Under the law

[Ezra]

4 hours ago, firestormx said:

Our salvation, our holiness, and our morality are in Jesus Christ.

And that is precisely how the Ten Commandments become the Law of Christ, which says that "LOVE is the fulfilling of the Law". Anyone who seeks to return to Moses after Christ places himself in opposition to God and Christ. Hence the warnings in the epistle to the Hebrews.

[enoob57]

The distinction of OT law and NT love is that we no longer have the need for it to be outwardly written- as inwardly we are motive, motivated, in love to Our Lord... one must rightly divide the Word of Truth because if it isn't divided out properly you have confusion in right thinking... For we are told to have this

Romans 12:2 (KJV)

[2] And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

1 Corinthians 2:16 (KJV)

[16] For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Love, Steven

[Guest Teditis]

9 hours ago, inchrist said:

Judaism the rabbinical laws are not the same thing as the Mosaic Laws which are Gods laws.

Remember there were three sects during this time: Pharisees, Sadducees and the Essenes who each had their own Judaism laws.

When I said Judaism I meant any part of that religion... but in response to your query, I also meant the Mosaic Laws.

[Qnts2]

On 11/24/2016 at 0:27 AM, inchrist said:

Ok then we would have to pretend the israelites didnt go into a covenant with the golden calf...and Moses didnt smash up the marriage covenant, to only plead for God for atonement and not blot out Israel but to rather blot out Moses as a scapegoat.

Qnts in all seriousness if you caught your husband or wife sleeping with another man or woman and you go get your marriage certificate and rip it up in front of your husband or wife after catching your wife or husband committing adultery, what do you think thay could possibly signify?

Unfortunately Qnts2 your actually caught in a bit of problem...in order for you to maintain your position the Mosaic Law is not carried over into the NT you have to refuse that Christ followed the exact patterns as Moses when it came to the covenant and the renewal of it.

We would have to ignore the teachings that we are to uphold the Mosaic Law in the NT

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the Towrah(law) through faith? Elohiym forbid: yes, we establish the Towrah (law).

We would have to deny Christs continual work to fullfil the Mosaic Law in the NT

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

Not all has been fulfilled. And Christ said fulfilled not destroyed not to be made obsolete.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

How is Christ to fulfill the Mosaic Law if it is not carried over into the NT?

In order to maintain your position you would have to deny that the Mosaic Law in stone tablets or in ink has not changed into a different form into fleshy tables of the heart (2nd Corinthians 3:3), still the same law just in a different form.

You would have to out right deny that the Mosaic Law has NOT been written on our hearts.

 You would have to show what Other Law then is given to us that has been written in our Hearts...you would then have to show another gospel.

We would have to in all honesty then rebuke Paul for when he was accused to not be following the Mosiac law

In order to make an open display of his faithfulness to the Torah, Paul shaved his head and did a purification ritual according to the Mosaic Law.

What possible message can this send...do as we say...not as we do?

Then QNTS2 in all honesty we must rebuke Paul for carrying the Mosaic Law over into the NT.

Thats two feasts out four Spring Feasts, or two feasts out of Seven Feasts...in all honesty, thats pretty pathetic not enthusiastic.

 

 

 

Let's start very simply with the Mosaic covenant given first at Mt. Sinai. That covenant was given to the children of Israel, not the Church and not Gentiles.

When dealing with the New Testament, at first, the New Covenant was offered to Israel, which was under the Mosaic covenant prior to the New Covenant. Jesus, born a Jew, was born obligated to the Mosaic covenant. Therefore by the Mosaic covenant, Jesus was obligated to the Mosaic law as a Jew, so it should be absolutely no surprise that Jesus observed the Mosaic law as a Jew. That would not give any hint that the Mosaic law carried forward into the New Covenant, which was already prophesied to be different then the Mosaic covenant. Since Jesus died to establish the New Covenant, that further establishes that He was no longer under the Mosaic covenant since death is the end of any obligation to the Mosaic covenant. Jesus had fulfilled the Mosaic law by observing it perfectly while living until death.

The Mosaic covenant was not written on our heart when accepting Jesus. The law written on hearts is the Holy Spirit guiding us into the New Covenant, which is not the Mosaic covenant.

When Paul lived, the Temple was in existance with the Priesthood and the law of Jerusalem was the Mosaic law. Paul as a Jewish person was to obey the laws of the land (Jerusalem). All Jewish people who lived in Jerusalem or while visiting Jerusalem had to obey the laws of Jerusalem. The Mosaic law set up a government and court system, from the Mosaic covenant, so in Jerusalem the law in Jerusalem was the Mosaic law while the Priesthood, Temple and court system existed (as granted by the Roman empire). The best way to explain this might be, while visiting England from the U.S., a visitor has to observe the required laws of England as a visitor, not the U.S. laws. The laws in Jerusalem applied to Jewish people, with only a small subset applying to Gentiles. Gentile Christians were not obligated to the full set of the laws of Jerusalem. Some thought Gentile Christians should be circumcised, becoming Jews and obligated to the full law, but there are sufficient evidence of the opposition of Gentile Christians becoming circumcised. 

The Mosaic covenant is not divisible, so as soon as you eliminate ritual circumcision, you have altered the Mosaic covenant, which is a second violation of the law,and on and on. In the Mosaic covenant, a Jewish people was not to marry a Gentile. If the Mosaic law was still in effect in the New Covenant, no Jewish person could marry a Gentile, and by extension no Gentile could marry a Jewish person without violating the Mosaic law. Yet the New Covenant as expressed in the New Testament states a person should marry a person of like spirit, altering the Mosaic covenant and therefore making the New Covenant different and not the same laws or covenant.      

[Truth Seeker]

8 hours ago, Qnts2 said:

Let's start very simply with the Mosaic covenant given first at Mt. Sinai. That covenant was given to the children of Israel, not the Church and not Gentiles.

When dealing with the New Testament, at first, the New Covenant was offered to Israel, which was under the Mosaic covenant prior to the New Covenant. Jesus, born a Jew, was born obligated to the Mosaic covenant. Therefore by the Mosaic covenant, Jesus was obligated to the Mosaic law as a Jew, so it should be absolutely no surprise that Jesus observed the Mosaic law as a Jew. That would not give any hint that the Mosaic law carried forward into the New Covenant, which was already prophesied to be different then the Mosaic covenant. Since Jesus died to establish the New Covenant, that further establishes that He was no longer under the Mosaic covenant since death is the end of any obligation to the Mosaic covenant. Jesus had fulfilled the Mosaic law by observing it perfectly while living until death.

The Mosaic covenant was not written on our heart when accepting Jesus. The law written on hearts is the Holy Spirit guiding us into the New Covenant, which is not the Mosaic covenant.

When Paul lived, the Temple was in existance with the Priesthood and the law of Jerusalem was the Mosaic law. Paul as a Jewish person was to obey the laws of the land (Jerusalem). All Jewish people who lived in Jerusalem or while visiting Jerusalem had to obey the laws of Jerusalem. The Mosaic law set up a government and court system, from the Mosaic covenant, so in Jerusalem the law in Jerusalem was the Mosaic law while the Priesthood, Temple and court system existed (as granted by the Roman empire). The best way to explain this might be, while visiting England from the U.S., a visitor has to observe the required laws of England as a visitor, not the U.S. laws. The laws in Jerusalem applied to Jewish people, with only a small subset applying to Gentiles. Gentile Christians were not obligated to the full set of the laws of Jerusalem. Some thought Gentile Christians should be circumcised, becoming Jews and obligated to the full law, but there are sufficient evidence of the opposition of Gentile Christians becoming circumcised. 

The Mosaic covenant is not divisible, so as soon as you eliminate ritual circumcision, you have altered the Mosaic covenant, which is a second violation of the law,and on and on. In the Mosaic covenant, a Jewish people was not to marry a Gentile. If the Mosaic law was still in effect in the New Covenant, no Jewish person could marry a Gentile, and by extension no Gentile could marry a Jewish person without violating the Mosaic law. Yet the New Covenant as expressed in the New Testament states a person should marry a person of like spirit, altering the Mosaic covenant and therefore making the New Covenant different and not the same laws or covenant.      

You start out with the statement that the covenant was given to Israel not the church and not the gentiles which is not exactly correct. First you say not the church as if it is separate from Israel. It is not. It is an extension of Israel. Remember in Romans 11 Paul talks about the gentile being grafted in? He was talking about the gentile being grafted in to Israel. Many Christians act like Israel has to be grafted in to the church, all of which comes from the errant replacement theology.

Exodus 12:49New International Version (NIV)

⁴⁹ The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”

God has always been available to the gentile as long as the gentile came and followed the same law.

As for Jesus and the law, He said in Matthew chapter 5 till Heaven and earth pass away that not a jot or tittle would pass from the law. Have they passed away?

Next you try to make the case that Paul was just following the law while in Jerusalem because that was the law of the land and he was bound to do so. Sorry, totally incorrect. Study the book of Acts. In chapter 21 Paul is encouraged by James to help four men who had taken the Nazarite  vow. The Nazarite vow is a voluntary part of the Torah Paul would not have been required to do it by law. It also shows that Paul had taken the vow. It also shows that James was asking Paul to do this to show the Jews that Paul was NOT teaching the gentiles to forsake Moses!

Finally you say that it was against Mosaic law for a Jew to marry a gentile. I do not think that is correct but I am not sure and since you gave NO scriptures I cannot check it. Could you provide that scripture for me please?

[Truth Seeker]

Oops I forgot:

Acts 24:14New King James Version (NKJV)

¹⁴ But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.

This is Paul speaking. He himself declares that he believes in the law!

[Guest Teditis]

12 minutes ago, inchrist said:

Really this one spoken of in Romans 3:31

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Which was quoted from this OT

Psalm 119:126 It is time for you, LORD, to work: for they have made void your law.

Right, but you're taking that verse out of context.

Paul is talking, in Chapt. 3, about the Jew and the Gentile... the differences and how God is also the God of the Gentile.

Then Paul goes on to talk about Faith and how Abraham's belief on God was accounted to him as Righteousness.

[Rom 4:4-8 KJV] 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7 [Saying], Blessed [are] they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed [is] the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Paul goes on to say that the "Blessing" is given to both the circumcised (under the Law) and also given to the uncircumcised. (Those not under the Law)

And later he talks about we're slave to that Righteousness and he asks this question...

[Rom 6:15 KJV] 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

[Ezra]

55 minutes ago, inchrist said:

Since non of them ate unclean meat,  they all obeyed the sabbath, they all kept the feasts.

You must have done some time travel to arrive at this conclusion. What else did you discover?

[other one]

if you are going to follow Christ then you should go into the Synagogues and preach to the Jews......     Jesus never preached to gentiles that I am aware of.

[Truth Seeker]

1 hour ago, Abby-Joy said:

I don't understand why folks who are under the Law and all the OT ordinances and feast observances don't still do animal sacrifices????  Or is that the only part (they feel) that Christ fulfilled... ?  Did He not fulfill it all?  Everything in the OT pointed to Christ... even the sabbath .... now, we enter into HIS rest... we live in the sabbath, resting from our works.... resting in His work on the cross... "It is finished.... "  ... His words.  

Galatians 2:14-20

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Again and again and again I ask, what law is Paul talking about? Thank you for proving my point.

Galatians 2:11-13New King James Version (NKJV)

No Return to the Law

¹¹ Now when Peter^[a] had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; ¹² for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. ¹³ And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

If you back up and look at the previous verses to find out what Paul is talking about you find that he was talking about Peter and others separating themselves from the gentiles which is not part of the written Torah (The first five books of the Bible) that comes from the oral torah which is the rabbis making up rules to add to the Scriptures. Paul is obviously NOT talking about the written Torah.