Exodus 35:1-3

[listed]

1 John 3:4-10 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

So you bypass (really discard) the New Testament (covenant) to force compliance to a defunct covenant. Is it wicked to not keep the Sabbath for one who was never given the requirement to keep it?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Again, the Bible never instructs all Gentiles to become circumcised, nor does it list a process by which a Gentile could become a Jewish proselyte, so all of that is man-made oral tradition. Paul saw value in circumcision, but he was against the idea that Gentiles needed to be required to become Jewish proselytes and that they needed to keep all of the written and their oral laws in order to be saved. Circumcision never was a necessity for all Gentiles and it never will be, so it will only be a requirement during the Millennial Reign if there are Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover Lamb and circumcision of the heart doesn't count toward that requirement.

So, Gentiles are not included in the Sinaitic covenant. Fair enough. Interestingly, you believe that they must submit themselves to becoming members of that covenant in order to eat the Passover Lamb, which raises the same question addressed in I Corinthians 5:7 which states that Christ is our Passover Lamb. Why would one want to go back to the shadows when one has the real Passover Lamb?

 

[Soyeong]

You may snucker someone else with that bull slinging. It does not work with me. Fulfill means to complete.

Thayer’s Greek lexicon:

G4137 Πληρόω Plēroō
Thayer definition:
1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. To fill to the full
1a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
1a1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
2) to render full, i.e. To complete
2a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
2b1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect

The word translated as fulfill certainly has within its range of meaning to complete, but what was being completed was not the law, but their understanding of it. Jesus came to fill the Law and the Prophets up with meaning, to make perfect the understanding of the Law and the Prophets. Jesus then proceeded to explain about the true understanding of the law by teaching the spiritual principles behind it. This was not in accordance with the Pharisaic way of living out God's law, so he preceded it by saying that he didn't come to abolish or undermine it.

The problem was that Israel for the most part had accepted the Pharisees traditional interpretations of the law and lived according to their opinions and rulings, but Jesus made it clear that they weren't always correct. They had perverted the law into legalism and had buried it under a mountain of their traditions, so Jesus needed to explain to them how to correctly understand and follow it.

Furthermore, if you interpret "fulfilling the Law and the Prophets" to mean "completing the Law and the Prophets", then that essentially means the same thing as abolishing the Law and the Prophets, which Jesus said he didn't come to do in contrast with fulfilling the Law and the Prophets. That would also mean that he completed the Prophets and did away with all of the prophecies in regard to his second coming. Furthermore, it puts him at odds with his own words that not the least would pass from the Law until heaven and earth have passed away.

I can not find any definition that says it means to explain.

It should be rather easy to do a Google search for what it meant to Jewish rabbis to fulfill the law. I can provide a number of links if you want.

 

[Soyeong]

So you bypass (really discard) the New Testament (covenant) to force compliance to a defunct covenant. Is it wicked to not keep the Sabbath for one who was never given the requirement to keep it?

All I did was quote the NT, so your disagreement and misunderstanding is with the NT. I have said nothing about discarding the NT and enforcing compliance with to a defunct covenant, and have in fact repeatedly said just the opposite. The idea that Gentiles were never required to keep the Sabbath is purely fictional. In Acts 15:21, they were already keeping the Sabbath in obedience to God. It was a given that followers of God should obey God.

 

[SAAN]

The scripture says not to start a fire on the Sabbath. Why do you feel a need to modify that?

Its called CONTEXT and I explained the context of the command. They used the fire to do work and since the command is to rest from your work on that day, that is why God told the Israelites not to kindle a fire on the Sabbath, because it was alot of work to kindle one and it was used to do work in the end.

 

[Soyeong]

So, Gentiles are not included in the Sinaitic covenant. Fair enough. Interestingly, you believe that they must submit themselves to becoming members of that covenant in order to eat the Passover Lamb, which raises the same question addressed in I Corinthians 5:7 which states that Christ is our Passover Lamb. Why would one want to go back to the shadows when one has the real Passover Lamb?

No, I said nothing about submitting themselves to become members of the Sinaitic covenant to eat the Passover lamb. Exodus 12:43-49 requires Gentiles to become circumcised if they want to eat of it, but says nothing about them becoming a member of the covenant. Christ is indeed our Passover lamb, so Christ brings full understanding to Passover, which makes it all the more important to keep, not less. When the thousands of Jews in Acts 21:20 became believers found out that the law was all about Christ, that caused them to become zealous for the law, not to discard it.

 

[fatherjimparker]

Yes, I am aware of that custom, but whether they have a correct interpretation of the law's intent is another issue. Jesus said he came to explain how to correctly understand and follow the law and part of that involved cutting through the mountains of traditions that Jews had for how they thought the law should be followed.

The intent of the law was that they not do work on the Sabbath. Jesus pointed out that some work must still be done even on the Sabbath. The Levites were required to perform the daily sacrifices. Animals would need to be fed and watered. Cows would have to be milked.

Jesus had a habit of healing people on the Sabbath which really irritated the Pharisees, scribes and Sadducees. They consistently accused Him of desecrating the Sabbath for doing what they could not do. Maybe they were jealous?

People love to take a command to the extreme or just ignore it.

 

[Soyeong]

The instructions for the Sabbath prohibits our work, but does not prohibit God's work, and in fact, the reason why we are commanded to cease from our works is so that that we may devote time to honoring and serving God. This is why priests who worked in the Temple on the Sabbath were guiltless and why Jesus could heal on the Sabbath.

Isaiah 58:13 “If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath,
from doing your pleasure on my holy day,
and call the Sabbath a delight
and the holy day of the Lord honorable;
if you honor it, not going your own ways,
or seeking or talking idly;

The Sabbath is to be a holy convocation, which involves the work it takes to travel to a place of assembly and the work of eating, drinking, and rejoicing. The Pharisees were irritated because Jesus violated their traditions, but it was actually their traditions that ran contrary to the Sabbath.

 

[fatherjimparker]

Its called CONTEXT and I explained the context of the command. They used the fire to do work and since the command is to rest from your work on that day, that is why God told the Israelites not to kindle a fire on the Sabbath, because it was alot of work to kindle one and it was used to do work in the end.

OK I just figures that was obvious.

 

[bugkiller]

Thayer’s Greek lexicon:

G4137 Πληρόω Plēroō
Thayer definition:
1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. To fill to the full
1a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
1a1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
2) to render full, i.e. To complete
2a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
2b1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect

The word translated as fulfill certainly has within its range of meaning to complete, but what was being completed was not the law, but their understanding of it. Jesus came to fill the Law and the Prophets up with meaning, to make perfect the understanding of the Law and the Prophets. Jesus then proceeded to explain about the true understanding of the law by teaching the spiritual principles behind it. This was not in accordance with the Pharisaic way of living out God's law, so he preceded it by saying that he didn't come to abolish or undermine it.

The problem was that Israel for the most part had accepted the Pharisees traditional interpretations of the law and lived according to their opinions and rulings, but Jesus made it clear that they weren't always correct. They had perverted the law into legalism and had buried it under a mountain of their traditions, so Jesus needed to explain to them how to correctly understand and follow it.

Furthermore, if you interpret "fulfilling the Law and the Prophets" to mean "completing the Law and the Prophets", then that essentially means the same thing as abolishing the Law and the Prophets, which Jesus said he didn't come to do in contrast with fulfilling the Law and the Prophets. That would also mean that he completed the Prophets and did away with all of the prophecies in regard to his second coming. Furthermore, it puts him at odds with his own words that not the least would pass from the Law until heaven and earth have passed away.



It should be rather easy to do a Google search for what it meant to Jewish rabbis to fulfill the law. I can provide a number of links if you want.

No, John 1:17 and 15:10. Besides that we have LK 24:44 which takes away your meaning all together.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

All I did was quote the NT, so your disagreement and misunderstanding is with the NT. I have said nothing about discarding the NT and enforcing compliance with to a defunct covenant, and have in fact repeatedly said just the opposite. The idea that Gentiles were never required to keep the Sabbath is purely fictional. In Acts 15:21, they were already keeping the Sabbath in obedience to God. It was a given that followers of God should obey God.

Yeah and I suppose your quote carried no meaning. What you don't understand is your posting history provides context and meaning.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Its called CONTEXT and I explained the context of the command. They used the fire to do work and since the command is to rest from your work on that day, that is why God told the Israelites not to kindle a fire on the Sabbath, because it was alot of work to kindle one and it was used to do work in the end.

I'm pretty sure the degree of work has already been posted as not applicable. You're making a statement to give yourself an out with other activities. This is amending the law which you have no authority to do.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

No, I said nothing about submitting themselves to become members of the Sinaitic covenant to eat the Passover lamb. Exodus 12:43-49 requires Gentiles to become circumcised if they want to eat of it, but says nothing about them becoming a member of the covenant. Christ is indeed our Passover lamb, so Christ brings full understanding to Passover, which makes it all the more important to keep, not less. When the thousands of Jews in Acts 21:20 became believers found out that the law was all about Christ, that caused them to become zealous for the law, not to discard it.

Passover is a members only activity. Read the Book of the Law.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

No, I said nothing about submitting themselves to become members of the Sinaitic covenant to eat the Passover lamb. Exodus 12:43-49 requires Gentiles to become circumcised if they want to eat of it, but says nothing about them becoming a member of the covenant. Christ is indeed our Passover lamb, so Christ brings full understanding to Passover, which makes it all the more important to keep, not less. When the thousands of Jews in Acts 21:20 became believers found out that the law was all about Christ, that caused them to become zealous for the law, not to discard it.

Passover is a members only activity. Read the Book of the Law.

bugkiller

 

[Frogster]

Yeah and I suppose your quote carried no meaning. What you don't understand is your posting history provides context and meaning.

bugkiller

so true!...yes, it becomes obvious.

 

[Soyeong]

No, John 1:17 and 15:10. Besides that we have LK 24:44 which takes away your meaning all together.

bugkiller

Whether you like it or not, that is historically how rabbis used the phrase and when the historical facts don't match your interpretation, usually it's best to adjust your interpretation. John 1:16 makes it clear that grace is being added to grace, not in opposition. Jesus did not disagree with the Father and did nothing contrary to the Father's will, so he did not command anything different in nature than what the Father had commanded, but rather he was talking about having them follow his example of obedience. With Luke 24:44, neither the Law nor the Prophets write about the Messiah doing away with the law, so that's not referred to.

 

[Soyeong]

Passover is a members only activity. Read the Book of the Law.

bugkiller

Nope, it doesn't say that.

 

[Soyeong]

I'm pretty sure the degree of work has already been posted as not applicable. You're making a statement to give yourself an out with other activities. This is amending the law which you have no authority to do.

bugkiller

Interpreting the original intent of the law =/= amending the law.

 

[Soyeong]

Yeah and I suppose your quote carried no meaning. What you don't understand is your posting history provides context and meaning.

bugkiller

The quote disagrees with what he said and supports my position, so if he doesn't like it, he can take it up with the NT.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, I said nothing about submitting themselves to become members of the Sinaitic covenant to eat the Passover lamb. Exodus 12:43-49 requires Gentiles to become circumcised if they want to eat of it, but says nothing about them becoming a member of the covenant. Christ is indeed our Passover lamb, so Christ brings full understanding to Passover, which makes it all the more important to keep, not less. When the thousands of Jews in Acts 21:20 became believers found out that the law was all about Christ, that caused them to become zealous for the law, not to discard it.

The sign of the Sinaitic covenant is circumcision. When a man converts to Judaism he is circumcised, if he has not already been circumcised. The sign of the new covenant is baptism. You stated previously that if a Gentile wishes to dine on the Passover lamb he must become circumcised.

This runs counter to the New Covenant, which does not require circumcision for its members. What you are saying is that if one wants to become Jewish (i.e. eat the Passover lamb) one must be circumcised. This is a true statement. However, a Gentile under the New Covenant has no such requirement in order to parkake of the Passover Lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ.