Which Law are we not under?

[Frogster]

Anyone that has accepted Christ as their savior will be part of the New Covenant.

Amen.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Sweet, the 10 commandments are against those already.

But we don't need 10 to know that. All we need is "Treat others as you wish others to treat you."

 

[SAAN]

But we don't need 10 to know that. All we need is "Treat others as you wish others to treat you."

But Jesus got that from the same Law people are ignoring on here and say are not needed.

Leviticus 19:18
18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

Like Paul said if there were no laws he would not have known sin is. thats is why Jesus said all those laws are summed up as Love God and One Another and paul sums them up as the Golden rule to Love thy neighbor as thy self, not that everything doesnt matter anymore.

 

[from scratch]

Simple, go by the context.

First point law, nomos, can mean principle, Rom 3:27, Rom 7:21 in the NASB, law cam mean the OT in general, he called Is the law in 1 Cor 14, about tongues, Jesus called the psalms the law in John 10, and 15, the people called the OT the law in John 12. THE law is also the Mosaic law.

But Rom 6:14 is clear, it was the 10, sin has dominion under THE law.The 10.

Not under law in Gal 5:18, same point it was the 10.

Not under law in 1 Cor 9, seems to be about food stuff, things like that.

So you mentioned the UNDER word, so I used some verses that say under.

Not to confuse things, I thought the OP made a presentation of conflict and for us to choose one or more laws to be subject to.

I m pretty sure everyone is subject to the law of gravity and yet its not mentioned as such in the Bible. But like some of the laws the OP mentioned it conflict with the others. The OP presented an argument and nothing more OMHO.

 

[from scratch]

Nope, just pointing out it is very obvious the law they were under was the law of sin and death. Jesus died for our sins and lifted the curse of the law, so now we are under grace to repent from those same sins. When you dont repent you remain under the curse of the law.

Jesus blood covered our sins, so it is his blood we need for repentance and not the blood of animals. As a believer who is saved, you are supposed to want to obey Gods commands as a testimony of your faith. The bible is qiuiet clear about this.


Jesus never said, now that you believe in me, you can now disregard everything my father taught and the same commands I was expected to obey.

The key Paul is trying to say is, that if you try to get your salvation form the law rather than faith in Jesus, you have fallen from grace and have put your self in bondage to try to get salvation from something that no one could accomplish. He is not saying you can sin at free will now. Sin is defined as breaking Gods commands. Even we we cant keep them perfectly, we should at least try. This is where grace covers us for falling short of Gods standards.

SO we are no longer under the law of sin and death.

OK which commands are you talking about? Personally I see only a 2 part one in the NT
from our Father -

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

Jesus gave us commandments as John 15:10 states. None of the above include the law of Moses which includes the famous Ten Commandments. Read the Prophets if you don't love Paul or read both the prophets and Hebrews if you do.

 

[from scratch]

There is no such thing as Gentile Christians back then. The tern Christian was a derogatory term to put people down that followed Jesus, not a badge of honor that Jesus said, if you believe in me you are a Christian.

There is no separate paths of salvation. Galatians said there is no Jew or Gentile as we are all one in Christ, so we have one law to follow. Christians dont get to pick and choose what they want to follow. The NT has 1050 commands and every single of one them are doable and dont involve any sacrifices are are expected of us to follow as believer in God and Jesus.

Mixing Law and Grace is when you think your faith saves you and if you dont keep every single command you will loose your salvation. At that point you arent relying on grace but rather yourself. Grace doesnt abolished Gods commands. We are still expected not to kill, steal, kill, covet, not worship other Gods, refrain from sexual immorality etc.

Most churches recognized as pro grace preach and demand works of the law. Its very manipulative. Keeps most people confused and reliant on them.

 

[from scratch]

I would be interested how you interpret this statement out of Acts 15:


"The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.

That sounds suspiciously like Gentiles were being discussed, NOT Jews, and the word "Christian" was never used.

Excellent point and catch.

Christians are NEVER commanded to keep the Sabbath in all of those 1050 Commands that you speak of. Sabbath Keeping has been denounced as a non-Christian heresy since the First Century.



And all of those things are covered by the Noahide laws, which have been in existence LONG before Moses received the Mosaic Law at Sinai. Plainly, the AD 50 Council of Jerusalem as referred to in Acts 15 merely reaffirmed what the Law had been for Gentiles LONG before Moses. And the Pharisees were indeed demanding that Gentiles keep the Mosaic Law.

They lost.

Yep they in fact did!!!!

 

[from scratch]

Read Acts 15:21 to get the proper context. Those 4 things were a start of what they were to do and Acts 15:21 says they will learn the rest each week when they go to the synagogs on the Sabbath. It is abosultely silly to think al gentiles have to do is follow those 4 suggestions and can ignore commands from God not to lie, steal, covet, etc.

Acts 15:21http://biblehub.com/acts/15-22.htm
For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

There wasn't such a command to attend the synagogue. If there was explain why you don't.

No excuses.

 

[from scratch]

I hardly doubt that Peter or James condemned those that worship God on sabbath.

My wager is that he didn't condemn those who worshipped on Sunday and not the Sabbath like some here do. Where do they get such an authority. It sure wasn't from the Apostles and their council at Jerusalem. They flat out told the law boys to kiss off. IOW No!

 

[from scratch]

Is all this temple talk about the eternal temple?

Please identify this eternal temple you're talking about.

 

[from scratch]

Sweet, the 10 commandments are against those already.

This makes you think everyone keeps the law. My that's funny beyond words.

 

[from scratch]

That is beside the point, the point is that they totally IGNORED the idea that Christians should be commanded to keep the Sabbath at the council. They could have easily said keep the 10 commandments, or keep the Sabbath or anything that would have equated what people are advocating here yet guess what? You have NOTHING from the council to back up any demands or commands on Christians.

All they had to do is command ANY obvious laws be kept at the council and they totally did NOTHING of the sort but talked about the opposite and passed an edict equating NO mosaic laws be imposed upon gentile Christians.
You can spin all you want but the top 3 apostles got you backed into a corner on this..... NO Law on gentiles believers.

Couldn't say it any better.

 

[from scratch]

How are we grafted into israel, when the one new kainos man of Eph 2;15, came after the abolishment of jewish law?


Dude, eph 2 goes into a spiritual temple, the church, not israel, in 3:10, now through the CHURCH, the grace is shown, paul did not go into israel in his definition/description if you read more.

Besides, Eph 3:6 says heirs, and promise, that is Abrahamic wordage, Abraham the guy Paul used to take down law, curcumcision, nationalism, racism, ethnic jewish pride...it says gospel in 3:6, that is for jew and greek, the same body, and it is spiritual, no longer about jew and greek, gal 3:28, Col 3:11.

lets let go of this whole grafted into israel notion.

Like you, I didn't get my property deed yet either. Wonder what the hang up is? Some others here apparently got theirs. I'd love to see a copy.

 

[from scratch]

We might not be the physical nation of Israel, but the bible clearly says the New Covenant was for Israel, that is why I say we are grafted in as spiritual Israel when we get saved.


“Israel” not only referred to Jacob, but also to his descendants—who became Israel. The same principle is seen in the New Testament.

God told the ancient Israelites, “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” Ex 19:6. In the New Testament, Peter applies these exact words to the church: “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people” 1 Peter 2:9.

Galatians 3:29
29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.


So in the New Testament, the name Israel not only applies to Jesus Christ, but also to those who are born in Christ—His Church! In other words, all true Christians are now God’s spiritual Israel


The church is called the body of Christ 1 cor 12:27. so when James, when writing to the church, addresses it as the 12 tribes that are scattered abroad in James 1:1. From the very beginning, the church has understood Israel to mean a spiritual body of Christ.

IOW one must be subject to the law to obtain salvation. BULL! Jesus isn't Israel. Salvation comes only thru Jesus having nothing to do with Israel.

 

[from scratch]

There was grace in the OT too. No one could keep the law perfect, so they had faith back then too.

Unfortunately the law doesn't teach grace. It does provide for a temporary stay of judgment.

Jesus told them to remember his death, not his resurrection and that is why the still kept Passover even many years after Jesus died
Luke 22:19-20

Christians don't as a rule observe Passover. We do however observe its replacement.

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

While I see nothing wrong with celebrating the resurrection or communion in remembrance of him, its still different than what Jesus actually commanded of them. Keep the Passover and take bread and wine in remembrance of him, not substitute it with Easter and start Sunday morning communion.

Problem there is no prescribed time for such observance.

But there is no wrong in celebrating the resurrection (Minus the Bunny, Egg Hunts, or any other former pagan aspects) or taking weekly communion since God knows our hearts motives, even though some have a giant issue with weekly communion for some reason.

 

[from scratch]

You are waaaay off on this on. There was no 1st year of Easter after the cross. I have proved in the "why dont SDA/Sabbatarians keep the Feast days" thread that they celebrated the Feast Days and were still keeping the dietary laws many many years after Christ.

The church has no authority to substitute or cancel out commands of God. Jesus didnt have aurthority to do so, so the church no way has authority to go against what God commands.

Easter is a making of the catholic church. It merged the pagan Bunny, Egg hunts and paintings, hot cross buns, Easter ham all form the former pagan celebration and just substituted passover and slapped the name Jesus on top of the celebration.

Easter didnt come about until a couple hundreds of years after the apostles died and the RCC took it from there as they merged many pagan aspects of Sun God worship into the church to make it easier for pagan to join in Christianity.

Dont fool yourself that there was Eater after the cross because the bible can easily disprove that. The Sabbath was being kept too, the only people who worshiped on Sunday were all in Rome.

As hard as it is to admit and believe, the RCC changed everything and are the main pushers behind Easter, Christmas and Sunday worship. While there is no harm in Sunday worship as we worship God everyday, to say the church can abolish a command of God is ridiculous and only cherry picking of scriptures can back that.

Right out of the bologna factory. The issue was decided long before the RCC came into power.

 

[from scratch]

Ellen White plagiarized much of the Great Controversy from Wylie's "History of the Protestant Reformation." Wylie's book clearly lays out the history of the dispute between Eastern Orthodox versus Roman Catholicism. Ellen White deceitfully left this entire history out of the Great Controversy. Eastern Orthodoxy is adamant that Sunday Worship and Easter celebration took place in the first year after the Resurrection. The Seventh Day Adventist Church in NONE of their literature mentions this claim, addresses it, let alone even tries to dispute it. It is simply left unmentioned in the Great Controversy. Eastern Orthodoxy is the avowed and committed enemy of the Papacy and would NEVER have started Sunday worship because the Papacy decided to do it. The Papacy never has had, nor ever will have any influence or effect over Easter Orthodoxy.

Ellen White simply concocted one of history's biggest frauds by deciding to keep this hidden from Adventism. Her arguments that Roman Catholicism instituted Sunday Worship and Easter Celebration is nothing more than an elaborate fairy tale. There is NO history that supports her on that. NONE.

Seventh Day Adventism's OWN Sabbath Scholar Samuele Bacchiochi also has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellen White willfully lied that the Pope had anything to do with the institution of Sunday worship. Ellen White was a pathological liar: The Pope wasn't even in existence at the time Sunday worship was unanimous no later than 135 AD, according to Bacchiochi.

One of their own told me he was a suspected Jesuit plant. How's that for great spiritual discernment?

 

[from scratch]

Anyone that has accepted Christ as their savior will be part of the New Covenant.

Why are we so badgered by some here to forsake the new for the old? Isn't reasonable to question them and their motive? I think so.

 

[SAAN]

Why are we so badgered by some here to forsake the new for the old? Isn't reasonable to question them and their motive? I think so.

THe New Testament is a fulfillment of and based completely off the Old Testament. Any time you have a question, you have to go back to the OT and see if it lines up. That is what Jesus, the apostles taught from back then. Its modern day Chrisitianity that teaches this utter nonsense that 66% of the book is not needed and doesnt apply to them anymore. I really wish they would rip the page out that says NEW TESTAMENT, so people will realize the bible is 1 complete book with different covenants and the new ccovenant is what we are under now, but not a complete abolishment of what God commands of his followers.

 

[from scratch]

THe New Testament is a fulfillment of and based completely off the Old Testament. Any time you have a question, you have to go back to the OT and see if it lines up. That is what Jesus, the apostles taught from back then. Its modern day Chrisitianity that teaches this utter nonsense that 66% of the book is not needed and doesnt apply to them anymore. I really wish they would rip the page out that says NEW TESTAMENT, so people will realize the bible is 1 complete book with different covenants and the new ccovenant is what we are under now, but not a complete abolishment of what God commands of his followers.

Personally I don't see how that addresses my question. What in the New Testament do we need the old to explain? How does the old Testament apply to the Christian?