Paul confessing that he keeps the Law.

[cyberlizard]

do you have the Spirit as a pledge? [Yes / No]

Have you received your down payment? [Yes / No]

Have all things been placed under Messiah's feet yet? [Yes / No]

Is the word of the Lord currently going out from Jerusalem? [Yes / No]

Does the knowledge of the Lord cover the earth like waters cover the sea? [Yes / No]

Have our hearts of stone (stiffness, stubbornness and outright rebellion) been taken away yet? [Yes / No]

Have we stopped sinning? [Yes / No]

If these things have not yet happened, then we are still in the age of the downpayent/security/pledge/dowry.

The New Covenant has not been fully inaugurated, the wedding march is being played but the groom has yet to kiss the bride.

.these are some of the prophecies which have not yet been fulfilled in the fullness.


Steve

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

.these are some of the prophecies which have not yet been fulfilled in the fullness.
Steve

That is why the unbelieving Jews of today do not believe Jesus was the Messiah to come

Luke 21:22 That days of vengeance these are, of the to be full-filled all the having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772).

Revelation 1:3 Happy the one reading and the ones hearing the Words of this, the Prophecy, and keepings in it having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772), for the time nigh.

Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus

For 2,000 years Jews have rejected the Christian idea of Jesus as messiah. Why?

 

[from scratch]

.these are some of the prophecies which have not yet been fulfilled in the fullness.


Steve

simplicity is nice for those who know nothing and need just the basics.

But Scripture would be even nicer. Why should others do the work? What about some who have no clue how to even look for what they need. Can't you at least help them?

Supporting your ideas is part of discussion and debate.

 

[cyberlizard]

.these are some of the prophecies which have not yet been fulfilled in the fullness.


Steve

do you have the Spirit as a pledge? [Yes / No] (2 Corinthians 5v5)

Have you recieved your downpayment? [Yes / No] (Ephesians 1v14)

Have all things been placed under Messiah's feet yet? [Yes / No] (Psalm 110v1; Psalm 8v4-6; Is.11v4)

Is the word of the Lord currently going out from Jerusalem? [Yes / No] (Isaiah 2v3)

Does the knowledge of the Lord cover the earth like waters cover the sea? [Yes / No] (Habakkuk 2v14)

Have our hearts of stone (stiffness, stubborness and outright rebellion) been taken away yet? [Yes / No] (Deut. 10v16; Deut. 30v6; Jer. 4v4; Jer.30v33;

Have we stopped sinning? [Yes / No] (Psalm 32. 1-2; Rom. 6v2; Rom.6v6; Heb.9v26; 1 Pet.4v1; 1 Jn.3v6,9;

If these things have not yet happened, then we are still in the age of the downpayent/security/pledge/dowry.

The New Covenant has not been fully inaugurated, the wedding march is being played but the groom has yet to kiss the bride.

simplicity is nice for those who know nothing and need just the basics.

But Scripture would be even nicer. Why should others do the work? What about some who have no clue how to even look for what they need. Can't you at least help them?

Supporting your ideas is part of discussion and debate.

.

 

[from scratch]

.

Now where are the answers? discussion would be nice.

 

[tall73]

I mentioned Oral Torah because if I hadn't, you would have said that He was speaking of it rather than the Law. It doesn't matter, He did not abolish either.
No, your acceptance of what you think one man meant makes either him or everyone else a liar. When given that scenario, I'll choose what Yeshua clearly stated, over other's convoluted doctrines created on misunderstandings.
You wrote many words but did not show where Jesus did what you claim.
As far as prophecy concerning the Lord yet to be completely fulfilled, you can look at Ezek. 37, 38, 39, Dan. 2:38-44; 7:23-25; Zech. 14.
You may have the last word. Have a good day.

Just to save time trying to figure it out, do you accept Paul as inspired or of God?

Also, what is your view on the book of Acts?

 

[Lulav]

But Scripture would be even nicer. Why should others do the work? What about some who have no clue how to even look for what they need. Can't you at least help them?

He quoted these scriptures to you

do you have the Spirit as a pledge? [Yes / No] (2 Corinthians 5v5)

Have you recieved your downpayment? [Yes / No] (Ephesians 1v14)

Have all things been placed under Messiah's feet yet? [Yes / No] (Psalm 110v1; Psalm 8v4-6; Is.11v4)

Is the word of the Lord currently going out from Jerusalem? [Yes / No] (Isaiah 2v3)

Does the knowledge of the Lord cover the earth like waters cover the sea? [Yes / No] (Habakkuk 2v14)

Have our hearts of stone (stiffness, stubborness and outright rebellion) been taken away yet? [Yes / No] (Deut. 10v16; Deut. 30v6; Jer. 4v4; Jer.30v33;

Have we stopped sinning? [Yes / No] (Psalm 32. 1-2; Rom. 6v2; Rom.6v6; Heb.9v26; 1 Pet.4v1; 1 Jn.3v6,9;

If these things have not yet happened, then we are still in the age of the downpayent/security/pledge/dowry.

The New Covenant has not been fully inaugurated, the wedding march is being played but the groom has yet to kiss the bride.

 

[tall73]

I stated in the question that Jesus refers to "having heard" and that very likely is Oral Torah, that His "it is written" is the written Torah. I also stated and stand by the fact that rather than abolishing the Torah, if anything, made it a bit more difficult. All sin begins in the thought processes.
The things that were written about Him in the Law were indeed fulfilled, but not all things written about Him have as yet been fulfilled. Unless you believe that He is already on His throne ruling from Jerusalem, and all Israel has been saved. Ergo, Law is not abolished.
Paul and some unknown author can scream as loud as they want that the Law is void and nil, but I'll believe what Yeshua had to say.
If, when this is all over, it turns out I could've eaten shrimp and pork, no big deal. I won't be punished for wanting to be pleasing to my Abba. On the other hand, if He didn't abolish the Torah, then I'm good. It should be something to think about when Paul is the only one who seems to say that it's been done away with.
John, Peter, Jude and James all say that Torah is alive and well, but most importantly, Yeshua says it. Are these all deluded and only Paul has the right information?

A. The law AND the prophets were not passing away. Indeed, they have not.

B. The Jewish believers in Judea went right on keeping the law. So no, it did not disappear. They were "zealous" for it, according to Acts 21.

But first the council, and then James in Acts 21 indicates that the gentiles were a different story.

So there is no contradiction in Jesus saying He is not getting rid of the law. And yet the church recognized God's choice in giving the Spirit to the gentiles without circumcision, etc.

 

[yedida]

A. The law AND the prophets were not passing away. Indeed, they have not.

B. The Jewish believers in Judea went right on keeping the law. So no, it did not disappear. They were "zealous" for it, according to Acts 21.

But first the council, and then James in Acts 21 indicates that the gentiles were a different story.

So there is no contradiction in Jesus saying He is not getting rid of the law. And yet the church recognized God's choice in giving the Spirit to the gentiles without circumcision, etc.

Without circumcision, yes. God's laws remain for His People. If we claim sonship then the Father has rulings and disciplinary actions. I don't even rule out circumcision as a later act of obedience. And all know that an obedient child is a very pleasing child.

 

[tall73]

Without circumcision, yes. God's laws remain for His People. If we claim sonship then the Father has rulings and disciplinary actions. I don't even rule out circumcision as a later act of obedience. And all know that an obedient child is a very pleasing child.

Again before addressing your point, please give your opinion on Paul and Acts so I know whether to reference them. I have now read the whole thread and your position has not yet been stated.

I am aware of what Cyberlizard usually says, and Lulav, but not you. If you want us to answer you it is helpful if you reference what you consider to be authoritative/inspired/useful, in other words, who you will accept as evidence.

As for me, I accept all the standard books of the protestant Bible.

I don't necessarily rule out tradition or other books for finding information either, but I don't generally consider them inspired.

 

[yedida]

Again before addressing your point, please give your opinion on Paul and Acts so I know whether to reference them. I have now read the whole thread and your position has not yet been stated.

I am aware of what Cyberlizard usually says, and Lulav, but not you. If you want us to answer you it is helpful if you reference what you consider to be authoritative/inspired/useful, in other words, who you will accept as evidence.

As for me, I accept all the standard books of the protestant Bible.

I don't necessarily rule out tradition or other books for finding information either, but I don't generally consider them inspired.

I'll be seriously honest. The Gospels are inspired. The Revelation is inspired. The Acts is a history, inspired? where there are actual quotes, I think so, where memory had to come into play, probably so, the rest, not so much. The letters, 100% inspired? no. The statements made in the letters must be validated by what has been spoken by God through the mouth of His Son and His prophets before. If one author makes a statement that doesn't fit the above bill, and not even another letter writer can validate the statement, then it's inspiration is suspect. It is either that writer's personal opinion or the way it is being understood is wrong - I don't throw it out but if it violates what has been written before, it goes on the back burner for future study.

 

[tall73]

I'll be seriously honest. The Gospels are inspired. The Revelation is inspired. The Acts is a history, inspired? where there are actual quotes, I think so, where memory had to come into play, probably so, the rest, not so much. The letters, 100% inspired? no. The statements made in the letters must be validated by what has been spoken by God through the mouth of His Son and His prophets before. If one author makes a statement that doesn't fit the above bill, and not even another letter writer can validate the statement, then it's inspiration is suspect. It is either that writer's personal opinion or the way it is being understood is wrong - I don't throw it out but if it violates what has been written before, it goes on the back burner for future study.

Thank you for stating your views.

So to clarify, you mention you accept the gospels, but not Acts in all places. Was Luke a better historian in the one than the other, or is it just that you hold Jesus to be more trustworthy than the disciples?

 

[tall73]

it was fear..besides, paul said he did certain things for the gospel. James was in a panic, ther were thousands..why do you think it says thousands?

It was myriads, or perhaps tens of thousands.

And it was right after Paul gave an update on his outreach among the gentiles:

Act 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
Act 21:19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:


Paul gave his report, and they gave theirs. Tens of thousands in the region had believed in Christ. They were sharing the wonderful results of their ministry in bringing people to Christ.



And the Jewish believers had such good results in part because they were "zealous" for the law, which would allow them to speak to Jews who were also zealous for the law. . And now they were worried about rumors getting around that would cause issues.

Acts makes clear neither were saved by the law. But the Jewish believers went on keeping it.

 

[tall73]

Amen...

Paul also said he delighted in the Law even though he knew he wasn't perfect.

K4c....the law referenced in this thread is the WHOLE law, which you do not endorse keeping.

 

[tall73]

The Spirit lines up with the commandments, the commandments line up with the Spirit, they will not oppose each other.
I need say no more till you show me where Jesus said that the commandments are abolished. Until I see that, there is no argument, it matters not how many apostles, disciples, or anybody says that it is abrogated, the only voice that matters is that of the Lord Himself. NO ONE else had authority to abolish what God had said throughout the centuries.

Joh 16:12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Joh 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Joh 16:15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.


Since you believe the gospels then Jesus still had things to tell them they could not bear.

It was still Jesus speaking through the Spirit to His disciples.

Moreover, the law did not go away. The Jewish believers kept right on keeping it, though they admitted they were not saved by it.

But the inclusion of the gentiles, spoken of by Peter at the council, in a quote, which you indicated held more weight with you, was God's choice, predicted by the OT according to a quote by James.

This was something hinted at by Jesus, but made plain later.

And they accepted them by God's sovereign choice, without requiring them to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.

 

[from scratch]

He quoted these scriptures to you

I do see some references, but no quotes, discussion or even anwsers to the questions.

do you have the Spirit as a pledge? [Yes / No] (2 Corinthians 5v5)

II Cor 1:21-22: Eph 1:13

Have you recieved your downpayment? [Yes / No] (Ephesians 1v14)

Accepted as a good Scripture for the question. But no discussion or even answering the question.

Have all things been placed under Messiah's feet yet? [Yes / No] (Psalm 110v1; Psalm 8v4-6; Is.11v4)

Ps 8:4-6 is in the past tense. I don't relate the other to the question at all. Eph 1:22; Heb 2:8.

Is the word of the Lord currently going out from Jerusalem? [Yes / No] (Isaiah 2v3)

Relates to end time prophecy only and not the NC. Mat 26:28, MK 14:24 and LK 22:20 on the NC.

Does the knowledge of the Lord cover the earth like waters cover the sea? [Yes / No] (Habakkuk 2v14)

Yes you sucked me in. So I'm interested in your opinion. I'm sure that you mean the answer to be no.

Have our hearts of stone (stiffness, stubborness and outright rebellion) been taken away yet? [Yes / No] (Deut. 10v16; Deut. 30v6; Jer. 4v4; Jer.30v33;

Same argumentive question to prove that the NC doesn't exist contrary to Jesus' very own words referenced above. The real anwser depends on who is included to have hearts of stone. Again I think this applies to end time events where everyone on the planet will do good and not evil. A demanded uptopia to disprove the NC Jesus testified as current as referenced above.

Have we stopped sinning? [Yes / No] (Psalm 32. 1-2; Rom. 6v2; Rom.6v6; Heb.9v26; 1 Pet.4v1; 1 Jn.3v6,9;

Obviously not according to I John 1:9-2:1. A demanded uptopia to disprove the NC Jesus testified as current as referenced above.

If these things have not yet happened, then we are still in the age of the downpayent/security/pledge/dowry.

Nope! Eph 1:13 and I realize that the marriage hasn't taken place yet. Is that indeed required for the NC to exist?

The New Covenant has not been fully inaugurated, the wedding march is being played but the groom has yet to kiss the bride.

So deny Jesus' words found in Mat 26:28, MK 14:24 and LK 22:20. My engagement ring is the seal of the Holy Spirit per Eph 1:13.

The whole purpose of the question series to to deny the words of Jesus referenced in the Gospels.

 

[yedida]

Joh 16:12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Joh 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Joh 16:15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.


Since you believe the gospels then Jesus still had things to tell them they could not bear.

It was still Jesus speaking through the Spirit to His disciples.

Moreover, the law did not go away. The Jewish believers kept right on keeping it, though they admitted they were not saved by it.

But the inclusion of the gentiles, spoken of by Peter at the council, in a quote, which you indicated held more weight with you, was God's choice, predicted by the OT according to a quote by James.

This was something hinted at by Jesus, but made plain later.

And they accepted them by God's sovereign choice, without requiring them to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.

The view of many concerning that passage is that it was not written for every new-comer to the faith. There were basically 3 groups of people: Jewish, God-fearers, and pagans. The first two groups were already well aware of God's standard of holy living, the pagans were not. These were four judgements that were made to insure a common fellowship among all the groups, stating that these paganistic believers would learn more weekly as they attended synagogue. It was an attempt to get across to all that there was NO NEED for formal conversion to Judaism to become a part of this particular sect of Judaism. It was not an abolishment of anything, except formal conversion.
I'm fully convinced that God does not have 2 sets of People with 2 sets of expected behaviors.

Also, that passage in John is not unambiguous, it does not state in no uncertain terms that anything will be abolished. And Acts actually gives the impression that the rest of the Law will be taught and learned by these pagans in time.

 

[from scratch]

The view of many concerning that passage is that it was not written for every new-comer to the faith. There were basically 3 groups of people: Jewish, God-fearers, and pagans. The first two groups were already well aware of God's standard of holy living, the pagans were not. These were four judgements that were made to insure a common fellowship among all the groups, stating that these paganistic believers would learn more weekly as they attended synagogue. It was an attempt to get across to all that there was NO NEED for formal conversion to Judaism to become a part of this particular sect of Judaism. It was not an abolishment of anything, except formal conversion.
I'm fully convinced that God does not have 2 sets of People with 2 sets of expected behaviors.

Also, that passage in John is not unambiguous, it does not state in no uncertain terms that anything will be abolished. And Acts actually gives the impression that the rest of the Law will be taught and learned by these pagans in time.

Is then the letter sent by the Apostles to pagans or Christians? Are Gentile Christians pagans or Christians? Does the statement above deny Christianity and regulate it to a sect of Judaism. Isn't that within the rhelm of replacement theology doctrine? Christianity isn't a part or aspect of Judaism.

 

[yedida]

Is then the letter sent by the Apostles to pagans or Christians? Are Gentile Christians pagans or Christians? Does the statement above deny Christianity and regulate it to a sect of Judaism. Isn't that within the rhelm of replacement theology doctrine? Christianity isn't a part or aspect of Judaism.

At that time the believers in Jesus were considered a sect of Judaism, not something separate from the Master's own People.
As to your last question - that's what MJ is all about, trying to get back to the roots.

 

[from scratch]

At that time the believers in Jesus were considered a sect of Judaism, not something separate from the Master's own People.
As to your last question - that's what MJ is all about, trying to get back to the roots.

You didn't answer the question. The Jews considered the Christian a heretic a violator of the law. I don't buy that the Jewish Christian had that position. I do understand that there was friction between Jewish and Gentile (no longer pagan) Christians.