What is the Historical Gospel of Jesus Christ?

[P1LGR1M]

The law was made full by Christ. It was not abolished. The believer and unbeliever alike are still under the Ten Commandments.

I am particularly interested in how we are commanded to worship on the Sabbath.


God bless.

 

[Hammster]

“Lawless Christianity is a contradiction in terms...the purpose of grace is not to set
aside the law but to fulfil the law and enable man to keep the law. If the law was so serious in the sight of God that it would require the death of Christ, the only begotten Son of God, to make atonement for man's sin, it seems strange for God the to proceed to abandon the law!”

R. J. Rushdoony

 

[Hammster]

I am particularly interested in how we are commanded to worship on the Sabbath.


God bless.

Resting in Christ.

 

[Guojing]

First, I apologize for having rushed my responses before, so let's do this right.

Second, where do I even mention Luke 12:33?

Third, why have you not addressed the points above?

Fourth, do you think men must keep the Law? If so, explain what you mean by "keeping the Law."


God bless.

You were replying to my post when I stated "What about Luke 12:33?", if you have forgotten

What is the Historical Gospel of Jesus Christ?

If you didn't intend to address that, its alright.

For me, the Law is not for the Body of Christ, so no, we don't keep that. That does not mean we should go ahead and do whatever we want though.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Yes, I am charged with being wrong, but the fact is I am not.

It is a fact that Noah was not under the Covenant of Law.

Adam, Abraham, and Noah may have been under covenants but they were not the Covenant of Law.

The "laws" given them were not the Covenant of Law.

Now, do you think men should be under the Covenant of Law? Is that still in effect?

You said "Jesus was a Judaizer here...

Would you go so far as to prove men are "under Law" as to say the Lord is a Judaizer because He maintained the Law?

Do you really feel the Lord was a Judaizer?

Please explain what you meant by this statement.

Yes you ARE wrong. Just because you define something yourself (covenant of law) does not make it somehow magically correct lol! Noah was given law...Noahide laws. Noah had a covenant and laws too. And yes, under the definition, Yeshua was a "judaizer" as were they all! It was kind of a joke but you didn't get it I guess...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

There isn't much to understand: the Covenant of Law was not established in Noah's day, it was established in Moses' Day.

That there were multiple covenants doesn't change that fact.

And as I said before, all covenants looked forward to the New Covenant, and the promises within all covenants are fulfilled in the New Covenant.

The relationship the Children of Israel had was a physical and temporal picture prophecy of the New Covenant.

It was made with the Hebrew People, not Gentiles. Their exclusivity is the very reason there are Gentiles.

A Gentile could be a proselyte but that didn't make him a child of Israel—he was still a Gentile.

Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Jacob were not under the Covenant of Law. The Adamic, Noahic, and Abrahamic covenants were not the Covenant of Law.

So you will have to present support for a view that those covenants were "Mosaic."


God bless.

So HaShem can go back on His covenant and flood the Earth again? I saw a rainbow the other day...so I guess you are wrong again...
I don't need to prove or disprove your definition of "covenant of law". My point to you were there were laws and covenants before Moshe and Sinai.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

It is not a matter of whether I could keep them or not, it is specifically that I do not have to keep them.

As far as stating there were Laws Christ "could not keep," would you mind explaining what you mean by that?

So go out and steal then! Yeshua could NOT keep them all, no one could! I thought that would be self-evident to someone that says they know what "covenant of law is lol! I will give you a hint...Yeshua was a man...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

As I stated throughout the discussion beginning with @Hammster—we are not "under Law" in any way, shape, or form.

We are under the New Covenant.

I have made it clear in my statement that Noah is not dealing with the context of the Covenant of Law.

You say "Yes he is...they were reiterated in Acts."

First, it is pretty obvious that the Covenant of Law was not instituted in Noah's day.

Second, generalizing the covenants we see in the Old Testament does not make those covenants the Covenant of Law.

Third, the Covenant of Law was replaced by the New Covenant, which was God's promise to both the children of Israel as well as Gentiles, and both of these groups are in relationship with God through the New Covenant today, not through the Covenant of Law.

Fourth, the Covenant of Law was made obsolete by the New Covenant.

Fifth, Jesus Christ was not a Judaizer.

You obviously do not biblically understand what covenants and law was. You make up a term and expect everyone else to agree with your definition of it. Do you even know what the new covenant is? I really can't discuss such simple concepts with someone so ignorant of them...

 

[RobertPate]

You obviously do not biblically understand what covenants and law was. You make up a term and expect everyone else to agree with your definition of it. Do you even know what the new covenant is? I really can't discuss such simple concepts with someone so ignorant of them...

Why fuss over something that is history. The Old Covenant of law and religion has been abolished, Ephesians 2:15. Jesus nailed it to his cross, Colossians 2:14. God now sees his people as perfect and complete "In Christ" Colossians 2:10. Laws, rules and religion are history. From now on God's people live by faith, Romans 1:17.

 

[Basil the Great]

I am particularly interested in how we are commanded to worship on the Sabbath.


God bless.

I dare say that very few Christians in this day and age are concerned about how to keep the Sabbath commandment. This is much different from a few generations back when perhaps they worried too much at times about resting on the Sabbath.

 

[Der Alte]

I dare say that very few Christians in this day and age are concerned about how to keep the Sabbath commandment. This is much different from a few generations back when perhaps they worried too much at times about resting on the Sabbath.

I am old enough to remember Sunday Blue laws, mid-late 40s. In my hometown in Oklahoma pop. 18,000, the only thing that was open on Sunday was 1 of 4 drug stores. They alternated. Finally, someone read the constitution and most stores started opening on Sunday.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Why fuss over something that is history. The Old Covenant of law and religion has been abolished, Ephesians 2:15. Jesus nailed it to his cross, Colossians 2:14.

Then why will the Nations have to keep Sukkot in Zechariah? The only thing abolished and nailed to the cross is the CURSE. He became a CURSE for us. Sin is still sin, in the OT and NT. The wages of sin is death. Sin is the transgression of the law.

Romans 1:5 “Through Him and for His name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.”

 

[RobertPate]

Then why will the Nations have to keep Sukkot in Zechariah? The only thing abolished and nailed to the cross is the CURSE. He became a CURSE for us. Sin is still sin, in the OT and NT. The wages of sin is death. Sin is the transgression of the law.

Romans 1:5 “Through Him and for His name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.”

Listen to what the scripture says. "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, EVEN THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS CONTAINED IN THE ORDINANCES" Ephesians 2:15. Please read that 10 times so that you will understand it. There is no condemnation for those that are "In Christ" because there is no law, Romans 8:1.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Listen to what the scripture says. "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, EVEN THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS CONTAINED IN THE ORDINANCES" Ephesians 2:15. Please read that 10 times so that you will understand it. There is no condemnation for those that are "In Christ" because there is no law, Romans 8:1.

I know exactly what it says. I also know exactly what it means. There is no condemnation because there is no CURSE...DEATH. How many times must I say this before it will start to sink i!?!? It is YOU that needs to read it 10 times and understand it...again, if there is no law, then no sin and no need for grace...

Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

 

[Hammster]

Why fuss over something that is history. The Old Covenant of law and religion has been abolished, Ephesians 2:15. Jesus nailed it to his cross, Colossians 2:14. God now sees his people as perfect and complete "In Christ" Colossians 2:10. Laws, rules and religion are history. From now on God's people live by faith, Romans 1:17.

Does the new covenant have laws?

 

[Hammster]

Listen to what the scripture says. "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, EVEN THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS CONTAINED IN THE ORDINANCES" Ephesians 2:15. Please read that 10 times so that you will understand it. There is no condemnation for those that are "In Christ" because there is no law, Romans 8:1.

Please read it in context.

 

[RobertPate]

Please read it in context.

It is in context. You just don't believe it.

 

[RobertPate]

Does the new covenant have laws?

Nope, not one. To be under the law is to be under condemnation, Galatians 3:10. There is no condemnation for those that are "In Christ" Romans 8:1, because there is no law.

 

[Hammster]

It is in context. You just don't believe it.

I do believe it, when read in context. The fact that you isolated the verse shows that the context is different than what you want it to mean.

 

[Hammster]

Nope, not one. To be under the law is to be under condemnation, Galatians 3:10. There is no condemnation for those that are "In Christ" Romans 8:1, because there is no law.

Are we to love one another?