Jesus abolished the entire Old Testament.

[toLiJC]

1. The ordinances were not "imperfect". There had a purpose for a limited time. The sacrifices of sheep and goals were pointing the the perfect Sacrifice of Christ. After He came there was no more need of those.
2. The problems with the Jews were with them not God covenant.

if the problem was not with the old covenant and its imperfect ordinances, then why is it written that the first covenant had not been faultless(Hebrews 8:7-9)?!, as well as:

Mark 7:6-7 "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.",

Matthew 5 "Ye have heard that it hath been said (e.g. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth) But I say unto you (e.g. That ye resist not evil)",

John 8:3-45 "And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground(i.e. so as to remind them about the perfect Ten Commandments written personally by God Himself with His finger), as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it(i.e. and when they understood what He alluded (to)), being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last(i.e. because they know that the Ten Commandments say "Thou shalt not kill." and should not cause evil to any human at all): and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more... The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true..... Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.",

Mark 10:2-9 "And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

so let's be more careful when reading the posts and the Bible's quotes/passages and not forget the already read

Blessings

 

[Elder 111]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

1. Verse 20 shows that not all things from the "first covenant" were excluded.
2. Verse 21 will show that if there were Jews only worshiping on the Sabbath there would have had no reason to worry about what they did in the synagogues. The gentles had to be they too, as clearly stated in other passages in Acts.

​

I assumed you knew the plural mention of covenants included the promise through Abraham that in his Seed the nations (plural) would (future) be blessed. Galatians 3 addresses this very topic, and here the text states the Gentiles were estranged from that covenant promise. That included you. You're confronted with the transition between "at that time" and "but now" you completely ignored.

I recently pointed out that you erroneously reversed the relationship of what kept whom and until when for the recipients of the Mosaic covenant - and here I can see you're repeating that error. The Gentile nations didn't ever have the Mosaic covenant, remember? That includes you.

This is pure mythology ignoring the content of Acts 15:5 specifying the mandate introduced by the believing Pharisees that included "command them to keep the law of Moses". That's the Mosaic covenant, aka the Ten Commandments and the Book of the Law. Circumcision is but a component of the Law under consideration, the reason the council convened.

More mythology.

Moses had been preached in the synagogues on the Sabbath for many generations prior to this passage being written. Did this help you find a Sabbath being conveyed to the Gentiles?
No.
It isn't there. You strayed far from the Biblical record.

The Sabbath was as much a requirement of the Mosaic covenant as was circumcision. Where one is conveyed the other generally follows, as the annual Sabbaths couldn't be observed by anyone who wasn't circumcised (Exodus 12:48) - which is no different from the weekly Sabbaths. In this response you didn't address the entire passage quoted in the previous post that refuted your question of salvation for the Jewish recipients of the Law. The recipients were saved in the same manner as the Gentiles, who never had the Law including circumcision and the Sabbath contained therein.

You refuse to address the issue as to why the Sabbath was not mentioned as not pertaining to to Gentles when things that were not necessary for the Gentles to do were stated? And why parts of the same covenant that you say is not for the Gentles were required of them by the Jerusalem council!

 

[VictorC]

You refuse to address the issue as to why the Sabbath was not mentioned as not pertaining to to Gentles when things that were not necessary for the Gentles to do were stated? And why parts of the same covenant that you say is not for the Gentles were required of them by the Jerusalem council!

The prohibition against eating blood originating during Noah's time, long before either the promise to Abraham or the Mosaic covenant existed. Go review Genesis 9 at your leisure.

The Gentiles didn't and don't have the Sabbath. The Jews are saved in the same manner, without the Sabbath. Both groups are excused from the rite of circumcision necessary to keep the Sabbath. So when we see statements from Ellen White recorded in {6T 356.4} claiming "It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord" we can safely conclude the SDA church's claim that she was inspired is patently false.

And it isn't me claiming the council convening in Jerusalem didn't convey the Sabbath to the Gentiles. Here's the total sum of commandments performed in the flesh they conveyed:

Acts 15
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.​

No Sabbath there. Period. You never did address the content of my previous post:

Let's focus on your relationship with the Mosaic covenant as a Gentile in Barbados: You never had this covenant from Mount Sinai. Ephesians 2 describes your relationship this way:

11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.​

You simply cannot ignore the transition between 'at that time' and 'but now'. The time element showing the end of the Law's tenure is the transition from the old covenant you never had and the new covenant in the Blood of Christ. During the former covenant's tenure the Blood of Christ wasn't available to you. Or anyone, for that matter.

Hebrews 9
13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.​

Jesus doesn't mediate the covenant from Mount Sinai that was mediated through Moses. That was the 'first covenant' He took away according to Hebrews 10:9.

 

[listed]

if the problem was not with the old covenant and its imperfect ordinances, then why is it written that the first covenant had not been faultless(Hebrews 8:7-9)?!, as well as:

Mark 7:6-7 "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.",

Matthew 5 "Ye have heard that it hath been said (e.g. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth) But I say unto you (e.g. That ye resist not evil)",

John 8:3-45 "And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground(i.e. so as to remind them about the perfect Ten Commandments written personally by God Himself with His finger), as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it(i.e. and when they understood what He alluded (to)), being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last(i.e. because they know that the Ten Commandments say "Thou shalt not kill." and should not cause evil to any human at all): and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more... The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true..... Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.",

Mark 10:2-9 "And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

so let's be more careful when reading the posts and the Bible's quotes/passages and not forget the already read

Blessings

Good point about the fault. The pro law camp says the fault was with the people (Jews). Is the fault (people) corrected? No. There are none that keep the law even today according to Romans (Paul), 1 John (John) and James (James). This is not even required according to the Apostles (Acts).

 

[listed]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

1. Verse 20 shows that not all things from the "first covenant" were excluded.
2. Verse 21 will show that if there were Jews only worshiping on the Sabbath there would have had no reason to worry about what they did in the synagogues. The gentles had to be they too, as clearly stated in other passages in Acts.

​

You refuse to address the issue as to why the Sabbath was not mentioned as not pertaining to to Gentles when things that were not necessary for the Gentles to do were stated? And why parts of the same covenant that you say is not for the Gentles were required of them by the Jerusalem council!

It seems to me you require attendance at the synagogue. Do you attend? Why not since you require it?

The issue of the Sabbath is addressed by being left out of the requirements. It is not a problem what they did in the synagogues. The short of it is the Gentile converts were not required to attend the synagogue nor keep the Sabbath (observe the law).

 

[Steve Petersen]

Jesus forbad believers from eating food offered to idols in Revelation. This is an OT law. Guess he forgot a few things when he 'abolished' the Law.

 

[listed]

Jesus forbad believers from eating food offered to idols in Revelation. This is an OT law. Guess he forgot a few things when he 'abolished' the Law.

Oh. Would you mind giving a reference as I do not recall such and have a wording problem.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Oh. Would you mind giving a reference as I do not recall such and have a wording problem.

Exodus 34:12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: 13 but ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: 14 for thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: 15 lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;

Revelation 2:14 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality.

Revelation 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

 

[listed]

1. Free from the condemnation of the law: Would that not mean that we are not condemned? By the removal of the law or by the blood of Christ? If it is by the removal of the law then there is no need of the blood of Jesus to cover my sins is there.
   
2. No gentle could have salvation without the removal of the law? No gentle was saved until the"law was removed"? Only Jews were entitled to salvation?

One who is free from the condemnation of the law? Is it all mankind as insinuated or is it only the Redeemed (Christians)? Romans 8 suggests it is only the Christian also referred to as righteous else where.

No Jew (Israeli) could have salvation without the removal of the law as well. This is what being redeemed means. One is both redeemed from the law and sin.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The Torah was NEVER, EVER about eternal salvation. Nary a word about the afterlife in the Torah. It is about life, right here on planet earth.

 

[listed]

1. The ordinances were not "imperfect". There had a purpose for a limited time. The sacrifices of sheep and goals were pointing the the perfect Sacrifice of Christ. After He came there was no more need of those.
2. The problems with the Jews were with them not God covenant.

Gentiles can do better?

 

[listed]

The text says that the gentles were without Christ. Strangers from the covenants (more than one). Is not therefore the ideas of being without Christ and without the covenants linked together? Is that not the premise of the text?

They certainly were.

What is a Gentile made near by? Is it conversion to the covenant of Israel or by the blood of Jesus?

What does the Christian participate in? Do they participate in the covenant made with Israel? That covenant issued at Sinai does not include eternal life (salvation) anywhere.

What are the ordinances? Certainly not the Ten commandments! Were the Ten Commandments the "the enmity"? Remember that includes the commandment to worship God alone! Show me how!

Your quote shows ordinances to be the law including the 10 Cs.

[/INDENT] The discussion in Acts 15 is about circumcision not the Ten commandments, No where is the ten commandments brought into question. Further more the knew that the Sabbath was being observed and said nothing against the Sabbath.
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

On the contrary. Acts includes keeping the law of Moses as part of council issues.

1. Verse 20 shows that not all things from the "first covenant" were excluded. Why?
2. Verse 21 will show that if there were Jews only worshiping on the Sabbath there would have no reason to worry about what they did in the synagogues. The gentles had to be they too, as clearly stated in other passages in Acts.

No but the prophecy of Jer 31 does. Acts testifies that entire covenant is dead. One can not divorce the prophecy of Jeremiah from the context.

 

[listed]

Exodus 34:12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: 13 but ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: 14 for thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: 15 lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;

Revelation 2:14 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality.

Revelation 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

I would like to question if it is actually eating animals sacrificed to idols of if it indeed includes more such as actually worshiping idols.

Is someone here teaching others to participate in sexual sin or even sin for that matter?

Who is tolerating that woman Jezebel? If it is a group of people you associate with I suggest you leave them. Yes this is going on in religious organizations. No they will not listen. To much money and easy living is involved.

I do agree with you those are represented as words from Jesus. I dis agree that the intention is for the Christian to be obligated to the law. I am not saying to eat meat sacrificed to idols nor am I promoting any sin. I do not participate with those who do. I also do not participate with those who enforce the law by practice on Christians either.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I would like to question if it is actually eating animals sacrificed to idols of if it indeed includes more such as actually worshiping idols.

Is someone here teaching others to participate in sexual sin or even sin for that matter?

Who is tolerating that woman Jezebel? If it is a group of people you associate with I suggest you leave them. Yes this is going on in religious organizations. No they will not listen. To much money and easy living is involved.

I do agree with you those are represented as words from Jesus. I dis agree that the intention is for the Christian to be obligated to the law. I am not saying to eat meat sacrificed to idols nor am I promoting any sin. I do not participate with those who do. I also do not participate with those who enforce the law by practice on Christians either.

OK, so this law was not abolished. Do you concede that?

 

[listed]

OK, so this law was not abolished. Do you concede that?

No I do not concede such on behalf of Christians. Yes I do for the wicked as 1 Tim 1 states.

 

[Steve Petersen]

No I do not concede such on behalf of Christians. Yes I do for the wicked as 1 Tim 1 states.

So Christians could eat meat offered to idols even though Jesus forbad it?

 

[listed]

So Christians could eat meat offered to idols even though Jesus forbad it?

Why do people try so hard to prove Christians are under the thumb of the law?

Your questioning seems to go in that direction. I have no idea why offering meat to idols is even mentioned these days. I do not know of any active organizations providing such to the market place. Do you?

If that is the case what is the Scripture you quoted really talking about? Could it be worshipping and doing the will of idol gods (satan)? If so do you have some examples?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Why do people try so hard to prove Christians are under the thumb of the law?

Misery loves company, they themselves don't want to be under the Law alone

 

[listed]

Misery loves company, they themselves don't want to be under the Law alone

I completely concur. I would like to hear his reason. To me they do not accept Moses, the Psalms, prophets, the Gospels and especially the works of Paul.

 

[Elder 111]

It seems to me you require attendance at the synagogue. Do you attend? Why not since you require it?

The issue of the Sabbath is addressed by being left out of the requirements. It is not a problem what they did in the synagogues. The short of it is the Gentile converts were not required to attend the synagogue nor keep the Sabbath (observe the law).

You know that the law does not consist of keeping the Sabbath only. So If there is no law what prohibits me from stealing? How can God find me guilty if there is no law to condemn me? How can I be an adulterer if there is no law for me that say thou shall not commit adultery explain!