KC02

Hebrews 8 is not talking about the Torah. It is talking about the vanishing older covenant. The covenants were how the Torah was administered. The writer of Hebrews is not saying the law is passing away, but that the old system of administration is passing away and a new covenant or administration is now in effect. It is the same Torah, but is observed under a new covenant. The old covenant is thus: keep these commandments and be blessed or don't keep the commandments and be cursed. If I take your stance, that the Law is still to be observed, it would seem logical that Christians today should be circumsized and eat only certain foods and the whole nine yards. Otherwise, you are saying the Law is still to be observed, but we don't really have to observe it, which makes even less sense to me. (Gal 5:1 [KJV]) Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Is Paul talking about the law, or the administration of the Law here? I'm not even sure what you mean by administration of the Law. I guess they are three ways to view the New Covenant. One where Jesus reinterpreted it. One where Jesus simply augmented it. Or a third where we simply have a brand new covenant (based loosely on the OT). At the end of the day, with the New Testament as our guide, I think we agree on most points of doctrine so it's not such a biggee.

I do believe in keeping the ten commandments, as Jesus instructed along with all of the other moral commandments in the NT. I believe if we give some of these other folks an inch, they will have us all lined up for circumcision and kosher foods. They seem to want to hang on to the Law while dipping their big toe into God's grace. KC02, you are confusing me very much, I am going to ask you a very simple question, because I would like to have a very simple answer. Do you believe that the ten Commandments still abide with us? (you said) I spelled out clearly that I believe Christians are to obey the Ten Commandments When I stated that the Law is indivisible, I mean only that we can't divide it into groups. I have met some who insist Christians must obey the "moral" Laws. Whatever that means. But it isn't so. If we fail to keep one of them, we have broken them all. (Dec 21). (Than you said) The only way to obey the Law is to love God and love others like Romans 13:8-10 teaches us. Law keeping can't be done any other way and that is all that is required to keep the Law. ( Dec 23) (Today you said) Scriptures that show the law is fulfilled only by loving our neighbor and Scriptures that show that Christians are no longer under such a system. So, do you believe that we should keep the Ten Commandments or not.

Your theology is a little lopsided because you completely ignore plain Scriptures that show the law is fulfilled only by loving our neighbor and Scriptures that show that Christians are no longer under such a system. You could have added some of these to your list. These are God's words, too, and they help make sense of the New Covenant in relation to the Old. (Heb 8:6 [KJV]) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (Rom 6:14 [KJV]) For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. (Gal 4:21 [KJV]) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, [thou] barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him [that was born] after the Spirit, even so [it is] now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. (Gal 5:18 [KJV]) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. (Gal 6:13 [KJV]) For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. (Jas 2:10 [KJV]) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all. (Gal 5:14 [KJV]) For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Rom 13:10 [KJV]) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

We can certainly agree on that fact, but maybe not it's applicability for today. The only way to obey the Law is to love God and love others like Romans 13:8-10 teaches us. Law keeping can't be done any other way and that is all that is required to keep the Law. See, if I can love you despite your quips, I am blameless to the Law. And sometimes you have to pray about it ...

I would venture to say that most people who claim the law is still valid have no idea what it says. For example the Laws states not to wear clothes of certain thread mixtures. Do you really follow this? The others who mix and match the Law to suit their fancy (obey the ones they like) are totally in error as I have pointed out in past threads. Don't we live by every word that proceeds out of Gods mouth? Or by grace and faith? I myself think that Yod and the rest have done a great job at explaining this subject. Are we to follow Gods laws within the Spirit they are given? for our instructions that leads to righteous living? I guess I must be included in that 'vain and unruly talkers that are out to decieve' since I see Gods torah as everlasting, righteous, good and there for our instructions. Paul was a Jew who followed the law, he walked in the Spirit of the law, he taught others to do so also from what I read. Yet Paul also reinterated what Yeshua Himself made clear, only belief in Him lead to eternal life not following sets of laws laid out by man nor even those given by God, but just because they do not save do not mean they need to be thrown away either. But what does teach us, what does God say leads to righteousness in His eyes, what did God tells us to do but follow all the words that come from Him.

Guile? The only guile here is your contempt for God's grace which shows through every post you have made. You insist the law is still valid; however have yet to speak to "how then should we live?" It is a calculated move on your part because people could immediately see through your religious ideas for what they are. There is nothing new to what you are teaching. Paul dealt with it too. (Titus 1:10 [KJV]) For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped [...]

There is an excellent essay written by written by Dr. Daniel Hays from the Dallas Theological Seminary entitled "Applying the Old Testament Law Today." It is certainly more exhaustive and better explains the role of the Law than I. The article may be found here The essay shows a sort of continuation of the Law, except that Jesus interpreted it differently for the New Covenant. In short, it explains that Jesus is the "final Interpreter of and Authority over the Law." When Paul stated, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that loving our neighbor fulfills the law, that is what God meant (Rom 13:8-10, Gal 5:14, James 2:8). I am going to "throw in" with Jesus' interpretation of the Law, instead of a historical understanding, or modern-day Judaizers. who don't know what they are talking about.

I've never said anything of the sort in my life. I think it went like this: These were the only things "required" because they didn't want to make it difficult on Gentiles and they assumed that the Holy Spirit would convict each person at their own pace since "Moses is read in the synagogue every Sabbath" I guess I read food laws into this. You were referring to the law. If God convicted people of not obeying the law, He would be putting us back under it. Also "they" didn't assume anything. These words were inspired by God. God has no reason to assume anything at all.

In another thread we discussed the applicability of the Law to Christians. I am dismayed at the lack on consensus on such a fundamental issue. Barring the Ten Commandments, the Law is not binding to Christians today. While St. Paul's has some complex sayings about the Law, the basics are simple: Paul taught that the Law was temporary and Christ ushered in the New Covenant. The Old Covenant was for a specific people and a specific time. (2 Cor 3:7 - 13) (Background see Jer 31:33 & 32:40 concerning the prophecy of the New Covenant) Paul described the Law as a paidagogos, a Greco-Roman slave whose responsibilities was to teach, protect, and discipline the children. Thus Paul is again spelling out the temporary nature of the Law (Gal 3:23). The Law, including dietary requirement (Rom 14:1), Sabbath keeping (Col 2:16) and circumcision (Gal 6:15) were no longer required for Christians to keep.These requirements were the core of the Law. Can we learn about God in the OT? Of course. Is it full of knowledge and wisdom? Indeed. In fact, you may pick out any law that you wish to observe, but it is not necessary. We can't get to heaven obeying a list of do's and don'ts or religious rituals. If we don't get to heaven by faith in Christ, we aren't going; there is no back door to heaven. (John 3:16 [KJV]) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Of course I could go on for miles, but I think this is sufficient for a topic starter, especially if you have an attention span like mine sometimes.

This is how I see it, for what it's worth: When Paul used the word ekklesia, he had in mind the assembly that gathered at Mt Sinai. It's just an assembly that worshiped God and that God would be present in... a covenant people. I'm certain that Paul never considered an all gentile church. There is something absurd about such a thought. While initially all Jewish, the assembly was opened up to include anyone who would repent of their sins and believe in Jesus. I consider myself apart of that assembly that is under a covenant relationship with God. I don't see a dichotomy between the church and the original assembly despite being under a new covenant. I have no qualms disagreeing with theologians either, especially when their claims hang by a hair as in this case.

I'm not intellectually lazy. That is the reason why I asked you to spell out what you believed about following the Law... to have a conversation about it. You may feel that you have spelled it out, but I have read it all twice. You have made some false statements about God convicting people of what foods they eat (because Moses was being preached). You pulled that claim from thin air. I would like to see the big picture of what you believe. Instead you have attacked me. Are you afraid to state publicly what you believe about the Law? I can't read your mind and I can't make heads or tails from your various claims posted in this thread.

You have only raised conspiracy theories and quoted a few verses. Any verse with the word "Law" in it appears to be fair game. In this thread alone, you have called me ignorant and now "dense." Fine. Can I point out the cure for conspiracy theorists is often medication and knowledge? You seem to be fresh out of both. How dense can one be? I only posted that about 10 times in this one thread alone. It's pointless talking to someone who plugs their ears and closes their eyes. That's what you're doing to the Word of God if you reject the wisdom found in the Torah. Have fun with that.

Well you haven't said anything I can pin down so far. What exactly do you believe about the Law? Can you spell it out for me? I don't put too much stock into wild conspiracy theories. The Jehovia Witnesses insist that Constantine changed the Bible and now they are the only true ones who can know God's Word. I think I have heard all of this before... Shall 4th Century Romans decide what is right and true by virtue of owning Latin manuscripts of Greek books that were translated from people originally speaking hebrew? Do you ascribe to them the final authority because they have now formed a specifically christian religious institution separated from Israel and made themselves the "vicars of christ" (Voice of God) at the top of an institution they created called "The Church" ??? Or can we actually trust the written Word of God over them? Hmmmm.... Most of the people who gave you this greco-theological interpretation of the Newer Covenant were nothing more than humanist philosophers that simply changed the definitions of words and "viola!" they are sitting on top of you, laity, who are now bound by God to accept and obey their Councils and theologies, and commentaries, and ordinances and decrees and precepts and ALL THE THINGS that you refuse to accept from God Himself in the Torah. I don't follow the "jesus" who is simply zeus pretending to be christ. He is no greater to me than the Jesus who owns a tire shop in West Dallas.

The Bible makes the distinction between these two; the Decalogue is being distinct and totally unique because of its divine authorship; He didn't ask Moses to write them for Him, He wanted to write them Himself, while the other ones written by Moses. Lets read: Deuteronomy 4:13,14. "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone 14 "And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess. Please notice how Moses clearly separated the ten commandments, which "he commanded you," from the statutes which "he commanded me" to give the people. [...] Thank you for your elegant reply. I don't disagree with any of it. In fact, I spelled out clearly that I believe Christians are to obey the Ten Commandments (at the bottom of my last post). When I stated that the Law is indivisible, I mean only that we can't divide it into groups. I have met some who insist Christians must obey the "moral" Laws. Whatever that means. But it isn't so. If we fail to keep one of them, we have broken them all.

These are the two "commandments" Paul gave. Anything else is Judaizing. That shows quite a bit of ignorance concerning the Law. One thing about the Law is that is is indivisible. We can't split it up into "food" laws and "moral" laws and so on. We will either have to wholeheartedly follow the whole Law or otherwise believe that Jesus has made a better way. (Jas 2:10 [KJV]) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all. We should certainly reject being Judiazed. Christians have been debating the role of the Law for 2,000 years. One thing is clear: we are no longer under the Law. That simply isn't correct interpretation of the point. He says we will not be judged under the law if we live by the Spirit. Small but important distinction because the way you translate that sentence causes every other place where Shaul (Paul) speaks about the Law a contradiction of itself For my part you are welcome to keep the Law as you see fit. Keep the whole thing if you like. I think we both agree that it isn't necessary for salvation. From your post you seem wishy-washy. I can only imaging how much confusion you bring to new believers. I can't tell how much of the Law you think we should keep today. Not including the ten commandments. I believe the rest of the Law is not necessary to observe.

These are the two "commandments" Paul gave. Anything else is Judaizing. As Christians we need to reject it in no uncertain terms. If some Jewish people in the 1st century wanted to continue to observe holy days and such, that was fine. However to put Christians in bondage to the Law in the 21st century is inexcusable. St. Paul taught that we are not under the law if we are led by the Spirit (born again -- saved) (John 4:24 [KJV]) God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

(Jas 5:16 [KJV]) Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Why are we so afraid to confess our faults? I think everyone is holding back. It's almost laughable. Everyone has addictions or something we wrestle over and over again with. I think it means we are human.

I think we have a full plate when we attempt to live a Christian life without the law. Why bog yourself down? Are you really prepared to take one whole year off every seven years as the law required? Do you even know what the Law required? You are being Judaized and you should reject these teachings and people who try to bring you back under the Law. (Gal 5:18 [KJV]) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

I have a thought... in the form of a question. (Luke 23:43 [KJV]) And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Did Jesus go to heaven on that day? (Matt 12:40 [KJV]) For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Jesus didn't return to heaven until after His resurrection and after He appeared to His followers. I forget exactly how many days ...

Yeah that is the kind I like, but these money beggars ought to be ran outta town. From the outside it appears that: 1) You must beg for money in order for a "ministry" to be financially viable 2) TBN gets a cut of the money and only the highest profit "preachers" get air time In any case, I am a southern charismatic Christian and I can't stand 90 percent of TBN.

I can't figure out why only a few good preachers can get on there. Most are shenanigans and it's all about money.

Yes but it doesn't mean that only you and four others will make it to heaven. There is no telling the people we will meet in heaven. I can't wait!

Ultimately it means that eating "swine" is OK under grace. Paul is saying that if you don't like bacon there is something wrong with you. Seriously. I think you got it 110%. You understand it correctly. We are not under any of the Law except to love God and our neighbor. So go grab a BLT!

I agree with "none of the Law" except to love God and your neighbor as Jesus described in Mat 22:36. Thus, we fulfill the entire Law. Paul had to deal with this very question often. The Jewish and Gentile converts didn't see eye-to-eye concerning the keeping of the Law. So let's see what Paul said: circumcision: (1Cor 7:18 [KJV]) Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. (19) Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. forbidden foods & keeping the feasts: check Romans 14 also (Col 2:16 [KJV]) Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: The only food forbidden in the NT was meat that has been sacrificed to idols. Interestingly, in Paul's day some kept the holydays and some didn't. Paul didn't forbid it. You can do it, but it simply isn't required. I just finished a book on Jewish holidays. It gave a wonderful description of how entire communities would honor God in the holidays. The holidays gave the people a sense of God's presence and reminded them of God's grace. It's pretty much what communion does for Christians I think.

I think your question answers your question Communion is a time for self examination and to remember and refocus on Jesus. I'm not certain how many feel they are "worthy" but I never have. I always see the reality that I need more and more of God's grace in my life. Perhaps that's what it's all about. My question is...how could anyone think they are worthy?