Is the Sabbath binding.

[Al Touthentop]

Acts 18:21 New King James Version (NKJV)
21 but took leave of them, saying, must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem; but I will return again to you, God willing.” And he sailed from Ephesus.

And if this was with the intent to keep the law of Moses, as required under the new covenant, he would have commanded they also go.

But we know that this was not the case.

 

[HARK!]

And if this was with the intent to keep the law of Moses, as required under the new covenant, he would have commanded they also go.

But we know that this was not the case.

They why was it a must for Paul?

Had you considered that the others were not yet ready? You must be circumcised to keep the feast. Paul demonstrated that he was being gentle with the newcomers.

 

[Al Touthentop]

They why was it a must for Paul?

Because the Holy Spirit had directed him to go there so he could preach the gospel to the Romans.

Had you considered that the others were not yet ready? You must be circumcised to keep the feast. Paul demonstrated that he was being gentle with the newcomers.

What he demonstrated was that his purpose of going to the feast was not to keep the law. He specifically told them not to be circumcised, not that they should wait until they were ready. You had to be circumcised even to enter the temple. That's why the mob wanted to kill him. People had accused him of bringing an uncircumcised person into the temple.

"19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commandments is what matters. "

And yet, circumcision is a command under the old law. So Paul is talking about the law of Christ here which has no commandment to be circumcised. If the law of Moses was still in effect, Paul would have been in this passage a transgressor of that law by saying that circumcision was nothing.

So other than this tired old passage you Judaeizers keep trotting out, what other passage shows any evidence that Paul taught people to keep the law of Moses?

 

[sparow]

Gee, you are the only one who knows what the Law is about. "But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone." I looked it up in the Greek. Everyone means everyone.

I hope not. I may be one of the few who knows what the Law is about that you have encounted.

I am not sure the point you are contesting; but I can comment on what you have said; The scriptures are holistic they all fit together as one as God is one. “ that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone;” whether this is a quote or paraphrase I am not sure.

This statement is abstract, not that hat has to be a problem, because this would allow it to fit all of scripture; I suspect you are not using that statement in the abstract, but have ripped it out of scripture by the roots and expect it to stand by it's lonesome. Did He taste death fore everyone or should “everyone” be qualified as “everyone with exceptions and conditions”?

So you looked up the Greek but I am not disputing the word only the semantics of its and your use. Did Jesus taste death for those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit; did He taste death for Gog and his army?

As for Hebrews, it is a private epistle; it is not known who wrote it (it is assumed Paul);it is not know who it was written to other than he died 2000 years ago. Frankly you have no business reading this private communication let alone quoting from it.

 

[HARK!]

Grace is what saves us.

YesheYahu (Isa) 43:
11 I, even I, am YHWH; and beside Me there is no savior

 

[HARK!]

If you want to be justified by obeying the law, you put yourself outside of grace.

In absence of the law What Need I of Grace?

 

[Aussie Pete]

In absence of the law What Need I of Grace?

I won't reply to your question because neither response is correct.

 

[Aussie Pete]

YesheYahu (Isa) 43:
11 I, even I, am YHWH; and beside Me there is no savior

And grace is God's means. So what is your point?

 

[HARK!]

I won't reply to your question because neither response is correct.

You must be talking about the poll. The OP leaves the answer completely up to you.

Have you noticed that the thread has gained no traction? I suppose it's because it's embarrassing for those who cling to the faulty doctrine of faith without works.

I've openly asked Pastors in churches the same question. They were left as speechless as you.

 

[HARK!]

Legalism demands that people obey the law but does not have a clue as to how.

Legalism? What's that? Oh, you must mean obedience. Here's a clue. Do the best you can out of love for the Father. Yes, you'll make mistakes as you grow in your walk; but I would hope that when I fall; that the Father will say, "that's my boy; look at him giving it all that he has!"

 

[Aussie Pete]

Legalism? What's that? Oh, you must mean obedience. Here's a clue. Do the best you can out of love for the Father. Yes, you'll make mistakes as you grow in your walk; but I would hope that when I fall; that the Father will say, "that's my boy; look at him giving it all that he has!"

All that you have is useless before God. It is wood, stubble, hay. God's fire of judgement will consume it. If you can please God on your own, you don't need Jesus. God does not look at me and pat me on the back. He looks at me and sees Jesus. That suits me fine. "Do your best". Seriously? We will compare notes one day. My boast is only in Lord Jesus, who He is and what He gas done for. Me? I am crossed out. If I no longer live, then there is no demand on me and there is no reward or punishment for me either. I have new life and it is ONLY Christ.

 

[HARK!]

The reason Paul taught that there was no justification under the old law was because it was no longer in effect, not that it never justified anyone.

Which law was that? Paul spoke of many.

Certainly it wasn't the Law toward YHWH nor the Law toward Yahshua.

1 Corinthians 9:21 New King James Version (NKJV)

21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law

Why would he want to win those without the law? What's wrong with being without the law; if the law was supposedly abolished by Paul?

 

[Aussie Pete]

You must be talking about the poll. The OP leaves the answer completely up to you.

Have you noticed that the thread has gained no traction? I suppose it's because it's embarrassing for those who cling to the faulty doctrine of faith without works.

I've openly asked Pastors in churches the same question. They were left as speechless as you.

Pose the survey question in a proper manner and you will get a response. I can assure you that I am not speechless on this issue. The question was settled for me in 1978, when the pastor of my church at the time started hanging the law over our heads. I asked the Lord to show me the truth. He did and He still does.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Which law was that? Paul spoke of many.

Certainly it wasn't the Law toward YHWH nor the Law toward Yahshua.

1 Corinthians 9:21 New King James Version (NKJV)

21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law

Why would he want to win those without the law? What's wrong with being without the law; if the law was supposedly abolished by Paul?

The Law was not abolished. We were. We died to the Law. Or at least, I did. Obviously you have yet to agree with God's judgement on you.

 

[HARK!]

My boast is only in Lord Jesus

Messiah set the example for us to follow. Messiah kept his father's law. He called his disciples to follow his way. His way is his Fathers way.

 

[HARK!]

Pose the survey question in a proper manner and you will get a response.

Sorry. Those were the only answers that I could logically come up with.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I hope not. I may be one of the few who knows what the Law is about that you have encounted.

I am not sure the point you are contesting; but I can comment on what you have said; The scriptures are holistic they all fit together as one as God is one. “ that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone;” whether this is a quote or paraphrase I am not sure.

This statement is abstract, not that hat has to be a problem, because this would allow it to fit all of scripture; I suspect you are not using that statement in the abstract, but have ripped it out of scripture by the roots and expect it to stand by it's lonesome. Did He taste death fore everyone or should “everyone” be qualified as “everyone with exceptions and conditions”?

So you looked up the Greek but I am not disputing the word only the semantics of its and your use. Did Jesus taste death for those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit; did He taste death for Gog and his army?

As for Hebrews, it is a private epistle; it is not known who wrote it (it is assumed Paul);it is not know who it was written to other than he died 2000 years ago. Frankly you have no business reading this private communication let alone quoting from it.

Tell me one person that Jesus did not die for. He called Judas "Friend" even as Judas was betraying Him. If the writer of the letter to the Hebrews wanted it kept secret, he would have kept it secret. You have no business telling anyone what portions of the Bible they can quote or not quote.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Sorry. Those were the only answers that I could logically come up with.

That demonstrates just how wrong your theology is.

 

[HARK!]

The Law was not abolished. We were. We died to the Law. Or at least, I did. Obviously you have yet to agree with God's judgement on you.

You die to the law of the flesh; when you live in the law of the spirit. The spirit leads you to obedience to YHWH's law. The flesh wars against YHWH's law.

This is Paul's message in a nutshell. Paul taught obedience to the law through the spirit.

 

[HARK!]

That demonstrates just how wrong your theology is.

That comment demonstrates your limited ability to defend your flawed doctrine, while simultaneously expressing what zeal you have for defending the indefensible.