The books of Hebrews and Revelation prove the unchangeableness of God's Holy Law. (2)

[VictorC]

I am sorry about not understanding fully what you try to say. But I am not not confusing what is said in the scripture. Till heaven and earth pass away is what Jesus Christ said, and it is what is meant, nothing of God's word passes away. This does not misuse the meaning, it is the meaning.

This dismisses what Jesus said: "one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled".
Your approach is to replace the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets with heaven and earth passing away. You remain in a condition of catch-22 where heaven and earth will never pass away, because this was prophesied and nothing prophetic can come to pass until heaven and earth pass away. This is circular.

Adding your interpretation of "God's word" to replace the Law and the Prophets is your own doing, and deviates from what Jesus said.

Therefore, fulfillment must mean something else. Christ being fulfilment of sacrifice, priesthood, and the way to be made clean is not doing away with it but Christ's effectiveness for that is what remains. What sin is remains too. To repent of sin, what is being repented of? Well God's word is remaining. Even if it is not imputed, you are still contrite and repenting, so there was sin that was a violation.

Now you need to reconcile your assertion that Christ's sacrifice and atonement fulfilled anything with your insistence that heaven and earth have to pass away before the Law and the Prophets can be fulfilled.
That's the primary point.
The secondary point is that you don't acknowledge that sin existed before the Law did, and it continues to exist after Messiah came "to redeem those who were under the law". Did the Law change anything?
No.
It only condemned everyone by imputing their sin via transgressions that didn't exist until the Law's tenure: "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law" (1 Corinthians 15:56).

I was not eliminating scripture. I address what is posted, but I agree with the scripture passage, in a lengthy post I trim off things to which I am not responding, and respond to certain things you are saying.

I mention things said are for the redeemed, to be truly clear, at least for some others, talk of the commandments being done away should not applied as that suggests to those not even redeemed. Not that they are, but anything changed in the new covenant does not apply to those who are not and will not be redeemed, in Christ.

The Scriptures I posted were in hopes of breaking the circular reasoning that I perceive you engaged in. In response I don't see any improvement. What Jesus taught Peter, and what Paul taught us didn't show you the impact of God's redemption in His adoption as the King's children.

 

[VictorC]

<snipped by request>

With lots of text and even more imbedded fonts, you missed the obvious. The myriad of errors that don't even answer the point brought to your attention is a diversion.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Leuko Petra

Brother, you have a misunderstanding of the two terms utilized and therefore jump to an errant conclusion based upon a faulty starting position, let us back up and look at Hebrews 7:12...*snip*................
​

With lots of text and even more imbedded fonts, you missed the obvious. The myriad of errors that don't even answer the point brought to your attention is a diversion.

VC
Did you really have to quote his whole lenghthy post for that little short response?!
Perhaps you can edit it for us?

EGADS! The size of some of these posts, along with the fonts and colors, are playing havoc with my eyes!
[I may put him on ignore because of that, tho I would still be able to view his posts if I need/want to]

Looks like it was posted by someone from the "Rainbow" Coalition

[Btw, can I please get a response to this post? Thks]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7752117/#post63982700

.

.

 

[VictorC]

VC
Did you really have to quote his whole lenghthy post for that little short response?!

I apologize. I left LP's post intact to show the lurker how many nouns and verbs it takes to dismiss a two-sentence point. I will go back and remove the unnecessary content.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Not one tittle of the law removed till all is fulfilled and a change in priesthood with it's change in law (ie: from earthly (Aaronic) to the heavenlies (Melchezedec)) priesthood suggests the change from natural law to the spiritual law......objective to subjective.....leaving all to be fulfilled within ourselves because it's a move away from national responsibility to individual responsibility, all must come to the throne of grace.

 

[CFTerminator]

Not one tittle of the law removed till all is fulfilled and a change in priesthood with it's change in law (ie: from earthly (Aaronic) to the heavenlies (Melchezedec)) priesthood suggests the change from natural law to the spiritual law......objective to subjective.....leaving all to be fulfilled within ourselves because it's a move away from national responsibility to individual responsibility, all must come to the throne of grace.

Say what? The Aaronic and the Melchizedek priesthood all had the Ark of the Covenant before them in which was contained the two stone tablets, on which God himself wrote the 10 Commandments! Pray tell, who has the authority to change those 10 moral laws?! They were not changed the by High Priest in the Mosaic wilderness tabernacle, they were not changed in the Jerusalem Temple, they sure they the original copies were not changed, because only Jesus our Great High Priest could enter the most Holy Place in the Heavenly Sanctuary.

 

[Leuko Petra]

I err? Really?...

...Great quantity of good swelling useless words to deceive. You leave out the fact the Christian isn't obligated to the covenant made with Israel. God promised this through Jeremiah and Jesus (also God) said the New Covenant is active which isn't like the one made with their fathers. God even goes so far as to say the Sabbath would cease.

Again this is the misunderstanding, as The Old Covenant &#8800; The Law, The Ten Commandments, but many today are incorrectly assuming that it does "=":

This was mentioned here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7726453-65/#post63970183

...and here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7726453-65/#post63970257

Let us look at why it is impossible to so "=":

It is written in Romans 3:31 that,

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Romans 3:31

Let us look at the words "void" and "establish", and then go back to the equative and substitute again in this sentence and see if it still works...

Void - &#954;&#945;&#964;&#945;&#961;&#947;&#959;&#965;&#956;&#949;&#957; - [cited from BLB]
"1) to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative
a) to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency
b) to deprive of force, influence, power
2) uto cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish
a) to cease, to pass away, be done away
b) to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from any one
c) to terminate all intercourse with one"

Establish - &#953;&#963;&#964;&#969;&#956;&#949;&#957; - [cited from BLB]
"1) to cause or make to stand, to place, put, set
a) to bid to stand by, [set up]
1) in the presence of others, in the midst, before judges, before members of the Sanhedrin;
2) to place
b) to make firm, fix establish
1) to cause a person or a thing to keep his or its place
2) to stand, be kept intact (of family, a kingdom), to escape in safety
3) to establish a thing, cause it to stand
a) to uphold or sustain the authority or force of anything
c) to set or place in a balance
1) to weigh: money to one (because in very early times before the introduction of coinage, the metals used to be weighed)
2) to stand
a) to stand by or near
1) to stop, stand still, to stand immovable, stand firm
a) of the foundation of a building
b) to stand
1) continue safe and sound, stand unharmed, to stand ready or prepared
2) to be of a steadfast mind
3) of quality, one who does not hesitate, does not waiver"

How long after the Cross did Paul write those words?

Now, let us use that equative method again, and replace the supposed equative term, "The Ten Commandments, The Law" with the "Old Covenant" and see what happens...

Do we then make void the [law; The Ten Commandments, the Old Covenant] through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the [law; The Ten Commandments; The Old Covenant]. Romans 3:31

Does the sentence now make sense? No, it does not...

Consider:

When Sunday [1st Day] Came Three Days Too Late, New & Old Covenant, Agar & Sarah Pt 1:
20. When Sunday Came Three Days Too Late - Part 1 (Joe Crews) - YouTube

When Sunday [1st Day] Came Three Days Too Late, New & Old Covenant, Agar & Sarah Pt 2:
21. When Sunday Came Three Days Too Late - Part 2 (Joe Crews) - YouTube

The 'old covenant' may be found in Exodus 19...

 

[VictorC]

Again this is the misunderstanding, as The Old Covenant &#8800; The Law, The Ten Commandments, but many today are incorrectly assuming that it does "=":

To the Adventist, what Moses testified becomes an "assumption". Turning others away from Scripture shows that Adventism isn't a Biblically based sect.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Say what? The Aaronic and the Melchizedek priesthood all had the Ark of the Covenant before them in which was contained the two stone tablets, on which God himself wrote the 10 Commandments! Pray tell, who has the authority to change those 10 moral laws?! They were not changed the by High Priest in the Mosaic wilderness tabernacle, they were not changed in the Jerusalem Temple, they sure they the original copies were not changed, because only Jesus our Great High Priest could enter the most Holy Place in the Heavenly Sanctuary.

I have no idea what your trying to say but Melchizedec didn't have any tabernacle tablets of ten commandments before him. Ten moral laws are not in question. The use of the term Levitical law, perhaps, altho I didn't alude to that, nor do I want to debate the author of Hebrews ( which wasn't Paul btw it was Peter if anyone cares to compare style, content etc )

 

[FredVB]

This dismisses what Jesus said: "one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled".
Your approach is to replace the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets with heaven and earth passing away.

Adding your interpretation of "God's word" to replace the Law and the Prophets is your own doing, and deviates from what Jesus said.

Now you need to reconcile your assertion that Christ's sacrifice and atonement fulfilled anything with your insistence that heaven and earth have to pass away before the Law and the Prophets can be fulfilled.
That's the primary point.
The secondary point is that you don't acknowledge that sin existed before the Law did, and it continues to exist after Messiah came "to redeem those who were under the law". Did the Law change anything?
No.
It only condemned everyone by imputing their sin via transgressions that didn't exist until the Law's tenure: "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law" (1 Corinthians 15:56).

NO. You are making fulfilment mean something else, other than what I explained it to mean. Is all fulfilled? Sin must come to an end, it is in the Bible. That is not fulfilled, is it? There is no replacement, Jesus said till heaven and earth pass away, himself. And the Law and Prophets are of the word of Yahweh God, none of it will pass away. So I do not have to reconcile anything, because that none of it will pass away is not talking about what Christ already fulfilled, I have just said previously that the priesthood, sacrifice, and way to be clean is not passed away, yet is fulfilled, in Christ alone.

I do indeed know that sin had existed before, and that even right after the beginning. Commandments, including what was in the law, showed there was sin and what were sins, the other things of the law were showing things to do about the sins. So sins are still what they were then shown to be. Commandments do not condemn anyone, but the rest of the law can condemn any for breaking the commandments. In Christ we can be free from that as he took it. All of it effective, but what is through Christ is effective too.

 

[VictorC]

NO. You are making fulfilment mean something else, other than what I explained it to mean. Is all fulfilled? Sin must come to an end, it is in the Bible.

We have God's promise to us "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more" in the present tense, and the reason God gave us this promise seems to elude you.

There is no replacement, Jesus said till heaven and earth pass away, himself.

You seem to imply that there isn't a new covenant in the Blood of Christ. That alone goes against Scripture describing this change: "He takes away the first that He may establish the second" (Hebrews 10:9).

And the Law and Prophets are of the word of Yahweh God, none of it will pass away. So I do not have to reconcile anything, because that none of it will pass away is not talking about what Christ already fulfilled

The bold admission that the Law has been fulfilled contradicts your assertion that the Law will never be fulfilled. And yes, you still need to reconcile the circular reasoning you bring here with the fact that Christ has already made atonement to redeem our transgressions under the first covenant. I'm waiting for you to offer a solution to fit what Jesus stated.

, I have just said previously that the priesthood, sacrifice, and way to be clean is not passed away, yet is fulfilled, in Christ alone.

This too is contradictory.

I do indeed know that sin had existed before, and that even right after the beginning.

I take this to show we agree that the Law has not changed the nature of mankind. It simply condemned those under the Law (see Romans 3:19) and alienated the Gentiles during its tenure (see Ephesians 2:11-16 and Galatians 3:10-14).

Commandments, including what was in the law, showed there was sin and what were sins, the other things of the law were showing things to do about the sins. So sins are still what they were then shown to be. Commandments do not condemn anyone, but the rest of the law can condemn any for breaking the commandments. In Christ we can be free from that as he took it. All of it effective, but what is through Christ is effective too.

Look at the bold above.
Now come up with those who haven't violated the Law.
There are none, no, not one who has complied with the Law, for it is the Law's recipients addressed in Romans 11:32: "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all".

And of course we have the same epistle telling Paul's testimony in chapter 7:
the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.
This comes right on the heels of Paul identifying the Law we have been delivered from by quoting Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21: "You shall not covet". Look them up to see the Law we have been delivered from for yourself.

You have yet to address what Jesus taught Peter and how Paul repeated virtually the same message in his epistle to the Galatians. Whose child does God's redemption account you as?

For the purpose of the Law, look at these verses from Galatians 3.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Paul describes the tenure of the Law designed to drive us to our Redeemer using verbs in the perfect tense denoting what it did before faith came.
Is that still the case, or has faith in our appointed Redeemer come to fruition?

These Biblical authors don't recognize the catch-22 that you still haven't reconciled. Maybe you don't recognize it, but previous posts have explained it sufficiently that it can't be overlooked.

 

[Keachian]

Say what? The Aaronic and the Melchizedek priesthood all had the Ark of the Covenant before them in which was contained the two stone tablets, on which God himself wrote the 10 Commandments!

Wow, you just rewrote history, tell me, if God wrote the 10Cs at Sinai how did Melchizedek minister before them? (An obvious allusion to the fact that you have replaced Yahweh with one of his created things; the Tablets)

 

[Keachian]

From what I know, the OC sacrifices and Priesthood passed away upon the prophecied destruction of OC Jerusalem and it's Temple and Sanctuary.
How much of the OT and NT prophecies were fulfilled at that event?

Well Jesus prophesied the event in his Olivet Discourse, however the Book of Hebrews makes more sense from a pastoral perspective if it is written prior to that event as a way to encourage Jewish Christians to not fall back into a reliance on the sacrifices that were a shadow of Christ's true Sacrifice.

 

[from scratch]

I am sorry about not understanding fully what you try to say. But I am not not confusing what is said in the scripture. Till heaven and earth pass away is what Jesus Christ said, and it is what is meant, nothing of God's word passes away. This does not misuse the meaning, it is the meaning. Therefore, fulfillment must mean something else. Christ being fulfilment of sacrifice, priesthood, and the way to be made clean is not doing away with it but Christ's effectiveness for that is what remains. What sin is remains too. To repent of sin, what is being repented of? Well God's word is remaining. Even if it is not imputed, you are still contrite and repenting, so there was sin that was a violation.

I was not eliminating scripture. I address what is posted, but I agree with the scripture passage, in a lengthy post I trim off things to which I am not responding, and respond to certain things you are saying.

I mention things said are for the redeemed, to be truly clear, at least for some others, talk of the commandments being done away should not applied as that suggests to those not even redeemed. Not that they are, but anything changed in the new covenant does not apply to those who are not and will not be redeemed, in Christ.

Please reconcile for us Mat 5:17-18 with Heb 7:12.

 

[from scratch]

Say what? The Aaronic and the Melchizedek priesthood all had the Ark of the Covenant before them in which was contained the two stone tablets, on which God himself wrote the 10 Commandments! Pray tell, who has the authority to change those 10 moral laws?! They were not changed the by High Priest in the Mosaic wilderness tabernacle, they were not changed in the Jerusalem Temple, they sure they the original copies were not changed, because only Jesus our Great High Priest could enter the most Holy Place in the Heavenly Sanctuary.

Oh my you're getting further out there yet.

 

[from scratch]

Again this is the misunderstanding, as The Old Covenant &#8800; The Law, The Ten Commandments, but many today are incorrectly assuming that it does "=":

So sorry to inform you Moses doesn't agree with you according to Deut 5. In the NT Paul and James both say the Ten commandments are the law.

 

[from scratch]

NO. You are making fulfilment mean something else, other than what I explained it to mean. Is all fulfilled? Sin must come to an end, it is in the Bible. That is not fulfilled, is it? There is no replacement, Jesus said till heaven and earth pass away, himself. And the Law and Prophets are of the word of Yahweh God, none of it will pass away. So I do not have to reconcile anything, because that none of it will pass away is not talking about what Christ already fulfilled, I have just said previously that the priesthood, sacrifice, and way to be clean is not passed away, yet is fulfilled, in Christ alone.

I do indeed know that sin had existed before, and that even right after the beginning. Commandments, including what was in the law, showed there was sin and what were sins, the other things of the law were showing things to do about the sins. So sins are still what they were then shown to be. Commandments do not condemn anyone, but the rest of the law can condemn any for breaking the commandments. In Christ we can be free from that as he took it. All of it effective, but what is through Christ is effective too.

You seem to be ignoring LK 24:44, Rom 10:4 and Heb 7:12. By your post there is plenty conflict with the complete truth of the Bible. You're trying your bestest to support errant doctrine by doing so.

 

[FredVB]

"We have God's promise to us "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more" in the present tense, and the reason God gave us this promise seems to elude you."

Just about all this post is using straw-man arguments. I am not arguing about such things. Is it you do not want to see what I am really saying? It must then just be a platform for what you want to say.

Lawless deeds he does not bother to remember in those of us who are really redeemed, they are dealt with in Christ.

"You seem to imply that there isn't a new covenant in the Blood of Christ. That alone goes against Scripture describing this change: "He takes away the first that He may establish the second" (Hebrews 10:9)."

I have not said anything that was contrary.

"The bold admission that the Law has been fulfilled contradicts your assertion that the Law will never be fulfilled. And yes, you still need to reconcile the circular reasoning you bring here with the fact that Christ has already made atonement to redeem our transgressions under the first covenant. I'm waiting for you to offer a solution to fit what Jesus stated."

I never said it would never be fulfilled. You just don't want to see the other understanding of it. It just does not pass away. We who are redeemed are saved, so we do not perish according to it, and will no longer be disobedient, through coming sanctification through Christ. There is still forgiveness in Christ.

"This too is contradictory."

No it wasn't. You do not want to see what is meant with fulfilled, it is not the same as passed away.


"Look at the bold above.
Now come up with those who haven't violated the Law.
There are none, no, not one who has complied with the Law, for it is the Law's recipients addressed in Romans 11:32: "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all". "

I have not said there are any who have not violated the law, other than Jesus.

"And of course we have the same epistle telling Paul's testimony in chapter 7:
the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.
This comes right on the heels of Paul identifying the Law we have been delivered from by quoting Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21: "You shall not covet". Look them up to see the Law we have been delivered from for yourself."

We have only been delivered if we are through Christ, it is his fulfilment.

"You have yet to address what Jesus taught Peter and how Paul repeated virtually the same message in his epistle to the Galatians. Whose child does God's redemption account you as?"

I have only confessed the gospel of Christ here, so I don't know what you trying to say.

"For the purpose of the Law, look at these verses from Galatians 3.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."

I have no argument here, nor against other scripture, I only leave it here to make clear my position I do nor simply delete scripture to not deal with disagreeing. The law is not needed to be the tutor, Christ is there for us, if we have come to him.

"Paul describes the tenure of the Law designed to drive us to our Redeemer using verbs in the perfect tense denoting what it did before faith came.
Is that still the case, or has faith in our appointed Redeemer come to fruition?"

I am nor sure what is asked. We do profit in some things now in Christ. There is more for our hope.

 

[FredVB]

Please reconcile for us Mat 5:17-18 with Jeb 7:12.

???

 

[from scratch]

"We have God's promise to us "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more" in the present tense, and the reason God gave us this promise seems to elude you."

Just about all this post is using straw-man arguments. I am not arguing about such things. Is it you do not want to see what I am really saying? It must then just be a platform for what you want to say.

Lawless deeds he does not bother to remember in those of us who are really redeemed, they are dealt with in Christ.

"You seem to imply that there isn't a new covenant in the Blood of Christ. That alone goes against Scripture describing this change: "He takes away the first that He may establish the second" (Hebrews 10:9)."

I have not said anything that was contrary.

"The bold admission that the Law has been fulfilled contradicts your assertion that the Law will never be fulfilled. And yes, you still need to reconcile the circular reasoning you bring here with the fact that Christ has already made atonement to redeem our transgressions under the first covenant. I'm waiting for you to offer a solution to fit what Jesus stated."

I never said it would never be fulfilled. You just don't want to see the other understanding of it. It just does not pass away. We who are redeemed are saved, so we do not perish according to it, and will no longer be disobedient, through coming sanctification through Christ. There is still forgiveness in Christ.

"This too is contradictory."

No it wasn't. You do not want to see what is meant with fulfilled, it is not the same as passed away.


"Look at the bold above.
Now come up with those who haven't violated the Law.
There are none, no, not one who has complied with the Law, for it is the Law's recipients addressed in Romans 11:32: "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all". "

I have not said there are any who have not violated the law, other than Jesus.

"And of course we have the same epistle telling Paul's testimony in chapter 7:
the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.
This comes right on the heels of Paul identifying the Law we have been delivered from by quoting Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21: "You shall not covet". Look them up to see the Law we have been delivered from for yourself."

We have only been delivered if we are through Christ, it is his fulfilment.

"You have yet to address what Jesus taught Peter and how Paul repeated virtually the same message in his epistle to the Galatians. Whose child does God's redemption account you as?"

I have only confessed the gospel of Christ here, so I don't know what you trying to say.

"For the purpose of the Law, look at these verses from Galatians 3.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."

I have no argument here, nor against other scripture, I only leave it here to make clear my position I do nor simply delete scripture to not deal with disagreeing. The law is not needed to be the tutor, Christ is there for us, if we have come to him.

"Paul describes the tenure of the Law designed to drive us to our Redeemer using verbs in the perfect tense denoting what it did before faith came.
Is that still the case, or has faith in our appointed Redeemer come to fruition?"

I am nor sure what is asked. We do profit in some things now in Christ. There is more for our hope.

No, no. We fully understand you believe the Christian is obligated to keep the law.