Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Doug Brents]

I was repeating the apostle, which you said was in error. I see you didn't actually address this.

The Apostle was quoting the portion of that passage in Isaiah that was still relevant to him, and us today. The part about the people of Isaiah’s time building the Temple for God was not quoted, because it was not relevant still. But I, also, did address what was relevant in your statement. Why don’t you address the rest of what was said.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The Apostle was quoting the portion of that passage in Isaiah that was still relevant to him, and us today. The part about the people of Isaiah’s time building the Temple for God was not quoted, because it was not relevant still. But I, also, did address what was relevant in your statement. Why don’t you address the rest of what was said.

You tell me that man cannot build God’s Heavenly home, and then you tell me that this passage is not talking about the Earthly Temple that God is asking man to build for Him. One of your statements is in error, and we both know the first is not in error.

Your post does not address this which is an EXACT quote from the apostles on Isaiah 66:1 on what you claim is the literal temple

Acts 7:48 “However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says: 49 “ 'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me?

66:1 asks, “Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest?”
God is asking the people returning from Babylonian captivity when they are going to finish the rebuilding of the Temple.

 

[Leaf473]

There's that "nothing" word again. Same word as is used in Mark, I think it was... nothing going in our mouths makes us unclean.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/14-14.htm

Bad translation of Romans 14. That word is common in the Greek. It can be translated impure but shouldn't be translated unclean. Peter's vision contrast both words. common and unclean. Showing there is a difference. Please take note that God does not mention cleansing the unclean only the common in verse 15.

Acts 10:14 And Peter said, “Not so, Lord; because at no time did I eat anything common or unclean”;
Acts 10:15 and there is a voice again a second time to him: “What God cleansed, you do not declare common”;

We might not be talking about the same thing, there.

The word for "nothing" just means "nothing", it wouldn't be translated as unclean, impure, or common.

Peace be with you, my man!

But as a follow-up, I'd be interested in understanding the idea about common versus unclean.

Is it that something like chicken is clean, but can become common by mishandling? But it would not actually become unclean?

 

[Studyman]

Not sure what you are trying to say here. But what does "For Christ is the end of the law, to bring [(eis)] righteousness to everyone who believes" (Rom 10:4) mean to you?

It certainly doesn't mean the Righteousness of God is destroyed by Him. Read the Scripture just before.

"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

Is Jesus not the perfect human? And is this perfection because HE didn't walk in His own will, but the will of His Father? Is HE not perfect, because "Walked in all the commandments of God, Blameless"?

In fact, every example of Faith "Pressed toward the mark of the high Calling of God, which was also in Christ Jesus. "Be perfect even as God is perfect". Does Jesus not fit this example of man perfectly? Your translation is a little different, but still, the man Jesus was the intent of the Law for Righteousness. I need look no further than Him to understand what "Walking in the Spirit" means.

But the preaching that Jesus destroyed God's Law defining sin, is exposed a false by the entire Bible.

Jesus changed the law, especially the definition in the fifth commandment. He showed that is fulfilling and upholding the law. The sacrificial law is another strong sign that something ended, which is the custom. If the law does not change, you should not stop making sacrifices.

You are making the same mistake the Pharisees made. That is refusing to separate the Sacrificial "Works of the Law" associated with the Temporary Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron", from God's definition of Sin and Righteousness which is in effect until "ALL" is fulfilled.

Paul tells you about this "LAW" that was "ADDED", because of transgressions, 430 years after Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws., in Gal. 3.

The Law that changed is detailed for you in Hebrews 7: 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

To make animal sacrifices to atone for sins, after God's Prophesied Priest "After the Order of Melchizedek" came, would be direct opposition to the Law and Prophets.

God never said, I desire disobedience and then sacrifice. He said;

1 Sam. 15: 22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

Clearly God Separated sacrifice from obedience. But the Pharisees couldn't, because all their wealth, their power, their fame, came through their corrupted version of the Levitical Priesthood. If men didn't have to come to them for forgiveness of sin, their power and wealth was over.

Modern preachers also refuse to separate the "ADDED" Law, from the Laws it was ADDED to. And for the same reason. If the truth that the Priesthood could change, but not God's Laws the Priesthood was ADDED to, then they could no longer justify their rejection of God's Sabbaths and Judgments. Their popular excuse, "If the Law is still in effect, then all the LAW must be followed, including animal sacrifice.", would be exposed as the falsehood it is.

They can't accept the truth of scriptures that it is the Priesthood Covenant that was prophesied to change. Not God's Law.

Rom 6:15, which you quoted, says that we are not under the law.

No, that isn't what Paul is saying. I mean, you can leave out some of his words, to make it appear this way. But it's a deception.

Rom. 6: 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

But what if a man chooses to follow a religion in which much of God's definition of Righteousness is rejected, even despised? What if you have been convinced not to "Yield yourselves" unto God? Read what Paul is saying, don't simply use some of his words to justify a certain religious sect.

15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, (Being dead wherein we were held) but under grace? (Alive to serve God anew) God forbid. That means no, Yes? We are not to continue transgressing God's Laws, just because Jesus forgave us our past sins. And why did Paul say this?

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

So if I continue to reject the same Righteousness which caused me to need forgiveness in the first place, I bring myself back under the Law. Paul didn't promote such a thing. Listen to him.

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

God's Righteousness no doubt.

Does the law say that you die of judgment, or of natural causes? So, what did Moses' death show? Did he not show up again on the mountain in front of Jesus? (Matt 17:3)

All men die and await their judgement as the Christ Himself teaches. "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Paul teaches the same thing.

Rom. 2: 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

Jesus showed Peter a vision regarding a very important part of the Gospel of Christ. Most will not be persuaded though. I know this because Jesus said so.

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Why do you think Jesus said this in the first place if the few examples we gave didn't seem to show that He was breaking the law? He was clearly talking about the law from a different point of view, which is the law's principle. I agreed with Him. Paul pushed not the laws but the principles behind the law, and I agree with him.

Certainly the Pharisees had rejected and corrupted God's Laws and Judgments and had polluted God's Sabbaths, for their own self-interest. They didn't "view" God's Law differently, they "omitted" much of it outright, and corrupted the rest. At least according to the Jesus of the Bible.

You have openly rejected God's Judgments, even bragging about how much you love to eat what God and Jesus considered "unclean". So in your religion, which is not yours really, but one which existed in this world God placed you in that we have both been influenced by, God didn't create His Judgment "for your sakes no doubt". He didn't make His Commandments "For you" or for "Your admonition". God didn't write these instructions for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

In this world's religion, you have created your own sabbaths, your own "clean and unclean". I know you wouldn't feed your kids maggots or tape worms, as you would consider them, "Not food". This world's religions have even created their own high days.

My point is simply that a person who "denies Himself", picks up his life's experiences, (his cross) and Follows the Christ of the Bible, sees the Scriptures differently than those who have adopted this world's religious definitions of sin, clean and unclean, Holy and Unholy.

This undeniable fact can be seen in understanding the difference between Zacharias and the Pharisees. Sadly, most with simply continue justifying their religion, rather than allow the Word of God to guide them.

So you don't agree with Col 2:14? Because I'm not sure how the rest of what you say explains Col 2:14.

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;"

I explained my position on Col. 2:14, but as I was afraid of, you are not here to examine and discuss, rather, you are here to justify your own religious philosophy. I agree with every scripture in the bible. I just don't separate them from the rest of the Bible to impart a different meaning. In Col. 2 Paul says "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

I showed you what "law" caused those who followed it to "Persecute the Church of God". I explained now that Paul is a member of the Church of God, that this same "law" was against him, as it was gentiles, Jesus, and all "whose refuge is the Lord".

You have been convinced God's Law is against men. Not by Paul, or Jesus or the Prophets, but by the "other voice" in the garden God placed you in.

I was hoping you might actually engage in a discussion about Paul's words and who created the "Handwriting of ordinances" which was against Paul, Gentiles and the Church of God, including Jesus Himself. But you didn't even acknowledge anything I posted.

I also speak of who Jesus exposed on the Cross.

"And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it."

To believe the Catholic and her protestant daughter's religious philosophy you are promoting here, I would have to believe that God was the principality and power that Jesus spoiled. That Jesus made a show of HIS Father's commandments "openly", Triumphing over HIS Father on the Cross.

Of course this is foolishness. God's Law was never against or contrary to HIS own Church. Never against Jesus, or Paul. It was the children of the devil who had taken over the Temple, who had led many astray that Jesus came to save, whose Laws burdened the people. I even pointed out Jesus' own Words regarding who placed the burdens on the necks of men.

Matt. 23: 4 For they (Pharisees, not God) bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

But still, these scriptures are not believed.

The Principalities and powers that spoiled the people, was not God. Jesus triumphed over "THEM", those who taught for doctrines the Commandments of men, on the Cross. It was "Their" Law that condemned Jesus to death. "We have a Law, and by OUR Law, HE should die." HE triumphed over them, because their Law was unjust, and God raised HIM from the death their LAW required, not God's Law.

So I do agree with Col. 2:14. I just don't agree how men twist it to accuse God of persecuting His Own church. There is a god who does this, but it's not the God and Father of the Lord's Christ.

 

[daq]

I assume that you know that I agree with you, and that in Ephesians 2 the writer is indeed referring to the Law of Moses. I am, frankly, amazed at the maneuvers used to evade the obvious reading of this passage. For one, we get the claim that this wall is really a set of signs that have been removed in the temple courtyard. That analysis fails to do justice to the sweeping nature of what Paul is saying. We all know that it is the Law of Moses more generally, not just some signs, that separates the Jew from the Gentile. We also get desperate attempts to try to argue that Paul is writing about man-made additions to the Law of Moses being torn down / abolished. I find those arguments equally untenable.

Paul means what he says - the Law of Moses has been set aside.

Nope. Eph 2:15 and Col 2:14 are speaking of the same thing, being companion statements which both include dogma, (in the plural, dogmasin, (δογμασιν)). The Torah is never called dogma or dogmas anywhere in the scripture, although dogma is used in the LXX, (in Esther and Daniel), for decrees and edicts of kings and rulers. The Torah is not handwritten dogmas.

Ephesians 2:15 N/A-W/H
15 την εχθραν εν τη σαρκι αυτου τον νομον των εντολων εν δογμασιν καταργησας ινα τους δυο κτιση εν αυτω εις ενα καινον ανθρωπον ποιων ειρηνην

Colossians 2:14 N/A-W/H
14 εξαλειψας το καθ ημων χειρογραφον τοις δογμασιν ο ην υπεναντιον ημιν και αυτο ηρκεν εκ του μεσου προσηλωσας αυτο τω σταυρω

Also, in the remainder of the Colossians passage, Paul explains what he means by dogmas.

Colossians 2:14-15 TS2009 W/Footnotes
14 having blotted out that which was written by hand against us – by the dogmasd – which stood against us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the stake. Footnote: dDogmas - also see Col 2:20 and Eph 2:15.
15 Having stripped the principalities and the authorities, He made a public display of them, having prevailed over them in it.

Colossians 2:20-22 TS2009 W/Footnotes
20 If, then, you died with Messiah from the elementary mattersf of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to dogmas:d Footnotes: dDogmas - also see Col 2:14 and Eph 2:15. fSee Col 2:8 and Gal 4:3 and Gal 4:9.
21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle” –
22 which are all to perish with use – according to the commands and teachings of men?g Isa 29:13. Footnote: gSee also Mat 15:8-9, Mar 7:6-7.

The Torah is neither dogmas nor commandments and teachings of men.

 

[expos4ever]

Let's talk about the word "dogmasin" (δογμασιν) as found in Ephesians 2. It is the word rendered as "ordnances" here in a treatment of how Jesus' accomplishment at the cross effects the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile:

15 by abolishing in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances

Some artfully argue that δογμασι means dogma. This word "dogma", as used in our day, has strong negative implications. When we say someone is dogmatic, we are criticizing them for not ciritically examining their own beliefs. And to call something "political dogma" is certainly not a compliment.

Rendering the greek word δογμασιν as "dogma" suits the agenda of someone who wants us to believe that the author of Eph 2 is not telling us that the Law of Moses has been abolished. However, as I am about to show, the term δογμασιν need not carry the negative baggage we in the english-speaking world lade upon the term "dogma". Therefore the term "dogma" is misleading. Why? Because, of course, no Biblically literate person would describe the Law of Moses as dogma in the negative sense.

And, so the argument goes, Paul cannot be telling us the Law of Moses has been retired. But let us look at how the word δογμασιν is used here in Acts 16:

4 Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the ordinances for them to follow which had been determined by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. 5 So the churches were being strengthened in the faith, and were increasing in number daily

Here the word δογμασιν certainly does not have this negative connotation. And if δογμασιν is not necessarily "dogma in the bad sense", it opens up the possibility that, indeed, Paul (or whoever wrote Eph) is using the term in relation to the Law of Moses.

In any event, there are much more serious problems associated with this whole line of argument that the author is saying that man-made laws and ordnances are the things being abolished. Here are two big problems (as will be elaborated in future posts):

1. The definition of the term δογμασιν is sufficiently open-ended to at least allow the term to be used for a law, decree, or ordnance that comes from God, not man.

2. Much more importantly, the logic of the broader passage in which Paul uses the term δογμασιν falls apart in a manner more spectacular if we go with the claim that the term δογμασιν refers to anything other than the Law of Moses.

 

[Studyman]

But you are not dealing with what Paul means when he says "Christ is the end of the Law.....". Surely he used the word "end" for a reason. So what do you think Paul means by Christ being the end of the Law.

Thanks for the question and opportunity to answer. I think what's important is to understand, or seek to find, what was meant by the Author. Because I don't have a religion or religious sect or philosophy to promote or defend, I can seek Biblical Truth without Bias. So first I look at the Greek for the word they used "end".

"End", the English translation for the Greek Word used, (Strongs) "Telos" "To set out for a definite point or goal", the point aimed at as a limit. The conclusion of an act or state (termination) "Result" (immediate, ultimate or prophetic) "Purpose" continual, custom, end, finally, uttermost.

So if we add these meanings of the word used here is what we get.

For Christ is the purpose of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

For Christ is the result of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

For Christ is the point aimed at of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

For Christ is the termination of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

So what was the message of the Author here? Which of these meaning of the word used did he intend for the reader to conclude? Was Paul trying to say that Jesus was the "Purpose" of the Laws of God? Was Jesus the "Result" of the Laws of God? Or was Jesus the "termination" of the Laws of God?

Of course, only a fool would try and conclude which of these meanings Paul meant by just separating this one sentence from the rest of the Bible, and not consider Paul's other words. So What did he say in the verse above this one?

Rom. 10: 1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

So because I have studied the rest of the Bible, I can honestly make some claims regarding this verse. I would make the Claim that Jesus also had a zeal for God. But Jesus' Zeal was after knowledge. Would you agree that Jesus had a Zeal for God after knowledge, while the Jews Zeal was not after knowledge? I'm going to assume you do.

So why does Paul say the Jews Zeal was not according to knowledge? He tells us in the following verse.

3 For they (Or as implied, "Because they") being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

So Jesus submitted Himself to God's Righteousness, Yes? Jesus Himself said;

John 5: 30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

John 8: 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. 29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

And Jesus instructed me to also seek the Righteousness of this Same God.

Matt. 6: 33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

So we can conclude, with just these few verses, that Jesus was different than the Jews, even though they both had Zeal for God. The Jews Zeal, was not according to knowledge. But Jesus' Zeal was according to knowledge of God.

Why? Because Jesus, as HE himself states many times, was not "Ignorant" of God's Righteousness, did not go about establishing HIS Own Righteousness, but submitted Himself to the Righteousness of God.

So then, I shouldn't become like the religious men of this world in Jesus' Time, or much later in Paul's time, who created their own judgments regarding what is clean, Holy, or Righteous. I should become like Jesus, who submitted Himself to God's Righteousness, and not go about establishing my own.

Isn't that the true meaning for the word "Christian"? To be "Christ Like"??

So far, it seems Paul's intent for the use of the word "End", is the following.

For Christ is the purpose of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

For Christ is the result of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

For those who reject God's Righteousness and go about to establish their own, they might opt for another interpretation.

For Christ is the termination of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

 

[expos4ever]

The Torah is never called dogma or dogmas anywhere in the scripture,

I am more than a little puzzled by this as it seems to me that the very text we are discussing could be a counterexample:

by abolishing in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances,

What is "the Law" if not the Law of Moses?

It seems to me that you are deploying the following implied argument:

1. You argue that the word rendered as "ordnances" here denote "human dogma"
2. Since this thing called "the Law" is composed of such human ordnances, this "Law" cannot be the Law of Moses.

First, and as will be argued in detail shortly, the overall context shows that is has to be the Law of Moses. And why would the author use the term "Law" to mean something other than the Law of Moses given the obvious fact that, generally at least, the term "Law" does indeed refer to the Law of Moses. But let's set these objections aside for now.

The term translated as "ordnances" does not require us to see them as originating from humans. My sources define this word as:

"a decree, edict, ordnance. From the base of dokea; a law"

There is nothing in this definition that excludes a divine origin. So there is no real justification for concluding that "the Law" cannot be the Law of Moses specifically because it is composed of δογμασιν.

Let's be clear: I am not claiming, in this post at least, to have made a case that "the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordnances" is the Law of Moses. But when you say Torah is never referred to as something that contains "δογμασιν", I have shown we have reasons to doubt this claim as it seems at least plausible, and I suggest certain based on arguments I have yet to provide, that the very text we are discussing is a counterexample.

 

[Studyman]

And we are contending with men who have yet to offer a credible refutation with the assertion that Jesus:

(a) drawing on clear Biblical precedent, is using metaphorical language in the phrase "till heaven and earth pass"
(b) intends us to see what I see as the rather obvious connection between "till all be fulfilled" and His last words: "It is finished".

What you seem gleefully ignorant of here, is that if Jesus doesn't return and raise the dead, there is no Salvation. The Preaching that Jesus "Fulfilled All Things" when HE was lead like a sheep to the Slaughter is absurd. When HE comes back, the religious men of this earth will know it. Not like when HE came the first time.

I would suggest though, that you consider the Christ's Own Words regarding HIS job for God. The Christ of the Bible that is.

Matt. 13: 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

In your religion, who is it that would offend the God of the Bible? Those who submitted themselves unto His Righteousness? Or those who rejected His Righteousness, and went about to establish their own?

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

In your religion, are these "Righteous", men who submitting to God's Righteousness? Or do you believe they went about to establish their own?

2 Pet. 3: 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Why is it that Jesus has yet to fulfill these events which are foreshadowed by the Holy Feasts of the Lord? Perhaps HE is expressing His Long Suffering and mercy. But HE is not Slack according to His Promises I posted of His Own Words.

And how will HE judge between those who do iniquity, and those who are righteous, if HE was the "Termination" of God's Law?

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

So no, "ALL" was not Fulfilled when the Unblemished Lamb of God was slaughtered as prophesied. This part of the Prophesies about Him have been "Finished", but not "ALL" that was prophesied about Him, as the Law and Prophets tell you, if you could hear them.

Is. 66: 15 For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many. (Them that do iniquity) 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.

Some know this, because they understand that Passover is the very beginning of God's Salvation, not the end, as you and "many" who call Jesus Lord, Lord, imply.

 

[expos4ever]

Because I don't have a religion or religious sect or philosophy to promote or defend, I can seek Biblical Truth without Bias.

Cheap shot noted. Look, you have no more basis to make this claim than the rest of us.

As for the rest of your post, I found it hard to follow your line of reasoning. To the extent I could follow your reasoning, my principal objection is this: in trying to take the sense of termination out of telos, as your position would require you to do, you focus on the fact that the definition from Strong's enables you to claim "purpose" as a meaning. And then you run with that. And, naturally enough, the notion of purpose, by itself, does not carry that necessary sense of "termination".

Careful readers will see that you did not include this from the Strong's analysis of this term:

5056 télos (a neuter noun) – properly, consummation (the end-goal, purpose), such as closure with all its results.

This is the key problem with your argument I believe: purposes can be fulfilled, in which case something comes to an end. And through your long-ish argument you remain silent about this.

More to the point, if one reads chapter 9, one sees that Paul is re-telling the story of Israel. This is critical here as the entire history reaches the culmination in Romans 10:4, where it makes perfect sense, in a "where is this narrative going" mode, to claim Christ has brought the Israel project to, yes, an end. And since the Law is Israel's national charter, it makes perfect narrative sense that the Law ends as well.

By contrast, you have to claim that even though chapter 9 tells us the history of Israel, instilling an expectation of a resolving climax, Paul is telling "oh, and by the way, the Law continues on". This does not, I suggest, make sense if you look at the trajectory established in Romans 9.

 

[daq]

Let's talk about the word "dogmasin" (δογμασιν) as found in Ephesians 2. It is the word rendered as "ordnances" here in a treatment of how Jesus' accomplishment at the cross effects the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile:

15 by abolishing in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances

Some artfully argue that δογμασι means dogma. This word "dogma", as used in our day, has strong negative implications. When we say someone is dogmatic, we are criticizing them for not ciritically examining their own beliefs. And to call something "political dogma" is certainly not a compliment.

Rendering the greek word δογμασιν as "dogma" suits the agenda of someone who wants us to believe that the author of Eph 2 is not telling us that the Law of Moses has been abolished. However, as I am about to show, the term δογμασιν need not carry the negative baggage we in the english-speaking world lade upon the term "dogma". Therefore the term "dogma" is misleading. Why? Because, of course, no Biblically literate person would describe the Law of Moses as dogma in the negative sense.

And, so the argument goes, Paul cannot be telling us the Law of Moses has been retired. But let us look at how the word δογμασιν is used here in Acts 16:

4 Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the ordinances for them to follow which had been determined by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. 5 So the churches were being strengthened in the faith, and were increasing in number daily

Here the word δογμασιν certainly does not have this negative connotation. And if δογμασιν is not necessarily "dogma in the bad sense", it opens up the possibility that, indeed, Paul (or whoever wrote Eph) is using the term in relation to the Law of Moses.

In any event, there are much more serious problems associated with this whole line of argument that the author is saying that man-made laws and ordnances are the things being abolished. Here are two big problems (as will be elaborated in future posts):

1. The definition of the term δογμασιν is sufficiently open-ended to at least allow the term to be used for a law, decree, or ordnance that comes from God, not man.

2. Much more importantly, the logic of the broader passage in which Paul uses the term δογμασιν falls apart in a manner more spectacular if we go with the claim that the term δογμασιν refers to anything other than the Law of Moses.

Let's talk a little more about the passages I quoted, which so many quote to supposedly prove that the Torah was set aside, done away with, abolished, nailed to the stake, and on and on and on. What does Paul say in verse fifteen of the Colossians passage? Here is the KJV since it is more widely accepted.

Colossians 2:14-15 KJV
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

So the antinomians rejoice, "Yay, the law was nailed to the cross of Jesus!"

But wait, that is a semi-colon at the end of verse fourteen; verse fourteen is only a partial sentence, and is itself even broken off from the verse before it, verse thirteen: the full statement is not counted as complete without verse fifteen. What does verse fifteen say and mean? By what is said it surely appears to mean that whatever was nailed to the stake resulted in a triumph over principalities and powers of some sort.

We have not one but two witnesses telling us that the Torah was given through the instrumentality of angels, both Stephen in Acts 7:53, and Paul in Galatians 3:19. So then, even in the Apostolic Writings, the scripture teaches us that the Torah was given through the instrumentality of angels, (the one who loves the Father and His Word will come to see this in the Torah also).

Therefore, because the antinomians wrest yet another Pauline passage in order to destroy the Torah, in this passage they are claiming by default, by the context and statement in Col 2:15, that the Torah was given through fallen angels which the Messiah had to come and defeat, and triumph over them at Golgotha, and nail to the stake the Torah which those evil principalities, powers, and angels delivered to Mosheh.

"Yay! Jesus defeated the principalities and powers who gave Moses the Law and triumphed over them!"

That's the only way the passage would make any sense in light of the antinomian misinterpretation and mental corruption of this passage: for we know that the Torah was given through the instrumentality of angels according to the scripture.

 

[expos4ever]

But wait, that is a semi-colon at the end of verse fourteen; verse fourteen is only a partial sentence, and is itself even broken off from the verse before it, verse thirteen: the full statement is not counted as complete without verse fifteen. What does verse fifteen say and mean? By what is said it surely appears to mean that whatever was nailed to the stake resulted in a triumph over principalities and powers of some sort.

Sure, but I do not see how this threatens the argument that Paul is talking about the Law being "nailed to the cross". Consider this from Romans 7:

But sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me [m]coveting of every kind; for apart

I take it as self-evident, but can make the case if asked, that sin here is characterized as an active intelligent agent - the "force of evil" if you will. I am prepared to argue that God uses the Law of Moses to lure "sin", understood in this almost demonic sense, into the nation of Israel. And once "sin" is thus localized in Israel, it is then transferred to Israel's representative, Jesus. And what happens on the cross?

For what the Law could not do, [b]weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of [c]sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

I suggest that Paul is saying that sin, the rightful target of God's condemnation, is what gets condemned on the cross.

In short, God has used the Torah to lure sin into the vessel that is Jesus' body. Thus cornered, sin is then defeated on the cross.

The Law, having played this key role of magnifying and gathering sin in Israel, can then be retired.

Whether you think any of this is plausible is probably besides the point - I see nothing in your argument that threatens the view that it is the Law that is nailed to the cross. I now turn to your actual argument

We have not one but two witnesses telling us that the Torah was given through the instrumentality of angels, both Stephen in Acts 7:53, and Paul in Galatians 3:19. So then, even in the Apostolic Writings, the scripture teaches us that the Torah was given through the instrumentality of angels, (the one who loves the Father and His Word will come to see this in the Torah also).

OK, but how doest this threaten the view that it is the Law that is nailed to the cross? Just because the Law is delivered by angels does not mean it is permanent.

Therefore, because the antinomians wrest yet another Pauline passage in order to destroy the Torah, in this passage they are claiming by default, by the context and statement in Col 2:15, that the Torah was given through fallen angels

Who said this about fallen angels? Certainly not me.

which the Messiah had to come and defeat, and triumph over them at Golgotha, and nail to the stake the Torah which those evil principalities, powers, and angels delivered to Mosheh.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I certainly do not believe, nor am I forced to believe by dint of my position, that any angels of any kind are being "defeated". I believe the powers and principalities that are defeated are the "forces of evil" that have been, per above, lured into Jesus body and condemned on the cross.

That's the only way the passage would make any sense in light of the antinomian misinterpretation and mental corruption of this passage: for we know that the Torah was given through the instrumentality of angels according to the scripture.

Again, no idea what you are talking about. Surely you must know that just because angels delivered the Law, this does not require us to believe that the Law does not have the dark, albeit divine and ultimately necessary, role of making Israel more sinful, not less. Again I repeat: whether you buy the scenario I paint at the beginning of the post is beside the point. The point is that it is conceivable that God could deliver a law "by angels" with the intent of using that Law to do something that will make Israel suffer (hint: Israel as suffering servant image from Isaiah) under the burden of sin. So, in this sense, Paul can truthfully the Law was "against us Jews" even though, in the end, the Law plays a critical role in Jesus' accomplishment on the Cross.

 

[daq]

Sure, but I do not see how this threatens the argument that Paul is talking about the Law being "nailed to the cross". Consider this from Romans 7:

But sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me [m]coveting of every kind; for apart

I take it as self-evident, but can make the case if asked, that sin here is characterized as an active intelligent agent - the "force of evil" if you will. I am prepared to argue that God uses the Law of Moses to lure "sin", understood in this almost demonic sense, into the nation of Israel. And once "sin" is thus localized in Israel, it is then transferred to Israel's representative, Jesus. And what happens on the cross?

For what the Law could not do, [b]weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of [c]sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

I suggest that Paul is saying that sin, the rightful target of God's condemnation, is what gets condemned on the cross.

In short, God has used the Torah to lure sin into the vessel that is Jesus' body. Thus cornered, sin is then defeated on the cross.

The Law, having played this key role of magnifying and gathering sin in Israel, can then be retired.

Whether you think any of this is plausible is probably besides the point - I see nothing in your argument that threatens the view that it is the Law that is nailed to the cross. I now turn to your actual argument

OK, but how doest this threaten the view that it is the Law that is nailed to the cross? Just because the Law is delivered by angels does not mean it is permanent.

Who said this about fallen angels? Certainly not me.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I certainly do not believe, nor am I forced to believe by dint of my position, that any angels of any kind are being "defeated". I believe the powers and principalities that are defeated are the "forces of evil" that have been, per above, lured into Jesus body and condemned on the cross.

Again, no idea what you are talking about. Surely you must know that just because angels delivered the Law, this does not require us to believe that the Law does not have the dark, albeit divine and ultimately necessary, role of making Israel more sinful, not less. Again I repeat: whether you buy the scenario I paint at the beginning of the post is beside the point. The point is that it is conceivable that God could deliver a law "by angels" with the intent of using that Law to do something that will make Israel suffer (hint: Israel as suffering servant image from Isaiah) under the burden of sin. So, in this sense, Paul can truthfully the Law was "against us Jews" even though, in the end, the Law plays a critical role in Jesus' accomplishment on the Cross.

Cherry pickers never understand because they are quote-mining and stripping the letter of its Logos in order to insert their own logos into the text. Because of this egregious error the cherry picker hardly ever pays much attention to the actual context, and just as Paul says, the letter kills.

 

[daq]

I see nothing in your argument that threatens the view that it is the Law that is nailed to the cross. I now turn to your actual argument

OK, but how doest this threaten the view that it is the Law that is nailed to the cross? Just because the Law is delivered by angels does not mean it is permanent.

Who said this about fallen angels? Certainly not me.

If you claim that the Torah was nailed to the stake, (or cross), according to your reading of the passage and statement, then you need to explain who the principalities and powers are that the Messiah triumphed over by nailing the Torah to the stake because that is what Paul states. Here is the KJV without the verse numbering scheme.

Colossians 2:14-15 KJV ~ Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

By saying that he triumphed over them in it Paul clearly means by doing what he just said he did, nailing whatever it was that was nailed to the stake. You say it was the Torah that was nailed to the stake, (or cross), and therefore I am asking you: who were the principalities and powers that he triumphed over by nailing the Torah to the stake?

Your responses are illogical in comparison with the text. Who gave the Torah? Whoever gave the Torah, that is who he triumphed over by nailing the Torah to the stake, and anyone who has no preconceived paradigm to uphold should be able to clearly see this in the logic of Paul's statement. Just because you deny the implications of your theory by not taking your theory to its conclusion does not mean that is not what you are teaching by default, and that is because of other things we know about the text and N/T doctrine. And as already referenced, we know from two places in the Apostolic writings that the Torah was given through the instrumentality of angels, which are, of course, spoken of as principalities and powers in other places, whether good or evil. Isolating scripture statements and cutting them off from N/T doctrine, so that they can be manipulated, only serves to deceive oneself. And this is all in addition to the fact that dogma is never used in reference to the Torah anywhere in the scripture.

 

[Studyman]

Cheap shot noted. Look, you have no more basis to make this claim than the rest of us.

You are preaching to the world a religious philosophy which implies that Jesus "went about to establish His Own Righteousness" and didn't walk in the Commandments and Laws of His Father. As a result, everything you post is for the purpose of defending this religious philosophy. It wasn't a "cheap shot", it is simply what you are doing.

What I am advocating for is the unbiased examination and discussions of Scriptures.

As for the rest of your post, I found it hard to follow your line of reasoning. To the extent I could follow your reasoning, my principal objection is this: in trying to take the sense of termination out of telos, as your position would require you to do, you focus on the fact that the definition from Strong's enables you to claim "purpose" as a meaning. And then you run with that. And, naturally enough, the notion of purpose, by itself, does not carry that necessary sense of "termination".

I posted the Greek meanings for the word "End", and I considered which meaning the Author had intended to use. Not Just purpose or termination, which are opposite in definition. But other meanings as well, like "result" and "the point aimed at", all of which have different meanings depending on the Context the word "end" was used. Given they can't all be used, as they all differ in meaning, I was seeking to understand the context Paul was using. Since you have pre-determined Jesus was a Breaker of God's Laws, and that Jesus came to "destroy" God's Laws, you can only accept one definition of the word "End". In this instance, to preserve your religious philosophy in this matter, you can only accept "Terminate".

Given Paul's words throughout the New Testament, which began over 14 years into God's Prophesied New Covenant, it is clear that Paul wasn't using the "Termination" definition of the word "End" in Rom. 10. Please consider Paul's own words.

Rom. 2: 13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Paul taught this to the Body of Christ over 14 years after Jesus ascended to His Father and my Father. So your preaching that Jesus destroyed God's Laws, or that HE was the "Termination" of God's Laws over 14 years before his letters to the Romans, is a falsehood and Paul's words here prove that God's Laws were still here, and not destroyed or "terminated", as you and "many" who come in Christ's Name, would have us believe.

Rom. 3: 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Again, this was Paul, teaching the Body of Christ, the Church of God, both Jew and Gentile over 14 years since Jesus supposedly terminated God's Laws, nailing them to His Cross. And yet Paul is teaching that God's Church "Establish" God's Laws, not reject or ignore them as you promote.

Rom. 6: 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Here is Paul, again, teaching the Body of Christ, over 14 years after Jesus ascended, that Transgression of God's Law still brings death to those who "Yield themselves" to disobedience. And yet you are zealous to convince others that Jesus terminated God's Laws. This is why Jesus warned about religious men who come in His Name, and also to "Prove all things" so as not to be deceived. Deceived is defined by me here, as to mean believing things about God/Christ which are false. Like the popular religious philosophy that Jesus came to destroy or terminate His Father's Commandments.

Rom. 7: 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Here again, Paul is still relying on God's Law to define Righteousness for him, and he is teaching the Body of Christ to do the same. Paul is saying here not to be "ignorant of God's Righteousness" which is defined by His Commandments. Commandments you preach to the world were abolished on the Cross.

Rom. 7: 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Again, Even after over 14 years since Jesus died on the Cross, Paul is still serving the Law of God, the same Law he transgressed and omitted as a Pharisee. The same Law you preach to the world Jesus was, not the result of, not the purpose of, but the termination of.

1 Cor. 7: 19 Circumcision (Jew) is nothing, and uncircumcision (Gentile) is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Again, over 14 years after you preach Jesus nailed God's Laws, which you also preach were against Paul and the Gentiles, to His Cross, Paul is still teaching the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile, how important God's commandments are. The Same Commandments you preach Paul told the Romans Jesus "Terminated".

And finally his instruction to the Body of Christ in Titus 1.

Titus 1: 16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

There is a lot more, but certainly this is enough of Paul's Teaching to establish the Context in which he used "END" in Romans 10. And "Terminate", although this context might apply in another verse, doesn't apply in Roman's 10.

Jesus was not the "Termination" of the Law for Righteousness for everyone that believes, as you are promoting. Rather, HE was the "Result" or "purpose" of the Law, as Paul also teaches.

1 Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (The only Scriptures Paul had was the Law and Prophets, this is simply a Biblical Fact.) 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (Like Jesus was)

This is why Paul instructed the Body of Christ to be like him, "To Press Toward the Mark of the High calling of God, which was in Christ Jesus. And why Jesus Himself teaches "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

The religious philosophy you are promoting, which is popular in the religions of this world God placed us in, that God's Laws no longer matters, or that Jesus was the "Termination" of God's "Instruction in Righteousness", is an insidious deception if the Bible is the source we trust. Paul teaches no such thing. And neither did His Brothers in the Church of God.

1 John 2: 3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

All this taught to the Body of Christ, inspired by HIS Spirit, years after you preach Jesus "terminated" God's Commandments. I know you mean well, and are just repeating what this world's religious philosophers have taught you, some of whom opinions and theories you have posted on this forum. But in this case, that Paul is teaching Jesus "Terminated" His Father's Laws, you have been led astray, and I hope you might actually consider Paul's Words provided for your examination.

Rev. 14: 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

 

[Studyman]

Careful readers will see that you did not include this from the Strong's analysis of this term:

5056 télos (a neuter noun) – properly, consummation (the end-goal, purpose), such as closure with all its results.

I copied Strongs definition verbatim. But even your version makes the Bibles, Paul's and my case. Jesus, the man, was "Made perfect". He is the result of a man who lived in complete Faith/obedience to God. And the truly repentant are, as it is written " For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

As Jesus did.

Phil. 2: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore (Because of His Obedience) God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

So the Laws of God were "made for man". For what purpose? To make them perfect, "Even as their Father in heaven is perfect". At least according to the Jesus of the Bible. So this Jesus was certainly the "End goal" of the Law for Righteousness for those who believe. I need look no further to know how to walk, how to think, what to desire for, what to eat, who to trust, who to listen too, than Jesus. Surely HE is the Author of my Faith.

This is the key problem with your argument I believe: purposes can be fulfilled, in which case something comes to an end. And through your long-ish argument you remain silent about this.

Yes, things "CAN" come to an end. Time will come to an end. Sin will come to an end. My life will come to an end. But there is no end to God or His Word.

IS. 40: 7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. 8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

1 Pet. 1: 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

You are claiming that Jesus brought God's Word to an "END". I am challenging your religious philosophy, based on what the Scriptures actually teach. as I am instructed. I have been many things in response to your religious philosophies and theories, but "Silent" isn't one of them.

More to the point, if one reads chapter 9, one sees that Paul is re-telling the story of Israel. This is critical here as the entire history reaches the culmination in Romans 10:4, where it makes perfect sense, in a "where is this narrative going" mode, to claim Christ has brought the Israel project to, yes, an end. And since the Law is Israel's national charter, it makes perfect narrative sense that the Law ends as well.

That might make sense to some of this world's religious philosophers you have adopted are teaching you, but that's not what Paul teaches.

Romans 11: 16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 17And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, (Gentile) wert graffed in among them, "and with them" partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

The Root is Holy. The Jesus of the Bible tries to tell you. "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Rom. 11: 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest (In the Root) by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

23 And they (Those who were broken off) also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Graft them back into what again? The Same Root they were broken off from.

So you are way off base here. "The Israel Project", "The Law is Israel's national charter"? Where do you get this stuff? Certainly not from Scriptures.

Here is what Paul teaches about the Exodus if you could believe him.

1 Cor. 10: 1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

7 Neither be ye idolaters, (God's Law you preach to the world Jesus Terminated) as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

8 Neither let us commit fornication, (God's Law you preach to the world Jesus Terminated) as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

9 Neither let us tempt Christ, (God's Law you preach to the world Jesus Terminated) as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 12 Wherefore (Because of these truths) let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

Israel's story wasn't about the "END" of God's Laws. Paul is telling the Body of Christ, 14 years after Jesus ascended, that the Story was written specifically for those born in the New Priesthood Covenant of God, so that we wouldn't lust after disobedience as they lusted.

Israel also considered God's Laws the same way you do.

Ez. 20:11 And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them.

12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

13 But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them.

Paul just told you these stories were written specifically for us, so that we wouldn't lust against God's Laws as they did.

I know you will not be persuaded, Jesus told me so in Luke 16:31.

But for others reading along, I hope you might consider how dangerous it is to listen to the "other religious philosopher" in the garden God placed us in.

By contrast, you have to claim that even though chapter 9 tells us the history of Israel, instilling an expectation of a resolving climax, Paul is telling "oh, and by the way, the Law continues on". This does not, I suggest, make sense if you look at the trajectory established in Romans 9.

Paul speaks to why men, who come in Christ's name, promote such religious theories in Rom. 1.

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Many, who come in Christ's name, live and preach in open purposeful disobedience to God's Judgments and Commandments. And have been convinced that even though Israel was guilty of the same thing, and blinded because of it, they are somehow immune from such behavior, because they disobey in Christ's Name. But Paul teaches the opposite. "But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

 

[Cornelius8L]

God's people didn't reject Jesus, just the unbelievers. God's Israel are God's people, not those who are born into it. Romans 9:6 Gal 3:26-28. Many of the children of Israel were destroyed by God during the wilderness due to unbelief and disobedience Ezekiel 20:13, Ezekiel 20:21, which is why we are warned not to take the same path.

John 1:11 “He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.”

Yes, many Jews did not receive Him because they were unbelieving, which does not change anything in my post you are responding to. Who crucified Jesus- the Romans, only because the Jews insisted sinless Jesus be crucified over Barabbas.

You say that God's people didn't reject Jesus, but John 1:11 says that they did. Have I missed something?

Yes.

Maybe what I missed is that you don't think that John's saying "His own" means "God's people."

 

[Cornelius8L]

It certainly doesn't mean the Righteousness of God is destroyed by Him. Read the Scripture just before...

It took me a while to grasp the message you were conveying. What I've picked up from reading your comments (posts; #555, #556, #559, #566) is this:

Your definition of “Religious philosophy of men” = those who change/distort God's words to fit their lives = like that of the Pharisees = other voices.

I think you agreed that the OT and NT contradict each other. You choose to explain the NT with the OT, but I explain the OT with the NT. “And indeed, there must be differences among you to show which of you are approved (1 Cor 11:19).”

When it comes to adultery and other actions that harm other people, the NT cites examples like the fruit of the Holy Spirit as a guide. But you OT supporter accuse us without taking into account that we knew what the fruit of HS was. You have to go to the other extreme to prove that we are breaking the OT laws.

We see that the NT gets rid of customary laws but keeps the law's principles. You don't see it that way because you think that the "laws" in the NT can either refer to (a) the law that existed before Moses or (b) the law that existed after Moses (you say, "added"). Even though the OT never told the Jews to separate the laws in this way, you did it anyway. But you never thought to separate the law before and after Christ, which is what the Apostles told us to do. Plus, you added your own idea of (c) Pharisee's law when the NT was referring to OT law. And it's strange that you kept the Sabbath law and a few other laws but got rid of the one about sacrifices, even though both the Sabbath and sacrifices are part of the "added" law.

You established your own "categories of laws," and it seems to me that you are what you defined as "Religious philosophy of men," those who alter/distort God's words to fit their own righteousness, despite the fact that the True Author of the Bible (God) explicitly states that there is only One Lawgiver (James 4:12), where no one can set other laws in His domain.

How you understand Paul's teaching depends on how you freely fill in (a), (b), and (c), and this behavior fits into your own definition of "Religious philosophy of men." For example, in post #396, you said that Paul's removal of circumcision in Galatians 5:2–3 was referring to the religious practices of the Pharisees by putting words in his mouth when he was clearly talking about circumcision by the law. Another example is that you talk about the temporary priesthood in the OT, but this idea didn't exist before or after your defined "Added" law (It came later in the NT).

In post #517, you said that because there is death, there is still sin, which shows that the law is still there. I don't agree with what you said because Moses died naturally, not because of sin, and he showed himself to Jesus (Matt 17:3). I'm not sure where your answer in post #566 fits, though.

When talking about how to understand Jesus in Matthew 12:4, Jesus said that David broke the law, and in Matthew 12:5, he said that the priests broke the commandment. We're not discussing mercy at this point. Instead, we are talking about what it means to break the law or a commandment. You don't seem to understand Jesus, just as you didn't understand the pattern of truth. And we don't need to re-paint the image of Christ on top of what He has already shown us. But since you choose which law "a, b, or c" Paul was talking about, you also choose what Christ should be like.

Also, please read Leviticus 23:3 and understand what it means to have a "sarced assembly" when it comes to keeping the Sabbath as the law requires. During his 40 days in the desert, did Jesus keep this?

And Jesus should permit them to stone the adulteress in accordance with the law in Lev 20:10 because He can see well from a vast distance according to John 1:48, and John 8:17-18 state that the Father can testify alongside Him, so they would be two witnesses. But why did Jesus add to the law in order to arouse people's consciences? He did the same to the commandment that forbids murdering. Why does Jesus add something to the commandments that the law forbids (Deut. 4:2)?

Regarding Zechariah, your question was presented in an odd manner when we were talking about circumcision. Anyway, Zechariah saw an angel. “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.” (1 Cor 4:20) Pharisees are nothing but talk. However, Zechariah was silent after the angel appeared because he didn't believe in God's power, thus your argument is flawed. (Luke 1:20).

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Maybe what I missed is that you don't think that John's saying "His own" means "God's people."

You keep thinking God's people is a nationality, when it is those in Christ through faith. Gal 3:26-28

 

[Cornelius8L]

You keep thinking God's people is a nationality, when it is those in Christ through faith. Gal 3:26-28

The concept of God's people as those in Christ through faith happens only in NT after the resurrection of Christ, not before as proven by the writing of Apostle John.