Do you reject the Sermon on the Mount as being applicable today?

yeshuaslavejeff · Oct 28, 2019

Bible Highlighter said:
This had nothing to do with them being wrong for telling Paul by the Spirit in not going to Jerusalem. These are two different events.

Did you say they were wrong ? I did not see that nor reply to that if it is there.

yeshuaslavejeff · Oct 28, 2019

Bible Highlighter said:
Paul's mistake was in not listening to the Spirit in going to Jerusalem.

Why do you call it a mistake !? Where is it written that he made a mistake ?

yeshuaslavejeff · Oct 28, 2019

Bible Highlighter said:
This later led to the problem of his wanting to go back to the Old Law and in later being put into prison.

Who do you know who ever claimed that Paul wanted to go back to the Old Law (and do you mean TORAH? ) ? If it was one of the men/sources you posted earlier, I think even that you don't agree with them on some things, if it was them, then I would not even read what they published or preached.

Dave L · Oct 28, 2019

Is the Sermon on the Mount for Today?

This is an important question because Matthew calls the Sermon on the Mount the doctrine of Christ (Matthew 7:28). And John says any who do not have the doctrine of Christ do not have God (2 John 9–11).

Ken Rank · Oct 28, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
Laws on the heart is being born again of the Spirit. Our heart is our nature, and instead of the carnal nature, the born again nature of the Spirit is the divine nature. That's now. Read 2 Peter 1.

It is only our body that is not what it shall be. Also our "sin" status Revelation 22:11

We really aren't as far off as you probably believe. I agree with your statement, I just, respectfully, don't believe you see how much deeper your own statement goes. Instead of risking argument or division, I will leave it at that.

Be blessed sis.
Ken

CharismaticLady · Oct 28, 2019

Bible Highlighter said:
This later led to the problem of his wanting to go back to the Old Law and in later being put into prison. I believe if Paul listened, he would not have been in a situation to even partake of the Purification Rite of the Old Testament, and he would not have been put into prison. But there were consequences to his actions.

and @yeshuaslavejeff

Yes, I don't understand that either seeing as there was a sacrifice involved. It seemed he was trying to trick the Jews who were bad mouthing his doctrines into thinking he still kept the Old Covenant.

What I also don't understand is why Paul wanted Timothy circumcised when it was now of the heart?

Acts of the Apostles 15: 1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 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? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

They decided, Gentiles didn't have to be circumcised, so why did Paul turn around and circumcise Timothy. Was it because Timothy's mother was Jewish? Were Jewish Christians still being circumcised according to the Mosaic law?

Acts 16:1 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 4 Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe. 5 So the churches were being strengthened in the faith, and were increasing in number daily.

CharismaticLady · Oct 28, 2019

Ken Rank said:
We really aren't as far off as you probably believe. I agree with your statement, I just, respectfully, don't believe you see how much deeper your own statement goes. Instead of risking argument or division, I will leave it at that.

Be blessed sis.
Ken

I don't think we are far off from each other either. I would rather you keep laws, than be lawless. Look what I've been dealing with, with a Calvinist on another site. He finally put me on ignore. He just didn't want to hear the truth!

Quotes from a Calvinist:

"Our transgressions are forgiven and our sins are covered. God does not input sin. However much sin abounds in us, Grace does much more abound."

"He didn't make them more powerful for the new covenant, he made them more Impossible to keep. Besides, they aren't to be kept at all. They were done away with."

"When Jesus died, I was baptized into his death. Thus, being a dead man, I don't sin. My flesh does, but I don't."

yeshuaslavejeff · Oct 28, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
It seemed he was trying to trick the Jews who were bad mouthing his doctrines into thinking he still kept the Old Covenant.

Paul wasn't even thinking of tricking anyone in what is written.

CharismaticLady said:
What I also don't understand is why Paul wanted Timothy circumcised when it was now of the heart?

It was a Jewish requirement,
even though Yahuweh had already circumcised Timothy's heart, thus Timothy was already born again. Getting physically circumcised did not reverse Yahuweh's circumcision of the heart (made not with human hands) .

CharismaticLady · Oct 28, 2019

yeshuaslavejeff said:
Paul wasn't even thinking of tricking anyone in what is written.

It was a Jewish requirement,
even though Yahuweh had already circumcised Timothy's heart, thus Timothy was already born again. Getting physically circumcised did not reverse Yahuweh's circumcision of the heart (made not with human hands) .

But why do Jewish Christians get circumcised anymore in the first place.

I know this next passage is to Gentiles, but still it should apply to all followers of Christ.

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

Also why do you think Paul went through with the vow and sacrifices in Acts 21? And why did he circumcise Timothy?

yeshuaslavejeff · Oct 28, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
But why do Jewish Christians get circumcised anymore in the first place.

Why do any gentiles world wide get circumcised ? It is their choice, not related to being born again.

CharismaticLady · Oct 28, 2019

yeshuaslavejeff said:
Why do any gentiles world wide get circumcised ? It is their choice, not related to being born again.

Today it is just health. But back then it had nothing to do with health, but a sign.

CharismaticLady · Oct 28, 2019

yeshuaslavejeff said:
Why do any gentiles world wide get circumcised ? It is their choice, not related to being born again.

You may have read my post before I added an edit.

Also why do you think Paul went through with the vow and sacrifices in Acts 21? And why did he circumcise Timothy?

yeshuaslavejeff · Oct 28, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
Today it is just health. But back then it had nothing to do with health, but a sign.

So do you think Yahuweh did not know about health ? (Today, man's opinions about health are quite opposed to each other, and almost always opposed to Scripture and against/contrary to Yahuweh) .

yeshuaslavejeff · Oct 28, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
You may have read my post before I added an edit.

Also why do you think Paul went through with the vow and sacrifices in Acts 21? And why did he circumcise Timothy?

Simply he was not wrong in any way to do as he did.
The reasons are not understood in the western or gentile minds/ ways of thinking/ unless Yahuweh Reveals them. Not even entirely clear to me, yet, but 'tis all in Yahuweh's Plan and Purpose as written and as taught by Yahushua Hamashiach.

CharismaticLady · Oct 28, 2019

yeshuaslavejeff said:
So do you think Yahuweh did not know about health ? (Today, man's opinions about health are quite opposed to each other, and almost always opposed to Scripture and against/contrary to Yahuweh) .

I don't care about today; circumcision was a sign back then. And Paul did it because of the Jews in the area, not health.

Greengardener · Oct 28, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
The New Covenant is like a will and testament. The will first has to be written and then after the death of the testator the will becomes active at the reading of the will. The Day of Pentecost was like the reading of the will.

The Sermon on the Mount is the writing of the will. The recipients of the will will be those who believe in Jesus. Jesus shows how the laws of God will truly be, and we know now that they will be able to be kept, not by our carnal nature and weak will power as the Old Covenant laws had to be kept, but by our new born again nature that is filled with the Spirit of Christ. God will keep His own laws through us by empowering us.

Romans 3:
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. (NKJV)

I like how the Living Bible puts it for clarity:

31 Well then, if we are saved by faith, does this mean that we no longer need obey God’s laws? Just the opposite! In fact, only when we trust Jesus can we truly obey him.

Along these lines, when I read in the Old Testament, I see God making covenants, or "deals" with people - sometimes different people, and sometimes with the same person more than once. When I read the intent of the covenants, it looks to me like God is always giving us a more than fair deal that goes along the lines of, "If you follow the way I've provided, I'll provide for you, and if you don't, well, the results won't be good because it just doesn't work that way." I'm not sure I can buy into one "deal" always meaning that prior deals were done away with. I frankly wouldn't mind being under any of His covenants because He hasn't changed: there has not been a time when man was at risk by turning to this Eternal God to follow Him in the instructions He provided. But on this side of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, God's love is shown all the more in Jesus, especially in providing a once-forever sacrifice for our sins and a once-forever High Priest, and now that power that raised Jesus from the dead is at work in us and I'm so thankful!

Guojing · Oct 28, 2019

ViaCrucis said:
So we are free to ignore and deny Jesus Christ...because the world is sinful?

Shouldn't it be the exact opposite? That we are, as St. Paul says, to be in the world but not of it? To not be conformed to this present age, but to be transformed by the renewing of our mind?

That as the Church, as the people of Jesus Christ, we are to be a city on a hill, the light of the world, and salt of the earth? To be a people whose allegiance is to Christ, not to the powers of this world. To live in accordance with God's kingdom, which we have become partakers of through Christ by our new birth (John 3:3-5).

Not that we can be perfect in this present age, not that we can attain the glory to which we presently hope now, for at present we labor and indeed all creation labors and groans looking forward to and awaiting that blessed hope when God makes all things new, when Christ returns, the dead are raised, and all creation restored. But that we have been called to be a people who are marked by Christ and His cross, to take up our cross and follow after Him. To be the cross-bearing, the crucified, people of God in this world--with our eyes set upon Christ the Author and Finisher of our faith, with our hope set upon the resurrection and the promise of eternal life in the Age to Come, to live in accordance with the way of Jesus in this world. To love our neighbor, to love even our enemies, to bless those who curse us, to pray for those who persecute us, to be good to those who are evil toward us. We turn the cheek, we forgive, we show mercy. We devote ourselves to the care of widows and orphans, devote ourselves toward justice for the poor, the hungry, the naked, the oppressed, the immigrant, and the dejected.

That we are to follow "the more excellent way" of love as St. Paul calls it. To be a people who beat our swords into plowshares, and spears into pruning shears. To be a people who call the Crucified One King and Lord. Knowing that no servant is greater than his master. That God as king, as exercised and manifest through the Suffering Messiah, is that the least is greatest, that the greatest amongst us is the slave. That the lowly shall be lifted up, the proud laid low.

Because Jesus Christ is Lord.

-CryptoLutheran

Ever wonder why Paul, our apostle, with the exception of the holy communion, almost never talk about what Jesus preached to the Jews in the flesh?

Guojing · Oct 28, 2019

Bible Highlighter said:
Paul was going to partake of the purification rite that involved an animal sacrifice, but GOD stopped him with going through with it.

If we were to rewind a bit in our story: Paul wanted to go to Jerusalem. The Spirit warned Paul not to go. He was still determined to go because he loved His fellow Jews and wanted them to know the love of Jesus. The Spirit told the brethren that Paul will be imprisoned by his going to Jerusalem. The brethren warned Paul not to go. They were in tears and loved him and begged him not to go. But Paul did not listen. He would not hear them. He did not want to hear it. Fault of character. Hidden fault. Minor error of his character. It is not something that condemned him, but it led to his dropping the ball in going back to the Old Law (See Acts of the Apostles 21, and read this article here by Ray Stedman; Note: There is even a better write up than this one by Bible commentator James Boice here that explains Paul's mistake in regards to going back to the Old Law; Please keep in mind I do not share their views on Soteriology, though; I merely agree with their view on what happened with Paul in Acts of the Apostles 21).

Matthew 5:24. Jesus tells the man to reconcile with his brother first before offering an animal sacrifice (i.e. gift).

yeah in hindsight Paul made a mistake going against the Holy Spirit to head to Jerusalem.

Thanks to the conversation between James and him though in acts 21, we are now clear that James proclamation in acts 15, about the law of Moses not being applicable, was only meant for gentile believers and not Jews though, so there is some benefit

Brian Mcnamee · Oct 28, 2019

Bible Highlighter said:
My point of bringing up the Sermon on the Mount was motivated by a man who rejected it as being applicable today (See post #2). I started the thread so as to ask if there are any who believe as he does and for them to bring forth biblical proof that states that this sermon is for the Millennial kingdom or it was all Old Covenant (that does not apply to us generally), etc.

an atheist can try to live by the sermon on the mount and in many ways it is beneficial as there are some truths for getting along that have temporal value. Mr Jones goes through the beatitudes and shows how they illustrate a heart that is convicted of sin and turning to the LORD seeking righteousness. The mourning turned to joy is the sinned guilty before saved. The joy of being free is to lead to a pursuit of righteousness. This is really the audience for the sermon. These principals and examples are still for our benefit.

ViaCrucis · Oct 28, 2019

Guojing said:
Ever wonder why Paul, our apostle, with the exception of the holy communion, almost never talk about what Jesus preached to the Jews in the flesh?

You mean like how we should repay no one evil for evil, love our enemies, and do good to all? He does, in Romans chapter 12. Or perhaps you mean the new birth? He does in Titus 3:5. Perhaps you're thinking about the kingdom of God, well, he does, Acts 28:30-31

I don't have to wonder that, because it's not true.

-CryptoLutheran

Do you reject the Sermon on the Mount as being applicable today?

Do you reject the Sermon on the Mount as being applicable today?

Yes.

No.

Other (Please explain).

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Well-Known Member

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Well-Known Member

for love is of God

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Similar threads