Is the OT Law still in effect?

[VictorC]

My answer to you is: Truth is not popular, lies are!

Is a popularity contest the reason that you have embraced abject error, and won't respond to what the Bible says?

(And I would like to know who are the "academics" who are posting on the threads in question?)

There are some here who are serious about proclaiming the Gospel accurately, and we engage in discussion for the reason it forces a learning curve not found elsewhere. As Proverbs 27:17 says, "As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.". We correct each other and grow from the need to locate accurate answers from Scripture in this venue.
I am one of those academics.
So is Tall73, who invited me here recently.
So is Sophia7, who invited me here last year to engage in another discussion.
So are Frogster, Son of Israel, bbbbbbb, Cribstyl, and I apologize for leaving others out.

Some of these guys have corrected mistakes I have made. We learn from each other.
Why you don't want to either learn from others or provide something to show us our mistakes is beyond me, and I question your reason for joining a discussion forum. So far you have only accused just about every one else of being a Jesuit conspirator or something, and you avoid the message of the Biblical Gospel as if it were a plague.

I never claimed that the Jesuits wrote the Scriptures.

Thank you for that confirmation.
If the Jesuits didn't write the Scriptures, then of what interest are they to anyone?
I haven't appealed to a single extra-Biblical work (except Thayer's Lexicon), and so bringing up Jesuit nonsense is a distraction you're employing to avoid Biblical answers. The pasted contribution you offered is off-topic, not of interest, and I don't have any reason to read below this line.
I have no interest in the vain traditions of man.

Several Jesuits were instrumental in writing books that countered the efforts and theology of the Protestant Reformers. Copied below are the details:


THE JESUIT'S COUNTER INTERPRETATIONS

"The Society of Jesus was established by the papacy in 1540 as a very special ‘fighting unit' at the total and exclusive disposal of the Roman Pope. From their beginnings, the Jesuits were conceived in a military mode. Soldiers of Christ, they were given only two purposes: to propagate the religious doctrine and the moral law of the Roman Catholic Church as proposed and taught by the Roman Pope." (The Jesuits, page 41, Malachi Martin)

Their first job was to counter the Reformation. They must, by plausible exposition of Scripture break the unbroken harmony of the reformers positions.

Interestingly enough, they came up with two alternatives that were actually conflicting and contradicting each other, yet the Catholic Church sanctioned both! So much for truth! What they did achieve was to push the prophecies away from the papacy.

Through the Jesuits Ribera, of Spain and Bellarmine, of Rome came the Futurist interpretation. This interpretation leaps over the immense era of papal dominance, and crowds the antichrist prophecies into the far distant future.

THE JESUIT RIBERA'S FUTURIST COUNTER INTERPRETATIONS

Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) " assigned the first few chapters of the Apocalypse to ancient Rome, in John's own time; the rest he restricted to a literal three and a half years' reign of an infidel Antichrist, who would bitterly oppose and blaspheme the saints just before the second advent. He taught that Antichrist would be a single individual, who would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, abolish the Christian religion, deny Christ, be received by the Jews, pretend to be God, and conquer the world--all in this brief space of three and one-half literal years!" (Prophetic Faith Vol.2 p. 490)

Here we see that Ribera "laid the foundation for the great structure of Futurism...and then, wonder of wonders, in the nineteenth century this Jesuit scheme of interpretation came to be adopted by a growing number of Protestants, until today Futurism, amplified and adorned with the rapture theory, has become the generally accepted belief of the Fundamentalist wing of popular Protestantism!" (Prophetic Faith Vol. 2 p. 493) How could Protestantism forsake it's main foundation of prophetic interpretation and adopt a Jesuit counterfeit? How did this happen?

THE JESUIT BELLARMINE'S COUNTER INTERPRETATIONS

There was also (Saint) Robert Bellarmine, Jesuit, cardinal and theologian who, as an outstanding controversialist opposing the Protestant doctrines of the Reformation, was regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as one of its most powerful defenders. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1560....He was a lecturer at the new Jesuit College in Rome.

Between 1576 and 1589, in addition to his teaching Bellarmine lectured to large audiences. He insisted that the prophecies concerning Antichrist in Daniel, Paul and John, had no application to the papal power. This formed the third part of his "Disputations de Controversiis Christianae Fidei Adversus Huius Temporis Haereticos" published between 1581-1593.

Bellarmine's assault on the Protestant interpretations of prophecy was centered upon the year-day principle which stood at the base of the historic interpretation of prophecy and had risen to general notice and wide acceptance among both Catholics and Protestants. He went out of his way to do this.

Determined to nullify the day = year prophetic principle, used by Protestants as the basis of the 1260 year period of Antichrist's tyranny, he sought to deprive this symbol of its Scriptural support. He came up with the argument that Ezekiel 4 was in reverse, that is saying a year = a day, when in actuality Ezekiel's acted out prophecy was in days and symbolized years.

Ballarmine was very methodical as he dissected the Protestant position, his works fill nine ponderous folio tomes, attacking the standard prophecies pertaining to Antichrist.

Ballarmine capitalized on Luther's weakness. Luther had declared the Bible as the source for truth, yet Luther was selective in what he considered inspired in the Bible. Luther rejected the book of Revelation. "There is too much lacking in this book to call it apostolic or prophetic," he had written in the preference to his first edition of the new Testament. Zwingli made the same mistake in interpreting prophecy. He too refused to recognize the Revelation as apostolic. Now the Jesuit Ballarmine posed himself as the defender of the Bible against the Reformers who, he declared had rejected it. He then shaped the Revelation to fit the futurist view, thereby by- passing the whole Christian era and the real antichrist.

Actually Ballarmine assigned the apocalyptic symbols to the distant past and the distant future. Antichrist, according to him, had not yet come, for he would abolish the daily sacrifice— or the Eucharist (daily mass) and would reign for three and a half literal years.

Bellarmine maintained that the little horn of Daniel 7 as well as the end power in Daniel 11 was a single king--who like Antiochus— would take away three kings and subdue seven other to himself, who, he contends, would therefore be one man only, and not a kingdom. Antiochus was a figure or symbol of the Antichrist of the last days.

THE JESUIT ALCASAR'S PRETERIST COUNTER INTERPRETATIONS

On the flip side of the Counter Reformation was another Jesuit. Jesuit Luis De Alcazar, or Alcasar (1554-1613) of Seville Spain.

Alcasar advanced the Preterist interpretation. He made all prophecy stop short of the papal domination. He maintained that the apocalypse describes the war of the church in the early centuries. Partly between the Jews and their adversaries and then the Church and paganism. Revelation 1-11 he applied to the rejection of the Jews and the desolation of Jerusalem by the Romans. Revelation 12-19 Alcazar allotted to the overthrow of Roman paganism and the conversion of the empire to the church, the judgment of the great Harlot being effected by the downfall of pagan idolatry. Revelation 20 he applied to the final persecution by Antichrist and chapters 21 referring to the New Jerusalem he made descriptive of the glorious and endless triumphant state of the Roman church. ( See Prophetic Faith vol 2 p. 507)

The three Jesuits who worked most effectively to overthrow the Protestant understanding of prophecy, and whose theories are now (in modified forms) almost universally accepted are:

Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) From Italy.
Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) of Salamanca Spain
Jesuit Luis De Alcazar, or Alcasar (1554-1613) of Seville Spain.

 

[tall73]

Jesus mentioned all of the above, but its doesn't take much study to realize that their are different types of laws. Moral, Ceremonial, Civil, and Health. With the moral law, the 10 Commandments as being the highest and most enduring form of Law.

Can you please demonstrate that from Jesus' words in Matthew 5?

 

[djconklin]

I am one of those academics.
So is Tall73, who invited me here recently.
So is Sophia7, who invited me here last year to engage in another discussion.
So are Frogster, Son of Israel, bbbbbbb, Cribstyl, and I apologize for leaving others out.

What college/university employs these people as professors? Where'd they get their doctorates and in what?

 

[VictorC]

What college/university employs these people as professors? Where'd they get their doctorates and in what?

We're students of the Bible, Conklin - which is an academic persuit your fellows don't seem interested in. We aren't here to play games of semantics.

 

[djconklin]

>We're students of the Bible, Conklin - which is an academic persuit your fellows don't seem interested in. We aren't here to play games of semantics.

ROFL! And yet you play a semantic game!

 

[VictorC]

ROFL! And yet you play a semantic game!

When you're done rolling around on the floor, would you like to contribute something relevant to the thread? I'm sure something here has piqued your interest while perusing the 900+ posts.

 

[Frogster]

Pork was food.
Gen 6:20-21
Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

Genesis 9:3

Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Then it became unclean under ceremonial laws.

Lev 11:4-7
" 'There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you.

Now it is clean.

Mark 7:19 Ampliifed
Since it does not reach and enter his heart but [only his] digestive tract, and so passes on [into the place designed to receive waste]? Thus He was making and declaring all foods [ceremonially] clean [that is, abolishing the ceremonial distinctions of the Levitical Law].



That is also what Paul said.

Romans 14:14
14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.


Romans 14:20
Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.

And eat all the foods in the Corinth meat market,That would include shellfish,due to it’s location.And yes,pork was sold there too.


1 Corinthians 10:25
Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

Eat the unclean food of unbelievers..

1 Corinthians 10:27
If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

Cleansed through prayer,not abstinence.We know the truth.

1 Timothy 4:3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.




It clearly says eat,the meat.

1 Cor 10:25 NASB
Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake;

Greek for eat..

esthio 2068...1) to eat
2) to eat (consume) a thing
2a) to take food, eat a meal
3) metaph. to devour, consume

Greek for meat..makellon 3111...1) a place where meat and other articles of food are sold, meat market

Peter ate the food of a Roman guard in Acts,and so did Paul,with the converted Phil guard.it was UNCLEAN FOOD..PORK CHOPS!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*
Pork was food.

Peter ate the food of a Roman guard in Acts,and so did Paul,with the converted Phil guard.it was UNCLEAN FOOD..PORK CHOPS!

Twas Porky's nightmare

http://www.christianforums.com/t7405874-4/#post53087257
Do You Eat Pork? (2)

 

[Frogster]

Twas Porky's nightmare

http://www.christianforums.com/t7405874-4/#post53087257
Do You Eat Pork? (2)

hehehe,,they say pigs are smart too!
They become wild really fast,they grow their snouts longer,and their tusks get larger when they get loose from farms,after only one or two generations.

They deserve to be eaten!

 

[djconklin]

>When you're done rolling around on the floor, would you like to contribute something relevant to the thread?

I already did.

 

[VictorC]

I already did.

My tenure doesn't include this entire thread, but I haven't seen you contribute anything recently concerning the suggested tenure of the first covenant into the current dispensation. Relevance demands something that addresses that topic.
There have been two other Adventists who have participated here, and both of them have abandoned the thread. One has no means to recreate the first covenant, and the other member hasn't answered the points contained in a single post directly.

 

[djconklin]

>but I haven't seen you contribute anything recently concerning the suggested tenure of the first covenant into the current dispensation.

I don't have to. All I have to do was to ask for the proof that you are an academic like you claimed. You can't--apparently because you are not. That's enough for me.

 

[Frogster]

The old priesthood is gone..those of the old cov..
That means that the old cov laws,for the priesthood are gone..and by the way,so is the temple..

Hebrews 7:11-12 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.



Hebrews 7:18-19 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

Greek for setting aside.. athetesis 115
Definition:
1) abolition, disannulling, put away, rejection


Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

Hebrews 8:8For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;

Effect in the greek…sunteleo 4931
Definition:
1) to end together or at the same time
2) to end completely
2a) bring to an end, finish, complete
3) to accomplish, bring to fulfilment
3a) to come to pass
4) to effect, make, (conclude)
5) to finish
5a) to make an end of
5b) to bring to an end
5c) destroy


New,in the greek. kainos 2537

Definition:
1) new
1a) as respects form
1a1) recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn
1b) as respects substance
1b1) of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of


Hebrews 8:13In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Greek for obsolete.., palaioo 3822

Definition:
1) to make ancient or old
1a) to become old, to be worn out
1b) of things worn out by time and use
2) to declare a thing to be old and so about to be abrogated



Here we see,that that the first was done away with..

Hebrews 10:8-9 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second.

Here is the Greek,for “do away”

anaireo 337

Definition: 1) to take up, to lift up (from the ground)
1a) to take up for myself as mine
1b) to own (an exposed infant)
2) to take away, abolish
2a) to do away with or abrogate customs or ordinances
2b) to put out of the way, kill slay a man



Here,we see,that clealy the ministry of Moses,that was the old cov,is brought to an end..


2 Corinthians 3:7-11 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? 9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. 10 Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.



Scriptures from the NASB,NLT,ESV.

 

[VictorC]

I don't have to. All I have to do was to ask for the proof that you are an academic like you claimed. You can't--apparently because you are not. That's enough for me.

Then isn't your previous claim false?

I already did.

This is an admission that you didn't contribute anything on the topic of this thread.
Your attitude that a student isn't engaged in an academic persuit is an ad hominem attempt to derail a thread, and nothing more.

 

[Frogster]

>When you're done rolling around on the floor, would you like to contribute something relevant to the thread?

I already did.

I did,you must not have seen it..

Pork was food.
Gen 6:20-21
Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

Genesis 9:3

Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Then it became unclean under ceremonial laws.

Lev 11:4-7
" 'There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you.

Now it is clean.

Mark 7:19 Ampliifed
Since it does not reach and enter his heart but [only his] digestive tract, and so passes on [into the place designed to receive waste]? Thus He was making and declaring all foods [ceremonially] clean [that is, abolishing the ceremonial distinctions of the Levitical Law].



That is also what Paul said.

Romans 14:14
14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.


Romans 14:20
Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.

And eat all the foods in the Corinth meat market,That would include shellfish,due to it’s location.And yes,pork was sold there too.


1 Corinthians 10:25
Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

Eat the unclean food of unbelievers..

1 Corinthians 10:27
If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

Cleansed through prayer,not abstinence.We know the truth.

1 Timothy 4:3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.




It clearly says eat,the meat.

1 Cor 10:25 NASB
Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake;

Greek for eat..

esthio 2068...1) to eat
2) to eat (consume) a thing
2a) to take food, eat a meal
3) metaph. to devour, consume

Greek for meat..makellon 3111...1) a place where meat and other articles of food are sold, meat market

Peter ate the food of a Roman guard in Acts,and so did Paul,with the converted Phil guard.it was UNCLEAN FOOD..PORK CHOPS!

 

[Frogster]

>When you're done rolling around on the floor, would you like to contribute something relevant to the thread?

I already did.

here is more.I had this saved in my folder,it is a good read.


1. In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.
2. The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.
3. The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath.
4. In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).
5. Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle.
6. There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai.
7. When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers.
8. The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them.
9. In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath).
10. In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers).
11. The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century).
12. Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11).

 

[sungaunga]

sheesh, I truly hope some of you are not in a leadership position in church. folks just live a Godly life as we are commanded to by Jesus. You are saved [by faith ] and call yourself Christians, now act like it.

 

[djconklin]

>In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.

Nope. See A Study on Col. 2:16-17. In a recently published book (Judging the Sabbath; http://www.amazon.ca/Judging-Sabbat...373668?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258806264&sr=1-10) Dr. Ron du Preez shows the linguistic evidence that determines what is meant by the term "sabbath." In it, on page 73 he quotes an observation that I had made (in short): The Greek word "heorte" [mistranslated in the KJV as 'holyday'] is never used for the Day of Atonement or the blowing trumpets. In the November issue of Ministry magazine, Dr. Rodiquez (who had followed Dr. Bacchiochi's lead, but now agrees with du Preez and I) used my quote in his review of du Preez's book.

 

[djconklin]

sheesh, I truly hope some of you are not in a leadership position in church. folks just live a Godly life as we are commanded to by Jesus. You are saved [by faith ] and call yourself Christians, now act like it.

My critics have become so frustrated that they have threatened me with burning at the stake! We all know who was in the wrong on that! Nothing like confirming by threats that one is in the wrong!

 

[djconklin]

3. The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath.

And yet most Christians even as late as the 5th century kept the Sabbath.

4. In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

That was Saturday nite, not Sunday morning.