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

[from scratch]

Who in the world is arguing that new believers need to be instructed in God’s ways? <shakes head>

In fact even in Acts 15:21 the apostles make it clear that the Law of God will be taught on a weekly basis to believers congregating in the temple, but made sure they IMMEDIATELY broke away from their pagan ways, by instituting 4 instructions regarding their pagan practices.

The whole point of God’s Instructions is just that INSTRUCTIONS, guidelines to living a life that pleases Him and is a light to the nations. Every believer who joins himself to God’s household will need to learn ‘line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little, and as a babe start off with milk before moving to meat.

Beg your pardon.

 

[from scratch]

Who in the world is arguing that new believers need to be instructed in God’s ways? <shakes head>

In fact even in Acts 15:21 the apostles make it clear that the Law of God will be taught on a weekly basis to believers congregating in the temple, but made sure they IMMEDIATELY broke away from their pagan ways, by instituting 4 instructions regarding their pagan practices.

The whole point of God’s Instructions is just that INSTRUCTIONS, guidelines to living a life that pleases Him and is a light to the nations. Every believer who joins himself to God’s household will need to learn ‘line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little, and as a babe start off with milk before moving to meat.

Maybe we should start with reading lessons.

 

[from scratch]

You can talk about your "interpretations" all you want.
At the end of the day...to properly describe the NEW COVENANT, you must go to the text describing the New Covenant.

Unfortunately those texts all begin with "THIS IS THE NEW COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM"

Who is them?

You take it that excludes everyone else. Unfortunately Acts disagrees with you.

 

[Rev Randy]

You know you're right in a sense, but you've skimmed over a glaring omission, you see proselytes to Judaism were required to become circumcised according to the Law. Gentiles do not need to be circumcised in order to join the Church, something radical has changed and you don't recognize it. It's a wonder that you even recognize Jesus as the Messiah

I agree with this except the last sentence. That's a bit too rough.

 

[robinvanpersie]

Isn't it interesting that Abraham wasn't a Israelite of Jew? And isn't it interesting that even they must be graft into the tree? The Christian isn't graft into Israel. We're graft into Jesus the Root.

That's cute.

Only problem is that Romans 11 doesn't say that the wild olive branches are grafted into the ROOT. It says they are grafted in to the TREE, among believing Jews. Who is the tree?

 

[robinvanpersie]

I don't reply to arguments using the word TORAH... it is meaningless to me and misused to confuse people. Either choose the Law, Mosaic Law, Old Covenant or I will ignore such inferences.

Logic says? Show me anywhere in Scripture that teaches that believers “outside of Israel” were keeping anything but the Law of God. I’ve already showed you countless times where God went out of His way to emphasize that both Israel and those without Israeli blood running through their veins [BELIEVERS] all must live according to the same standard.

Christianity as a word may not have existed but what the word defines definitely existed....

But the “Christianity” described in the “New Testament” not ONCE shows ANY believer living a life of disobedience to the Law of God. In fact we see exactly the contrary. Show me ONE believer or “Christian” in the “New Testament” living a life of disobedience to the Law of God, or living a life void of the Law of God. IT doesn’t exist. It’s CGI-ed or houdini-ed in there.

Paul wrote over half the New Testament as proof of such.

Paul lived a life of obedience to the Law of God. He died a Law-abiding citizen If Paul would’ve EVER taught even one of the many teachings that many are purporting on here, the Bereans would’ve completely disregarded every teaching and regarded it as TRUE heresy, since they (Acts 17:11) tried EVERYTHING that Paul taught and compared it to the Scriptures. But again, back to point number 1 I made up there---your view that the Law of God is no more and therefore not applicable in the life of the believer—was AT ALL not practiced, or taught by any “New Testament” believer.

Paul was sent to Gentiles and most of his writings were dealing directly with problems Gentile believers faced some BECAUSE of Judaism.

You gotta love your usage of the word “some” followed by capitalized Judaism. Because you haven’t studied the “Torah” or Law, I can completely understand where you’re coming from. I used to be where you are, somehow thinking that “JUDAISM” was one big group and that Christianity were against it. The irony of that belief is the complete ignorance of the fact that the exact same can be done with the term “CHRISTIAN” or “CHRISTIANITY”. In fact Paul’s teachings are written for problems believers are faced “some BECAUSE of Christianity”. (see what I did there?)

You can’t group “JUDAISM” into one single group, especially if you’re referring to “JUDAIZERS” and “FALSE teachers of the Law”. Paul rebuked judaizers and false teachers of the law in MOST of his writings, because of their MISUSE of the Law of God. But again all of this will seem like foolishness to you, since your thought process is that EVERYTHING Jewish is antiquated and categorized with Judaizing, etc.

 

[robinvanpersie]

Yes.... I am aware that as in the Bible in Acts at the council of Jerusalem where Paul fought of Jews trying to put Gentiles under the Law of Moses is being taught in Churches today. I think pastors should be ashamed of themselves for ignoring the decision of the council and demand compliance to things Paul fought against. I believe it equal to apostacy and heresy to reject Paul's writings and confuse belivers to get them to bow to the Mosaic Law while calling it the New Covenant and Christianity.

What&#8217;s interesting about all your interpreting of Scripture in the &#8220;New Testament&#8221; is that it ALL flies in the face of the Master&#8217;s clear statement that &#8220;not even the smallest stroke of the letter of God&#8217;s Law will pass away until heaven and earth pass.&#8221; Does not matter how you spin it, or what apostle you use to interpret it away. He clearly said, lived and believed that the Father&#8217;s Holy Law is something that will not pass until this earth we live in and the heaven above passes.

At the end of the day, or more importantly at the end of times the Truth will be revealed, and as Micha 4:2 prophesy: "Many nations (Gentiles) will come and say, "Come and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD and to the house of the God of Jacob, that He may teach us about His ways and that we may walk in His paths." For from Zion will go forth the Law, Even the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.&#8221;

And God reasserts in Zechariah 8:23-- "Thus says the LORD of hosts, `In those days ten men from all the nations will grasp the garment of a Jew, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you."

I pray and hope that you will be among those nations

 

[Sophrosyne]

Logic says? Show me anywhere in Scripture that teaches that believers “outside of Israel” were keeping anything but the Law of God. I’ve already showed you countless times where God went out of His way to emphasize that both Israel and those without Israeli blood running through their veins [BELIEVERS] all must live according to the same standard.

You are the one making the claim that believers outside of Israel were keeping the Law not me it is up to you to prove it. I have already made an argument that puts doubt upon this and your response is for me to put more doubt instead of you proving less doubt.

But the “Christianity” described in the “New Testament” not ONCE shows ANY believer living a life of disobedience to the Law of God. In fact we see exactly the contrary. Show me ONE believer or “Christian” in the “New Testament” living a life of disobedience to the Law of God, or living a life void of the Law of God. IT doesn’t exist. It’s CGI-ed or houdini-ed in there.

Christianity doesn't define disobedience as per Mosaic Law compliance such that disobedience isn't related to it.

Paul lived a life of obedience to the Law of God. He died a Law-abiding citizen If Paul would’ve EVER taught even one of the many teachings that many are purporting on here, the Bereans would’ve completely disregarded every teaching and regarded it as TRUE heresy, since they (Acts 17:11) tried EVERYTHING that Paul taught and compared it to the Scriptures. But again, back to point number 1 I made up there---your view that the Law of God is no more and therefore not applicable in the life of the believer—was AT ALL not practiced, or taught by any “New Testament” believer.

Actually Paul himself equated he kept the Law around those who were keeping it and didn't keep the Law around those who were not keeping it. I am sure you have seen the scripture equating it a dozen times already and ignored it.

<content omitted due to reference to TORAH>

I won't respond to any argument based upon the word TORAH... either choose another word or don't waste your time.

 

[robinvanpersie]

Herein lies the crux of your problem. I see them as separable units.

Crux? The Crux of what you just said is that &#8220;YOU&#8221; see it as separable. The Word of God doesn&#8217;t. Psalm 119:89 tells us: &#8220;The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting.&#8221;
God&#8217;s Word is a unit. Not divisible. Man divides it and with it create erroneous and grievous errors.

I believe that it is hard just by reading the Old Testament to be saved by Christ,

For you perhaps. But unlike you, I see the history of salvation---and wholeheartedly see and believe that they were saved by grace through faith---EXACTLY the same way me and you are saved today. At the end of the day it is the same Spirit that draws man to God, not any letters written on paper, or scroll. So for you to even attempt to limit God&#8217;s salvation to half of His Word is extremely underwhelming at best.

but without any knowledge of the Old Testament one can be saved by Christ only reading the New Testament.

Again a faulty and ill-informed assertion. Salvation has nothing to do with what words are read, but rather the AWAKENING of God within the dead and enslaved ~sinful man.

 

[robinvanpersie]

You are the one making the claim that believers outside of Israel were keeping the Law not me it is up to you to prove it.

The Word of God says that the SAME LAW and STANDARD shall apply to both the natural born Israelite and the OUTSIDER.

Christianity doesn't define disobedience as per Mosaic Law compliance such that disobedience isn't related to it.

&#8220;Christianity&#8221;. You keep using that word, but I&#8217;m guessing you have a personal interpretation of it. GOD defines what is right and what is wrong BY HIS WORD. I don&#8217;t care how &#8220;Christianity&#8221; gets their &#8216;standard&#8217;. I only care about what God uses as a standard. HIS STANDARD is GENESIS-REVELATION. [2 Timothy 3:16-17]

So if your &#8220;Christianity&#8221; uses something besides the word of God as it&#8217;s standard, I want nothing to do with it. (you shouldn&#8217;t either.)

Actually Paul himself equated he kept the Law around those who were keeping it and didn't keep the Law around those who were not keeping it. I am sure you have seen the scripture equating it a dozen times already and ignored it.

Ignore? Soph let&#8217;s be straight here&#8212; there is not one single example of ANYONE in the &#8220;New Testament&#8221; living or even doing something contrary to the Law of God. (Much less being "applauded" for their Law-breaking) There is ZERO examples of Paul &#8220;living a Law-less life&#8221; or even &#8220;breaking the Law of God&#8221;.
I don&#8217;t want to discuss interpretation because it&#8217;s simply your word against mine.

For example the Scriptures show Paul going to Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost, or offering sacrifices to complete his nazarite vow and then on TOP of that CLEARLY confess that he keeps the Law of God and walks orderly.

On the other hand there are ZERO examples proving the contrary. ZERO.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Crux? The Crux of what you just said is that “YOU” see it as separable. The Word of God doesn’t. Psalm 119:89 tells us: “The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting.”
God’s Word is a unit. Not divisible. Man divides it and with it create erroneous and grievous errors.

I see many parts of the Bible as separable it doesn't mean it isn't profitable or useful it just means that some things do apply to Christians and some do not and the Old Testament is mostly history and applicable to Jews and not Gentiles and the Old Covenant is not Christianity which is in the New Testament. I sort things out to better examine them to prevent error while some people won't sort things and it becomes a jumbled mess of out of context things like trying to take an warehouse full of old and new parts and trying to make a car out of them the old parts don't fit with the new and vice versa you end up with something that doesn't work right.

For you perhaps. But unlike you, I see the history of salvation---and wholeheartedly see and believe that they were saved by grace through faith---EXACTLY the same way me and you are saved today. At the end of the day it is the same Spirit that draws man to God, not any letters written on paper, or scroll. So for you to even attempt to limit God’s salvation to half of His Word is extremely underwhelming at best.

Nobody was saved in the Old Testament... it was the cross where it happened people were looking forward to the promise till then. The Jews had the Law in its entirety to read and understand, they had all of the Old Testament I believe and MOST of them REJECTED Jesus (and salvation) thus the Old Testament was of NO USE to them.

Again a faulty and ill-informed assertion. Salvation has nothing to do with what words are read, but rather the AWAKENING of God within the dead and enslaved ~sinful man.

Umm.... No.
I'm bowing out now, that last section told me that you are not serious about debating someone who uses logic to refute your arguments.

 

[robinvanpersie]

You take it that excludes everyone else. Unfortunately Acts disagrees with you.

scratch. the king of non-answering.

Who is the tree?

Who is the "them" of Romans 11:17?

We know the root is Yeshua.

 

[robinvanpersie]

Nobody was saved in the Old Testament... it was the cross where it happened people were looking forward to the promise till then.

If you want to get technical, no one is saved now.

Acts 3:18-21 "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.

1 Peter 1:5
“who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

-- or if you wanna argue it another way—Christ, the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, so as to provide salvation to ALL, past, present and future.

Either way, your argument that no one from Adam through the thief on the cross were “actually” saved, cannot stand up to either of the above arguments.

The Jews had the Law in its entirety to read and understand, they had all of the Old Testament I believe and MOST of them REJECTED Jesus (and salvation) thus the Old Testament was of NO USE to them.

Again, misinformation. Where do you get off assuming that MOST of them rejected Jesus? Simply based on what the wicked rulers did, and Paul’s usage of the word “Jews” to label the Jewish leaders? Go back and re-read the Scriptures, this time looking for “and many believed.”

Let me get you started.

John 2:23. “Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing.

John 4:39,41 “From that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, "He told me all the things that I have done. Many more believed because of His word”

John 7:31. But many of the crowd believed in Him; and they were saying, "When the Christ comes, He will not perform more signs than those which this man has, will He?"

John 8:30. As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him.

John 10:42. Many believed in Him there.

John 11:45. Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him.

John 12:42. Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue;"

 

[Rev Randy]

If you want to get technical, no one is saved now.

[/B]

I'll bet a dollar this statement will not be received well by some.

 

[Sophrosyne]

If you want to get technical, no one is saved now.

I can find scripture that says believe and be saved I'm sure you have seen it. It is up to you to prove salvation was OFFERED in the Old Testament by believing in Jesus upon which scriptures state there is NO other way to be saved.
-- or if you wanna argue it another way&#8212;Christ, the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, so as to provide salvation to ALL, past, present and future.
[/quote]Let me ask you this.. why did God wait to offer salvation in Christ until he came then?

Again, misinformation. Where do you get off assuming that MOST of them rejected Jesus? Simply based on what the wicked rulers did, and Paul&#8217;s usage of the word &#8220;Jews&#8221; to label the Jewish leaders? Go back and re-read the Scriptures, this time looking for &#8220;and many believed.&#8221;

Prove that many means a majority. Jesus was rejected by his own home town which should tell you something about things.
Human nature repeats itself... Israel now corporately rejects Jesus just as it did back then. If enough people had accepted Jesus they would have risen up and made him King but instead he suffered death. Blaming the Jewish leaders doesn't cut it throughout Jewish history the people have defied their priests and sinned greatly I see no sense in them not defying the priests and accepting Jesus and defying them outright and it just didn't happen that way.

 

[from scratch]

scratch. the king of non-answering.

Who is the tree?

Who is the "them" of Romans 11:17?

We know the root is Yeshua.

Clue - it isn't Israel.

Christians, not Jews. Now you want to say the tree is made up of Israeli. No sir even they're graft into this tree. There is no Jew nor Gentile in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28

 

[from scratch]

If you want to get technical, no one is saved now.

Acts 3:18-21 "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.

1 Peter 1:5
“who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

-- or if you wanna argue it another way—Christ, the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, so as to provide salvation to ALL, past, present and future.

Either way, your argument that no one from Adam through the thief on the cross were “actually” saved, cannot stand up to either of the above arguments.

Again, misinformation. Where do you get off assuming that MOST of them rejected Jesus? Simply based on what the wicked rulers did, and Paul’s usage of the word “Jews” to label the Jewish leaders? Go back and re-read the Scriptures, this time looking for “and many believed.”

Let me get you started.

John 2:23. “Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing.

John 4:39,41 “From that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, "He told me all the things that I have done. Many more believed because of His word”

John 7:31. But many of the crowd believed in Him; and they were saying, "When the Christ comes, He will not perform more signs than those which this man has, will He?"

John 8:30. As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him.

John 10:42. Many believed in Him there.

John 11:45. Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him.

John 12:42. Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue;"

There is no good value in your argument.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

Yeah those in power don't like to be examined or even asked questions. They are absolute. So be a good little boy and bow becoming a robot.

I really don't understand the nature of your post. It does say some things though that aren't exactly complimentary.

I am sorry. They aren't. It seems that I am trying to get people more serious into what Jesus ask of them and examine what they have accepted that is of man and not of Him. I am too tired to try to go back over it. I just apologize for speaking out towards you (and others). I will most likely curtail my postings here, on account of needing to keep up my other responsibilities. I have gotten out of line at times, but the reason for greatly slowing down here is to be with my family and get my work done. I really believe that this type of social media exchanging is addictive. I believe it is helpful some and is meant to have fellowship, it isn't meant to be wrong, but it involves a difficult means of getting satisfaction without a schedule framework that would match more structured forms of exchanges like real church and real relationships (persons to persons with time limits, meaningful full communications with eye contact, gestures and gentleman's manners with other responsible characteristics.) I think that is what I wanted to say. Tired. Must sleep.

 

[robinvanpersie]

Clue - it isn't Israel.

I did not say Israel. I said believing Israel--aka Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, etc. We are grafted in AMONG THEM!

Christians, not Jews.

What would you call David? A Christian Jew? or a "saved Jew? or what? Whatever you call him, THAT'S WHO you're grafted AMONG (Romans 11:17)

Now you want to say the tree is made up of Israeli. No sir even they're graft into this tree. There is no Jew nor Gentile in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28

heavy skirting.

Verse 24
For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

You as a gentile come from a wild tree.
You as a gentile need to be grafted into the cultivated tree.
Verse 24 tells you that the Jews who believe after their unbelief will be grafted in again into THEIR OWN TREE!

 

[robinvanpersie]

There is no good value in your argument.

I love the comebacks. They are so non-essential.
"your argument is bad" "your argument is not good." "I don't like your argument"--- so on and so forth...