Exodus 35:1-3

[listed]

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.

Whether you like or not that is not conveyed in the text as bugkiller showed with Lk 24:44. Besides John 1:16 is talking about the fullness of Jesus and not the law. You need something that says grace was added to the law. The law is not grace. The law does not provide for grace either. I did not say grace did not exist.

 

[listed]

Nope, it doesn't say that.

We can read.

48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

 

[listed]

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

No it plainly says no work. It does not say minor or miniscule work.

 

[listed]

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.

Give us commentary on why you posted the passage and what you think it says. So far all you are doing is bypassing a problem for you that you refuse to deal with.

 

[listed]

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.

Where is the evidence Christians were keeping the Sabbath anywhere in Acts 15.

 

[listed]

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.

Jesus did not come to deliver us from the vain babblings of men.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

[Frogster]

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.

you misuse Acts 15:21, that was not for the churches.

 

[Frogster]

Where is the evidence Christians were keeping the Sabbath anywhere in Acts 15.

you go dude!

 

[Frogster]

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.

right on!

 

[Frogster]

Nope, it doesn't say that.

yes it does, to keep it, one had to convert to Judaism, so your post is incorrect!.


Institution of the Passover

Exodus 12:43-48 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the statute of the Passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, 44 but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. 45 No foreigner or hired servant may eat of it. 46 It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house, and you shall not break any of its bones. 47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.

 

[Frogster]

Nope, it doesn't say that.

Passover of the Gentiles, or Jews?


John 2:13
The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

John 6:4
Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.

John 11:55
Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves

 

[SAAN]

you misuse Acts 15:21, that was not for the churches.

Who exactly was 15:21 addressing then, since everything leading up to that point in chapter 15 was addressing the gentiles.

 

[SAAN]

Passover of the Gentiles, or Jews?


John 2:13
The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

John 6:4
Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.

John 11:55
Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves

Passover was instituted way before the word Jew even showed up in the scriptures.
Plus God said the feast days were his feast days, not the Jews in Lev 23.

 

[listed]

Passover was instituted way before the word Jew even showed up in the scriptures.
Plus God said the feast days were his feast days, not the Jews in Lev 23.

We have a copy of the Scripture.

 

[Frogster]

Who exactly was 15:21 addressing then, since everything leading up to that point in chapter 15 was addressing the gentiles.

you saw that I posted the thread on 15:21. here is the link, go for it!


http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-misunderstood-a-no-spin-zone-thread.7880739/

 

[Frogster]

Passover was instituted way before the word Jew even showed up in the scriptures.
Plus God said the feast days were his feast days, not the Jews in Lev 23.

But why did peter call it the passover of the Jews, and we know from text, to keep it one had to be Jewish via circumcision?

why?