Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Lulav]

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.

The oral Pharasaic law was, just like the washing of hands, traditions, not the laws of the LORD GOD.

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.

Yes, it was subversive, but not in the way you think. He was trying, as in many other places to attack their (Pharasees) laws which they held above God's laws. Surely not attacking his own and Fathers laws.

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

Yes he was, he healed a man.

And while carrying a pallet may not contravene the Sabbath laws, directly claiming to work certainly does.

The problem with that is the definition of 'work'. You won't find that anywhere in the Torah. Sometimes it's defined as 'servile work'. But not everything that is 'work' is not allowed on Shabbat. For instance a woman may change a babies diaper on Shabbat. Showing mercy on Shabbat is never seen by God as a violation of his Laws.

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.

I don't know what "the continual generation of exceptions" means but..

There's nothing to wiggle out of, what you must do is understand what mercy over sacrifice means. Jesus taught on this to to those of little understanding. They tried to accuse him there also.

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!” But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”​

They not only condemned his disciples but himself as well.

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.

He is not challenging the laws he made (John 1)

15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.​

​

16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. 17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.​

Again there is nothing in Torah that prevents anyone from having Mercy, especially on Shabbat, his 'work' was to make a man whole, which is one of the things he came to do.

16Then fear came upon all, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has risen up among us”; and, “God has visited His people.” 17And this report about Him went throughout all Judea and all the surrounding region.​

18Then the disciples of John reported to him concerning all these things. 19And John, calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to Jesus, saying, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?”​

​

20When the men had come to Him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to You, saying, ‘Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?’ ” 21And that very hour He cured many of infirmities, afflictions, and evil spirits; and to many blind He gave sight.​

​

22Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard: that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them. ​

I think you probably know that a lot of Doctors are Jewish. What would you think if one of your loved ones or yourself were in serious need of medical help and it was on a Sabbath and a Doctor came to you and told you he couldn't help you until the sun went down?

It is good and acceptable to the LORD to do good on the Sabbath.

Here is another example:

1And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him. 2And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy.​

3And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? ​

4And they held their peace. ​

​

And he took him, and healed him, and let him go; ​

5And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day? 6And they could not answer him again to these things.​

WHY couldn't they answer him? Because they knew that the law says about immediate help being needed.

Luke 13 shares something similar.

10 And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. 11 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself. 12 And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. 13 And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.​

​

14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.​

​

15 The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? 16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?​

​

17 And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.​

His adversaries in that day had the decency to be ashamed for accusing the HOLY ONE of sin when all he was doing was showing mercy.

 

[LW97Nils]

Lev 11 says only the clean animals are for food.

Gen 1 and 2 say only plants are for food.

Exactly. You have proven my point Leviticus 11 adresses those as an "abomination unto you". Not universally speaking, only to the nation of Israel. Just as people born out of the wedlock or with a disability - I have one - were excluded. This can by no means be used to equalize the nation of Israel and salvation.

Correct. Genesis 1 and 2 were God's usual plan, but he allowed it to change.

There is no contradiction in scriptures.

 

[Leaf473]

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.

If it's a parable, then cool

I'll go with that

"The word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it."
Deuteronomy

 

[AbbaLove]

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.

... or a metaphor or allegory. Then again just maybe it's more literal than the seeker-sensitive or nominal Christian can accept (Rev 3:16) being lukewarm nominal. Are the following Words of Jesus not as literal as a metaphor? If one ends up in hell would they not have wished that someone had plucked out their eye or severed their hand if that is what it took to sober them and save them from hell.

8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than to have two hands and two feet and be thrown into the eternal fire.​

9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.​

Jesus spoke these words before His Jewish disciples (to be Apostles) were "born again". ... "Go and sin no more or something worse could happen" and "Go and sin no more" to the woman caught in adultery.

IF the ability to stop sinning wasn't possible under the Law than why wasn't the ability to stop sinnng one of the 9 supernatural Gifts?

So was Jesus as well as Paul and even GOD disapopinted if in fact even born again Followers of Christ are unable to stop sinning based on 1 John 1:8-10 according to some Christians. What about 1 John 4:4 as proof that a nominal Christian can become a mature Christian or mature Messianic Jew and obey God's commands.

Little children (believers, dear ones), you are of God and you belong to Him and have [already] overcome them [the agents of the antichrist]; because He who is in you is greater than he (Satan) who is in the world [of sinful mankind]. (AMP)​

You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. (NASB)​

But you belong to God, my children, and have defeated the false prophets, because the Spirit who is in you is more powerful than the spirit in those who belong to the world. (GNT)​

Under the New Covenant Jesus said, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest". Is it possible that too many of America's worldly Christians are spoiled to the point that obeying GOD isn't any fun ?

 

[Studyman]

... or a metaphor or allegory. Then again just maybe it's more literal than the seeker-sensitive or nominal Christian can accept (Rev 3:16) being lukewarm nominal. Are the following Words of Jesus not as literal as a metaphor? If one ends up in hell would they not have wished that someone had plucked out their eye or severed their hand if that is what it took to sober them and save them from hell.

8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than to have two hands and two feet and be thrown into the eternal fire.​

9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.​

Jesus spoke these words before His Jewish disciples (to be Apostles) were "born again". ... "Go and sin no more or something worse could happen" and "Go and sin no more" to the woman caught in adultery.

IF the ability to stop sinning wasn't possible under the Law than why wasn't the ability to stop sinnng one of the 9 supernatural Gifts?

So was Jesus as well as Paul and even GOD disapopinted if in fact even born again Followers of Christ are unable to stop sinning based on 1 John 1:8-10 according to some Christians. What about 1 John 4:4 as proof that a nominal Christian can become a mature Christian or mature Messianic Jew and obey God's commands.

Little children (believers, dear ones), you are of God and you belong to Him and have [already] overcome them [the agents of the antichrist]; because He who is in you is greater than he (Satan) who is in the world [of sinful mankind]. (AMP)​

You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. (NASB)​

But you belong to God, my children, and have defeated the false prophets, because the Spirit who is in you is more powerful than the spirit in those who belong to the world. (GNT)​

Under the New Covenant Jesus said, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest". Is it possible that too many of America's worldly Christians are spoiled to the point that obeying GOD isn't any fun ?

I’m not sure I would limit this worlds religious men’s propensity to reject and disrespect Gods instruction in righteousness to Americans who come in Christ’s name. Nor would I limit it to modern times.

But I do agree that God’s Laws are just and certainly possible to live by. Just as Eve was certainly capable of obeying God. It’s the “other” religious voices in the land God placed us in, that we adopt, that lead men astray.

 

[Studyman]

Oh man, that is funny.

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.

Jesus was most certainly qualified, your religious philosophy notwithstanding. All of Israel was living in sin when the Passover Lamb was slain, or as Paul put it, "Were yet in sin". And even after this, Israel sinned against God and the Rock of Israel who watered and fed them. And yet, the Christ showed them mercy. Is HE not the same, "Yesterday, today and tomorrow"? And if the woman repented and turned to God, is this not what the Law and Prophets promote?

Ez. 18: 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

So it seems Jesus was not undermining or "breaking" God's Law at all, rather, He was fulfilling it.

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.

So should my Rock not have given this woman at least the same chance HE gave you or Israel? And who can say HE didn't? Except maybe a deceiver.

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.

You and the Pharisees have your religious philosophies and understanding of God's instruction, and Jesus had His. Can you show in the Law and Prophets where it was against God to eat on the Sabbath? Pick up a fork? Feed your children? Study God's Word. What if it isn't Jesus and the faithful who are transgressors and blind, but you and the Pharisees?

Honest self-refection is an important part of why God created the Sabbath "Fast" from the rigors of this world. "cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"

The Christ, who is Lord of the Sabbath, explains the purpose and blessing Of God's Commandment in this matter, in the Law and Prophets that HE said not to even "THINK" HE came to destroy.

Is. 58:6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? 7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

Perhaps Jesus knew exactly what HE was saying when HE told you "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Certainly something to consider.

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

By their fruits you shall know them.

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.

For me, Jesus was extending the same Mercy to this woman that He and His Father and my Father extended to thousands of men who "profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." Paul called this "Longsuffering". Perhaps you might listen to him. "Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

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.

The children of the devil never had the Law given right to stone people to death. Not from the God and Father of the Lord's Christ anyway. And the ones who did, Jesus and Moses, chose Mercy in most cases, like HIS Father did.

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!

Jesus didn't deem her "deserving" of being stoned to death. Ezekiel, Speaking by the Spirit of Christ which was in him, agreed she may have been guilty, but that God would rather she repent, so HE could show her Mercy. "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." Is this not the exact same as "Now Go and Sin no more?"

It seems you and the Pharisees have joined forces, not only in condemning the woman to death, but also accusing Jesus of Breaking and undermining His Fathers laws.

Perhaps you should consider switching sides.

 

[Studyman]

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.

What Father doesn't feed his little child on God's Sabbath? Is that "work" you believe God forbids in your religion? If I'm studying God's Word and taking notes, is that "work" God forbids in your religion?

Was Jesus "working" to make more money? To make Himself wealthy? Does a child have to stay in dirty diapers to conform to your religion's definition of not "working" on God's Sabbaths?

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.

So in your religion, how does one "Keep God's Sabbath Holy"? By letting your sick child die because taking him to the doctors might be considered "work"? By making your baby sit in his own crap for 24 hours because you have deemed changing his diaper as "work"? Maybe your religion deems feeding your one year old child "work", so you force it to suffer with no food for 24 hours, or 48 on a double sabbath.

None of these things are "Exceptions" to God's Law. They were never part of God's Law to begin with. Only the deceiver promotes the heresy that they were.

IS. 58: 13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

How is Jesus not healing that man on God's Sabbath, "honoring God"? How is taking a walk in fellowship with God, and picking a raspberry to eat along the way, "dishonoring God"? How is letting your child sit in its own crap all day, "Honoring God"?

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.

I disagree. He is challenging the Pharisees and your interpretation of God's Sabbath Law.

Both are easily exposed as from men and not God, simply by following Jesus' instruction. "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

 

[ozso]

The Christian version of Law and Sabbath keeping, is only a fraction of what it was in Jesus' time and in Judaism today.

Basically you're not to have a job that schedules you on Saturday, and you're supposed to attend a sabbitarian church on Saturday. And you're supposed to keep a somewhat kosher diet.

As for the other 600 Laws, fuhgeddaboudit.

 

[LW97Nils]

IF the ability to stop sinning wasn't possible under the Law than why wasn't the ability to stop sinnng one of the 9 supernatural Gifts?

Isaiah 64:6. under Law everybody's rigtheousness is as filthy rags

 

[expos4ever]

Jesus was most certainly qualified, your religious philosophy notwithstanding.

You know that my point was that Jesus is setting the woman free because no human being is qualified to stone her. You, on the other hand, are forced to manufacture an explanation that allows you to maintain that the Law could indeed be enforced in the right circumstances. Otherwise, the law can never possibly be applied and is therefore meaningless and can be set aside. Yes, Jesus is indeed without sin and therefore qualifies to stone her. But in saying this, you actually strengthen my case - since Jesus knows she is guilty ("go and sin no more"), and yet still refuses to stone her Himself (odd image though that may be), we can are forced to conclude that, yes, as a Jew under the Law of Moses, He is very intentionally refusing to obey it even though its application is merited. And to those with ears to hear, there cannot be a more effective way of saying "the time has come for this law to end"

All of Israel was living in sin when the Passover Lamb was slain, or as Paul put it, "Were yet in sin". And even after this, Israel sinned against God and the Rock of Israel who watered and fed them. And yet, the Christ showed them mercy. Is HE not the same, "Yesterday, today and tomorrow"? And if the woman repented and turned to God, is this not what the Law and Prophets promote?

Ez. 18: 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

So it seems Jesus was not undermining or "breaking" God's Law at all, rather, He was fulfilling it.

This argument does not work. Here is why: The Law says adulterers must die. Jesus knows she has committed adultery ("go and sin no more"). You are trying, again, to manufacture an explanation as to how Jesus can be setting her free while still believing the Law is valid, even though, based on what Jesus says, no one is in a position to enforce it.

So what do you do? You post a text that says there is mercy for those who turn for their sins. But the woman has just been caught! There is no indication whatsoever that she has turned from her sins! You are imagining an hypothetical future where the woman has repented and then trying to magically bring that future back into the present. That logic does not work. Would Harvard give a bachelor's degree to someone in anticipation of the mere possibility that they will spend 4 years studying and achieve passing grades?

Either way, your argument, again, actually hurts your own position. Why because in accounting for possible future repentance, you essentially make the Law unenforceable in the present!

 

[expos4ever]

You and the Pharisees have your religious philosophies and understanding of God's instruction, and Jesus had His.

Me and the Pharisees? Come on man, this is not the schoolyard - please debate the texts and leave the cheap-shots out it,

Can you show in the Law and Prophets where it was against God to eat on the Sabbath? Pick up a fork? Feed your children? Study God's Word. What if it isn't Jesus and the faithful who are transgressors and blind, but you and the Pharisees?

Strawman, and all who have been following this thread will know that I have never said anything like this.

By their fruits you shall know them.

Well, then, since you deign to judge my "fruits", please explain to the readers exactly how it is that I produce bad fruit other than because I disagreeing with you.

For me, Jesus was extending the same Mercy to this woman that He and His Father and my Father extended to thousands of men who "profess that they know God;

Again, you are forced to speculate as to why Jesus let her go whereas the text tells us why - no one is qualified to stone her. This fact has nothing to do with matters of mercy, it has to do with the fundamentally unenforceable nature of the Law.

The children of the devil never had the Law given right to stone people to death.

Again, you are making assumptions. Look. If the Law is to have any meaning at all, it has to be enforceable. You are trying to argue that these particular accusers have no right to carry out the Law because they are such dreadful people. But your position requires you to believe that someone must have the right to stone her - otherwise the Law is meaningless. So what is that standard? How bad of a person do you have to be to not have the right to participate in stoning someone? Jesus gives us the answer and it completely pulls the rug out from under your argument - no one is qualified.

Jesus didn't deem her "deserving" of being stoned to death.

Yes He did, at least in terms of the Law you are so ardently defending - He effectively acknowledges her guilt.

Ezekiel, Speaking by the Spirit of Christ which was in him, agreed she may have been guilty, but that God would rather she repent, so HE could show her Mercy. "

Again, this line of reasoning entirely undercuts the very Law you are trying to defend. The Law makes no provision for mercy. I, of course, have no objection to granting mercy when enforcing a Law. But it is clear from what Jesus actually says, as contrasted with your valiant efforts to find alternative explanations, why He let the woman go - no one is qualified to stone her.

Perhaps you should consider switching sides.

Do you mean to the side that sets aside explanations offered in Biblical texts and offers their own alternatives?

 

[Studyman]

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).

If a man cherry picks scriptures, locates and finds all the places where God said to Obey Him, or to "obey is better than sacrifice" and ignores them, omits These Spirit of Christ inspired Words, Ps. 51: 16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Ps. 40: 6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Then maybe this man might believe that God preferred animal blood over Faith/obedience. But for those who have no incentive or reason to omit God's Word, or cherry pick though them to determine which ones are worthy of our honor and respect, and which ones are not, it is clear that God didn't desire the blood of animals ever, but the repentance and the acknowledgment from a man that they "forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation." and were sorry from their heart and wanted to be reconciled to their creator.

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.

From you're posts, it seems you feel the need to defend and justify your own religious philosophy. There is not one place in the Bible where God desired men to be free from His "instruction of righteousness" that HE created for their wellbeing. Paul is still promoting God's instructions over 14 years after Jesus ascended. There are "many" times where God expressed HIS desire that we stop listening to the "other voice" in the world and be free from the religious influence of men who profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

It is my hope that you may consider these things, and then learn the difference. As Paul teaches both Jew and Gentile, "that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance."

And does the NT ever say that the "added law" means the priesthood law? Why not kosher law?

In my understanding God is Spirit. But I am carnal, burdened with sins. And a man needs their Sins forgiven, for the purpose of Salvation, YES? And this can only happen by receiving the Spirit of God who removes these Sins, releases us from the veil which was upon our hearts at the hearing of the Law and Prophets, and frees us from the sin and deception which we were held captive to.

In Moses time, what facilitated this Spirit of God to remove men's Sins? Did Moses say, "if a man finds that he has sinned, he shall stop eating swine's flesh, and his sins are forgiven? Did Moses say, "if a man finds that he has sinned, he shall keep the Sabbath of God Holy, and his sins are forgiven? No, what Moses said was;

Lev. 4: 28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. 30 And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. 31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; "and the priest shall make an atonement for him," and it shall be forgiven him.

These are the "works of the Law" of forgiveness found in the duties of the Levitical Priesthood, and it was a Sin guilty of death for anyone but a "Levite Priest" to perform.

In Galatians 3, Paul asked the question, "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

According to Paul, these "Works of the Law" in order to receive forgiveness by the Spirit of God, or as he says in Romans 3, "Justification", were "ADDED" because of transgressions, "Till the Seed, the prophesied Priest of God, should come, 430 years after God said Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

These sacrifices were to lead Israel to the Lamb of God, Slain from the foundation of the world. At which time, after his arrival, there was no more need for the Priesthood sacrificial "works", "After the Order of Aaron", to facilitate forgiveness through animal sacrifices.

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.

It is written of Abraham in Gen. 26: 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

You can promote the religious philosophy that God gave Abraham's Children different instructions in righteousness than HE gave to Abraham, but the scriptures do not support this teaching. God's Sabbath was part of creation. Cain knew it was wrong to murder, Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals, Abimelec knew of the sin of adultery. Sodom was destroyed because of Sin, which by definition is "Transgression of God's Laws". Abraham was justified, but not by the ceremonial and sacrificial works of a Priesthood Covenant "added" 430 years after him.

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?

The Passover was never part of the Levitical Priesthood. It was given to Abraham's Children before they left Egypt. Paul was speaking to the Law of Forgiveness or Justification the Pharisees were still promoting.

Jer. 7: 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.

The Law of forgiveness was "added" later.

This is the same thing God instructed Abraham. And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. Abraham obeyed, most of the Children of Israel didn't.

Caleb and Joshua "did the works of Abraham", and therefore, according to the Jesus of the Bible, were Abraham's Children, and heirs to the Promises.

But the rest, God was not well pleased, because they forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters. And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.

And at one point God was going to wipe them all out and make a great nation out of Moses. But Moses pleaded on their behalf, and God showed them MERCY, and "ADDED" the sacrificial "works" of the Levitical Priesthood for forgiveness, which was to foreshadow the Mercy of God through the coming Seed, "till the Seed should come".

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?

Here is what transpired between us.

"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"?"

Perhaps by answering the question I asked, you question will be answered.

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?

You have nothing from the Scriptures to prove this philosophy. Where did you even get this information? But here is what Jesus said.

Matt. 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

No mention of Romans giving them permission at all. This philosophy you are promoting is just another of many doctrines and religious theories of men promoted in the land God placed us in.

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.

In your religion, if you see a man walking around with his fly open and you don't tell him, did you show him mercy?

 

[AbbaLove]

The oral Pharasaic law was, just like the washing of hands, traditions, not the laws of the LORD GOD.

After reading Lulav's explanatory post yesterday and again today (2nd down on p34) it becomes more obvious than ever before ... why God sent His Son at this time being as timely as a time could be ...

We can agree that the yoke the Pharisees placed on the necks of the people was an impossible burden. Lulav's post gives insight to the words by Messiah Yeshuah as He went about teaching and preaching in the towns of Gallilee (Matt 11)

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (28-30)​

Some in the crowds surely must have whispered among themsleves - "Are not His Words those of the Messiah?"

Peter echoed the same teaching to the Messianic Jews that had travelled from Jerusalem to Antioch. Peterr refers to these gentile Christians as "disciples"... do we consider ourselves to be a disciple ...

Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? (Acts 10:15)​

Thank You Lulav for your insightful post. It finally sunk in like never before.​

 

[expos4ever]

What Father doesn't feed his little child on God's Sabbath? Is that "work" you believe God forbids in your religion? If I'm studying God's Word and taking notes, is that "work" God forbids in your religion?

Was Jesus "working" to make more money? To make Himself wealthy? Does a child have to stay in dirty diapers to conform to your religion's definition of not "working" on God's Sabbaths?

What is this "your religion" you keep bringing up? I read the Bible and try to figure out what it is saying.

Now then, you must surely know your post evades the point. Jesus clearly says "I am working on the Sabbath". Even if, repeat even if, that work constituted a legitimate exception to the "do no work on the Sabbath", Jesus certainly seems to go out of His way to claim to be, yes, working on the Sabbath. If He wanted to say "what I did on the Sabbath is a legitimate exception to the 4th commandment, He could have done so. But by boldly saying "I am working (with no qualification) on the Sabbath", He is effectively challenging the commandment.

How is Jesus not healing that man on God's Sabbath, "honoring God"?

Again, not the point. Jesus declares "I am working on the Sabbath". Any listener would get the message - He is challenge the prohibition against working on the Sabbath.

Both are easily exposed as from men and not God, simply by following Jesus' instruction. "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Nice sermon.

 

[Studyman]

You know that my point was that Jesus is setting the woman free because no human being is qualified to stone her. You, on the other hand, are forced to manufacture an explanation that allows you to maintain that the Law could indeed be enforced in the right circumstances.

I don't have to manufacture anything. It is enforced in the right circumstances. That is, if a person believes in the Rock of Israel. For those who don't, these scriptures mean nothing.

Joshua 7: 22 So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran unto the tent; and, behold, it was hid in his tent, and the silver under it. 23 And they took them out of the midst of the tent, and brought them unto Joshua, and unto all the children of Israel, and laid them out before the LORD. 24 And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor. 25 And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.

Otherwise, the law can never possibly be applied and is therefore meaningless and can be set aside. Yes, Jesus is indeed without sin and therefore qualifies to stone her. But in saying this, you actually strengthen my case - since Jesus knows she is guilty ("go and sin no more"), and yet still refuses to stone her Himself (odd image though that may be), we can are forced to conclude that, yes, as a Jew under the Law of Moses, He is very intentionally refusing to obey it even though its application is merited. And to those with ears to hear, there cannot be a more effective way of saying "the time has come for this law to end"

You are now accusing Jesus of purposefully/presumptuously refusing to Obey God's Law'.

Num. 15: 29 Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them. 30 But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 31 Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.

You may have chosen to treat God in this manner. And of a truth, this has happened to "many" who profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Paul tells us this is what happened to the Pharisees.

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,

But to promote your lack of respect and honor onto the Christ, is just evil, and I will not participate in your attempts to justify such wickedness.

This argument does not work. Here is why: The Law says adulterers must die. Jesus knows she has committed adultery ("go and sin no more"). You are trying, again, to manufacture an explanation as to how Jesus can be setting her free while still believing the Law is valid, even though, based on what Jesus says, no one is in a position to enforce it.

You are not even addressing my argument. Here, let's post it again and see if the next time you will actually address the argument, instead of simply trying to force your religious philosophy that Jesus is a Transgressor onto anyone who might listen to you.

All of Israel was living in sin when the Passover Lamb was slain, or as Paul put it, "Were yet in sin". And even after this, Israel sinned against God and the Rock of Israel who watered and fed them. And yet, the Christ showed them mercy. Is HE not the same, "Yesterday, today and tomorrow"? How much greater mercy shall HE show a woman, brought up in a religion ran by children of the devil, and brought to Jesus for the sole purpose, not for Judgment or righteousness's sake, but to deceive or trip up Jesus? And if the woman repented and turned to God, is this not what the Law and Prophets promote?

Ez. 18: 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

And if this woman turns from whatever her sins were, and becomes a faithful child of God, isn't this the purpose of God's Law in the first place?

27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

29 Yet saith the house of Israel (And you as well), The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?

Perhaps if you were to respect the Words of Jesus, enough to be a "Doer" of His Instruction, and not a hearer only, you wouldn't be so eager to throw Him under the bus to justify your own transgressions.

So it seems Jesus was not undermining or "breaking" God's Law at all, rather, He was fulfilling them. At least according to the Holy Scriptures.

So what do you do? You post a text that says there is mercy for those who turn for their sins. But the woman has just been caught!

According to those men who you know were liars trying to trip Jesus up. But not according to Jesus. He saw a different woman, one worth saving, just as HE saw in Abraham, Caleb, Joshua, Gideon, Daniel, Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, and "EVERY EXAMPLE" of Faith in the entire Bible, including Paul Himself.

Did His death not also cover the sins of the repentant? Why would you exclude her, and not yourself?

There is no indication whatsoever that she has turned from her sins!

So what? That proves nothing.

John 5: 14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

"There is no indication whatsoever that he has turned from his sins"!

Does this also make Jesus a hypocrite and transgressor and underminer of God's Laws, since in your religion, this man was most certainly guilty of Sin, and worthy of Death, based on your own Judgments, given Jesus told him, "Go Sin no more"!

The more you preach this philosophy, the more the Bible exposes it as from below and not above.

You are imagining an hypothetical future where the woman has repented and then trying to magically bring that future back into the present.

Not at all. My God, the God of the Bible, is a God of Mercy. Jesus did no more or less for this woman than HIS Father did for Israel. The number of Scriptures you must erase from your mind, in order to promote this religious philosophy of yours is stunning. And why? So you can reject God's judgments and commandments like the Pharisees, but not be judged with them?

That logic does not work. Would Harvard give a bachelor's degree to someone in anticipation of the mere possibility that they will spend 4 years studying and achieve passing grades?

LOL, Jesus simply said, "Go and sin no more". Shouldn't this be the goal of every "Christian"? And if she rejects God's Mercy, will she not be held accountable? Don't worry expos, you will get your slaughter you so zealously desire, if she doesn't repent. As Paul teaches.

Rom. 1: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

AS it is written "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

If I were preaching what you are preaching about God and His son, I would be a more concerned with HIS judgment of me, than some prop satan brought to Jesus to trip HIM up.

Either way, your argument, again, actually hurts your own position. Why because in accounting for possible future repentance, you essentially make the Law unenforceable in the present!

What happened to this woman on the return of Christ, happened even before she was born. Your willful ignorance of this Biblical Truth, about God and the Rock of Israel knowing the end from the beginning, only condemns yourself. God knew if this woman would repent and turn to God before the world was even created. He knows, but you don't. And you don't care, nor have you even considered anything other than the mission you adopted. And that is to promote and convince as many people as you can, in your short life, that Jesus transgressed, rebelled against and undermined God's Laws. And it is clear that you will not be persuaded otherwise. I know this from reading your posts, and then reading the Words of the Christ of the Bible.

Luke 16: 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

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.

As it is to this day.

 

[Studyman]

Isaiah 64:6. under Law everybody's rigtheousness is as filthy rags

There is a difference between God's Righteousness and man's righteousness I believe. Regarding the Jews, Paul said;

Rom. 10:2 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.

Is. 64: 6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, (Not God's Righteousness) like the wind, have taken us away.

I know this verse is used a lot to promote the idea that walking in God's Righteousness makes men a filthy rag. But the Scripture doesn't say that at all. Isaiah is speaking to their sins, their righteousness.

John knew better, and it seems also knew men would try and preach otherwise.

1 John 3: 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness "is righteous", even as he (Jesus) is righteous.

Jesus understood.

Matt. 5: 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Paul understood.

1 Cor. 6: 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived:

David understood.

Ps. 14: 5 There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.

I would be careful about advancing the religious philosophy that God's Righteousness, isn't Righteous, but a filthy rag, when HIS People Walk in them as instructed.

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; (Unrighteousness) 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.

 

[Cornelius8L]

If a man cherry picks scriptures, locates and finds all the places where God said to Obey Him, or to "obey is better than sacrifice" and ignores them, omits These Spirit of Christ inspired Words, Ps. 51: 16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Ps. 40: 6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Then maybe this man might believe that God preferred animal blood over Faith/obedience. But for those who have no incentive or reason to omit God's Word, or cherry pick though them to determine which ones are worthy of our honor and respect, and which ones are not, it is clear that God didn't desire the blood of animals ever, but the repentance and the acknowledgment from a man that they "forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation." and were sorry from their heart and wanted to be reconciled to their creator.

Cherry picking is ignoring passages in which God expresses a preference for the aroma of offerings offered to Him (Exo 29:18, Lev 4:31). Your own verdict against you, and yet, like the Pharisees, you can't see the beam in your own eye (Matt 7:3).

From you're posts, it seems you feel the need to defend and justify your own religious philosophy. There is not one place in the Bible where God desired men to be free from His "instruction of righteousness" that HE created for their wellbeing. Paul is still promoting God's instructions over 14 years after Jesus ascended. There are "many" times where God expressed HIS desire that we stop listening to the "other voice" in the world and be free from the religious influence of men who profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

It is my hope that you may consider these things, and then learn the difference. As Paul teaches both Jew and Gentile, "that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance."

You only perceive what is immediately accessible to you, not the full scope of God's purpose for His righteousness. The Bible teaches us that righteous people's prayers are answered (Jam 5:16). How frequently does God respond to your prayers?

In my understanding God is Spirit. But I am carnal, burdened with sins. And a man needs their Sins forgiven, for the purpose of Salvation, YES? And this can only happen by receiving the Spirit of God who removes these Sins, releases us from the veil which was upon our hearts at the hearing of the Law and Prophets, and frees us from the sin and deception which we were held captive to.

In Moses time, what facilitated this Spirit of God to remove men's Sins? Did Moses say, "if a man finds that he has sinned, he shall stop eating swine's flesh, and his sins are forgiven? Did Moses say, "if a man finds that he has sinned, he shall keep the Sabbath of God Holy, and his sins are forgiven? No, what Moses said was;

Lev. 4: 28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. 30 And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. 31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; "and the priest shall make an atonement for him," and it shall be forgiven him.

These are the "works of the Law" of forgiveness found in the duties of the Levitical Priesthood, and it was a Sin guilty of death for anyone but a "Levite Priest" to perform.

In Galatians 3, Paul asked the question, "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

According to Paul, these "Works of the Law" in order to receive forgiveness by the Spirit of God, or as he says in Romans 3, "Justification", were "ADDED" because of transgressions, "Till the Seed, the prophesied Priest of God, should come, 430 years after God said Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

These sacrifices were to lead Israel to the Lamb of God, Slain from the foundation of the world. At which time, after his arrival, there was no more need for the Priesthood sacrificial "works", "After the Order of Aaron", to facilitate forgiveness through animal sacrifices.

Although the law after Moses mentioned "priests" in your definition of "Added" law, that doesn't mean that Melchizedek's priesthood before Moses isn't valid. Does the sacrifice of Melchizedek forgive sin? Otherwise, how could Jesus' sacrifice be compared to Melchizedek? And since when do Gal 3 and Rom 3 say that by "works of the law" mean specifically sacrifices? I hope you can see the flaws in your explanation.

It is written of Abraham in Gen. 26: 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

You can promote the religious philosophy that God gave Abraham's Children different instructions in righteousness than HE gave to Abraham, but the scriptures do not support this teaching. God's Sabbath was part of creation. Cain knew it was wrong to murder, Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals, Abimelec knew of the sin of adultery. Sodom was destroyed because of Sin, which by definition is "Transgression of God's Laws". Abraham was justified, but not by the ceremonial and sacrificial works of a Priesthood Covenant "added" 430 years after him.

It was your religious philosophy that promoted different laws before and after Moses. I'm just showing you the contradictions in your own philosophy. If you say that the commandments, statutes, and law for Abraham don't include priest sacrifice law, how can you be sure that the Sabbath is part of the commandments, statutes, and law Abraham received, when there is no record of anyone keeping it?

The Passover was never part of the Levitical Priesthood. It was given to Abraham's Children before they left Egypt. Paul was speaking to the Law of Forgiveness or Justification the Pharisees were still promoting.

Jer. 7: 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.

The Law of forgiveness was "added" later.

This is the same thing God instructed Abraham. And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. Abraham obeyed, most of the Children of Israel didn't.

Caleb and Joshua "did the works of Abraham", and therefore, according to the Jesus of the Bible, were Abraham's Children, and heirs to the Promises.

But the rest, God was not well pleased, because they forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters. And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.

And at one point God was going to wipe them all out and make a great nation out of Moses. But Moses pleaded on their behalf, and God showed them MERCY, and "ADDED" the sacrificial "works" of the Levitical Priesthood for forgiveness, which was to foreshadow the Mercy of God through the coming Seed, "till the Seed should come".

The foreshadowing also pointed to Melchizedek, who is a priest of Most High, an age even before the Passover. The "Added" was not added after all, because it was a continuation of Melchizedek's priestly practice. As I also said, God's mercy was shown long before in the Garden of Eden. The fact that an innocent animal died for people human's sins in the Garden of Eden is already a clue to the mystery of Jesus' salvation.

Here is what transpired between us.

"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"?"

Perhaps by answering the question I asked, you question will be answered.

Everyone knows the Pharisees were not honest, and I knew you would agree. And because you would agree, I say that it's possible that the Pharisees took the bribe to let the adulterer go free. Didn't the Pharisees also bribe Judas to betray Jesus?

You have nothing from the Scriptures to prove this philosophy. Where did you even get this information? But here is what Jesus said.

Matt. 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

No mention of Romans giving them permission at all. This philosophy you are promoting is just another of many doctrines and religious theories of men promoted in the land God placed us in.

Back at you, and where did you get that story? That the woman is too stupid to stand up for herself? Do you think they can crucify Jesus without the Romans' permission? I just said that the Pharisees would bribe people and that they know high profile people. Doesn't this natural human politics make any sense at all?

In your religion, if you see a man walking around with his fly open and you don't tell him, did you show him mercy?

In your religion, you do not tell him nicely that his fly is open. You judge him to be a pervert instead.

 

[Cornelius8L]

What is this "your religion" you keep bringing up? I read the Bible and try to figure out what it is saying.

fyi.

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.

He agreed in post#583

 

[Lulav]

Heb 4:1-11. - “Therefore, we must fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also did; but the word they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united with those who listened with faith.3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
“As I swore in My anger,
They certainly shall not enter My rest,”
although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; 5 and again in this passage, “They certainly shall not enter My rest.” 6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who previously had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 He again sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before,
“Today if you hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.”
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that.9 Consequently, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. 11 Therefore let’s make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following the same example of disobedience.”
Let’s look at the whole passage in context here. In verse 5, “and again” is simply a reference to another quote of God’s words from Scripture.

The whole context of this passage is the entering into God’s rest. His rest is not from physical efforts and struggles, but from spiritual struggles and efforts towards salvation. That rest is found ONLY in Christ.

Yes let's look at it, - Misunderstood in many ways.

" while a promise remains of entering His rest,"​

Where is that promise located?

"For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,​

“As I swore in My anger,​

They certainly shall not enter My rest,”​

And what exactly was that 'rest' he was speaking of?

Found here in Psalms 95 - It is word for word, give cred for that.

For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
“As I swore in My anger,
They certainly shall not enter My rest,”

Let's look at Psalm 95, you can go look up the whole but this is the focused part.

Today, if you will hear His voice:​

8 “Do not harden your hearts, as in the rebellion,​

As in the day of trial in the wilderness,​

9 When your fathers tested Me;​

They tried Me, though they saw My work.​

10 For forty years I was grieved with that generation,​

And said, ‘It is a people who go astray in their hearts,​

And they do not know My ways.’​

11 So I swore in My wrath,​

‘They shall not enter My rest.’ ”​

To sum that up David is speaking of the time in the wilderness which is made explicit speaking of the 40 years. Those were the ones who cause them to wander around for 40 years instead of going into the Promised land. There they were to be given rest from their enemies, all they had to do was to keep His commandments.

'My rest' is His rest in safety and security every day, not one day.

The word translated 'rest' there in the Psalms is 'menuchah' which means a 'resting place' not a Sabbath rest.

At the dedication of the New Temple, Solomon, among others things, said this:

1 Kings 8: ​

54And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication unto the LORD, he arose from before the altar of the LORD, from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread up to heaven. 55And he stood, and blessed all the congregation of Israel with a loud voice, saying,​

​

56 Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, ​

according to all that he promised: ​

there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, ​

which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant.​

While the writer of Hebrews is making Psalms 95:11 seem the same rest as Genesis 2:2 (And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.) However it is not.

The word 'rested' in Genesis וַיִּשְׁבֹּת֙ way·yiš·bōṯ* --which means to 'cease to work'. It is not the same as 'Menuchah'
which is a resting place. That same is what King Solomon spoke of saying it was the Menuchah that God promised through Moses.

That was the 'Promise' that Hebrews is speaking of by not in the correct way.


Lets look at what the writer is calling it "while a promise remains of entering His rest" a promise that remains, like it never happened which David extols in the Psalms backed up at the Dedication of the Temple written of by King Solomon , his son. 2 witnesses that the promise was made and kept.

* The same as here --- from Joshua - 'The manna ceased on the day after'

 

[Lulav]

Cherry picking is ignoring passages in which God expresses a preference for the aroma of offerings offered to Him (Exo 29:18, Lev 4:31)

You surely don't believe the LORD was saying he liked the smell of meat being bar-b-qued? right?

When he says that I take it in the way I believe it should be that it is a 'sweet savor' to him because of what it represents. Burnt offering were for giving back to God for his provision. Not really a 'burnt' offering but an offering made by fire to the LORD> this was an offering where it wasn't shared with the Priests, it was entirely burnt up. This was the only offering actually acceptable from a Gentile. These offering which were fully burnt up were for atonement for sin, either corporately or individual.

It was a sweet savor to smell of the offering for repentance, this is what the LORD loves,

"The sacrifice God desires is a humble spirit— O God, a humble and repentant heart you will not reject."