to the law was 'required' prior to Jesus, and that departure from the OT worship laws really does represent a change. A change you claim can not, and has not happened.
I agree that ultimately sin is forgiven because we believe in God's promise to forgive if we seek that forgiveness. How was that belief in God's forgiveness expressed under the law? Offering up a sacrifice, of course. That was the amount of revelation at that time. If an Israelite did not seek the forgiveness of God by offering up a sacrifice (assuming he had that sacrifice available) we have no choice but to conclude he really did not believe in God's forgiveness. This defeats your contention that nothing's really changed in the NT (for God never changes) because these things weren't really required in the OT. A very, very weak argument.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
This is the mistake that these men from Judea made. Like you, they believed that observance forgave sin. No wonder they got it wrong when the Messiah came. Those who focused on the promise, ie Simeon, saw the Messiah for who he was.
No. I believe what they got wrong was to see how the law could not forgive all sin. People are still this way today--they think what good they do somehow nullifies the penalty due them for what they remain guilty of. I worked with an extemely promiscous woman who ignored the fact that she was condemned as a fornicator because she taught a Sunday school class.
James talks about this very thing. Failing at any part of the law makes you a law breaker. Add to that the fact that not all things could be atoned for in the old covenant. These are at least two things the Jews failed to acknowledge. Read Jeremiah 7 and tell me I'm wrong about what I just said about the Jews. They trusted in what they did acknowledge, but failed to understand what they were guilty of.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
The Holy Spirit abides in the New Covenant. You could only have it as long as you obeyed in the Old Covenant (true in another aspect in the New Covenent). What you say destroys the significance of the new role of the Holy Spirit in this New Covenant as if there is no change whatsoever between life as a believer now and life then under the law. You destroy the gospel message. Serving God according to the law is not the gospel message.
Of course it's not. The gospel is as 1 Cor 15 tells us is the life, sacrifice and ressurrection of the Messiah on our behalf. This does not preclude the Spirit of the Creator from abiding with those who lived before the Sacrifice.
Take this opportunity right now to explain what the difference between then and now is in regard to the Holy Spirit. You completely destroy the significance of the Holy Spirit, the glory of the New Covenant, by denying what I'm saying. I don't want to say too much because I want to see if you really know how to answer this. Just remember--you claim the Holy Spirit abides in the old covenant. I say it does not.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Do you believe it is necessary to be baptised for salvation?
No. God never instructed us to do it as a condition for staying in covenant with him. Don't you dare tell me God never said circumcision was a required condition of the covenant.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
If Abram could have lost his salvation by disobeying, why can't we.
In the particular instance of being circumcised, he wouldn't lose his salvation. He'd be showing that he didn't believe in the first place.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
And by the same token, if Abram was counted a rightious only because he had been circumcised afterwords, why isn't our salvation contingent on our being baptised later?
Abraham was not counted righteous only because he was circumcised. Abraham proved his righeousness by being circumcised. But the NT teaches that is no longer an expected and necessary obedience to prove your righteousness. Now we are clearly taught that the true circumcision and obedience that shows we have believed God is 'loving your neighbor as yourself' and that literal circumcision actually counts for nothing.
Obedience to the commands that embody the command to love our neighbor as ourselves is the required circumcision for being in covenant with God. Doing that shows you have fulfilled the command and condition of circumcision that follows being declared righteous. This eternal truth, now fully unveiled for us in the New Covenant, makes the literal obsolete and no longer required as an expected display of saving faith. God is no longer speaking that command to us to show we believe him. God's voice has changed.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
Being cutoff from the people of God is being cutoff from the covenant:
"11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)- 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ (not through the law of circumcision).
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations." (Eph. 2:11-14 paranthetical/ emphasis mine)
...The passage quoted begins with a therefore, meaning it is also in a greater context. That context is the passage from which comes the quote regarding salvation by grace through faith. Therefore because we are saved by grace the law, as defined by 'the circumcision' and the wall of hostility have been abolished, with regard to salvation.
The law plainly defined this requirement for circumcision, and it is that law that Paul is speaking about. Even you can see how the stipulations of the law stood opposed to the gentiles, particularly. Given the amount of revelation and access at that time to faith, you're kidding yourself if you think a gentile could come waltzing into covenant with God without fulfilling the literal conditions of that covenant.
You don't seem to understand just because faith in some measure always was the underlying condition that made it possible to be in covenant with God, that did not make the literal conditions of the law at that time meaningless. Only the revelation of faith given by the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant allows them to now be understood as meaningless, setting a person free from those requirements. It is this revelation of faith that sets the gentiles free of the literal requirements of the law that used to separate them from the Israelites and the promises they possessed. Faith has torn it down for everybody. Even the Israelites themselves!
(I'm going to bed. I'll finish later)
< Message edited by SpongeBlog -- 10/11/2008 3:53:03 AM >
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/11/2008 10:21:58 AM
|
|
|
LBolt
Posts: 954
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
|
Hey, Spongie or anyone, where in the scriptures did YAH state that non-Jews would be restricted from worshipping in the Temple. I know that the Levites had a specific priestly function which was subdivided according to whether you were from one of Aaron's son's (Eleazar, Ithamar...)
Also, I've studied that it was apart of Jewish religious custom that if you had not assimiliated into Judaism, through baptism, circumcision and sacrifice all preceded by a strong willingness to observe both Torahs you were termed "Am Ha Eretz", and until one had performed all the necessary requirements. You were put in categories of such.
Of course, there were diverse denominations each with varying degrees of doctrine and dogma. However, the pharisees and saducees had strong influence in the religious life of the land.
Shifting gears...Rabbi Sponge, Rabbi Bluethread and any other Bible scholar, what did Yahshua mean in John 5:46-47.
Sponge, who gave the Torah to Moshe (Moses)?
Is the God of the "Old Testament" from the God of the "New Testament?"
_____________________________
Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding...she shall give to thine head an ornament of grace..---Proverbs 4:7
www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-60604-743-9
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
Or as another thing it could lead to is self pride and I pray that is not the case. 