nanasimmons

Vickilynn, Thanks for pointing that out for me...I didn't read that far down, but I left the bottom portion there on purpose,for credit purposes...besides, I am an individual and I did I recieve any money for it....I will e-mail them to let them know what happened,if possible... I did try to use the link earlier for someone else,but it did not work for her,so I did the same thing for her... I felt that it would be better on this board if people could read the entire page in a post...It is a great study for people who believe that this is what many of the passages teach in the NT,myself included... It is better to see more than one veiw on these issues..people can discern for themselves what is the truth and what is not..

Below, copy of the pages 188-191 in a book called 'An Exposition Of Hebrews' by, Arthur Pink..... I hope the last two posts can help you Giaour ******************************************************************************** *********************** In Exodus 6:6-8, Jehovah said unto Moses,

Copied and pasted from a site called 'The Gospel Way'...used by permission ========================================================= ** David E. Pratte ** 841 Hillandale Dr., Antioch, IL 60002 ** On the web: www.gospelway.com ** E-mail: studylessons-1@yahoo.com (To pass spam filters include Gospel+Way in the subject line) ========================================================= Michelle, Thank you for your interest in our free online Bible study materials. First, be aware that I am not at all upset with you for using my materials to spread the truth. Although what you did may be a technical violation of my copyright guidelines, I mainly made those guidelines to protect my materials from those who would use them for their own gain or who would use them in ways I would not approve of, etc. Under the circumstances, I will give you permission to copy the articles on the two places where you have it. Please add a note "used by permission" and include a working link to www.gospelway.com. Thanks for writing. http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/g...law_today_1.php Old Testament Laws: Must We Observe the Law of Moses and the Sabbath Today? Should Christians today keep Old Testament laws, such as the seventh-day Sabbath, circumcision, animal sacrifices, and holy days, or did Jesus remove or abolish that law so that we should only obey New Testament commands? What is the difference between moral and ceremonial laws, the Law of Moses and the Law of God? What day is the "Christian Sabbath" according to the gospel of Christ? Are the Law of Moses and the Ten Commands abrogated or still in effect? What law should we observe today? Should we today "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy?" Introduction: The Old Testament includes many commands not found in the New Testament, such as the Sabbath (seventh day), animal sacrifices, the Levitical priesthood, circumcision, special holy days, burning incense, tithing, instrumental music, and dancing in worship. Many people wonder whether we today should observe these commands. A few people try to keep all Old Testament laws. Others keep only New Testament laws. Still others try to keep the Ten Commands, the Sabbath on the seventh day, or parts of the Law of Moses, but disregard other laws. To please God and to be united religiously we must determine which Old Testament laws, if any, apply to us today. The purpose of this study is to address these issues. Consider some introductory questions: A. Does God Intend for People Today to Obey Every Command God Has Ever Given? People sometimes talk as if they believe that we today must observe every command God ever gave and must keep "holy" everything God ever told people to keep holy. But consider a few Bible examples: Noah's ark (Gen. 6:13-7:5) - With Noah God made a covenant (6:18) which involved commands Noah had to obey (6:22; 7:5). After the flood, God promised He would never again destroy all flesh by a flood (9:11-17). Must we today still build arks? (Cf. Gen. 22:1-19.) Circumcision (Gen. 17:9-14) - Circumcision was both a covenant and a command given by God to Abraham and his descendants (cf. 21:1-4; Lev. 12:3). God now says this command no longer applies (I Cor. 7:18-20; Gal. 5:1-8; 6:12-16; Acts 15:1-29). Levitical priesthood (Ex. 40:12-16; 29:1-9) - Under the covenant made at Mt. Sinai, only Aaron and his descendants could serve as priests (Num. 3:10; 18:1-7; 16:40). But today Jesus is High Priest, though He was not a descendant of Aaron. This proves there has been a change in the law (Heb. 7:11-18; cf. I Pet. 2:5,9). Animal sacrifices (Num. 15:1-6) - Throughout the Old Testament God commanded people to offer animal sacrifices (cf. Gen. 4:1-5; Lev. chap. 1-7). But today animal sacrifices have ceased to be offered because Jesus is our perfect sacrifice (Heb. 10:1-18). Holy days (Ex. 12:1-28; 13:3-10; Lev. chap. 23) - God commanded Israel to keep various holy days, but we today should not keep them (Col. 2:14-17; Gal. 4:10,11). Note that, when God commands a certain day to be a holy day of rest, He can later change and no longer require men to keep it. Undeniably, God has given different laws to different people at different times. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8), but this refers to God's character and nature, not to His laws for men. The above Scriptures clearly prove that God Himself has made changes in the laws He has commanded people to keep. B. Why Are These Commands No Longer Binding? There are at least two possible reasons why we may not be required to obey a command given by God: 1. God gave some commands to specific people, never intending them to apply to all people everywhere. Obvious examples are the command to Noah to build the ark and circumcision for all male descendants of Abraham. If God intended certain commands to be limited to certain people, but we teach other people they must also obey those commands, then we are not demonstrating faithfulness to God. Rather, we are perverting His will. (Cf. Rom. 3:19.) 2. God intended some commands to be temporary. When they fulfilled their purpose, they were no longer needed so God removed them. This is true of all the examples listed above. Please note that people have no right to annul God's laws on their own authority. Only God can decide this. If He intends a law to apply to us, we are unfaithful if we do not obey it. But we are equally unfaithful if we condemn people for not following a law, when God Himself does not require those people to follow that law. The question before us then is what is God's intent regarding the Old Testament commands in general. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did God Intend for Old Testament Laws to Be Binding Today? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The laws revealed in the Old Testament were unquestionably decreed by God Himself. He alone has the right to determine who must obey those laws and how long they should remain in effect. What was His intent regarding these Old Testament laws? A. God Intended the Laws Given through Moses to Be Binding Only for the Nation of Israel. The Ten Commands were given only to Israel. Deuteronomy 4:1,44,45 - The Ten Commands were given to the children of Israel after they came out of Egypt. Deuteronomy 5:1,6 - Moses spoke to Israel and gave them the Ten Commands to observe. God brought them out of the land of Egypt. Exodus 34:27,28 - The Lord made a covenant with Israel writing on tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments. 1 Kings 8:9,21 - The two tablets of stone contain the covenant the Lord made with Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt. Deuteronomy 4:7-13 - No other nation had such a great law as the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath was given only to Israel. Deuteronomy 5:15 - Israel (v1) was a slave in the land of Egypt, God brought them out and commanded them to keep the Sabbath day. Exodus 31:13,16,17 - The Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel like circumcision was (Gen. 17; Rom. 4:11). How could it have been a sign between God and Israel if He had given the same law to other nations too? Would a ring be a sign of a man's special relationship with his wife, if he gave similar rings to many other women? Today people need not keep the commands revealed through Moses, including the Ten Commands and the Sabbath, for the same reason we do not need to build arks like Noah or sacrifice sons like Abraham. God did not address these commands to us. B. God Removed the Old Testament Laws Because They Fulfilled Their Purpose. These laws were in effect throughout Israel's generations God repeatedly told Israel that various provisions of the law were to last "throughout their generations." This is said regarding: Genesis 17:9,10 - Circumcision Exodus 12:14; Leviticus 23:21,31,41 - Holy feast days Exodus 29:42; 30:10 - Animal sacrifices Exodus 30:8 - Incense Exodus 30:31 - Holy anointing oil Exodus 31:13-17 - Sabbath observance Exodus 40:15; Numbers 18:23 - Levitical priests in the tabernacle. [Cf. Num. 15:38; Ex. 30:21; Lev. 7:36; Num. 10:8; 35:29] All these practices were to endure for the same length of time - throughout Israel's generations. If any of them has ceased, then they must have all ceased since they were all to endure the same length of time. But we have already proved that many of them have ceased, therefore they must have all ceased. These all continued as long as Israel's special relationship to God continued, and all would end when that special relation ended. That special relationship ended when the gospel came into effect. There is no more Jew or Gentile in God's plan (Gal. 3:28). [Cf. Eph. 2:11-18; Acts 10:34,35; 15:7-11; Rom. 10:12; Col. 3:11] Hebrews chapters 7-10 7:11-14,18 - The law allowed priests only of the tribe of Levi, but it predicted a time when Christ would be a priest of the tribe of Judah. This meant the law would be changed (v12), disannulled (v18). 8:6-13 - These verses quote Jeremiah 31:31-34 which predicted God would make a new covenant different from the one He made with Israel when He led them out of Egypt. Christ has now enacted this new covenant, hence the first one is made old and is vanishing away (v13). Again, this fulfills God's word in the Old Testament. 10:1-18 - Animal sacrifices offered under the first covenant could not completely remove sin. Jesus' death is the sacrifice of the new covenant which can completely forgive. So Christ took away the first will (covenant) and established the second. This was done in harmony with God's will, not contrary to it (v9,10). The law was "weak and unprofitable" in that it told men they were sinners but could not permanently forgive them (7:11,18; 8:6,7). This does not mean God made a mistake in giving the law. It had a purpose, but that purpose was temporary. When the new law came, the old had accomplished its purpose so it was removed. 2 Corinthians 3:6-11 As in Hebrews, the Old Covenant (v14) is contrasted with the New (v6). The old was a ministration of death because it proved men deserved death. Yet it came with glory. The new covenant is a ministration of righteousness and is more glorious (v9). Note v11 - That which was with glory (the old covenant - v7) was done away so that which has more glory (the new covenant) may remain. It is not just the glory that was done away, but that which was glorious - the Old Testament itself - was done away. Galatians chapters 3-5 As in Hebrews, the law resulted in man's being under a curse because it showed men were sinners, but it could not completely remove the guilt (3:10; 2:16). This is contrasted with salvation by faith in Christ under the gospel (1:11,12; 3:26-28). 3:24,25 - The law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Now faith has come, so we are no longer under the schoolmaster. To be "under" a law means to be subject to it or under obligation to obey it - note 4:4,21 (cf. I Cor. 9:20,21; Matt. 8:9; Rom. 3:19.) We are not just freed from condemnation of the law, but we are free from the law itself, which was the schoolmaster. [Cf. 3:16,19] 5:1-6 - Since we are no longer under the law (5:18), circumcision no longer matters. Those who follow the old law are entangled in a yoke of bondage. Christ profits them nothing and is of no effect to them. They are fallen from grace. Romans 7:1-6 Again the gospel is contrasted with the Old Testament ("the law"). The law showed men they were guilty of sin (3:20,23). This brought condemnation of death (5:12; 6:23), but the law could not permanently remove that guilt. (This does not prove the law was bad, but only that the people were bad - 7:7-24; cf. 7:5.) Nevertheless, God did not want all men lost, so He offered the gospel (1:16). 7:2,3 - Illustration: a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If she marries another man she is an adulteress. She may remarry only if her husband has died. 7:4-6 - Likewise, we are dead to the law and delivered from it, just as the woman was released from the law of the first husband (v2). Note that we are not just free from the condemnation of the law or traditions about it, but we are free from the law itself. [cf. 6:14] Just as the woman could then be joined to a different man, we are now joined to Christ. We are not to follow both the Old Testament and the law of Christ at the same time. To do so would be spiritual adultery like the woman having two husbands at once! We have a different law, just as the woman has "another man." Ephesians 2:12-16 Gentiles had formerly been separated from the covenant relationship enjoyed by the Israelites. By His death, Jesus made peace between Jew and Gentile. To achieve this, He had to abolish the law of commandments that was a wall of partition between Jew and Gentile. It had been given only to the Jews and thus signified their favored position. To grant favor to men of every nation, God had to remove that law (cf. Gal. 3:28; Acts 10:34,35; Matt. 28:19; etc.). If we bind the Old Testament today, we are rebuilding the wall of partition Jesus died to destroy. That would defeat Jesus' death! Colossians 2:13-17 This is a parallel to Ephesians 2. Christ blotted out the handwriting of ordinances and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross. So we should not allow people to condemn us for not keeping the Old Law (v16). (Again the law was "against" men in the sense that it showed they were guilty of sin but could not forgive them.) Matthew 5:17,18 Some say this passage proves the old law is still binding since Jesus did not come to destroy it, but it would stand till heaven and earth pass away. If so, then the whole law still stands since not one jot or tittle would pass away. This includes the law and prophets (v17), even the least commandments (v19) (animal sacrifices, circumcision, etc.). Yet we have earlier proved that many things were removed. Hence this passage cannot prove the law is still in effect. The parallel in Luke 16:17 shows that "till heaven and earth pass away" means "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away." So it would be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the law to pass away "till all be fulfilled" (v18). But Jesus came to fulfill it! So the law passed away when Jesus fulfilled it. (Cf. Matt. 24:34). A contract can be rendered void in one of two ways: illegally by destroying it (as by tearing it up), or legally by fulfilling it. For example, if you hire me to build a house for a price, it would be illegal for you or me to destroy the contract. But if we fulfilled the contract (I build the house and you pay me), it would no longer be binding. Likewise, Jesus did not come to destroy the law (remove it contrary to its provisions). But He did come to fulfill it and replace it, completely in harmony with the provisions of the law itself. He did fulfill the law (Luke 24:44-47; Acts 13:29). Therefore, it passed away! All Old Testament laws passed away for the same reason animal sacrifices, circumcision, etc., passed away. God gave them to accomplish a purpose for the nation of Israel. They accomplished that purpose, so God removed them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part II: Is Any Part of the Old Testament Law Binding Today? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some people agree that many Old Testament laws are no longer in effect, but they still bind some of these laws such as the Sabbath, tithing, or instrumental music. Let us consider this approach. A. Consider Some Possible Rules for Distinguishing What Is Binding from What Is Not. We have learned that the Old Covenant has ceased to be binding. That should include all Old Testament practices unless it can be shown by the Scriptures that God intended for certain laws to continue. So people have offered some rules for proving that certain laws are still in effect but others are not. Let us consider these rules. "Law of God" vs. "Law of Moses"; "Moral law" vs. "Ceremonial" Some say the Ten Commands (including the Sabbath) are the "Law of God," the "Moral law" (or "spiritual law"), and this is still binding. But the other Old Testament commands are the "Law of Moses," or the "Ceremonial law," and these were removed. However: What Scriptural proof is there that these distinctions in laws are valid? How do we know that what was done away includes only the law of Moses or ceremonial law, but not the law of God, etc.? How do we know what laws are included in the law of God (moral law) and what laws are not? (Note that the terms "moral law" and "ceremonial law" are nowhere mentioned in the Bible.) Some say the Sabbath must continue today because it was one of the Ten Commands, the "moral" "Law of God." But the Sabbath is also repeated in parts of the Old Testament other than the Ten Commands (Ex. 31:13ff, etc.), and it is listed with laws and feast days that have been done away (see Lev. 23:1-44; 19:3&30). Why doesn't this prove the Sabbath was done away as part of the "ceremonial" "Law of Moses"? Wherein is the Sabbath any less "ceremonial" than these other feasts and Sabbath rests? Further, modern Sabbath-keepers usually also practice Old Testament tithing, instrumental music, and even dietary laws. These laws are not in the Ten Commands, nor are they any more "moral" in nature than other "ceremonial" laws that have been done away. Hence, these folks violate their own rule and contradict themselves. Actually, the Bible shows that the law of God and the law of Moses are just different terms for the same law. Further, the law of God included things that have clearly been done away. For example: Nehemiah 8 refers to the "book of the law," and calls it the book of the law of Moses (v1) and the book of the law of God (v8,18). God commanded it by Moses (v14), so both terms refer to the same law. Luke 2:21-24,39 - The law of Moses (v22) is called the law of the Lord (v23,24,39). This law included a purification rite and animal sacrifices. These were clearly done away (cf. Lev. 12:2-8). Hence, the law of the Lord is the same as the Law of Moses, and it contains things that were done away. In 2 Chron. 31:2-4 the law of God included animal sacrifices, new moons, and feast days, which we know were done away. There is no distinction between the law of God and the law of Moses. It was both God's law because He originated it, and Moses' law because he revealed it (Neh. 10:29). This whole distinction is a man-made rule having no Divine sanction (Matt. 15:9; 2 John 9-11). Laws given before Sinai vs. laws given at Sinai Some say Jesus abolished the laws that were given at Sinai, but laws given before Sinai were never abolished (including the Sabbath, which they say was given at creation - Gen. 2:2,3). Again, where does the Bible say that laws given before Sinai are still binding? There are many commands that were first given before Sinai but are not now binding. This includes animal sacrifices (Gen. 4:4; 8:20; etc.), circumcision (Gen. 17:9-14), the Passover (Ex. 12), and unclean animals (Gen. 7:2). Further, there is no proof that God bound the Sabbath on men from creation. No passage mentions Noah, Abraham, Jacob, or any patriarch keeping the Sabbath. Ezek. 20:10-12 says God gave Israel the Sabbath as a sign between Him and them when He led them out of Egypt, and Deut. 5:15 says it was a memorial of that event (cf. Neh. 9:13,14; Ex. 31:13-17). How could it be a sign between Him and one nation if everyone since creation had the same sign? How could it be a memorial of an event before that event occurred? Gen. 2:3 says only that God Himself rested on the seventh day, then it says that is why He blessed and sanctified it. But it does not tell when He began to require men to keep it, nor who was required to keep it. Remember this was written by Moses many years after Israel left Egypt and had been given the Sabbath. He mentions the Sabbath in connection with Creation so men would see the purpose of it, not necessarily to explain when people began to keep it. Similar language is found in Gen. 3:20 and Matt. 10:4. Everlasting laws vs. other laws. Some say the Sabbath is still in effect because Ex. 31:16,17 says it was to be kept "forever," "everlasting," "perpetual." But this passage also says the Sabbath was a sign only between God and Israel, so why bind it today on other people? And this "everlasting" law required people to be killed for violating it. If the law is still in effect today, the punishment must also be in effect. To fail to keep any part of the law is to admit the law is not binding. The Hebrew terms "forever," "everlasting," etc., do not necessarily mean a thing has no end. This is proved by many other practices which God said were "forever," but which definitely have ceased. Examples are: the Passover (Ex. 12:14); incense (Ex. 30:8); feast days (Lev. 23:14,21,31,41); animal sacrifices (Lev. 16:29-34; 6:19-23; 2 Chron. 2:4); Levitical priesthood (Ex. 40:15; 29:9,26-28; 28:40-43; Num. 25:13; Deut. 18:5); tabernacle worship (Ex. 27:21; 30:8,17-21; Lev. 24:5-9); circumcision (Gen. 17:9-14); all God's commands (Psa. 111:7; 119:151,152,160). If these practices could cease though they were "forever," why cannot the Sabbath have ceased? "Forever" in these passages means something would last an indefinite period of time - "age lasting." The context of Ex. 31:13,16 defines this further to mean "throughout Israel's generations." This expression proves these practices, including the Sabbath, have all ceased because Israel's generations as God's chosen nation have ceased (see notes above). All attempts to bind parts of the Old Testament today are doomed to fail. We will confirm this conclusion as we proceed. B. The Verses Already Studied Prove that All the Law Was Removed, Including the Ten Commands. Let us review the passages we used earlier to show the Old Testament was removed. We will show how each one proves that even the Ten Commands and the Sabbath were removed. Hebrews chapters 7-10 Jesus took away the covenant which God made with Israel when He led them out of Egypt (8:9; 10:9,10). This covenant is viewed as one covenant, the first covenant (8:7,13; 9:1,15,18; 10:9). It was not two covenants, one removed and the other remaining. What did this first covenant include? Hebrews 9:18-20 - The first covenant was dedicated by blood and included every command spoken by Moses. Ex. 24:3-8 explains more fully and shows this included all the words the Lord spoke (v3,4,7), including the Ten Commands given in Ex. 20:3-17. Hebrews 9:1-4 - The covenant which was removed included the tables of the covenant inside the ark of the covenant. This clearly means the Ten Commands - Ex. 34:27,28; Deut. 4:13; 5:2,22; 9:9,11. 2 Corinthians 3:6-11 The old covenant would "pass away," in contrast to the new covenant that would "remain." The covenant that would pass away was written and engraved on stones (v7). But this means the Ten Commands, as shown in the verses above. Further, Moses' face shone so he had to wear a veil when he delivered this law (v7,13). But Ex. 34:27-35 shows this happened when he delivered the Ten Commands. So the old covenant that passed away included the Ten Commands. Galatians chapters 3-5 The law brought men to Christ, but we are no longer under that law (3:24,25; 5:4). Which law? The one given 430 years after the promise to Abraham (3:17). Ex. 12:41 shows this was when Israel left Egypt. Hence, this is the one covenant given at Mt. Sinai (Gal. 4:24), which we have already proved includes the Ten Commands. The law removed includes "all things written in the book of the Law" (3:10). But Hebrews 9:18-20 and Ex. 24:3-8 showed that this included the Ten Commands. If we bind part of the law, we are debtors to keep the whole law (5:3). The law is a whole. You cannot take part and leave part. You must take it all or none. If we take it, we fall from grace (5:2,3,4). Romans 7:1-7 We are discharged from the law like a woman is freed from a dead husband. So it is spiritual adultery to try to practice both the old law and the law of Christ. From what law are we freed? The one that commands "Thou shalt not covet" (v7). But this is one of the Ten Commands. Hence, we are free from the Ten Commands. Ephesians 2:11-18 Jesus abolished the law that was a wall of partition between Jew and Gentile. We already showed that this law included the Ten Commands, which were a wall between Jew and Gentile because God gave them to the Jews but not the Gentiles. Likewise, the Sabbath was a sign of God's special relation with Israel (Ex. 31:13-17). Had Jesus left the Ten Commands or the Sabbath in effect, He would have left a barrier between Jew and Gentile. To accomplish His purpose, He had to remove the Sabbath and the Ten Commands. Colossians 2:13-17 Jesus removed the ordinances, so we need not keep the laws regarding foods, holy days, or the Sabbath (2:16). But the Sabbath was one of the Ten Commands. Hence, all the Old Testament laws were removed, including the Ten Commands and the Sabbath. Some claim "Sabbath" here refers only to the annual feast days because the Greek word is plural. However "Sabbath" in the plural often refers to the seventh day: Ex. 31:13; Luke 4:16; 23:54; Acts 13:14; 16:13; Matt. 24:20; etc. In Matt. 12:1-14 and Luke 13:10-17, the plural and singular forms are used interchangeably referring to the seventh day. The Greek Septuagint uses the plural in the Ten Commands in Ex. 20:8 and Deut. 5:12 just like Col. 2:16. The New Testament refers to the Sabbath 59 times. Not one of these instances can be shown to exclude the seventh-day Sabbath. In fact, Col. 2:16 lists the Sabbath separately from the new moons and the feast days purposely to specify the seventh day in addition to the feast days. This is exactly like the Old Testament verses 1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4; 8:13; 31:3; Neh. 10:33; and Ezek. 45:17. Col. 2:14-16 specifically identifies the Sabbath as a practice that has been blotted out. People today must not require us to keep the dietary laws, the holy days, or the seventh-day Sabbath. Matthew 5:17,18 Jesus fulfilled the law so that it passed away. What did this include? It included the law and the prophets, every jot and tittle. Clearly that includes the Ten Commands and the Sabbath. There is no proof that any part of the law is binding now. The law was a unit and could not be partly removed. Jesus had to remove it all. We cannot go to the Old Law to authorize any practice now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part III: What Law Should We Obey Now? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some people ask, "If the 10 Commands were removed, wouldn't that make it all right to steal, lie, murder, etc.?" So consider what the Bible says about the law we today should follow. A. Today We Must Obey the New Testament. The reason the Old Covenant is not needed now is that Jesus replaced it with a different covenant, the gospel. Hebrews 10:9,10 - Jesus took away the first will that He might establish the second. (cf. Heb. 8:6-9; 7:22; 2 Cor. 3:6) Romans 7:4 - We are freed from the law to be joined to Christ. Galatians 3:24-27 - We are not under the schoolmaster (old law) because now the gospel faith has come (cf. 1:11,12). An illustration: The area we now call the United States was once ruled by Britain, then it was under the Articles of Confederation, and now we are under the Constitution. Likewise God provided for man first the patriarchal rule, then the laws at Sinai, and now the gospel or New Testament. We are no more subject to the Old Testament laws than we are to the Articles of Confederation. This change occurred as a result of the death of Jesus. Colossians 2:14 - He nailed the first ordinances to His cross. Ephesians 2:13-16 - He abolished the old law by His blood. Hebrews 9:16,17 - As with any will or testament, Jesus had to die to bring His testament into force. The old law was in effect until Jesus died, then it was replaced by the gospel. (Cf. Gal. 3:13; Rom. 7:4) This New Testament contains commands we must obey. Matthew 28:18-20 - Jesus possesses all authority so we must obey all His commands. 1 Corinthians 14:37 - The gospel contains the commands of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 9:20,21 - Though Paul was not under the law of the Jews, he was not without law but was under law to Christ. James 1:18,25 - The gospel is the perfect law of liberty, by which we will be judged (John 12:48; cf. 1 Pet. 1:22-25; Rom. 6:17,18; Acts 3:20-23; Isa. 2:1-4). God did not remove the old law so that we might be without law but so that we would serve Him under the terms of the New Testament. There are commands for us to obey, but these are the commands of the New Testament, not those of the Old Testament. The New Testament will never be replaced by any law on earth. Even while the Old Testament was in effect, God planned eventually to replace it. Will the New Testament also be replaced by some other system of commands for men on earth? 2 Corinthians 3:6-11 - The first covenant passed away so that it could be replaced by that which remains (does not pass away). Hebrews 12:27,28 (cf. v18-29) - The law given at Sinai was shaken (removed) that it might be replaced by another (the New Testament) which will never be shaken but will remain. The reason the Old Testament had to be replaced was that its sacrifices could not permanently remove guilt. The New Testament has the sacrifice of Jesus, which can remove all sins so they are remembered no more (Heb. 10:1-18; 7:11-28; 8:6-9; 9:11-28; Rom. 1:16; Mark 16:15,16). So there is no reason for God to remove it. Jude 3 - The gospel faith was delivered to the saints once ("once for all" - NKJV, ASV). This word "once" is also used for Jesus' death in contrast to animal sacrifices (Heb. 10:10-14; 7:27; 9:12,25-28). Animals had to be repeatedly offered because they could not permanently remove guilt. Jesus offered the perfect sacrifice that need not be replaced by anything else. Likewise, the gospel is given to men "once." It is God's last word to man. It is so perfect, it will never be changed nor replaced by God while the world stands. B. Some New Testament Commands Are Similar to Old Testament Commands, but Others Are Not. Nine of the Ten Commands are repeated in the New Testament. 1. No God but Jehovah - 1 Cor. 8:4; Acts 14:15 2. No graven images - Gal. 5:19-21; Rom. 1:22,23; 1 John 5:21 3. Don't take God's name in vain - James 5:12 4. Remember the Sabbath. This command is the only one of the ten that is nowhere repeated in the New Testament. The only Sabbath rest promised in the New Testament is eternal life (Heb. 4:9-11). 5. Honor your parents - Eph. 6:2,3 6. Do not kill - Rom. 13:8-10 7. Do not commit adultery - Rom. 13:8-10; 1 Cor. 6:9,10 8. Do not steal - Rom. 13:8-10; Eph. 4:28 9. Do not bear false witness - Rev. 21:8; 22:15; Col. 3:9 10. Do not covet - Rom. 13:8-10; Eph. 5:8. We obey the commands that are repeated in the New Testament, not because they were in the Old Testament, but because they are in the New Testament. Many New Testament practices differ from the Old Testament. OLD TESTAMENT NEW TESTAMENT Animal sacrifices Sacrifice of Jesus (Heb. 10:9ff) Human high priest Jesus is high priest (Heb. 9:11f) Physical temple Spiritual temple (1 Cor. 3:16) Fleshly circumcision Heart circumcision (Rom. 2:28f) Instrumental music (Psa. 150) Singing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) Tithing (Heb. 7:5) Give as prospered (1 Cor. 16:1f) Sabbath & holy days First day (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1,2) Compare Rom. 7:2-6 - A woman is not subject to the authority of two husbands at once. If her first husband dies, the expectations of her second husband may be in some ways different from, and in some ways similar to, those of her first husband. If she does things similar to what she used to, it is because of what the second husband wants, not because of what the first husband wanted. Likewise we are under the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant. The laws are in some ways similar and in some ways different (cf. Heb. 8:9). But none of the requirements of the First Covenant have any power now. Wherein the laws are different, we follow the second covenant, not the first. Wherein the laws are similar, we obey, not because the first law said to, but because the New Covenant says to. C. Specifically Our Special Day of Worship Is the First Day of the Week, Not the Seventh. Many major gospel events occurred on the first day of the week: Jesus arose from the dead (Mark 16:9; Matt. 28:1,6; etc.). Jesus first appeared to prove He had been raised (John 20:19; Mark 16:2,9; Matt. 28:1,6-10; etc.). The Holy Spirit came on the apostles, the gospel was first preached, people first obeyed, and the church began, all on Pentecost, which was a first day of the week (Acts chap. 2; cf. Lev. 23:15,16). All these major events occurred on the first day of the week. What event of major New Testament significance ever occurred on the seventh day of the week? None. It should not surprise us, therefore, to see special significance for the first day of the week in the New Testament church. In the New Testament, Christians took up the collection and met for the Lord's supper on the first day of the week. 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 - The church was commanded to take up the collection on the first day of the week. What passage tells the church to take up collections on the seventh day? Acts 20:7 - The church assembled regularly to have the Lord's supper (Acts 2:42; Heb. 10:25; 1 Cor. 11:17,18,20). When did they do so? On the first day of the week. The time of day is not the issue here but rather the day of the week. The passage says "first day of the week," and cannot possibly mean the "seventh day of the week." Some say "break bread" can refer to a common meal. But the phrase is often used for the Lord's supper (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:23,24; Acts 2:42). We know Acts 20:7 refers to the Lord's supper because the context clearly shows this was a worship assembly. Paul, who preached on this occasion, had already taught that only the Lord's supper, not common meals, should be eaten in the worship assembly (1 Cor. 11:17-34). The significance of the day is also implied by the fact Paul waited 7 says to meet on the first day with the disciples (v6,7). But he was in a hurry (v16), so much so that he left at daylight the next day even though he had been up all night with the church (v11). If the church had met on the seventh day of the week to break bread, Paul could have saved all this trouble and left a day earlier. If the seventh day is the special day for Christian worship, and the first day has no significance, why is the first day mentioned but the seventh day is not? And why did Paul go to so much trouble to meet with the church on the first day? The only day authorized for the New Testament church to have the Lord's supper and the collection is the first day of the week. No passage anywhere in the Bible authorizes the church to do these things on the seventh day. Some claim Jesus and Paul kept the Sabbath. Jesus lived under the Old Testament law (Gal. 4:4), so of course He kept the Sabbath (Luke 4:16; etc.). As we already learned, the law was not removed until He died. He also was circumcised (Luke 2:21), had animals offered for him (Luke 2:22-24), taught others to offer animals (Matt. 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 2:22ff; cf. Lev. 14:1-32), observed feast days (Luke 2:41f; Matt. 26:17ff), and showed great zeal for the physical temple (John 2:13-17). He taught others to observe all things taught by those who sat in Moses' seat (Matt. 23:2,4). Are we today required to do all these because He did them? But there is no evidence that Paul or any other inspired man observed the Sabbath as obedience to Divine commandment after Jesus' death. The passages used to "prove" he did are all referring to assemblies of unconverted Jews (Acts 13:14,42,44; 15:20,21; 16:13; 17:1-3; 18:4f). Not one of these refers to worship of Christians like Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:1,2 refer to on the first day of the week. The passages say Paul attended Jewish synagogues for the purpose of teaching the Jews who had assembled (Acts 13:5,14-16ff,42,44; 14:1; 17:1-3; 18:4,5). Jews kept the Sabbath, as they had for generations (Acts 15:20,21), because they did not believe the Old Testament had been removed. Their assemblies offered Paul an opportunity to teach, but no passage says he thought he was required to observe the Sabbath. We have already cited several verses showing Paul taught that the law, including the Sabbath, is not binding. Using an opportunity to teach is not the same as observing a religious day. Apostles taught other times and places too (Acts 5:42; 17:17,22; 19:9f; 20:7,31). Does this mean we must observe these times and places religiously? If Sabbath-keepers will allow us, we will attend their Sabbath meetings to teach them, but we would not be observing the Sabbath. (If they attended our assembly on Sunday to teach us their views, would that prove they were Sunday keepers?) Sabbath-keepers sometimes belittle our evidence for the first day of the week, but we can see the strength of this evidence when we compare it to the "proof" offered for keeping the seventh day. If Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:1,2 mentioned the seventh day instead of the first day, you can be sure Sabbath-keepers would consider them to be very convincing verses! We do not say the first day of the week is the "Christian Sabbath." A Sabbath is a day of rest and no New Testament passage tells us to rest on any particular day. There is no "Christian Sabbath," but the first day is a special day on which we do acts of worship that are authorized for no other day. For a more detailed study regarding the first day of the week, please go to our Bible Instruction web site at www.gospelway.com/instruct/ and study there our free article about the day for the Lord's Supper. Or see the links at the end of this page below. Conclusion The Bible teaches that the entire Old Testament law was removed by God. None of it is binding today as authority for any religious practice, and that includes the Sabbath and Ten Commands. We now live under the New Testament. Every practice for the church must be authorized by the gospel. If no authority can be found in the gospel for a practice, then it should be abandoned regardless of whether or not it was practiced in the Old Testament. The New Covenant is a better system, having a better hope, and built on better promises (Heb. 7:22; 8:6; 9:23; 7:19). Do not become entangled again in the bondage of the Old Law. Note: Listed below are links to a number of related articles on our web site that you may find helpful. Please check them before returning to our home page.

So far, no one has supported you. Who, in this thread, are you supporting. The problem is that you assume everything from the git go. You have already, as evidenced by your posting style, decided that you are not going to agree, and then you look for ways to support what you have decided beforehand is going to be wrong no matter what. You don't ask questions except in an accusatory fashion. If someone disgrees with you, in your eyes, they are wrong by default. You accuse anyone who disagrees with you, of being a deciever, of followiing the Law of Moses, of denying the Lord, of glorying in the flesh, etc. You look for every way to denigrate any view that you do not agree with. If someone takes issue with your behavior, you imagine you are being "persecuted." It gets really, really old, and quite frankly sidetracks the discussion because we have to stop and deal with your self-imposed persecution complex. First of all, most of that is garbage. I do not go around claiming that I am right and everyone else is wrong. It is just that I know what I believe and why and I can defend it. That is debate. What you call "debate" includes trying to make anyone who disagrees with you look like a disciple of the devil. That is not debate. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. You pose no threat to me whatsoever. What you engage in though, is not "debate." So no, we are NOT even, not by a longshot. Yeah, right... I don't know where you got that nonsense from, but it is a load of tripe. You need to get more reliable sources. Hermeneutics are universal rules of literary analysis that have been around as long as there has been literature. You use them everyday, almost unconciously. You don't read Novels or poetry the same way, do you? Why? Because they are different types of literature, and you can effortlessly change gears when you read a piece of fiction vs. reading something from the local newspaper, because you unconciously, naturally realize that they require different methods of interpretation in order to gain a proper understanding of the author's intent. It is the lack of hermeneutics among most Christians that has been a major reason why Christians can get sucked up into Mormons or Jehovahs Witness cults. 80-90% of converts to the Mormons and JWs come from mainline denominations, Christians who are not skilled in interpretation, and end up falling for the lies of modern cults. Even Muslims are seeing a significant number of converts from Christianity because Christians are unable to defend the Bible adequately to refute the mishandling of the Bible by Muslims. Proper hermeneutics is what keeps a Christian from literally cutting off his right hand if it offends, or literally plucking out his right eye, if it offends him. Proper hermeneutics help us to know when metaphor like these are being used so that we don't do needless harm to ourselves (and there are people dumb enough to do exactly that). Hermeneutics allow us to see the literal meaning behind a figurative or metaphorical device in order understand the truth that author is conveying. Again, something we use in everyday interaction with friends and even in modern literature. The truth is Nana, you really don't know much about hermeneutics, and the fact that you would be so quick to make hermeneutics look a Jewish tactic to reject the gospel only shows that you have done next to no study on the issue, and are really not qualified to render a judgment on the issue. You simply criticize what you don't understand and as always you dont miss a chance to take cheap pot shot the Jews. Got to make sure you get some of that hatred for the Jews in there, don't you? Are you infallible Nana? If not, then you fall into the same category of that which you claim you cannot trust. If you are against listening to anything or anyone who is falliable, then why should anyone listen to or trust you? You are no less human than any of the rest of us. Do you think you corner the market on knowing the Bible infallibly? Are you going to argue that your view is 100% correct at every point on every issue, and there nothing you have said or believe that can possibly be in error? If you cannot make that argument then you have no right to denigrate hermeneutics on the grounds of not being fallible. Actually if you read the Bible, it was the devil who usually grabbed a verse and used it contrary to its intent, such as in Matthew 4 when he tempted Jesus to throw Himself from the pinnacle of the Temple. So far, all you can do is complain about the method. You have yet to offer anything meaningful or substantive to the debate. So far, you have been unable to prove that I have arrived at any wrong conclusions, or that I have led anyone into keeping the Law of Moses. You make a lot of accusations and blow a lot of smoke, but so far, you haven't provided anything that amounts to a real response. There is no reason for you to play the RACE card EVERY TIME we diagree about hermenutics or proper place for Torah.... I would not want your thread, here on "Shiloh's Boards", to get closed because of MY non-compliance to your veiws.... I do not want to learn what you are teaching anyways,you do not teach what I believe Paul was teaching us concerning the M-Law...So I will leave you alone so you can concentrate more fully on teaching your followers...

Shiloh, I am not here to just pick a fight...But I also only reply when I feel the need to step in and support those who I agree with and only if the scriptures support what we are saying...Or when I feel people are being led away from the truth by crafty words... I have noticed you are consistantly insisting that we who hold to our interpretation are wrong and you are right...So how are you different from me, some feel that is picking a fight?? I call it debating, but call it what you will... I understand that you really believe what you teach, but I do not believe alot of what you teach is taught in truth...And,I do not see how the scriptures support your position...So I guess that makes us even... You say we must use proper hermeneutics.... But when I looked into the practice months ago, I learned that the very beginning of it was started 50 or more years after the last eye witness to the ressurection had died...It was started by a jewish man who started a list of (man made) rules on how we are to interpret scripture...I do not know if a church member was preaching something from the scriptures under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit or maybe not inspired, that he did not agree with and felt the need to put an end to it by inventing rules to prevent it... There was many after him that added to the list of rules...Some of the rules may be common sense and maybe some of them hinder the Holy Spirit's work..I do not know for sure, but I do know they cannot be infalliable...I do not trust man made rules concerning the things of God... I do not know those rules, But I wonder if those who teach the way you do, would accuse Paul and Jesus of not using proper hermeneutics.. and accuse them of pulling OT scripture verses(sometimes 1/2 verses) out of there originial contexts and from whom they were addressed to...

So are you saying that, Deut 27:26 is really saying 'Cursed is Every One who does not continue in only all the moral categories written in the book of the law,and to do that which applies to each individual according to their age,gender and social positions'?? Or as Paul sees it in Gal 3:10,12 it is now translated ' cursed is every one who becomes ceremonially circumcized and observes, days,months,times, and years in order to become the seeds of Abraham'... ? Christ became a curse in order to redeem us from the curse of ALL of ONLY the ceremonial categories of the M-Law?? ' The man who becomes ceremonially circumcized is a debtor to do the whole ceremonial category of the M-Law'?? 'The man who does the ceremonial categories of the M-law shall live in them'?? 'Where then serveth the ceremonial categories of the M-Law? It was added because of transgressions,till the Seed should come to whom the promises were made...??' ECT..ECT..ECT... These interpretations may make sense to some who glory in the flesh, and get the warm fuzzies by thinking they can gain some special favor from God by some selfrighteous act of obedience to the M-law...But I am hid in Christ and I have died to the law so I can live for Him and His righteousness is good enough for me, mine are as filthy rags...One good way to make yourself a transgressor is to bring yourself back into bondage to the M-Law inwhich contains the curse or as James( who was NOT given the gospel of grace,Paul's gospel,nor were any of the twelve) says "for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,he is guilty of all."The curses were written by Gods directions,not mine... Any one who thinks they can do it, have at it..the curse does not come from doing it,It comes from NOT doing ALL of it moral,ceremonial and the other category, for those who hold the three category position..(that which applies to your gender,age and social position of course).... Christ was male but still obeyed the whole M-Law perfectly without being bound to the female sections of the law..That is quite a silly position to hold to..don't you think?? Or are you implying that He did not obey the whole law perfectly?? The M-Law given to the Israelites and the instructions given to the Church by direct revelation from Christ are NOT one and the same... The Church is clearly instructed in Paul's epistles to abstain from sexual immorality,fornication,lust,adultry,homosexuality,lying,stealing,drunkeness,lazi ess ect... I do not have a problem with knowing we are to obey the Spirit and not our flesh...But I strongly disagree that we can and should divide the M-Law/Torah into categories with out the athuority to do so...It was given as a whole and it remains as a whole in my veiw..Unless you can Show me the verses.. Another myth appearing on this thread is God is some what satisfied with imperfection...by shooting for the mark of keeping the M-Law perfectly.....I have never seen the verse that says we can merely shoot for the mark concerning to M-Law....Maybe it was contained in the oral part of the M-Law and that is why the pharisees were so selfrighteous, they thought that they were good enough by shooting for the mark...humm.. That not only denies the reality of the need for perfect obedience unto death, by Christ on our behalf... It also denies the intent and purpose of the M-Law to be given in the first place... From Adam to Moses sin was in the world but was not imputed because there was no law... If God would not have saved a remenant they would have all been like Sodom and Gamorrah.... It was added because of transgressions(without it,one would think that they are a good person, not a sinner in need of a Savior)..the letter killeth.. It was added UNTIL the Seed should come to whom the promises were made... It concluded all to be sinners and was to bring us to faith in Christ...

Shiloh, What you say may make total sense to many, but God's ways are not our ways...Besides, it tells me nothing of the CURSE in Deut. 27:26 as Paul quoted in Gal. 3:10...What does this verse have to do with not becoming a Jew and being circumcized?? "CURSED IS EVERY ONE THAT CONTINUETH NOT IN ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW/TORAH TO DO THEM'... What scriptures support your theory that the M-Law/Torah can be dispensed into different catagories??....God would not leave such a serious matter in our human hands without at least unveiling such an exsistance in the scriptures.... According to this avenue of thinking, there would be no danger in removing some of the ALL/jots and tittles, written book of the law..and interpretation would be in the eye of the beholder...NOW THATS A SCAREY THOUGHT... God has given us instructions on how we are to live as members of the Body of Christ, in the dispensation of grace given to Paul in his epistles...But the dispensation/perscription given for the Israelites, the M-Law, is not that of the same as the dispensation/perscription of grace given after the cross, to bornagain believers in Christ...Two different covenants,two different perscriptions..Just because some of the same ingredients are contained in both, does not mean they are the same perscription... If you can not give a chapter and verse to assure me there is no danger in dividing the M-Law into different catergories..and we may pick and choose what has moral value or not with 100% accuracy, I will have to believe that it is not possibible for us to be doing so...and it is an agenda of your flesh, and not from the Holy Spirit...

I have been reading through this thread and I see many believe the Mosiac Law can be chopped up into two and three catagories... How? I do not know...ALL of the law was given to Moses at Sinai and the first 5 books are called the law of Moses...The Jews do not separate the law as a whole..How can we...(Chapter and Verse??) Jesus said not one jot or tittle was to be removed from the 'law'...sounds like a dangerous thing to be tampering with, by removing certain parts of the M-Law just because some FEEL that it is okay to do so... Duet.27:26 "cursed be he that confirmeth not ALL the words of this law to do them"... Gal.3:10-12 " For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written,cursed is every one that continueth NOT in All things which are written in the book of the law to do them"...v. 12 and the law is not of Faith: BUT the man that doeth them shall live IN THEM... Of course Shiloh would try to convince us that the entire epistle to the Galatians was only addressing circumcision....But I would be very interested in ,just what scriptures give any of us the right/permission to pick and chose just what part of the M-Law, we are ordained to chop off...And what scriptures allow us to teach others that the M-Law can be chopped up into two and three catagories... I'm sure there are plenty of opinions as I have read but I am only interested in the passages that clearly lay out that the OT laws were not considered and to be kept as a whole...And the scriptures that permitt us to remove some of the law given at Sinai and only enforce what we believe to be moral law... Being a sinner by nature, I do not see how I or any other sinner by nature, can decern perfectly,without flaw,just how to divide exactly,which part of the M-Law is obsolete and which sections of 'ALL THE WORDS OF THIS LAW' are to be confirmed and apply to believers by faith, 'TO DO THEM'...And how do we avoid the CURSE of Deut. 27:26, by only keeping the parts we FEEL apply morally??

this one sets off a red flag to me. The only difference was that Paul's gentile audiences had no foundation in the Word of the God of Israel already in place so, yeah, they were taught very differently from people who had the scriptures for 3,000 years previous. The gentiles had to be spoonfed the ancient concepts that framed the gospel first....but ultimately the message was and is still the same. None of the other apostles taught on the "Body Of Christ", that gospel was given only to Paul...Peter was sending his jewish members to be spoonfed Paul's gospel........

Jesus is called 'the Lamb that was slain BEFORE the foundation of the world'.....I read this to say God did know that Adam would fall........I have a difficult time believing that God was not aware of His own creation from beginning to end... Thats just my observation.... Nana

This is cool........ Deut. 6:5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart..... And with all your soul....... And with all your strength.....

In the parable of the lost sheep, I see the only saved one is the one that was LOST...by what is said in verse 7. Do you know ANY ONE who does not need repentance?? Not me...The 99 are selfrighteous people who don't recognize their that they are lost... He came to seek and save that which was lost....

I must admit that I cringe every time I read or hear where an American Christian claims to be persecuted. We are the dominant religion in the United States. We are not being persecuted. We enjoy more freedom in our beliefs than probably any other Christian society in the history of Christianity. There is every bit, if not much more, as much vitriol and demonization by American Christians to other groups in America as there is demonization of American Christians. Moreover, it is a slap in the face to Christians who truly do face persecution for American Christians to claim that they are being persecuted. I am reading a book about a Peace Corps Volunteer

Eye opener, but true. But what can we DO? Matt. 5:10-12 "Blessed are those who are pursecuted for righteousness sake, for their's is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they revile and persucute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven"......... John 15:18-25 The World's Hatred " If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you"....

If you thought it was clutter, why did you bother to reply? I don't hunt around looking for clutter to reply on, and if ,which I, have found plenty, I woundn't go in just so I could tell them how stupid there thread was, because there is already one that is simular in content...Where's you manners?? Oh yeah I forgot to say "please" while I was being rude.....Please..do me a favor and don't reply to my clutter..Thank You I did say please dont clutter up the forums. Thank you. I've already cluttered up the whole forum with this one post.... I'm Sorry, what would you have me do about it??Un-post it?? I promise I will never make another thread about OSAS..Deal???

How much eaisier could He have make it ?? Come on, all He needs is a itty, bitty, teeny ,weeny,tiny, speck of faith, the size of a mustard seed to work with...If you got it .......you got it........If you don't ....you don't ...... GOT FAITH?????

If you thought it was clutter, why did you bother to reply? I don't hunt around looking for clutter to reply on, and if ,which I, have found plenty, I woundn't go in just so I could tell them how stupid there thread was, because there is already one that is simular in content...Where's you manners?? Oh yeah I forgot to say "please" while I was being rude.....Please..do me a favor and don't reply to my clutter..Thank You

Good point Sad but true....

It's not as black and white as you are trying to make it out to be. Luke's Gospel Chapter 17 records the words of Jesus that can address this very well; Jesus said to his disciples: It is impossible but that offences will come; but woe unto him, through whom they come! 1. It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than he should offend one of these little ones2. Yes, others, and even those in "the church" can cause others to stumble, sin, and end up in apostasy and keep them from knowing Christ, as the interpretations of the words "offend" and "little ones" show. offend s?a?da??

It's not as black and white as you are trying to make it out to be. Luke's Gospel Chapter 17 records the words of Jesus that can address this very well; Jesus said to his disciples: It is impossible but that offences will come; but woe unto him, through whom they come! 1. It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than he should offend one of these little ones2. Yes, others, and even those in "the church" can cause others to stumble, sin, and end up in apostasy and keep them from knowing Christ, as the interpretations of the words "offend" and "little ones" show. offend s?a?da??

There are those who say Millions of unbelievers are going to hell because we keep them from coming to Jesus. I believe there have been alot of false "guilt trips" placed on believers, that flys in the face of scriptures.... I believe this is saying we have big time power, that we do not have,Only God has that kind of power. This says, that it it possiable for Jesus to have those who are His, snatched out of His hands. John 10:27-30 27."My sheep hear My vioce, and I know them,and they follow Me; 28. And I give unto them eternal life; and they "shall never perish", neither shall "any man" pluck them out of My hand. 29 My Father, which gave them Me, Is Greater than all; and "no man is able to pluck them out of My Father's hand." This says, that some one or thing can separate us from the love of God.Romans 8:31-39 This says, that Jesus has lost some that the Father has given Him. John 6:37-40 37. "All" that the Father giveth Me "shall" come to Me, and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out 38. For I came down from heaven, not to My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39.And this is the Father's will which He has sent Me, that "All" of which He has given Me I should lose "nothing",but should raise it up again in the last day".... Can some one who was given to Jesus,by the Father, go to hell??? Who is responsible for them being there..US?...GOD??...if not then WHO??? Let every man be a liar, and God be true............

I believe that Israel is crying out for help by the fact that they leaked their entire plan. Something is screwy about that... I want to see Israel defeat her enemies as much as the next guy and I continue to pray for their salvation....But one fact I can't overlook is, who does the scriptures say is bringing the nations against Israel?? Isn't it God Himself?? Has anyone else thought about this and what are we to pray in light of this?? God's will be done, right..?? What are your thoughts??

My husband and I are faithful watchers of Hal's reports also, we appreciate the news and prophecy too.He is a sincere brother in Christ and it's too bad that so many don't reconize a brother when they see one.. I feel he really risks his life to preach the truth and I often worry about his safety because of the truth he boldly states in his reports.... I guess some how we were spared the scandal with TBN though..We have been watching him on Angel One channel on Sunday evenings at 8:30. I always program my regular programs on auto-tune. I watch very few things on TBN for the same reasons you mentioned....

RAPTURE BEFORE TRIBULATION Rapture/Blessed Hope----------------------------------------------- Glorious Appearing 1. Christ comes in the air for His own.------------------------------------- 1. Christ comes with His own to earth. 2. Ratpure/ translation of all Christians.------------------------------------ 2. No one translated. 3. Christians taken to the Fathers house.---------------------------------- 3. Ressurrected saints do not see the Fathers house. 4. No judgement on earth at rapture.--------------------------------------- 4. Christ judges the inhabitants of earth. 5. Church taken to Heaven at rapture.-------------------------------------- 5. Christ sets up His kingdom on earth. 6. Rapture imminent/could happen at any moment.--------------- 6. Glorious appearing cannot occur for at least 7 years. 7. No signs for rapture.------------------------------------------------------- 7. Many signs for Christ's physical coming. 8. For believers only.---------------------------------------------------------- 8. Affects all humanity. 9. Time of joy.----------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Time of mourning. 10. Before the Day of Wrath.------------------------------------------------ 10. Immediately after Tribulation. 11. No mention of satan.-------------------------------------------------- 11. Satan bound in Abyss for 1000yrs. 12. The Judgement Seat of Christ.--------------------------------------- 12. No time or place for Judgement Seat. 13. Marriage of the Lamb.------------------------------------------------- 13. His bride descends with Him. 14. Only His own see Him.------------------------------------------------- 14. Every eye will see Him. 15. Tribulation begins.---------------------------------------------------- 15. 1000-year kingdom of Christ begins. Rapture Passages:----------------------------------------------------- Second Coming Passages: John 14:1-3 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dan. 2:44-45;7:9-14;12:1-3 Romans 8:19 -------------------------------------------------------------- Zech. 12:10;14:1-15 1 Cor. 1:7-8;15:51-53;16:22 ------------------------------------------- Matt. 13:41;24:15-31;26:64 Philip. 3:20-21;4:5 ------------------------------------------------------- Mark 13:14-27,62 Col. 3:4 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke 21:25-28 1 Thess. 1:10;2:19;4:13-18;5:9,23 ------------------------------------ Acts 1:9-11;3:19-21 2 Thess. 2:1 -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Thess. 3:13 1 Tim. 6:14 --------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Thess. 1:6-10;2:8 2 Tim. 4:1,8 -------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Pet. 4:12-13 Titus 2:13 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Pet. 3:1-14 Heb. 9:28 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jude 14-15 James 5:7-9 -------------------------------------------------------------- Rev.1:7,19:11-20:6;22:7,12,20 1 Pet. 1:7,13;5:4 1 John 2:28-3:2 Jude 21 Rev. 3:10 Above, are All Quotes from, Revelation Unveiled