Did Christ at the cross end all the laws?

[Guojing]

If one thought his vision was literal, but it wasn’t and the vision was explained…

Acts 10: 17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate.

Acts 10: 19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are seeking you. 20 Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them.”

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

Acts 10:42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

Acts 10: 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

I don't understand your answer, how is that addressing my question?

Let me make my question clearer

If Peter knew at the beginning of Acts that laws regarding the eating of unclean animals ended, why would he say Acts 10:14?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I don't understand your answer, how is that addressing my question?

Let me make my question clearer

If Peter knew at the beginning of Acts that laws regarding the eating of unclean animals ended, why would he say Acts 10:14?

The law of eating unclean foods did not end. I’m not sure how this relates to my post regarding the Levitical sacrificial system ending for the forgiveness of sin when Jesus sacrificed His life, the perfect Lamb for the remissions of sin for all people.

 

[Guojing]

The law of eating unclean foods did not end. I’m not sure how this relates to my post regarding the Levitical sacrificial system ending for the forgiveness of sin when Jesus sacrificed His life, the perfect Lamb for the remissions of sin for all people.

Nice exception you made there =).

Would you agree that, as far as Peter is concerned, none of the Law of Moses ended at the cross?

If you disagree, tell me exactly which part of it ended.

Animals were still sacrificed in the Temple throughout the period of Acts, I am sure you are aware of that.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Nice exception you made there =).

Would you agree that, as far as Peter is concerned, none of the Law of Moses ended at the cross?

If you disagree, tell me exactly which part of it ended.

Animals were still sacrificed in the Temple throughout the period of Acts, I am sure you are aware of that.

I didn’t make it, Jesus did with His own blood. Are you saying His sacrifice is not sufficient enough for the remission of sins and we are still to kill lambs as sin offering despite these verses Hebrews 10, Col 2:14

 

[Guojing]

I didn’t make it, Jesus did with His own blood. Are you saying His sacrifice is not sufficient enough for the remission of sins and we are still to kill lambs as sin offering despite Hebrews 10, Col 2:14 and the great sacrifice of Jesus?

So somehow you believed that Jesus's death on the cross removed the requirement of Israel killing lambs as sin offerings, but could not remove the law of eating unclean animals?

Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

So somehow you believed that Jesus's death on the cross removed the requirement of Israel killing lambs as sin offerings, but could not remove the law of eating unclean animals?

Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

How is keeping our bodies clean and as a temple for the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit the same same killing lambs (who are clean by the way) for the remission of sins, when Jesus became our sacrifice for sins. Two completely different things.

There is no scripture that says we can eat whatever we want (many used out of context) and there is scripture that says Jesus became our sacrifice for sins and is now our High Priest in the New Covenant- Read Hebrews.

 

[Guojing]

How is keeping our bodies clean and as a temple for the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit the same same killing lambs (who are clean by the way) for the remission of sins, when Jesus became our sacrifice for sins. Two completely different things.

There is no scripture that says we can eat whatever we want (many used out of context) and there is scripture that says Jesus became our sacrifice for sins and is now our High Priest in the New Covenant- Read Hebrews.

You can choose not to eat pork for example, for the sake of your own health.

That is very different from saying one will be put to death for eating unclean animals

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

The law is a generic term, it could mean the law of Moses, it could mean the law of God it could be the law of sin reading in context helps understand which law is being referred to. The commandments of God include the Ten Commandments personally written by God’s own finger.

The New Testament was written by and written for Jews. When Jews speak of "the law" they are speaking of the Torah, the entirety of the commandments God gave to Israel at the time of Moses.
The Jews never made a distinction between "written by God's finger" and not, that's your own emphasis. Jesus himself certainly didn't separate between the Ten and the other laws, as repeatedly shown by him quoting 67% non-Ten commandments as "the law".

We should stop inserting our own theology into the text of the Bible. It just messes up what God is trying to tell us in His word.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

By saying, "Acts 15 mainly addresses circumcision" you gloss over and miss the main point: What shall be required of non Jewish Christians. Circumcision was just the initiation... just the beginning to all the other Jewish observances. Why be circumcised if one s not going to follow the other rules?

I think Paul outlines what Acts 15 is about.

Conflict over Circumcision
Acts 15 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.

Love of God is not an observance. It is an inner quality.

I personally prefer to go with the scriptures and according to God and Jesus from their own mouth verbatim:

Showing mercy to thousands, who love Me and keep My commandments Exodus 20:6 right in the Ten Commandments
If you love Me, keep My commandments John 14:15 Quoting God verbatim, who Jesus came not to do His will but the will of the Father John 6:38

John put it this way For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments 1 John 5:3 I really don't think this can be any clearer.

Love is obedience according to the scriptures. We fulfill love when we obey what is being asked.

You are drawing your own trenchant distinction between "handwritten" and "Finger of God".

Unless you think the hand of Moses a human, is equal to the finger of God the Creator of Moses and all things. Not something I subscribe to, but we have free will.

I am not going to commit adultery, etc not because it is part of Jewish Law. I am not going to commit adultery because it is not a loving thing to do.

I guess you can keep thinking this way and not believe the promises of the New Covenant that God writes His laws in our hearts and minds Hebrews 8:10 and there is no Gentile or Jew if in Christ Galatians 3:28-29, Colossians 3:11 and Gentiles are grafted in Romans 11:11-24. I certainly would not want to write myself out of God's Covenant and His promise.

God bless

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The New Testament was written by and written for Jews. When Jews speak of "the law" they are speaking of the Torah, the entirety of the commandments God gave to Israel at the time of Moses.
The Jews never made a distinction between "written by God's finger" and not, that's your own emphasis. Jesus himself certainly didn't separate between the Ten and the other laws, as repeatedly shown by him quoting 67% non-Ten commandments as "the law".

We should stop inserting our own theology into the text of the Bible. It just messes up what God is trying to tell us in His word.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 2 Timothy 3:16
The whole Bible is the work of God so I don't believe in deleting the sections I don't agree with, especially when we are told in the New Covenant that God writes His laws in our hearts and minds Hebrews 8:10 and there is no Gentile or Jew if in Christ Galatians 3:28-29, Colossians 3:11 and Gentiles are grafted in Romans 11:11-24. I certainly would not want to write myself out of God's Covenant and His promise.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

God bless and take care.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You can choose not to eat pork for example, for the sake of your own health.

That is very different from saying one will be put to death for eating unclean animals

What does scripture say?

Deuteronomy 14:8 Also the swine is unclean for you, because it has cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud; you shall not eat their flesh or touch their dead carcasses.

Isaiah 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord.

 

[expos4ever]

The New Testament was written by and written for Jews. When Jews speak of "the law" they are speaking of the Torah, the entirety of the commandments God gave to Israel at the time of Moses.
The Jews never made a distinction between "written by God's finger" and not, that's your own emphasis. Jesus himself certainly didn't separate between the Ten and the other laws, as repeatedly shown by him quoting 67% non-Ten commandments as "the law".

We should stop inserting our own theology into the text of the Bible. It just messes up what God is trying to tell us in His word.

Quoted for truth - well said. It cannot be emphasized strongly enough - if people want to ignore the fact that "law" meant all 613 elements of Torah (law of Moses) and invent sub-categories, fine.

But such a position is neither Biblical nor true to what we know historically about how the Jew understood "law".

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Again, why single out be circumcision? I contend that it is not singled out. It is the initiation to Jewish laws. Of course the NT Christians were still working out their split identity, some Jews and some gentile. It took decade if not centuries. And even today there are Christians who want to return to Jewish legalism.

Are you saying that God did not speak through Moses? You imply that what God wrote "with his finger" and what Moses wrote are two different things.

Btw, do you imagine that a finger literally materialized and etched words into stone?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Again, why single out be circumcision? I contend that it is not singled out. It is the initiation to Jewish laws. Of course the NT Christians were still working out their split identity, some Jews and some gentile. It took decade if not centuries. And even today there are Christians who want to return to Jewish legalism.

Because this is what Acts 15 is talking about if read in context as shown and discussing the disputed things. Not saying Gentiles is free to vain God's name.

Are you saying that God did not speak through Moses?

Please show me where I ever said such a thing.

You imply that what God wrote "with his finger" and what Moses wrote are two different things.

They are two different things as already explained here...Did Christ at the Cross end all the laws?

Btw, do you imagine that a finger literally materialized and etched words into stone?

Yes very much I do, because I believe the Word of God.

Exodus 31:18 And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

Exodus 34:28
So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

God only wrote Ten Commandments with His own finger on stone and only the Ten was placed inside the ark of the covenant, in the Most Holy of God's Temples under the mercy seat where God's dwells and is also revealed in Heaven Revelation 11:19 . All the other commandments was handwritten (human) by Moses in a book. Deut 31:24, 2 Cor 35:12. These are different laws that serves different purposes.

 

[Leaf473]

...tell me exactly which part of it ended.

That's the question that I think would bring these discussions to a quick resolution.

But the "exactly" part would have to be answered.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Yes very much I do, because I believe the Word of God.

So you most likely also believe in literal 6 day creation?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Exodus 31:18 And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

Exodus 34:28
So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

So in Exodus 34:28 who did the writing, the finger of God or Moses?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

So in Exodus 34:28 who did the writing, the finger of God or Moses?

God as already shown.

Exodus 31:18 And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

Exodus 34:28
So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Confusing:
Exodus 34:28
So he (Moses) Was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights;

he (Moses)neither ate bread nor drank water.

And He (but now the Lord and not Moses?) wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

 

[expos4ever]

Back to Romans 7: How does the person who believes the law, or more narrowly the 10 commandments, is still in force deal with this challenging text?:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Based on what I am reading, they argue that the Law is as much in force as it ever was (even though Paul says we have been released from it), but we are no longer under condemnation from the Law.

Really? That's the argument?

First, Paul never (here) says anything about condemnation. Furthermore no person who understands the meaning of words would write this:

we no longer serve in the oldness of the letter

....while intending us to understand this:

we are are no longer condemned by the oldness of the letter

The concept of "serving" has nothing whatsoever with the concept of "condemnation".

Besides, what sense can one make out of contrasting release from the condemnation of law with serving according to the Spirit. The Greek word translated as "serve" is "douleuein", which means to serve or obey or be subject to. This same greek work is used here in Matthew 6:24

No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth

If you are going to re-define "serve" as "under condemnation of", why not do so here as well:

No one can be under the condemnation of two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth

Paul, as always, means what he says. The attempts to interpret Romans 7:6 as indicating the Law is still in force, but we are just released from its condemnation, appears to me to an act of exegetical desperation - you are redefining the very meanings of words to force-fit a text into your view.