Pick and Choose Laws

[Irish_Graham]

John Chapter 1 Verse 17 explained this one so clearly to me.

[Guest shiloh357]

the one with some growing up to do is you. Posting someone elses intellectual property without their permission amounts to theft, and is prosecutable by law since it violates federal copyright statutes.

Intent God

Intent God

Intent God

Right, as was intended! God, where's God in this picture? You, Shilo, take such measures over such trivial matters? No! ?

The owner of this board could be held liable for legal damages should the author choose press charges, and that is not a something the administration on this board takes any chances on.

It is not an issue of legalism, but one of integrity. The fact is, nanasimmons should take action and delete the article and then post a link to it as the author has given permission to do.

We seek to serve.

It has already been reported to a moderator.

So serious.

Firehill you don't understand. The reason we don't have avatars is because of copyrighted images being used on this site. A couple of years ago or so, George had to suspend the use of images because the authorities were scouring message boards looking to prosecute board owners for the use of copyrighted images. That is why George disabled the use of images/avatars.

It is a serious thing, and you really need to crawl out of the sandbox and try to look at this like an adult, and knock off the mockery. This is not a trivial matter, and most folks don't take too kindly to their material being stolen and reproduced all over the internet without their permission. Even if you give credit to the author, if they forbid the reproduction of their matieral it is theft.

All nana needs to do is post the url to the page, and anyone can copy and paste it and read the article on the site itslef. That would be right thing to do.

[firehill]

the one with some growing up to do is you. Posting someone elses intellectual property without their permission amounts to theft, and is prosecutable by law since it violates federal copyright statutes.

Intent God

Intent God

Intent God

Right, as was intended! God, where's God in this picture? You, Shilo, take such measures over such trivial matters? No! ?

The owner of this board could be held liable for legal damages should the author choose press charges, and that is not a something the administration on this board takes any chances on.

It is not an issue of legalism, but one of integrity. The fact is, nanasimmons should take action and delete the article and then post a link to it as the author has given permission to do.

We seek to serve.

It has already been reported to a moderator.

So serious.

Firehill you don't understand. The reason we don't have avatars is because of copyrighted images being used on this site. A couple of years ago or so, George had to suspend the use of images because the authorities were scouring message boards looking to prosecute board owners for the use of copyrighted images. That is why George disabled the use of images/avatars.

It is a serious thing, and you really need to crawl out of the sandbox and try to look at this like an adult, and knock off the mockery. This is not a trivial matter, and most folks don't take too kindly to their material being stolen and reproduced all over the internet without their permission. Even if you give credit to the author, if they forbid the reproduction of their matieral it is theft.

All nana needs to do is post the url to the page, and anyone can copy and paste it and read the article on the site itslef. That would be right thing to do.

Right, Shilo, With all your words, you are right, arn't you?

Did I miss something?

[Ovedya]

Shalom Nanasimmons,

The article you pasted had this very important message concerning the law:

[Ovedya]

Permission from the author of the original article was granted to nannasmom.

Please continue.

[Openly Curious]

The word Gentile means non-Jew (which could be Christian as well)or pagan.

Yes.

When the Bible speaks of Gentiles , depending on the context, it means either pagan or Christian or non-Jew.

Yes.

The Bible says that the Gentiles who believe are circumsized in their heart which makes them Jews inwardly.

No.

That is not Paul's point in Romans 2:28-29. Circumcision of the heart is, originally, Old Testament concept. God commanded the ancient Israelites to circumcise their hearts (Deut. 10:16, Jer. 4:4). Circumcision of the heart has nothing to do with getting saved/salvation. Circumcision of the heart is something you do to yourself, not something God does to you. It amounts to you taking measures to remove sinful habits and practices from your life, to put away from you all spiritually impure influences

Paul's point is not that Gentiles become "spiritual" or "inward" Jews. Paul is explaining to what it means to be a Jew. In chapter two of Romans, Paul, by way of illustration for his Gentile audience, creates an imaginary Jewish audience to further drive home the point that true Jewishness is not wrapped up in one's ethnic pedigree, or outward observances, but is a matter of having a right heart before the Lord. He is essentially telling Jews what it means to be Jew. It is a way demonstrating to his Gentile audience that the Jewish people are not at an advantage over the Gentiles simply because they were the recipients of the Torah.

There is no such thing as a "spiritual" Jew. "Jewish" is an ethnicity, not a spiritual state of being.

Romans 2 vs 28 +29 So is this speaking of non-believing Jews or pagans or Christians?

Neither. Paul is talking about what being Jewish is really all about. He is not telling Gentiles they are Jews. I addressed this in an earlier post, about a day or two ago.

Galatians 3 vs 29 says that Gentiles who believe are Abrahams seed,heirs to the promise.

So is this speaking of non-believing Jews or pagans or Christians?

It is talking about anyone who has accepted Christ. Paul was directing at the Galatians in particular because they were trying to become the physical seed of Abraham beause they had been deceived into thinking this was necessary for salvation.

The Jews were just as guilty before God as the Gentiles were as the law made neither Jew, Gentile, male or female etc., righteous even keeping the law none was ever made righteous inwardly by doing so as they still were in bondage to the sin nature of the first Adam Romans 5:12-21 the entire world was guilty before God.

But Abraham who is the father of us all according to Romans 4:12-18 as the promise to Abraham was that he would be a father to many nations and that was not just a father to the Jewish nation of Israel but the promise was that he would be a father to "Many" nations and this was possible through the promised seed that would come from the lineage of Abraham being Christ as all men of every race can be made righteous and made a partaker of the divine nature of God imputed to us as we recieve the gift of eternal life that has been freely given to us by the faith of Abraham for it is by that same faith we recieve and are made a new creature in Christ being the second Adam and God's nature is imparted unto us as this is an inward work without hands that is done within our hearts being the circucism of the heart whereby we cry Abba Father as the Lord took our heart of stone away and gave us a new heart of flesh with His laws written upon our hearts tablet as we as Gentiles are no longer outcast but fellowcitizens and co-heirs of the promises along with the Jews of the better promises given to us in the new covenant which is a better covenant that the old law was cause it could never make any one righteous by keeping it.

That is why it is said where no law is their is no transgression because when we walk in the Spirit we are not under the curse of the law but if we walk in the flesh and do it's lust then the law stands and we are transgressor's of the law and are in bondage again to the law. Romans 4:15; 8:1-17

I like these verses in Colossians 2:10-14--"And ye are "complete"in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also "ye are circumcised"with the circumision "made without hands" in the putting off the body of sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:" (as this is totally a work of God within our our when he imputed his righteousness within us by faith like he did to Abraham before the law as Abraham believed God and righteousness was imputed to him. As God made us a new creature and imparted his nature to us at our new birth.)Buried with him in baptism wherein also ye are risen with himthrough the "faith" of the "operation" of Godwho hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, (being the sins we commited in our lives as we were all guilty of some type of sin and needed forgiven as the law had us guilty and our sins kept mounting up against us as the old song "The old account" as it had been growing larger every day was settled as it was grow larger as sins were yet unforgiven until I had it settled and settled long ago. The laws against us condemned us as we were guilty of breaking God's laws but Christ abolished those laws that was against us through His work within our hearts that only Could be done by the works of his hands when He cut our stony heart out and give us a heart of flesh with His laws on it. The circumcision of Christ.)and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.

I am personally glad I went under the knife of the Holy Spirit and was circumcised in heart through the "FAITH" of the "OPERATION" of God." as he cut out our stony hearts and give us a new heart to feel after Him.

OC

bump

[Guest shiloh357]

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.)

This is not a very good example for the author to use sense it really does not apply to the issue at hand. The issue is the commandments given at Sinai and their relativity to the modern believer. Clearly, no one with even a rudimentary knowledge of Scripture would consider God

[Guest shiloh357]

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).

Really, this demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding with respect to the subject matter being covered in Hebrews 7-10. Hebrews 7 is not speaking of the disannulling of the Torah itself of but it is comparing the insufficiency of the Aaronic priesthood to the all-sufficient priesthood of Christ who ministers after the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews chapters 8 and 9 are taking us into the Day of Atonement and setting up the point about the sin offering. It is this particular day and the specific sin offering that the author of Hebrews has in view. Yes, he speaks of a New Covenant, but not a new Torah. That part is absent from the book of Hebrews as well as the portion of Jeremiah the author of Hebrews is quoting from. The term for

[Guest shiloh357]

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]

No, that special relationship has not ended. They are still God

[Guest shiloh357]

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)

Again, we come to another fundamental error. The author refuses to acknowledge that the New Testament is written out of Old Testament knowledge. The Old Testament is quoted over 280 times in the New Testament and Jesus quotes from the Torah of Moses more than any other part of the Old Testament. His defeat of Satan in the wilderness was completely out of the book of Deuteronomy.

"

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.)

This is completely absurd. To claim there is no difference between a burnt offering and feeding the hungry and poor, is nothing but intellectual suicide. As I stated earlier, the distinction the ceremonial and moral laws are plain. Even a child can tell the difference. I have never heard anyone claim that the "Law of Moses" only applied to the ceremonial commandments. I think the author is making up ghosts with imaginary arugments just to have somebody to argue with.