Christ is the end of the law

[W2L]

I made an argument that Noah was never allowed to eat everything that he wanted, so I was not ignoring your claim, but instead of interacting with my argument and evaluating whether anything I said had any merit, you just reasserted your claim and said that my facts were wrong. Perhaps my facts are wrong, but if I am wrong, I need to be persuaded that I am wrong, so I would appreciate it if you would engage with what I said rather than just assert that I am wrong.

Noah was allowed to eat any creature that moved. God placed no restriction on Noah, other than commanding him to not eat blood. This is exactly what Acts 15 commands too! Isnt that interesting? You however would ignore that, and place Moses law on my neck. No thanks brother.

 

[Soyeong]

Noah was allowed to eat any creature that moved. God placed no restriction on Noah, other than commanding him to not eat blood. This is exactly what Acts 15 commands too! Isnt that interesting? You however would ignore that, and place Moses law on my neck. No thanks brother.

Again that is incorrect because the word used refers to animals that are prey, not to everything that moves, and animals that are prey closely fits the description of clean animals, so Noah was only allowed to eat clean animals after he had been temporarily restricted from doing so while on the Ark (Genesis 6:21). It is clear that Noah had been given prior instructions in regard to clean and unclean animals because God did not need to explain the concept to him in Genesis 7:2 or how to differentiate between them, or that he should only offer clean animals (Genesis 9:20), so it follows that Noah also already knew that he should only eat clean animals. Noah was described as a righteous man in Genesis 6:9, and this is no accident, but rather it says that he found grace in the eyes of God, so Noah had been trained by God in how to rightly live, and he obeyed by faith.

Acts 15:20: Pollution by idols, fornication, blood, and from things strangled.

Noahide laws: Social laws, prohibition against idolatry, adultery, eating the flesh of a living animal, blasphemy, and bloodshed.

Comparing the two, they didn’t include social laws because if they were joining a community of people those would have already been established. There’s a match for idolatry, adultery, and eating the flesh of a living animal, but no match for blasphemy or bloodshed. Then there’s one prohibition on the Apostle’s side against things strangled that has no match with the Noahide. So while there were three laws in common, there were differences on both sides that show they are not the same. Likely the list in Acts 15:20 was a created list that would help new believers coming out of paganism to make a clean break from it.

 

[bloodygrace]

You can't debate a law keeper because they don't believe and never will.

 

[Bob S]

Jesus did not teach following the law by example per Jn 1:17 -

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Jesus kept the sabbath and the rest of the law because He was obligated by the law issued at Sinai to Israel alone. Jesus did not come to convert the whole world to Judaism.True are salvation is from sin. Since the law only makes sin more sinful were are also free from the law. One of the purposes of the law or any law for that matter is so wrong (sin/transgression) may be charged and punished.

15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Rom 4

32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. Rom 11

Since you address the life style of Jesus as being celibate, etc the issue you are trying to enforce is keeping the law (submitting to Judaism) opposed to following the example of Jesus.Yes you promote "halakhah" Judaism instead of Christianity. The sect of Judaism referred to as "halakhah" give the Jews a great deal of pain and trouble.

The commands of Jesus are not the same as those issued by His and our Father per Jn 13:34, 15:10 and I Jn 3:23.We are fellow citizens with the saints and not Israel per Eph 2:19.The righteousness required by God does not come through the law.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Rom 3

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: Rom 4Obedience to what? the law - no.

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Rom 7

Rom 6:14, 15 also say we are not under (obligated) to the law.Fulfill (pleroo) means to render full, i.e. to complete.Evidence of the law and prophets being fulfilled Jesus spoke about in Mat 5 is found in Lk 24:44. More evidence is found in Heb 7:12. If Jesus is not your priest contrary to the levitical law you are not a Christian. Two witnesses say it is all or none of the law and Mat 5 says jot or tittle will not pass til all has been fulfilled.IOW you refuse to submit to the whole law. That is voiding jots and tittles of the law which you oppose.Yep fellow citizens with the saints, not Israel. You deleted "with the saints" and substituted Israel.You are trying to force living like a Jew under Judaism and not righteous living as a Christian. Following the leading of the Holy Spirit is so much easier.

bugkiller

Hi bugkiller, I thought I had posted a reply to Soy, but it didn't post. Thank you for your post to Soy. It said it all, so I will not have to go through the process of doing it again. You are right on the spot as usual.

 

[Bob S]

Again that is incorrect because the word used refers to animals that are prey, not to everything that moves, and animals that are prey closely fits the description of clean animals, so Noah was only allowed to eat clean animals after he had been temporarily restricted from doing so while on the Ark (Genesis 6:21). It is clear that Noah had been given prior instructions in regard to clean and unclean animals because God did not need to explain the concept to him in Genesis 7:2 or how to differentiate between them, or that he should only offer clean animals (Genesis 9:20), so it follows that Noah also already knew that he should only eat clean animals. Noah was described as a righteous man in Genesis 6:9, and this is no accident, but rather it says that he found grace in the eyes of God, so Noah had been trained by God in how to rightly live, and he obeyed by faith.

Acts 15:20: Pollution by idols, fornication, blood, and from things strangled.

Noahide laws: Social laws, prohibition against idolatry, adultery, eating the flesh of a living animal, blasphemy, and bloodshed.

Comparing the two, they didn’t include social laws because if they were joining a community of people those would have already been established. There’s a match for idolatry, adultery, and eating the flesh of a living animal, but no match for blasphemy or bloodshed. Then there’s one prohibition on the Apostle’s side against things strangled that has no match with the Noahide. So while there were three laws in common, there were differences on both sides that show they are not the same. Likely the list in Acts 15:20 was a created list that would help new believers coming out of paganism to make a clean break from it.

Boy do you have a wild imagination. Posting things that are not there may seem kosher to you, but to me it assures that you are backed into a corner and will write anything to try to fool others. Stick to the facts my friend.

 

[Soyeong]

Boy do you have a wild imagination. Posting things that are not there may seem kosher to you, but to me it assures that you are backed into a corner and will write anything to try to fool others. Stick to the facts my friend.

It was a summary argument of a post I made previously, which apparently was ignored. I provided more evidence there, so feel free to interact with that:

Christ is the end of the law

There is much evidence of many of God's laws being in place throughout Genesis, and we can clearly see that Noah was given instructions in regard to clean and unclean animals, which he obeyed by faith, and thus he was righteous, so it by no means a stretch of the imagination. However, there is no need to infer when the word that was used refers to the same category as clean animals.

 

[bugkiller]

I would appreciate it if you would engage with what I said, so don't just say you disagree, but explain why you disagree. That way it promotes a conversation where we can discuss whether there are any merits to why you disagreed or whether you disagreed for poor reasons. If I am wrong about something, then I want to know, and I hope the same is true of you, but I find you simply stating that you disagree to be completely unpersuasive because I am already well aware that many people disagree. I grew up attending a Baptist church, so for most of my life I did not have the view in regard to the Mosaic Law that I currently have, but only switched because I spent a few years studying the Jewish cultural context of the Bible and eventually was persuaded to come to the conclusion that what I had been taught was wrong. Perhaps I made a mistake or perhaps you are the one who has made a mistake, but we're never going to find out if we do not evaluate whether the view of the other has any merit. Many of your replies to my posts in this thread have not interacted with many of the points that I made in them.

I wonder why you do not engage the party you respond to.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

what does becoming Jewish have to do with anything. Namaan didnt become Jewish and still worshipped the Most High. and the temple was a house to all nations not just the Jews. the pharisees were Jews, Jesus and John called them sons of the devil. becoming Jewish is not the issue.
these are common sense issues. how can one follow Jesus and not follow His example.

What is the difference in becoming an honest Jew and being obedient, well partially obedient to the law? Would that not be living like a Jew either way?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

????
never said anything about that. i was responding to . .



with . .

Mt 5 19
19Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The net effect is the same. You are trying to require keeping the law. I ask for what?

bugkiller

 

[W2L]

You can't debate a law keeper because they don't believe and never will.

Aint that the truth.

 

[W2L]

Again that is incorrect because the word used refers to animals that are prey, not to everything that moves,

Thats not true. NOPE.

Do you have a better translation then? Because i cant find one bible translation that agrees with you. Here is the Jewish bible, it says the same thing they all say.

Genesis 9:3Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
3 Every moving thing that lives will be food for you; just as I gave you green plants before, so now I give you everything —

 

[bugkiller]

Hi bugkiller, I thought I had posted a reply to Soy, but it didn't post. Thank you for your post to Soy. It said it all, so I will not have to go through the process of doing it again. You are right on the spot as usual.

You are most welcome. It appears I am on his ignore list because he does not respond to my posts. You may want to post something. Like I have said before I am not here to convert people from the pro law side of the fence. If it happens - GREAT! if not they will not hear. But what is new? I am here to help the confused seeker find the truth.

bugkiller

 

[W2L]

Everything is food. It says it twice.


3 Every moving thing that lives will be food for you; just as I gave you green plants before, so now I give you everything —

 

[bugkiller]

Boy do you have a wild imagination. Posting things that are not there may seem kosher to you, but to me it assures that you are backed into a corner and will write anything to try to fool others. Stick to the facts my friend.

They do seem pretty empty to me.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I made an argument that Noah was never allowed to eat everything that he wanted, so I was not ignoring your claim, but instead of interacting with my argument and evaluating whether anything I said had any merit, you just reasserted your claim and said that my facts were wrong. Perhaps my facts are wrong, but if I am wrong, I need to be persuaded that I am wrong, so I would appreciate it if you would engage with what I said rather than just assert that I am wrong.

You have a funny Bible.

bugkiller

 

[faroukfarouk]

only when you flip scripture on its head to fit the man made doctrine.


and if we follow your philosophy we have to teach others, everything that Jesus did, dont do it cause its wrong, and then call ourselves "followers" of Christ.

Hi; Hebrews 7.12 says that the law was changed; and Hebrews 7.19 says that what the New Testament believer now has is better than the law ('better' being an operative concept in Hebrews).

 

[bugkiller]

It was a summary argument of a post I made previously, which apparently was ignored. I provided more evidence there, so feel free to interact with that:

Christ is the end of the law

There is much evidence of many of God's laws being in place throughout Genesis, and we can clearly see that Noah was given instructions in regard to clean and unclean animals, which he obeyed by faith, and thus he was righteous, so it by no means a stretch of the imagination. However, there is no need to infer when the word that was used refers to the same category as clean animals.

You say things with no supporting evidence.

5 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3 The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. Deut

Therefore no one before had this law. It does not matter one little twit if there are similarities preceding the giving of the law. The law did not make those things formal.

bugkiller

 

[bloodygrace]

Many ask the question if the law is so bad and causes so many problems why did God give it in the first place? In order to understand the right way, love which works by faith sometimes we have to go down the wrong path. The problem with this is that many go down the wrong path and never come back. They actually believe they become righteous by what they do or never truly come to repentance for sin.

 

[jaybird88]

Many ask the question if the law is so bad and causes so many problems why did God give it in the first place? In order to understand the right way, love which works by faith sometimes we have to go down the wrong path. The problem with this is that many go down the wrong path and never come back. They actually believe they become righteous by what they do or never truly come to repentance for sin.

so Jesus went down the wrong path by following the law?

 

[Soyeong]

Many ask the question if the law is so bad and causes so many problems why did God give it in the first place? In order to understand the right way, love which works by faith sometimes we have to go down the wrong path. The problem with this is that many go down the wrong path and never come back. They actually believe they become righteous by what they do or never truly come to repentance for sin.

So followers of Christ shouldn't follow his example? God said that what He commanded was for Israel's good (Deuteronomy 6:24, Deuteronomy 10:13). Do you believe Him? Or do you think that He lied and intentionally led them astray?