By Grace Through Faith

Bible2+ said:

That's right (Hebrews 12:1).

But note that on Jesus Christ's Cross, for both Jews and Gentiles (John 11:51-52), of all times, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was completely and forever abolished (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), disannulled (Hebrews 7:18), rendered obsolete (Hebrews 8:13, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8), taken away and replaced (Hebrews 10:9) by the better hope (Hebrews 7:19), the better covenant (Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6-12), the second covenant (Hebrews 8:7, Hebrews 10:9), of Jesus' New Covenant law (Galatians 6:2, John 1:17, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 9:15), so that the law was changed (Hebrews 7:12).

Click to expand...

God's Law instructs us how to live according to His attributes, His holiness, righteousness, goodness (Romans 7:12), justice, mercy, faithfulness (Matthew 23:23), and other fruits of the Spirit (Exodus 34:6-7), so God's Law can not be annulled without God's attributes first being annulled.

In Ephesians 2:10, it says that we are new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works, so it wouldn't make any sense to say just a few verses later that Christ did away with his instructions for how to do good works, but rather this is referring to man-made laws such mentioned in Acts 10:28 that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles.

In regard to Colossians 2:14-17, crosses were never used as a means of disposing of outdated laws, but rather what was written on crosses were the charges against the person being crucified (Matthew 27:37). This fits perfectly with the concept of our sins or charges against us being nailed to his cross and with him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but does not at all fit with doing away with God's righteous standard.

In regard to 2 Corinthians 3, the Bible is up front that the Law is a ministry life and blessing for obedience and a ministry of death and cursing for disobedience, so choose life (Deuteronomy 30:15-20). The fact that the Law brings death for disobedience is hardly a good reason to disobey it. Now that we have been free from the curse of the Law of living in disobedience to it, we are now free to enjoy the life and the blessings of living in obedience to it.

In regard to Hebrew 7:18, it is speaking about a singular commandment (Numbers 3:10), not about God's righteousness being disannulled.

In regard to Hebrews 8:13 God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so the way to live according to God's righteousness is likewise eternal (Psalms 119:160), which means that it existed from the beginning independently of any covenant, so there is a distinction between a set of instructions for how to reflect God's righteousness to the world and a covenant agreement to abide by those instructions. A covenant can come and go, but God's righteous standard is eternal and will always remain the same, which means that anyone regardless of which covenant are under, if any, who wants to find out how to practice righteousness can do so by reading the Mosaic Law, and as part of the New Covenant, we are still told to practice righteousness (1 John 3:10, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

In regard to Galatians, the problem was that people were teaching that Gentiles needed to obey man-made works of law in order to become saved, so it is important not to take something that was only against obeying man as being against obeying God.

In regard to Hebrews 8:6-12, it says that the New Covenant has a superior mediator and is based on better promises, but it does not say that it is based on superior laws mainly because that would involve following a superior God with superior attributes.

In regard to the Law of Christ, Jesus taught obedience to the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so I see no reason think that that the Law of Christ is anything other than what he taught by word and by example. If the Law of God, the Law of Christ, and the Law of the Spirit do not all refer to the same thing, then the Father, Son, and Spirit are in disagreement with each other about which laws should be followed. Rather, Jesus said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father (John 7:16), so he didn't teach anything other than the Mosaic Law.

In regard to Hebrews 7:12, it is speaking about a transition of the the priesthood, so a transition of the administration of the Law would have also been necessary. It is not speaking about a change in God's eternal righteousness or the in the eternal way to reflect it.

All Christians, whether Jews or Gentles, of all times, are delivered from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law and shouldn't keep it (Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Galatians 2:11-21) or have any desire to keep it (Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25). Christians keep the spirit of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6) by loving others (Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8-10), by doing to others as they would have others do to them (Matthew 7:12).

Click to expand...

In Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that he delighted in obeying God's Law and that he served it with his mind, but directly contrasted that with the law of sin that held him captive and that he served with his flesh. In Romans 7:6, it specifies that we were set free from a law that held us captive, so it is fairly straightforward to figure out which of the two laws he was talking about us being delivered from.

In regard to Galatians 2:11-21, you are again mixing up what is said about man-made works of law with God's Law, and are mistakenly taking what was said against obeying man as being against obeying the God that were serve. In Acts 10:28, it refers to a man-made law which is not found anywhere in the Mosaic Law that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles. It was this man-made law that Peter was obeying in Galatians 2:11-21 when he stopped visiting or associating with the Gentiles. By doing so, he was giving credibility to those who were teaching that Gentiles had to obey their man-made works of law in order to become saved, which is why Paul immediately reiterated that we are not saved by works of law, but by faith.

Jesus summarized the Law as being God's instructions for how to love Him and our neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40) and said that all of the other commands hang on the greatest two, so they are all examples or the explanation for how to correctly obey the greatest two commands. If we correctly understand the spiritual principle of love and we have faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live, then it will lead us to do things that are examples of that principle in accordance with God's Law.

The New Covenant is a new law (Hebrews 7:12,18-19, Hebrews 10:1-23), consisting of Jesus Christ's New Covenant/New Testament commandments (John 14:15), such as those He gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29) and in the epistles of the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 14:37). These commandments exceed in righteousness the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Matthew 5:20-48). So there's no reason any Christian should ever want to go back under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 3:2 to 5:26). It was just a temporary schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24-25), a temporary shadow (Colossians 2:16-17), which God set up because of sins long after He'd set up the original promise of the Abrahamic Covenant, and long before He brought that promise to fulfillment in Jesus' New Covenant (Galatians 3:16-29, Matthew 26:28).

Click to expand...

John 14:23-24 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

Again, there is no room to make any distinction between what Jesus and the Father taught.

Everything that Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount was in regard to how to correctly obey the Mosaic Law. Whenever Jesus quoted Scripture, he proceeded it by saying "it is written", but when he was quoting from what the people had heard being taught about the law, he preceded it by saying "you have heard that it was said". In Matthew 5, Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to the Law, but rather he was correcting what was incorrectly being taught about the Law. For example:

Matthew 5:18 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

While the Law certainly commands us to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), it does not command us to hate our enemies, which was what was being incorrectly taught about it.

The distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law is reflected in modern discussions about law enforcement, and is not in regard to whether or not we should obey the law, but in regard to the manner in which it is obeyed: exactly how it is written or with regard to the intent behind the law. The goal of the Law of a relationship with Christ for everyone who has faith (Romans 10:4), so obeying the law without focusing in growing in a relationship with Christ based on faith (Matthew 23:23) and love (John 14:15) is completely missing the whole point, which is why Israel failed to obtain righteousness (Romans 9:32-Romans 10:10) and why Paul considered it to be rubbish (Philippians 3:8).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law is the Hagar to the New Covenant's Sarah (Galatians 4:21-25). So those people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who try to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law are like Ishmael, Abraham's son by a bondmaid (Galatians 4:22), who was cast out (Galatians 4:30), while those people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who keep the New Covenant are like Isaac (Galatians 4:28), Abraham's son by a freewoman (Galatians 4:22,31), who became his heir (Galatians 4:30b).

Click to expand...

This is talking about the Abrahamic Covenant, not the Mosaic one.

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, including the letter of the 10 commandments, written and engraven in stones (2 Corinthians 3:7, Deuteronomy 4:13, Deuteronomy 27:8) was the ministration of death and condemnation (2 Corinthians 3:7,9). For example, see Leviticus 20:10, Exodus 31:14, and Numbers 15:32-36; and contrast these with the New Covenant's John 8:4-11 and Matthew 12:1-8.

Click to expand...

The New Covenant involves God writing His law on our hearts instead of on stone, so the difference is the medium on which it is written, not the content.

But a mistaken spirit of Pharisaism can still sometimes deceive even Christians into thinking they must keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law in order to be saved (Acts 15:1,5) or in order to become perfect (Galatians 3:2 to 5:26). This is a false, cursed gospel (Galatians 1:6-9). For if any Christians are keeping any part of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law thinking they must do so in order to be saved, or in order to become perfect, then Jesus Christ will profit them nothing. They have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:2-8).

Click to expand...

In Matthew 15:2-3, Jesus was asked why his disciples broke the traditions of the elders and he responded by asking them why they broke the command of God for the sake of their tradition. He went on to say that for the sake of their tradition they made void the Word of God (Matthew 15:6), that they worshiped God in vain because they were teaching as doctrine the commands of men (Matthew 15:8-9), and that they were hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions (Mark 7:6-9), so the issue was the the Pharisees were teaching man-made works of law instead of God's Law. For example, in Acts 15:1, they were wanting all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, but this is not a requirement found anywhere in God's Law, so by rejecting this man-made requirement the Jerusalem Council was upholding God's Law. While God certainly did require Jews to become circumcised, not even they were required to become circumcised for the purpose of becoming saved.

So teaching that we need to obey man-made works of law in order to become saved is a counterfeit gospel. However, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Mosaic Law was given to reveal what our sins are that we need to repent of, so repentance from our disobedience to the Mosaic Law is an integral part of his Gospel message and a Gospel message that does not involve repentance from what God has revealed to be sin is also a counterfeit gospel. In Romans 15:18-19, Paul's Gospel message involved bringing the Gentiles to full obedience in word and in deed, so he was on the same page as Jesus.

Wordkeeper said:

Quote
The Oral Torah was far from monolithic; rather, it varied among various schools. The most famous two were the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel. In general, all valid opinions, even the non-normative ones, were recorded in the Talmud.[citation needed]

The oldest full manuscript of the Talmud, known as the Munich Talmud (Cod.hebr. 95), dates from 1342 and is available online.

Talmud - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

I am aware of what the Talmud is, but I did not say anywhere that the Talmud was the law of sin. Work of law, the law of sin, and God's Law are three distinct concepts.

Besides, wriiten Torah itself is claimed to have brought death:

Romans 7:9-11
9I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

That's like saying “guns dont kill, people do”. The truth is both together kill. So the presence of Law and the presence of sin kills. And the solution is to make obsolete the Old Covenent and its requirements to obey the law perfectly. Which Jesus did.

Click to expand...

Romans 7:12-13 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means!

You can fault Paul's logic if you want, but he said that the law of holy, righteous, and good, and that he did not blame it for bringing death to him, so there is no room whatsoever to interpret him as saying that the LAw is something that was bad. If we have faith in God that His commands are for our own good, then we should be careful to obey all of His commands, but nowhere does did God require perfect obedience to His Law in order to obtain something. The Law itself comes with instructions for what to do when they did not obey it perfectly.

Nothing about saying the law is easy to follow, instead the solution is to explain Moses words, ask for mercy.

Romans 10:5-9
5Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.”a 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ”b(that is, to bring Christ down) 7“or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’ ”c (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).8But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”d that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Click to expand...

In Romans 10:5-9, it quotes Deuteronomy 30:11-14 in regard to what our faith says in that the Law is not too difficult, but is near us, in our mouth, and in our heart, and this is what it means to submit to Jesus as Lord.

Where did I say “we can go back to our transgressions”. Dont put words in my mouth. With sin dominating, the Law was given to provide a way for forgiveness, by humbling. Obviously if you don't follow the law, but instead follow the traditions of men, Baal worship, then you wouldn't be humbled. Like the self righteous (by the Laws of the Pharisees) Pharisee in the Temple.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I did not intend to put word if your mouth. If the Law was given to reveal transgressions and if someone says that we don't need to obey the Law, then they are saying that it is ok to commit transgressions.

The false teachers only valued signs, the narrow perception which Jesus Himself criticised.

Luke 10:20
"Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven."

Similarly, you draw on a narrow aspect Of Scripture to the detriment of the learning the wider teaching:



No one is criticising signs. They should confirm the Gospel message, should not be viewed narrowly. Leading to gathering. Leading to names beng written in Heaven, like Moses, the Gatherer.

Click to expand...

I've quoted from all over Scripture to show that it support my position and that I have not departed from it, so it is not clear to me why you consider what I've said be a narrow view. Jesus began his ministry with to Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Mosaic Law was given to reveal what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to the Mosaic Law is an integral part of the Gospel message, and all Scripture supports that we should repent from doing what God has revealed to be sin.

StevenBelievin said:

So if we are save "By Grace" and it is "Through Faith" then it is Grace (of God) that saves us and the means is Faith.. (Ephesians 2:8)

I posted this in a previous thread and I believe it bears repeating..

The question was why do some Christians struggle and fail while other seem to do well with effortless success..

I think the main problem would be one of perception. People tend to see God the way they see their natural father. If they had an abusive father they think God is mean or cruel. If their dad was absent a lot or ignored them all the time they think God is distant or uncaring.

They also tend to see themselves the way they feel others see them. If they feel that others see them as unworthy or worthless they will tend to act that out. As a man (or woman) believes in his (their) heart so is he (they). In other words their core beliefs about God and themselves are skewed by their life circumstances and their feelings. They feel unloved and they feel guilty because of their sins, and this keeps them away from the only one who can free them from their false perceptions. The point is that it doesn't matter how you feel if that feeling is opposed to God's truth. The battle is in your mind, and it is a battle for truth. That's why Jesus said the truth will set you free.

The truth is that God loves you with an everlasting, unconditional and unrelenting love whether you feel it or not. He is for you and not against you. Let me say it again, He is for you and NOT against you. He always seeks what is good for you and you can trust Him even when it looks like you cannot. Your sin is as far from you as the east is from the west, and I'm not talking about this planet. I'm talking about from one side of eternity to the other. He has already walked your life with you from the beginning to end, so He who has started a good work with you He will bring it to completion. You are His adopted child, and bought with a price at the same time. A child of God. All of your sins, past, present and future were placed on Him at the cross and they were paid for forever. Jesus' perfect righteousness was placed upon you in Him at the cross as all believers are "in Him". You want to know the truth?

Sin WILL NOT have dominion over you because your are under Grace and NOT under law.

Here's the key. You are completely off the hook. There are NO strings attached.

Paul said "Recon yourselves as those dead to sin and alive to God through Christ Jesus". Why because you're under grace and not law. Count yourself as one of those who are dead to sin and alive to God because you are, right now, under His Grace.

The jail door has been unlocked the whole time. The feeling of it being locked has always been so strong we have never even tried to push on it. There are no guards with guns around the corner, but it has always felt like they were there if they even heard the slightest noise. Notice I use the words feeling, because it is our feelings and perceptions that lead us into a self created prison.

Salvation is the free gift of God and it cannot be earned. It can only be received.

Paul said that he labored more then them (the apostles) all, but he said it was not him but the grace of God that was with Him. Even when Paul did good works he said it wasn't him but grace.

Click to expand...

I believe this is a dangerous teaching. If I were Satan I would want people to think that their actions would not impact their salvation.

Luke 17:2
It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.

StevenBelievin said:

but teaching someone to earn a gift that has already been paid for is not the gospel.

Click to expand...

So far as I've seen, and asked for several times,
neither you nor anyone else has actually found anyone who thinks they can earn salvation by keeping the law. If you find one post saying so, quote it - it will be the first time in a long, long while.

StevenBelievin said in post #60:

(John 6:29) This is the work of God that you should believe on the one whom He has sent.

Click to expand...

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

This means for people to work the works of God, they must believe in Jesus Christ. For apart from Jesus, people can work no works of God (John 15:5b).

John 6:29 isn't contradicting that Christians must have both faith and works of faith if they're to obtain ultimate salvation (Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, Matthew 7:21).

StevenBelievin said in post #60:

According to Hebrews 10:11-14 "11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Click to expand...

Hebrews 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

This means the once-for-all-time offering of Jesus Christ's body on the Cross has sanctified and perfected Christians. But the perfect tense doesn't denote permanence. For example, if someone says in the perfect tense: "I have washed my child", this doesn't mean the child has been made permanently clean. For after having been washed, the child can wrongly employ his free will to go out and play in the mud. Similarly, washed Christians (1 Corinthians 6:11) can wrongly employ their free will to go back to wallowing in the mire of sin without repentance (2 Peter 2:20-22; 2 Corinthians 12:20-21), to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27; Luke 12:45-46). Also, the "for ever" in Hebrews 10:14 doesn't denote a permanent perfection, but means the once-for-all-time offering of Jesus is perpetually applied in the ongoing and eternal process by which Christians are "being sanctified" (Hebrews 10:14, see the original Greek tense), so long as they're repenting from and confessing to God every sin they commit (1 John 1:9,7, Hebrews 10:26-29).

Soyeong said in post #61:

In regard to Galatians, the problem was that people were teaching that Gentiles needed to obey man-made works of law in order to become saved, so it is important not to take something that was only against obeying man as being against obeying God.

Click to expand...

Galatians addresses the problem of Christians mistakenly trying to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law:

Galatians 4:21 ¶Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Galatians 5:1 ¶Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.

Soyeong said in post #61:

In Ephesians 2:10, it says that we are new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works, so it wouldn't make any sense to say just a few verses later that Christ did away with his instructions for how to do good works . . .

Click to expand...

Jesus Christ shows in the Sermon on the Mount how His New Covenant, Christian commandments are stricter than the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. For the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law forbade murder (Matthew 5:21, Exodus 20:13), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids even calling people names (Matthew 5:22). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law forbade adultery (Matthew 5:27, Exodus 20:14), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids even looking at another woman with lust (Matthew 5:28). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law permitted divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5:31, Deuteronomy 24:1-2), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids it (Matthew 5:32, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18), except for a single exemption granted only to husbands who discover their newlywed wife isn't a virgin, but had committed fornication (Matthew 19:9).

Jesus Christ also shows in the Sermon on the Mount that while His New Covenant, Christian law is stricter than the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, at the same time it's also more merciful. For the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required taking an eye for an eye (Matthew 5:38, Deuteronomy 19:21), while Jesus' New Covenant law requires turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required hatred for one's enemies (Matthew 5:43, Deuteronomy 23:6), while Jesus' New Covenant law requires love for one's enemies (Matthew 5:44). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, the ministration of death (2 Corinthians 3:7), required, for example, that adulterers be put to death (Leviticus 20:10), while Jesus showed mercy to the woman caught in adultery (John 8:4-11). And, for another example, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required anyone who does any work on the sabbath is to be put to death (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32-36), while Jesus allowed His disciples to work on the sabbath and said they were guiltless (Matthew 12:1-8), just as Jesus Himself worked on the sabbath (John 5:17-18).

So in obeying Jesus Christ's New Covenant commandments (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29, John 14:15; 1 Corinthians 14:37), Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, are both more merciful and loving, and also exceed in righteousness those who mistakenly try to keep the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Matthew 5:20-48, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19).

Soyeong said:

I am aware of what the Talmud is, but I did not say anywhere that the Talmud was the law of sin. Work of law, the law of sin, and God's Law are three distinct concepts.

Click to expand...

This is what you said:


By Grace Through Faith


During the 1st century, there was a large body of Jewish oral laws, traditions, rulings, and fences that they taught for how to obey the Mosaic Law and that were needed to be obeyed in order to become saved. For example, in Matthew 15:2-3, Jesus was asked why his disciples broke the traditions of the elders and he responded by asking them why they broke the command of God for the sake of their tradition. He went on to say that for the sake of their tradition they made void the Word of God (Matthew 15:6), that they worshipped God in vain because they taught as doctrine the commands of men (Matthew 15:8-9), and that they were hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so what they were teaching as the Mosaic Law was in fact their own own traditions. It is critically important to correctly distinguish between what is said about these man-made works of law and what is said about God's Law so that we do not mistake something that was only against obeying man's law as being against obeying God's Law.


In Galatians 3:10-12, it says that these man-made works of law are not of faith, but in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of God's Law, so God's Law is of faith, and obeying it is straightforwardly about putting our faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live and that His commands are for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24). So in Romans 3:27-28, it distinguishes between two laws: a law of works and a law of faith. We are justified by faith apart from these man-made works of law contrary to what the Pharisees were teaching, but our faith does not do away without our need to obey God's Law, but rather our faith upholds God's Law, which means that we are to live in obedience to it by faith (Romans 3:31). God's Law was never given as a means of becoming justified, but rather it was given to those that God had already justified by faith as instructions for how they should therefore live by the same faith.


By Grace Through Faith


Paul spoke of the law of God (Romans 3:31, Romans 7:22-25, Romans 8:7), the law of sin (Romans 7:23-25), the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2), the law of the Spirit (Romans 8:2), the law of faith (Romans 3:27), the law of righteousness (Romans 9:31), the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21), and works of law (Galatians 3:10), so if you think that every time Paul used the word "law" that he referred to the same thing, then you are guaranteed to misunderstand him. While I think most of these terms refer to all of the Mosaic Law, such the law of God, the law of the Spirit, and the law of Christ, the law of sin, and works of law both refer to something very different.



By Grace Through Faith


In Romans 7:21-25, Paul said he delighted in obeying God's Law and they he served with his mind, but directly contrasted that with the law of sin that held him captive that he served with his flesh. This is a summary of what Paul said previously, so it is the law of sin that came about to increase tresspasses (5:20), that stirred up sinful passions to bear fruit unto death (7:5), that held us captive (7:6), that gave sin its power (7:8), that seized the opportunity through the commandment to deceive him and put him to death (7:11), and that caused him not to do the good that he wanted (7:13-20), while God's Law is not sin, but reveals what sin is (7:7), is holy, righteous, and good (7:12), is the good that Paul did not blame for bringing death to him (7:13), and the good that he sought to do (7:13-20). So based off of Paul's description of the God's Law and the law of sin, we should be able to correctly identify which law is being talked about in these verses:


Apparently, for you law of sin is the oral Law.

Romans 7:12-13 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means!


You can fault Paul's logic if you want, but he said that the law of holy, righteous, and good, and that he did not blame it for bringing death to him, so there is no room whatsoever to interpret him as saying that the LAw is something that was bad. If we have faith in God that His commands are for our own good, then we should be careful to obey all of His commands, but nowhere does did God require perfect obedience to His Law in order to obtain something. The Law itself comes with instructions for what to do when they did not obey it perfectly.

Click to expand...

The Law AND Sin brings death. There is no transgression where there is no Law.

In Romans 10:5-9, it quotes Deuteronomy 30:11-14 in regard to what our faith says in that the Law is not too difficult, but is near us, in our mouth, and in our heart, and this is what it means to submit to Jesus as Lord.

Click to expand...

Asking for mercy is in our mouth and not too difficult. On the other hand obeying the law perfectly is not in our mouth.

Sorry, I did not intend to put word if your mouth. If the Law was given to reveal transgressions and if someone says that we don't need to obey the Law, then they are saying that it is ok to commit transgressions.

Click to expand...

I never said we don't need to obey the law.

I've quoted from all over Scripture to show that it support my position and that I have not departed from it, so it is not clear to me why you consider what I've said be a narrow view. Jesus began his ministry with to Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Mosaic Law was given to reveal what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to the Mosaic Law is an integral part of the Gospel message, and all Scripture supports that we should repent from doing what God has revealed to be sin.

Click to expand...

Salvation is not completed by obeying the law. Salvation is completed by showing loyalty. Abraham wasn't tested on Law, he was tested for loyalty. All the heroes of faith including Rahab showed loyalty to God and were saved. Of course obeying Jesus's commands is also showing loyalty, but I want to tell you that the false teachers were majoring on signs and wonders and nothing else, when Jesus had commanded his disciples to gather the sheep using signs and wonders, just as God did with Moses. They were testing God, as shown by Jesus when He refused to listen to Satan's idea of becoming famous by jumping from the Temple top.


But what you are teaching is a direct disobedience of the teaching not to observe the Old Covenant, because it would lead to being cut off from Christ, Christ would be of no benefit to you.


The requirement of the New Covenant was to be loyal to Christ, and that was to reach out to everyone including Gentiles, which would mean eating with them, eating pork if necessary.


In others words, you are not even taking the narrow view, you are taking the obsolete view.

StevenBelievin said:

I never said that sinning or teaching anyone to sin is good or proper, but teaching someone to earn a gift that has already been paid for is not the gospel. It's a false gospel.

Click to expand...

Here's what Jesus said. Compare it to what you have said:

John 15:10
If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commands and remain in his love.

And this:

Matt 7
24“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

And this:

Matt 7:21
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Wordkeeper said:

Apparently, for you law of sin is the oral Law.

Click to expand...

In that post I was replying to two different paragraphs and addressing two different issues. The law of sin is the evil inclination that stirs up sinful passions to bear fruit unto death and causes us not to do the good that we want to do. The Talmud contains many oral tradition, rulings, and fences for how they taught to obey God's Law, which Paul referred to as works of law, so these are two very different concepts.

The Law AND Sin brings death. There is no transgression where there is no Law.

Click to expand...

The Bible is up front that the Law bring life and a blessing for obedience and death and curse for disobedience, so it is not obedience to the law that brings death, and God did not give the law to cause us to die, but to instruct us how to live life that is life.

Asking for mercy is in our mouth and not too difficult. On the other hand obeying the law perfectly is not in our mouth.

Click to expand...

Those verses do not speak either about asking for mercy or about the need to obey the law perfectly. As with the parable with the merciful servant (Matthew 18:21-35) receiving mercy comes with the expectation that we will change our behavior. In other words, when God is merciful to us, He is delaying judgement in order to give us a chance to repent and turn back to obedience.

I never said we don't need to obey the law.

Click to expand...

Well, then do you think that we need to obey the Mosaic Law?

Salvation is not completed by obeying the law. Salvation is completed by showing loyalty. Abraham wasn't tested on Law, he was tested for loyalty. All the heroes of faith including Rahab showed loyalty to God and were saved. Of course obeying Jesus's commands is also showing loyalty, but I want to tell you that the false teachers were majoring on signs and wonders and nothing else, when Jesus had commanded his disciples to gather the sheep using signs and wonders, just as God did with Moses. They were testing God, as shown by Jesus when He refused to listen to Satan's idea of becoming famous by jumping from the Temple top.

Click to expand...

I completely agree that we are not saved by obeying the Law and that we are saved by faith/loyalty. Furthermore, the Law was never given to provide a means of salvation through obedience to it, and that has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose, which Paul spent a lot of time trying to correct. Our faith does not do away with our need to obey the Law, but rather our faith upholds our need to obey it (Romans 3:31), so the same faith that saves us also requires us to obey God's commands. Every single example of saving faith in Hebrews 11 is also an example of someone living in obedience to God's commands.

But what you are teaching is a direct disobedience of the teaching not to observe the Old Covenant, because it would lead to being cut off from Christ, Christ would be of no benefit to you.

Click to expand...

God has always been righteous, so there has always been a way to act in accordance with God's righteousness, which existed before God had made any covenants with man. So there is a distinction between a set of instructions for how to act in accordance with God's righteousness and a covenant agreement to abide by those instructions. A covenant can come and go, but God's righteousness is eternal, so anyone who wants to look up how to practice righteousness can do so by reading God's instructions for that in the Mosaic Law, regardless of which covenant, if any, they are under, but as part of the New Covenant, we are still told to practice or train in righteousness (1 John 3:10, 2 Timothy 3:16-17). So I have not been teach that we should observe the Old Covenant, but that we should observe God's eternal Law.

Furthermore, the Bible does not teach that obeying God's Law cuts us off from Christ, but that trying to become justified by observing man-made works of law is what cuts us off from Christ because our faith would be in our own works rather than in him. It wouldn't make any sense to say that following the example that Christ set for his followers to follow makes us cut off from Christ.

The requirement of the New Covenant was to be loyal to Christ, and that was to reach out to everyone including Gentiles, which would mean eating with them, eating pork if necessary.

Click to expand...

Doing what God has revealed to be sin in order to reach sinners completely undermines the Gospel message that we need to repent of our sins. In addition, eating pork would show disloyalty to Christ.

Soyeong said in post #72:

In addition, eating pork would show disloyalty to Christ.

Click to expand...

Note that it wouldn't.

For under the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, all foods are in themselves okay for all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, to eat (1 Timothy 4:4-5, Romans 14:14,20, Mark 7:18-19; 1 Corinthians 10:25-30, Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). For under the New Covenant, no meat is defiled in itself (Romans 14:14), all meats are pure (Romans 14:20). Every meat is good, and no meat is to be refused if it's received with thanksgiving to God, for it's sanctified by the Word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:4-5). Let no one therefore judge you regarding what meat you eat (Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). For the Kingdom of God doesn't consist of what meat we eat or don't eat, but consists of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17). Happy are those Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, who don't condemn themselves over what meat they eat (Romans 14:22). For no meat can defile them (Mark 7:18-19).

Soyeong said:

In that post I was replying to two different paragraphs and addressing two different issues. The law of sin is the evil inclination that stirs up sinful passions to bear fruit unto death and causes us not to do the good that we want to do. The Talmud contains many oral tradition, rulings, and fences for how they taught to obey God's Law, which Paul referred to as works of law, so these are two very different concepts.

Click to expand...

Some commentaries say the Law of Sin is the evil inclination, while others say it is the Mosaic Law.

The Bible is up front that the Law bring life and a blessing for obedience and death and curse for disobedience, so it is not obedience to the law that brings death, and God did not give the law to cause us to die, but to instruct us how to live life that is life.

Click to expand...

The Law could bring life if obeyed.

God knew Israel would not be able to obey it.

Therefore God gave the Law to Israel for other purposes.

He gave it because of the problem of sin. Everybody sinned. And many nations became extinct because of sin. To protect israel, God gave the Law. The law acted as a guardian until the arrival of the Seed:

Galatians 3:19-25
19Why then was the law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the descendant to whom the promise had been made. It was administered through angels by an intermediary. 20Now an intermediary is not for one party alone, but God is one. 21Is the law therefore opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the scripture imprisoned everything and everyone under sin so that the promise could be given – because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ – to those who believe.

Sons of God Are Heirs of Promise

23Now before faith came we were held in custody under the law, being kept as prisoners until the coming faith would be revealed. 24Thus the law had become our guardian until Christ, so that we could be declared righteous by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Those verses do not speak either about asking for mercy or about the need to obey the law perfectly. As with the parable with the merciful servant (Matthew 18:21-35) receiving mercy comes with the expectation that we will change our behavior. In other words, when God is merciful to us, He is delaying judgement in order to give us a chance to repent and turn back to obedience.

Click to expand...

Luke 18:14
14“I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Galatians 5:3
Again I testify to every man who gets himself circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole Law.

Well, then do you think that we need to obey the Mosaic Law?

Click to expand...

No. Just Jesus’s commands.

I completely agree that we are not saved by obeying the Law and that we are saved by faith/loyalty. Furthermore, the Law was never given to provide a means of salvation through obedience to it, and that has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose, which Paul spent a lot of time trying to correct. Our faith does not do away with our need to obey the Law, but rather our faith upholds our need to obey it (Romans 3:31), so the same faith that saves us also requires us to obey God's commands. Every single example of saving faith in Hebrews 11 is also an example of someone living in obedience to God's commands.

Click to expand...

Abraham wasn’t obeying the Mosaic Law. He was being loyal to God.

God has always been righteous, so there has always been a way to act in accordance with God's righteousness, which existed before God had made any covenants with man. So there is a distinction between a set of instructions for how to act in accordance with God's righteousness and a covenant agreement to abide by those instructions. A covenant can come and go, but God's righteousness is eternal, so anyone who wants to look up how to practice righteousness can do so by reading God's instructions for that in the Mosaic Law, regardless of which covenant, if any, they are under, but as part of the New Covenant, we are still told to practice or train in righteousness (1 John 3:10, 2 Timothy 3:16-17). So I have not been teach that we should observe the Old Covenant, but that we should observe God's eternal Law.

Click to expand...

Which is not the Mosaic Law.

Furthermore, the Bible does not teach that obeying God's Law cuts us off from Christ, but that trying to become justified by observing man-made works of law is what cuts us off from Christ because our faith would be in our own works rather than in him. It wouldn't make any sense to say that following the example that Christ set for his followers to follow makes us cut off from Christ.

Click to expand...

Galatians 5:2-4
2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Doing what God has revealed to be sin in order to reach sinners completely undermines the Gospel message that we need to repent of our sins. In addition, eating pork would show disloyalty to Christ.

Click to expand...

The Old Covenant was given to Israel, not to us.

Bible2+ said:

wouldn't

Click to expand...

Yes, it would.
Research a while Hebrew language, life, customs, TORAH, etc
There's many things
that they never , never, ever considered 'food' at all, at any time.

Bible2+ said:

Note that it wouldn't.

For under the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, all foods are in themselves okay for all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, to eat (1 Timothy 4:4-5, Romans 14:14,20, Mark 7:18-19; 1 Corinthians 10:25-30, Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). For under the New Covenant, no meat is defiled in itself (Romans 14:14), all meats are pure (Romans 14:20). Every meat is good, and no meat is to be refused if it's received with thanksgiving to God, for it's sanctified by the Word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:4-5). Let no one therefore judge you regarding what meat you eat (Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). For the Kingdom of God doesn't consist of what meat we eat or don't eat, but consists of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17). Happy are those Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, who don't condemn themselves over what meat they eat (Romans 14:22). For no meat can defile them (Mark 7:18-19).

Click to expand...

There is a theme throughout the Bible that we must obey God rather than man, so we must be careful not to mistake something that was only against obeying the man's laws of men as being against obeying God's Laws, and the core problem here is that you have not been careful to do this.

Colossians 2:16-17

Click to expand...

If you take these verses by themselves, then they are ambiguous as to whether Paul is saying not to let anyone judge them for keeping God's holy days or for not keeping them, but if we look at what the people judging them were teaching and keep in mind the theme that we must obey God rather than man, then it becomes clear:

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Paul would never have described those teaching obedience to the holy, righteous, and good commands of God as taking people captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition. Christ lived in perfect obedience to God's Law and taught obedience to it by word and by example, so it wouldn't make any sense to say that those teaching to follow Christ's example are teaching what is not according to Christ, and furthermore that would be pitting the Father against the Son. Paul went into more details about what these elemental spirits of the world are later in the chapter:

Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

So the Colossians were keeping God's holy days in obedience to God's commands, they were being judged for doing that by those teaching human precepts and traditions, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity the body, and Paul was writing to encourage them not to let any man keep them from obeying God.

1 Timothy 4:4-5

Click to expand...

If we look at the teachings being described in 1 Timothy 4:1-8, then it should again be clear that he is describing the teachings of men and not the teachings of God. Those teaching obedience to the holy, righteous, and good doctrines of God are not departing from the faith and teaching doctrines of demons. We are not forbidding marriage or teaching irreverent, silly myths, or teaching what is opposed to training ourselves in godliness. We know that in Colossians 2, Paul was dealing with people who were teaching asceticism and severity to the body, so there were people teaching abstinence from eating what God said was to be received with thanksgiving in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, so it is much more consistent to interpret 1 Timothy 4:3 as referring to man-made laws rather than God's Law. God's Law is truth (Psalms 119:142), so those who know the truth of God's Word know that we are permitted to eat what God said was good to eat in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, that unclean animals have not been sanctified by God's Word, and that what God said was an abomination should not be received with thanksgiving. Paul could have equivalently said that for everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected IF it is kosher.

Romans 14:14,20

Click to expand...

In Romans 14, Paul was not discussing whether followers of God should follow God's commands, but rather as stated in the first verse, the topic is in regard to settling disputes of opinion. So no one was disputing whether we should obey God's command to not commit idolatry, adultery, murder, theft, or any of God's other commands, but they did dispute what things counted as violating those commands. For example, meat that had been sacrificed to idols was often later sold on the market, so someone who was at a community meal who couldn't verify how the meat had been slaughtered might be of the disputable opinion that only vegetables should be eaten (Romans 14:2). They were passing judgement against those who were eating everything at the meal, and were in turning being resented, and it is precisely this sort of judging each other over opinions that Paul was seeking to quell in this chapter, so we should not take anything in the chapter as being against obeying God's commands when it is only against obeying man's opinions. In Romans 14:14, 20, Paul was speaking against the idea that meat that have been offered to idols was ritually unclean in itself even to those who had no knowledge that it had been sacrificed to idols.

Mark 7:18-19

Click to expand...

In Matthew 15:2-3, Jesus was asked why his disciples broke the traditions of the elders and Jesus replied by asking them why they broke the commands of God for the sake of their tradition. He went on to say that for the sake of their tradition they made void the Word of God (Matthew 15:6), that they worshiped God in vain because they taught as doctrine the commands of men (Matthew 15:8-9), and that they were hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions (Mark 7:6-9), so we should be careful not take something that was only against what the Pharisees were teaching as being against obeying the commands of God, and it makes no sense whatsoever to interpret the next thing Jesus did as doing what he just finished criticizing the Pharisees as hypocrites for doing.

Case in point, Jesus was having a conversation with other Jews about a man-made ritual purity law that said that you could become defiled by eating with unwashed hands (Mark 7:3-4), he simply took the opposite position that we are not defiled by eating with unwashed hands (Matthew 15:20), and he never jumped topics to speaking against obeying the commands of the God of the universe. When you have one Jews speaking to other Jews about all things that are food, it would be taking what they said out of context to insert the things that we consider to be food instead of using what they considered to be food, which was namely only the things that God said were food in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Jews did not even raise pigs, so speaking about eating pork would never have crossed the minds of anyone there. So at most he was saying that all kosher animals are ritually clean, which was directly countering the position of the Pharisees.

According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what God had commanded, so if you think that Jesus did that, then you should think that he sinned and therefore could not be our Savior. Likewise, according to Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to tell that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against following what God had commanded them, even if they performed signs and wonders, so if you believe that Jesus did that, then you should consider him to be a false prophet even though he rose from the dead. His critics would have for once had a legitimate reason to stone him and they wouldn't have needed to find false witnesses at his trial, so they would have jumped at the chance, but they never even seemed to have noticed that he made such a radical statement. These are some major problems with interpreting Jesus as countermanding the God, so it is far, far more reasonable to simply interpret him as sticking to the topic of conversation.

---

I think that when we are careful to distinguish between what is said about man's law and God's Law in the NT, we will see that its authors never spoke against anyone obeying a single one of God's commands, and I've tried to persuade you of how the verses you have cited are examples of this, but if you remain unpersuaded, then the bottom line is still that God has the highest authority and we must obey Him over any man who tries to tell us otherwise. So if you remain convinced that Paul spoke against obeying God's dietary commands, then according to God's instructions you should consider him to be a false prophet who was not speaking for Him. Again, I do not think that Paul ever spoke against anyone obeying any God's commands, so I do not think that it comes down to this, but if you do, then it should not be a difficult decision about whether to follow Paul or God.

In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, and would have rightfully rejected what he said if he was teaching against obeying God, so if we interpret Paul as doing that, then we have understood him differently from the people who walked and walked with him. Rather, the NT authors quoted or alluded to the OT thousands of times in order to establish that it supported their message and that they did not depart from it. In 2 Peter 3:15-17, it says that Paul is difficult to understand, but that those who are ignorant and unstable twist his words to their own destruction and fall into the error of Lawlessness, so we can be confident that any interpretation of Paul as being against obeying God's Law is wrong.

Bible2+ said:

Note that it wouldn't.

For under the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, all foods are in themselves okay for all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, to eat (1 Timothy 4:4-5, Romans 14:14,20, Mark 7:18-19; 1 Corinthians 10:25-30, Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). For under the New Covenant, no meat is defiled in itself (Romans 14:14), all meats are pure (Romans 14:20). Every meat is good, and no meat is to be refused if it's received with thanksgiving to God, for it's sanctified by the Word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:4-5). Let no one therefore judge you regarding what meat you eat (Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). For the Kingdom of God doesn't consist of what meat we eat or don't eat, but consists of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17). Happy are those Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, who don't condemn themselves over what meat they eat (Romans 14:22). For no meat can defile them (Mark 7:18-19).

Click to expand...

That's not what the Jerusalem council told Paul. This is what they told Paul -

Acts 15:29
that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

Here's what Paul said afterwards -

Galatians 2
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

Remembering the poor wasn't even mentioned. However, abstaining from things offered to idols (meat) was mentioned.

Wordkeeper said:

The Old Covenant was given to Israel, not to us.

Click to expand...

And were we not grafted into the olive tree?

Romans 11:17
And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,

EmSw said:

And were we not grafted into the olive tree?

Romans 11:17
And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,

Click to expand...

If you observe the Old Covenant you are converting to Judaism and Christ is of no benefit to you. Simple as that.

Wordkeeper said:

If you observe the Old Covenant you are converting to Judaism and Christ is of no benefit to you. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

Are you sure?

Deuteronomy 6:5
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

Deuteronomy 10:16
Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer.

Leviticus 19:18
You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

If this is converting to Judaism, sign me up. I didn't know loving God with all my heat would mean Christ is of no benefit to me. We have some strange ideas floating around out there.