Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Cornelius8L]

They killed Stephen without a Roman authority

They had already succeeded in pressuring the Roman government into thinking that people like Jesus needed to be executed, and then killed Stephen. What happened to Jesus was an example of how the Romans let people do whatever they wanted after a case like Jesus's.

 

[Studyman]

Your obvious error is that you don't follow the sacrificial law, which is part of both the OT laws that came before and after Moses, but you still try to convince people to keep the OT laws.

Since you don't know what "LAW" was Added 430 years after God said "that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws", you don't understand the Levitical Priesthood, nor the mercy God showed HIS people by "adding" it to His Commandments, Statutes and Laws, "Till the SEED should come". It's really a matter believing what is written vs. what this world's religions teach. For example, you preach there were "Sacrificial Laws" before Moses, which would be true regarding Passover. But Passover is not a Levitical Priesthood "work of the law". Passover was an example of a sacrifice before Moses. A sacrifice that was made, while Israel was yet in Egypt (Yet in sin). But the Law requiring burnt offerings and sacrifices for sins, didn't exist before Moses. I know this because I believe what is written in the Law and Prophets.

Jer. 7: 21 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. 22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: 23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

It wasn't "added" until Israel rebelled against God, or as Paul teaches "Transgressed".

So yes, to Obey is better than sacrifice. And these sacrifices were "added" to God's Law Abraham walked in, 430 years after he obeyed them. So your understanding that the Levitical Priesthood existed before Moses, is simply false.

Since you are ignorant of your own ignorance in this matter, you can't understand the very Words of the Christ who said "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments", which were the same Word HE spoke as the Rock of Israel, before becoming a man.

So to compensate for their lack of understanding, and unwillingness to accept correction from scriptures, men change the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, like we see in religious men accusing God of lying like men and accusing Jesus of Transgressing God's Laws like the Pharisees.

Paul tells me all about this when he explained what happened to the Jews.

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, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

We can see this reality throughout the Examples God had written for our admonition, AKA, the Holy Scriptures, and today in the images of God religious men of this world have created in the likeness of some handsome men's hair shampoo model, or the fish hat some preachers wear, just as the golden calf which was created by those who said they would obey God in the Exodus, etc.

It seems important to discern between religious myths and manmade religious traditions, and what the Scriptures actually say, when a man considers them all, like Jesus and Paul did.

You don't practice what you preach, and your version of the law doesn't belong here or there.

I cannot help that you are ignorant of God's Laws, or what they meant and foreshadowed. I can show the Scriptures, but I can't make you believe them.

Jesus said "But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice": God declared this for a reason. Or is this one place you preach God Lied?

I will sum up all of your long posts into one and reply (Posts#613, #616, #618, #619). You seem to be fixated on the idea that Pharisees had their own law, as though you've unearthed some major secret in the Bible, but this discovery is irrelevant, as we were already aware of what the Pharisees were doing. Like someone who says, "I've found a new commandment outside of the TEN," but is just repeating what was already taught as a whole.

I showed you the Scriptures in which the Spirit of God in Christ told me the Pharisees had their own Law. Both in the OT and the NT. My posts were long because there are so many scriptures which teach this undeniable Biblical Truth. It's nothing new, the scriptures were written even long before you were born. It's not my fault that you don't believe them or have adopted this world's religions which don't teach them. What I advocate for is to study them "apart" from the popular religious philosophies and theories promoted by this world's religions. Surly God can reveal himself to men, without going to a Levite Priest, or other self-proclaimed "minister of righteousness", given what the Scriptures warn about them.

But saying "Pharisee's law" and then equating it to "Religious philosophy of men" doesn't do anything but confuse the reader, just like how you misunderstood NT passages like Phil 3:5 and Gal 1:13–14.

There is nothing confusing about it. You have just adopted a religion which doesn't teach these scriptures to you. Jesus quoted God's Word given through Isaiah describing the rebellious Jews in the Law and Prophets, "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

And again, God tells us in the Law and Prophets;

Jer. 23: 16 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD.


Jesus said Isaiah judgment was right about the Pharisees as well. So did Stephen when he described Paul and the Pharisees in Acts.

Acts 7: 51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

And Paul admits the same exact thing about the Jews religion he had once adopted and promoted.

Gal. 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

Jesus confirms this.

Mark 7: 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

And again from Paul;

Rom. 7: 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: (Mind) 23 But I see "another law" in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin (The "other Law") which is in my members.

How can you say the rebellious Jews and the Pharisees didn't promote their own "Instruction in Righteousness", when God, through Paul tells you flat out,

2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 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.

Why would I flush all these Scriptures down this world's religious toilet, just to prove a lie about the Pharisees?

When Pharisses adds to or takes away from the law, it doesn't mean that they have a law other than the Mosaic Law,

But God, Jesus and Paul has told you that they were promoting their own Law, their own vision, their own righteousness, their own Commandments. That "they", Not God, placed "burdens on the shoulders of men" The RCC also rejected God's Sabbaths, God's Feast's and God's Judgments regarding everything. They created their own Sabbaths, their own high days, their own judgments regarding what is food and what is not food. Have they not created their own Righteousness? Their own Laws?

How are the Pharisees any different, based on the Scriptures from your own Bible that I have posted?

At some point, every man alive has to choose between "yielding themselves" to obey the religious voices of the Lands God placed us in, or "Yield themselves" to obey God. It was no different for Noah or Abraham or Caleb or Zacharias, or Jesus or Paul, and it's no different for us today. Like Paul said "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them." There will be no excuse for us who have had delivered into our own homes, "the Oracles of God".

just like when you take the sacrificial law out of the OT, it doesn't mean that you have a law other than the OT law.

In God's OT Law HE said "to obey is better than sacrifice". God's Law also says "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."

Jesus said, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Paul said; "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

So then, who was it that "took away animal sacrifices"? If you knew why God declared, "I desire Mercy, not sacrifice", you wouldn't be accusing me of taking away, what HE Himself teaches was temporary to start with.

 

[Studyman]

Also, if someone had a wrong general idea of how God acts, he wouldn't understand the commandments, traditions, or righteousness that God gave.

This is true, and as the Scriptures show, those who don't believe God in His Instruction, rejected much of them and created their own. This did not end well for them. Paul said these examples were written so that we, that is, the Body of the Christ of the Bible, wouldn't lust after the same evil and examples of unbelief and rebel against God's Judgments as they did. Not all of them rebelled though. Caleb, Joshua, Gideon, Daniel, Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, the wise Men, and all the examples of faith given us in the bible, followed a different path. As Paul said;

1 Cor. 10: 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: (Not all of them) for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

So, let me ask you, did God ever lie in the Bible, which says that God never lies? God has lied in the past, but you won't understand why because you don't know enough.

I don't believe God is a Liar, nor do I believe Jesus undermined or Transgressed His Father's Commandments. The scriptures you use to support your religious philosophy in this matter, do not support it, unless you separate them from the rest of the Bible, and twist them.

Perhaps you might consider how Jesus defined those who "Laid aside God's Commandments so they could live in their own religious traditions". "But in vain they do worship me".

So, you didn't make your case clear; instead, you provided a distraction. Your clear denial of what Jesus said in Matthew 12:4-5 about David breaking the law and the priest breaking the commandment showed that you don't follow Jesus. Even a young child can understand what Jesus was saying in Matthew 12:4-5. It would be an understatement to say that your explanation to cover up your confusion was "shameless."

I rely on the Scriptures that Paul said were inspired by God, as Paul instructed, for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Since you have been convinced that God is a Liar, and Jesus was a Transgressor, you preach a different gospel than Paul.

Your judgments and philosophy, like God is a liar, and Jesus is a Transgressor of God's Laws, and God's Judgments are beneath you and unworthy of your honor and respect, are popular with this world's religions who created them. But I am not God's Judge, so I cannot partake with you. If you are willing to Judge God in such a wicked and evil way without even batting an eye, how much greater will your judgement be against a nobody like me, for posting His Words?

I have come to expect nothing less and consider it an honor not to be included in your Club of Judges against God and those who trust in Him.

Paul's words in 1 Timothy 1:3–11 say everything there is to say about you, who use wrongly linked genealogies to promote the “law of the Pharisees.”

It's always the same with the "many" who call Jesus Lord, who profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

You use "some" of the Scriptures to justify your own religious philosophy, like "the Pharisees were experts in God's Law", when the very scriptures you use to exalt your own Philosophy, condemns your own philosophy.

1 Timothy 1:3–11​

“...certain men not to teach false doctrines or devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God’s work, which is by faith.​

Mark 7: 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

John 8: 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

Surely even a child can see that the Pharisees believed they were experts, and professed themselves wise, but like Paul teaches to those who believe him, "They became fools" because they didn't Glorify God. Perhaps they thought HE was a Liar as well.

The goal of our instruction is the love that comes from a pure heart, a clear conscience, and a sincere faith. Some have strayed from these ways and turned aside to empty talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not understand what they are saying or that which they so confidently assert.​

And yet you preach to the world that the Pharisees "Were experts in God's Laws"? Can you not see the hypocrisy here?

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful,... ..., and for anyone else who is averse to sound teaching that agrees with the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”​

Yes, for the Lawless and Rebellious. Why for them? So they can continue to be lawless and rebellious? And you should have kept going.

1 Tim. 1: 12 And I (Paul) thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; 13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

So your "Expert in the Mosaic Law" did these things because of ignorance and unbelief? Ignorance and unbelief of what? The "Mosaic Law" he was an expert in?

There is a truth about the Pharisees. It isn't that they were "Experts on the Mosiac Law".

John 12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

2 Cor. 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

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, (Experts in the Mosiac Law) they became fools,

This happens all the time. Someone makes a doctrine, in this case, "The Pharisees were experts on Mosiac Law". We examine scriptures to see if this doctrine is from God or man. We have, and it is clear this doctrine is from man, as the Scriptures teach against it from front to back.

Now here comes to issue. Will you choose the religious philosophy of men, that ye may keep your own tradition.? Or be corrected by the Holy Scriptures Paul said were for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:?

 

[Studyman]

That's right, change is the goal!

What I was getting at is
that feeling that most of us have,
that we have set aside our preconceived notions and dealt with what the scriptures actually say...
well, that's just it, pretty much everyone here has that sensation.

And that's why I like to take things slowly, one step at a time. It's easier to see where things don't match up with the scriptures.

So if there's something you think we see differently that you'd like to take one step at a time, I'm interested

"My beloved brothers, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger; for the anger of man doesn’t produce the righteousness of God."
-James

I am especially fond of taking one step at a time.

It is written about Caleb.

Numbers 14:24 But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it.

And of Zacharias;

Luke 1: 5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Am I understanding you correctly, that you don't believe these men turned to the Lord?

 

[Lulav]

You appear to be using the New Living Translation. From wikipedia:

It has been suggested that this "thought-for-thought" methodology, while making the translation easier to understand, is less accurate than a literal (formal equivalence) method, and thus the New Living Translation may not be suitable for those wishing to undertake detailed study of the Bible

I am not saying the NLT is necessarily wrong, but this, combined with the fact that I could find no other translation that has anything like "to show people their sins", makes me wonder if the translation does not mislead in this particular verse. For reasons I have touched lightly on in other posts, I believe that the NLT is out of touch with Paul's thinking in this verse. However I agree these other translations, below, do not make it at all clear what Paul is saying re the reason for giving the Law. Almost all other versions have "because of transgressions" or "on account of transgressions". While that wording is clearly ambiguous, it certainly does not require us to conclude the intended meaning is as rendered in the NLT.

Didn't realize I used that. I mostly use the KJV, it must have flipped on the version section on the Bible gateway site.

Any way the point is moot as I was showing the contrast of the law being given by angels according to Paul, compared to the actual fact that Moses received it directly from God.

And in the Greek no matter what version the word ἄγγελος (anggelos) is there.

The NASB has:

Why the Law then? It was added on account of the violations, having been ordered through angels at the hand of a [b]mediator, until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

...and the Young's Literal has:

Why, then, the law? on account of the transgressions it was added, till the seed might come to which the promise hath been made, having been set in order through messengers in the hand of a mediator --

How can the law be added on account of violations? Violations to what? Paul is putting the cart before the horse here.

Also angels, God's heavenly ones do not make laws for Gods people. Nor did they deliver them to Moses who was more than a mediator.

And there is no promise I can find that says when Messiah comes that they would be 'subtracted'.

 

[Studyman]

Didn't you say the Pharisees were dishonest, and the Bible says they love money? Couldn't the adulterer buy himself out? You said you believe what the Bible says, but you don't believe the records of the apostle John or the God-breathed Scripture.

Again, you attribute to me the Things Jesus and His Father had written for my admonition. And this it seems, because you are trying to trip me up, like the Pharisees were trying to trip Jesus up. So who was it that declared the Pharisees were dishonest? Me, or Jesus and His Father? Will you confirm this please, so we can continue "honestly"?

Since you so easily miss-represent whose says what, it seems perfectly understandable that I would also be cautious about your opinion regarding the Apostle John or the God Breathed Scriptures.

Jesus knew it was a trap because the Romans don't let Jews put each other to death. We know this is why the Pharisees used the Roman judge's authority to put Jesus to death. If Jesus says to kill her, they can take Him to the Romans and have him killed. Is this common sense about how society works hard to understand? Do you have to come up with an explanation that doesn't make sense? Why doesn't that woman defend herself if she was wrongly accused? Is she stupid? After what Jesus said, no one is daring enough to throw a stone because the Roman government forbids it.

This is an opinion of someone and you are free to adopt the religious philosophies or opinions of anyone you choose. But it's lacking significant Biblical support in my view. These same Jews didn't have a problem stoning Stephen to death, without the help or clearance from the Romans. And again in Acts 14, to Paul himself.

19 And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.

I would hope you might re-examine your opinion in this matter and allow the scriptures to guide you.

Your mission is to tell people that "Pharisees have a law," even though they don't.

My mission is to examine and discuss Scriptures for the purpose of doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I posted a bunch of Scriptures inspired by God, that teaches plainly that the Jews had a Law, but it wasn't God's Law, as they were "Ignorant" of God's Law, didn't "Believe" in God's Law, didn't believe Moses who gave them God's Law, and were "Blinded by God" so they couldn't be like Caleb and Zacharias, and walk in God's Law. I even posted their own words, "We have a Law, and by OUR Law HE should die". And I ask you, where is God's Law that Condemned Jesus to death?

And you can provide no such Law. This is because the Bible is right, and in this case, you are in error. There is no shame in that. We have all been deceived and remain in danger as long as we submit to God's Righteousness.

My hope is that you will consider what's written and be corrected, or at least engage in an honest discussion about them.

When you don't understand what we're trying to say, you use your sense of self-righteousness to judge us. And, to be honest, you might think you're trying to defend Jesus, but He says very clearly that He doesn't need human's testimonies (John 5:34). We can talk plainly about what He did.

But you aren't talking plainly about what HE did. You are promoting falsehoods about Him going about to establish His Own Righteousness. You accuse His Father of being a Liar. You claim the "blind guides, Hypocrites and deceived" were "experts on Mosaic Law".

I don't believe the Scriptures support such a judgment against God, nor do I believe the Blind guides were "experts" in Mosiac Law. I believe Jesus was the true expert in Mosiac Law.

 

[Studyman]

Well since you are so much more studied than me, perhaps you can explain precisely how my following your suggestion would magically change the fact that in saying "go and sin no more" Jesus clearly demonstrates that He knows the the woman to be guilty, thereby undercutting your suggestion that she may have been innocent:

You don't even know if the woman was guilty.

Perhaps you should read my reply again, and this time with less malice in your heart. I said Jesus didn't judge her as worthy of death for the sins these children of the devil accused her of. As I posted "For all have sinned are come short of the Glory of God". So my Priest was to make a judgment here and judged not to kill her based on the accusations of these men who were trying to set Him up. That wasn't His Mission. And this was not HIS judgment, but His Father's judgment that sent Him. So this is just more evidence that your mission to prove Jesus Transgressed His Father's Commandments is from below and not from above.

You are in a very difficult quandary - Jesus's words drive us inexorably to conclude that since no one is in a position to cast a stone, the Law of stoning adulterers is effectively unenforceable in any circumstance, and therefore effectively meaningless, at least in terms of enforcing the "letter". As would any of the prescriptions of the Law of Moses that call for a death sentence.

It seems to me that you are try to divert attention from this challenge to your view by vague references to "mercy" and "faith".

Well the "LAW" says the Stoning comes from the "Congregation of the Lord", not the children of the devil. You don't seem to understand this part of God's "LAW". And Jesus said "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.", not stone it to death.

John 3: 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

So still, your preaching that Jesus Transgressed His Father's Commandments because HE didn't "condemn" the woman, is hogwash. He was doing just as HIS father instructed Him to do. And that was to promote the same Mercy God showed to Israel, a mercy the mainstream preachers of that time had "Omitted" from their Law.

Will you be persuaded? Jesus said you won't be persuaded.

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

Who am I to argue with Jesus?

 

[Leaf473]

I am especially fond of taking one step at a time.

It is written about Caleb.

Numbers 14:24 But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it.

And of Zacharias;

Luke 1: 5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Am I understanding you correctly, that you don't believe these men turned to the Lord?

Which person would you like to discuss as our first step?

 

[expos4ever]

Perhaps you should read my reply again, and this time with less malice in your heart.

Oh man, that is funny.

I said Jesus didn't judge her as worthy of death for the sins these children of the devil accused her of.

How do you know this? I base my conclusion - that Jesus released her because there is no one qualified to participate in the stoning - based on what Jesus says: "Let he is without sin cast the first stone". As far as I can tell, the explanation you are offering is vague and based on speculation that runs counter to the "go and sin no more" saying that suggests she was indeed guilty of death.

I have noticed a pattern with you guys - you stand behind the letter of the Law and yet when it comes to applying it, you always maneuver away from endorsing its actual application. Thus we get the "excuse" for carrying a pallet on the Sabbath, for example. That kind of strategy allows you, illicitly I suggest, to try to have it both ways - to endorse the Law and yet explain, returning to the adultery encounter for example, why it was not applied.

So this is just more evidence that your mission to prove Jesus Transgressed His Father's Commandments is from below and not from above.

Come on man - enough sermonizing. Please deal with subject at hand and stop deigning to judge the moral fibre of others.

Well the "LAW" says the Stoning comes from the "Congregation of the Lord", not the children of the devil.

Again you divert. And, of course you need to in order to salvage your position. You appear to think that just because you deem the Pharisees to be monsters - and maybe they were - that this fact somehow trumps the explanation that Jesus offers for the woman's reprieve, namely that no one, even people better than these monsters, is in a position to cast stones.

You don't seem to understand this part of God's "LAW". And Jesus said "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.", not stone it to death.

And you think this helps your case? Remember, it is you who claims to support the continued applicability of the Law. It seems to me that with statements like this you are shooting yourself in the foot. You are basically saying what I am saying - that upon Jesus' arrival, the law to stone adulterers is effectively abolished.

Who am I to argue with Jesus?

I suggest it will be clear that, ironically, you are indeed arguing with Jesus - He tells us the reason for the reprieve but you insist on coming up with different explanations! Jesus says "go and sin no more" - a virtual slam-dunk indication that she is guilty and hence by the very terms of the Law that you are so ardently defending merits death - but you suggest that He deemed her undeserving of the stones!

 

[Cornelius8L]

So then, who was it that "took away animal sacrifices"? If you knew why God declared, "I desire Mercy, not sacrifice", you wouldn't be accusing me of taking away, what HE Himself teaches was temporary to start with.

Replying post#644, 645, and 648.

First of all, do you realize that when God says, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice," it's the opposite of when He says He likes the smell of sacrifices? (Exo 29:18, Lev 4:31, etc).

I do not need to defend my God like you did to your god. God did what He had to do to accomplish His purposes, and one of them was to set us free from the customary law, which you tried so hard to preach.

And does the NT ever say that the "added law" means the priesthood law? Why not kosher law? Does the law that was in place before "Added" include the Ten Commandments? Before the "Added," no one is known to have kept the Sabbath.

And you forgot that the first animal sacrifice God made for Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden was for their clothes so they wouldn't be seen as naked. The Bible also says that Levi was always in Abraham’ loin and that Abraham himself offered sacrifices. What law of the priesthood did Abraham follow? And what law of the priesthood did Melchizedek follow?

Didn't you say the Pharisees were dishonest, and the Bible says they love money? Couldn't the adulterer buy himself out?

Again, you attribute to me the Things Jesus and His Father had written for my admonition. And this it seems, because you are trying to trip me up, like the Pharisees were trying to trip Jesus up. So who was it that declared the Pharisees were dishonest? Me, or Jesus and His Father? Will you confirm this please, so we can continue "honestly"?

Since you so easily miss-represent whose says what, it seems perfectly understandable that I would also be cautious about your opinion regarding the Apostle John or the God Breathed Scriptures.

So, you wrote long posts about Pharisees, but now you say that Pharisees were honest people? Why is it so hard for you to figure out what this message is about? Are the Pharisees honest? Yes or no?

Jesus knew it was a trap because the Romans don't let Jews put each other to death. We know this is why the Pharisees used the Roman judge's authority to put Jesus to death. If Jesus says to kill her, they can take Him to the Romans and have him killed. Is this common sense about how society works hard to understand? Do you have to come up with an explanation that doesn't make sense? Why doesn't that woman defend herself if she was wrongly accused? Is she stupid? After what Jesus said, no one is daring enough to throw a stone because the Roman government forbids it.

This is an opinion of someone and you are free to adopt the religious philosophies or opinions of anyone you choose. But it's lacking significant Biblical support in my view. These same Jews didn't have a problem stoning Stephen to death, without the help or clearance from the Romans. And again in Acts 14, to Paul himself.

19 And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.

I would hope you might re-examine your opinion in this matter and allow the scriptures to guide you.

What you said before was more illogical, as if the Bible were a storybook and not a real record of human history. Regarding Stephen. They had already succeeded in getting the Roman government to agree that people like Jesus should be put to death, and then they killed Stephen. After a case like what happened to Jesus, the Romans would let people do whatever they wanted. Doesn't society work like this?

Oh yeah, citing "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" doesn't fit you because, like the Pharisees, you spend much of your time casting judgment on others. You don't seem like the merciful type to me.

 

[Lulav]

How do you know this? I base my conclusion - that Jesus released her because there is no one qualified to participate in the stoning - based on what Jesus says: "Let he is without sin cast the first stone". As far as I can tell, the explanation you are offering is vague and based on speculation that runs counter to the "go and sin no more" saying that suggests she was indeed guilty of death.

Lev 12:10 “ ‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.​

​

Deut 22: 22-24 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.​

1. 23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

Notice that one is with a wife, the other with an engaged woman. I believe the Levitical law is the one spoken of here and thus did not necessarily require stoning. Either way they both have to be brought before the council.


I've read through this thread and unless I missed it no one seemed to remember the part about Jesus writing, TWICE.

John 8:3-9​

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.​

In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”​

They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.​

​

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”​

Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.​

​

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.​

It has been offered that perhaps the first time he wrote down their names, and the second time just after he had said, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her" he wrote next to each name what their sins were.


But all that may be moot as it seems

The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11​

I have noticed a pattern with you guys - you stand behind the letter of the Law and yet when it comes to applying it, you always maneuver away from endorsing its actual application. Thus we get the "excuse" for carrying a pallet on the Sabbath, for example. That kind of strategy allows you, illicitly I suggest, to try to have it both ways - to endorse the Law and yet explain, returning to the adultery encounter for example, why it was not applied.

There's no 'excuse' about the carrying, those things were determined by the Rabbis. It most likely wasn't a 'pallet' but rather a mat woven from palm fronds, which were plentiful around there. Very light and not a burden.

Show me, if you can, where it says in Torah you can't carry a mat on Shabbat.
The Pharisees went after Jesus because he had healed the man.

Determining the understanding of Gods laws and how they are applied means more than looking them up and copying and pasting them.

 

[Leaf473]

...yet when it comes to applying it, you always maneuver away from endorsing its actual application.

(Please excuse my jumping in here.)
It's not so easy to apply the letter of the law of Moses. If a person says we are to keep the cleanliness laws to the letter, then for those who have the skin condition described in Leviticus 13:
He shall wear torn clothes, and the hair of his head shall hang loose. He shall cover his upper lip, and shall cry, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’

 

[Studyman]

(Please excuse my jumping in here.)
It's not so easy to apply the letter of the law of Moses. If a person says we are to keep the cleanliness laws to the letter, then for those who have the skin condition described in Leviticus 13:
He shall wear torn clothes, and the hair of his head shall hang loose. He shall cover his upper lip, and shall cry, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’

It seems prudent to desire to understand the Parables of God and why He said He speaks to the world in this manner. It also seems prudent toconsider that many of God’s instruction in righteousness are easy to understand even for a child. Like don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t eat everything, be merciful and honest. Who wouldn’t teach their children these things. How much more our God who is perfect and wise beyond our comprehension. Why not submit to God, as instructed, to the instructions we do understand, even if the religions of this world we were born into, reject them? Isn’t that being a servant to whom we obey?

It seems foolish to judge all or some of God’s instructions as unworthy of respect just because the religious people of this world God placed us in, don’t understand a Parable.

 

[John Mullally]

That is a blatant lie. I've repeatedly stated what I think Acts 21:24-25 is speaking about, such as in post #315, and I've repeatedly given reasons why I disagree with your interpretation, which did not include that I did not like it.

You have vehemently denounced my interpretation of Acts 21:24-25. It is therefore only fair that you explain your understanding of what Acts 21:24-25 says in relation to Gentile believers and keeping the law. Up till now you have repeatedly explained what it is not saying - again, I want you to explain what it is saying.

It has been over 2 weeks and no explanation came on what Acts 21:24-25 says in relation to Gentile believers and keeping the law. That comes as no surprise to me.

 

[expos4ever]

Jesus *said to him, “Get up, pick up your pallet and walk.” 9 Immediately the man became well, and picked up his pallet and began to walk. Now it was a Sabbath on that day. 10 So the Jews were saying to the man who was cured, “It is a Sabbath, and it is not permissible for you to carry your pallet.”

In this post, I will not address the matter of whether carrying the pallet is against the Law - I agree that, seen in isolation of the rest of the exchange, a good case can be made that the Law was not being broken here.

But look at this highly subversive statement from Jesus a few sentences down in the exchange:

For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on a Sabbath. 17 But He answered them, “My Father [g]is working until now, and I Myself am working.

Jesus is clearly claiming to work, yes work, on the Sabbath.

And while carrying a pallet may not contravene the Sabbath laws, directly claiming to work certainly does. Now then, people will, as I have said, try to wiggle their out of this spot by claiming that what Jesus did was an exception - it did not really count as "work". This is what I am objecting to - the continual generation of exceptions in order to salvage the view that Jesus did not break the Law.

But when Jesus directly claims to be working on the Sabbath, we know all too well, He is not claiming an exception - He is directly challenging the Sabbath law.

 

[Soyeong]

You are loosly referencing some deliberation before the final decision - the Jerusallem Decree. The Jerusalem Decree (Acts 15:23-29) instructs the Gentile believers on what laws they must keep. The Jerusalm Decree indicates that the Gentile believers are not required to be circumcised.

You have vehemently denounced my interpretation of Acts 21:24-25. It is therefore only fair that you explain your understanding of what Acts 21:24-25 says in relation to Gentile believers and keeping the law. Up till now you have repeatedly explained what it is not saying - again, I want you to explain what it is saying.

You are interpreting the final decision in a way that is contrary to the basis for making that decision. Out of the of the things that were commanded in the Mosaic Law, you can treat the Jerusalem Decree as being an exhaustive list for mature believers that limits the things that Gentiles should do to just those four things and nothing else, or you can treat it it as being a non-exhaustive list that allows room that Gentiles should do other things, but is contradictory for you to treat it as being both an exhaustive and a non-exhaustive list by taking both positions.

I will again explain what I think it is saying by saying that it is clear that Gentiles should do other things that were commanded in the Mosaic Law, such as the Ten Commandments, the greatest two commandments, and what is in accordance with verses like 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, and Titus 3:1-2, so it was not intended as an exhaustive list for mature Gentile believers that limits which things they should do to just those four things and nothing else, but rather as stated in Acts 15:19-21, it was a list intended for new believers in order to make things not too difficult for them, which they excused in verse 21 with the expectation that they would continue to learn how to do other things that were commanded in the Mosaic Law by hearing Moses taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.

So after Jerusalem Council ruled that Gentiles should obey the Law of Moses and become circumcised in accordance with ruling in favor of the group of believer from among the Pharisees in Acts 15:5 and against the men from Judea in Acts 15:1, they took the approach that new believes should start with four things and continue to learn how to obey the rest of the Mosaic Law over time rather than the approach of overwhelming them by holding them accountable to do everything in the Mosaic Law on day one. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so the Jerusalem Council did not take the approach that Gentiles shouldn't follow Christ outside of those four things.

 

[John Mullally]

You have vehemently denounced my interpretation of Acts 21:24-25. It is therefore only fair that you explain your understanding of what Acts 21:24-25 says in relation to Gentile believers and keeping the law. Up till now you have repeatedly explained what it is not saying - again, I want you to explain what it is saying.

It has been over 2 weeks and no explanation came on what Acts 21:24-25 says in relation to Gentile believers and keeping the law. That comes as no surprise to me.

Post 657 does not address what Acts 21:24-25 says in relation to Gentile believers and keeping the law.

So after Jerusalem Council ruled that Gentiles should obey the Law of Moses and become circumcised in accordance with ruling in favor of the group of believer from among the Pharisees in Acts 15:5 and against the men from Judea in Acts 15:1, they took the approach that new believes should start with four things and continue to learn how to obey the rest of the Mosaic Law over time rather than the approach of overwhelming them by holding them accountable to do everything in the Mosaic Law on day one. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so the Jerusalem Council did not take the approach that Gentiles shouldn't follow Christ outside of those four things.

The final decision agreed upon by the Apostles and Elders is the letter to the Gentile believers (also termed the Jerusalem Decree) which is quoted verbatim in Acts 15:23-29. The Jerusalem Decree went out around 50 AD to the Gentiles. Whereas the book of Acts was not released for at least another 30 years.

The deliberations that preceded the Jerusalem Decree are just deliberations - they are not any type of decision and they never went out to the Gentile believers. The Jerusalem Decree makes no mention of the Gentiles needing to keep the Law of Moses and become circumcised - if the Jerusalem Council intended that, it would be in the Jerusalem Decree.

In Acts 21:24-25, Paul (the Apostle to the Gentiles) looks back at the decree and shows how he enforced it by not instructing the Gentiles to keep the Law, but to abstain from the four things listed in the Jerusalem Decree (Acts 15:29).

 

[Soyeong]

Post 657 does not address what Acts 21:24-25 says in relation to Gentile believers and keeping the law.

You repeatedly ignored me addressing that, so it does not come as a surprise that you would ignore post 657 addressing it.

The final decision agreed upon by the Apostles and Elders is the letter to the Gentile believers (also termed the Jerusalem Decree) which is quoted verbatim in Acts 15:23-29. The Jerusalem Decree went out around 50 AD to the Gentiles. Whereas the book of Acts was not released for at least another 30 years.

The deliberations that preceded the Jerusalem Decree are just deliberations - they are not any type of decision and they never went out to the Gentile believers. The Jerusalem Decree makes no mention of the Gentiles needing to keep the Law of Moses and become circumcised - if the Jerusalem Council intended that, it would be in the Jerusalem Decree.

In Acts 21:24-25, Paul (the Apostle to the Gentiles) looks back at the decree and shows how he enforced it by not instructing the Gentiles to keep the Law, but to abstain from the four things listed in the Jerusalem Decree (Acts 15:29).

The Jerusalem Decree should be understood in a way that is in accordance with their deliberations rather than a way that is contrary to them. They expected that new believers to continue to learn about how to obey the Law of Moses by hearing Moses taught in the synagogues every Sabbath because that is the primary way that Gentiles were learning how to follow Christ. It is not as though the event in Acts were not spoken about orally until they were written down. Again, Paul did not treat Acts 21:24-25 as being an exhaustive list that limits which things Gentiles should do to just those four things and nothing else because he clearly taught elsewhere that there were other things that Gentiles should do, but rather he affirmed those four things as being the starting point for new believers.

 

[John Mullally]

You repeatedly ignored me addressing that, so it does not come as a surprise that you would ignore post 657 addressing it.

You have yet to explain what Acts 21:24-25 does say.

The Jerusalem Decree should be understood in a way that is in accordance with their deliberations rather than a way that is contrary to them. They expected that new believers to continue to learn about how to obey the Law of Moses by hearing Moses taught in the synagogues every Sabbath because that is the primary way that Gentiles were learning how to follow Christ. It is not as though the event in Acts were not spoken about orally until they were written down.

The Jerusalem Decree stands on its own - its the instructions that the Apostles and Elders agreed to give to the Gentile believers. The deliberations were not issued to the Gentile believers - they would become apparent to some much later when the Book of Acts was released. Analogy: It is like a law being deliberated in Congress - those deliberations are historic and educational, but only the law as written passed by Congress can be enforced.

 

[Soyeong]

You have yet to explain what Acts 21:24-25 does say.

The fact that you are deliberately ignoring my explanation does not mean that I have not yet explained it.

The Jerusalem Decree stands on its own - its the instructions that the Apostles and Elders agreed to give to the Gentile believers. The deliberations were not issued to the Gentile believers - they would become apparent to some much later when the Book of Acts was released. Analogy: It is like a law being deliberated in Congress - those deliberations are historic and educational, but only the law as written passed by Congress can be enforced.

Again the issue in regard to Acts 21:24-25 whether the Jerusalem Decree was intended to be understood as being an exhaustive or a non-exhaustive list. You are taking a contradictory position by treating it as being both an exhaustive and non-exhaustive list, while I made the case that it was intended to be understood as being a non-exhaustive list. It is not as though they kept the deliberations secret and did not act in accordance with their deliberations until they were written down later, so you are making a rather weak point. A law passed by Congress should not be understood in a way that is contrary to their deliberations, so you are again in error.