Paul Enforces Animal Husbandry Law

dqhall · Mar 21, 2020

Dkh587 said:
Of Course no church does these - they couldn’t do them if they wanted to - there is no temple with Levites offering sacrifices right now

Peter and Paul observed Gentiles were receiving the Holy Spirit, even though they were not circumcised and had not converted to Judaism. In Acts 15 we were excused from tithing Levites, sacrifices and temple offerings. If the Jews build a temple, I am not a citizen of Israel and am not obligated to support it.

Dkh587 · Mar 21, 2020

Need answers said:
What does this scripture mean?

10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?

Peter was responding to the first statement in Acts of the Apostles 15:1. Circumcision according to the custom of Moses is a specific ritual process of conversion to Judaism(Pharisee religion).

Judaism is a manmade religion, made up of commandments and doctrines of men - Matthew 15:7-9

The unbelieving Pharisees taught righteousness based on their adherence to their commands and doctrines, Romans 10:2-3, a yoke that Gentiles nor Israelites can bear - it’s a yoke of self-righteousness, that tries to establish people as righteous in their own way, and not by righteousness through belief in God and obeying HIS commandments.

there are 2 statements:

Acts of the Apostles 15:1
Acts of the Apostles 15:5

made by 2 groups of people:
certain men from Judah
believing Pharisees(followers of the Messiah

Peter responds to the men from Judah,
Acts of the Apostles 15:7-11

and James responds to the Pharisees who believed in the Messiah, Acts of the Apostles 15:13-21

the Pharisees that believed in the Messiah made a statement that assumed salvation(through faith), and commented that they needed to obey the law and be circumcised. James respond that we will give them these 4 commandments, and they will learn the rest of the law on the Sabbath, hence “for Moses is read every Sabbath”. They were starting points for the Gentiles who were coming into the sheepfold. Knowledge of God and HIS law was brand new for them.

Gentiles don’t grow up knowing and living out God’s commandments, unlike the Israelites, who grew up knowing the scriptures from childhood. It’s a process for the Gentiles. The Law of Moses/God was read every Sabbath in those days, and the followers of Messiah who were former Gentiles would learn the Law of God when they gathered on the Sabbath

Dkh587 · Mar 21, 2020

dqhall said:
Peter and Paul observed Gentiles were receiving the Holy Spirit, even though they were not circumcised and had not converted to Judaism. In Acts 15 we were excused from tithing Levites, sacrifices and temple offerings. If the Jews build a temple, I am not a citizen of Israel and am not obligated to support it.

Nobody ever received the Spirit of God through circumcision or converting to Judaism. Judaism is manmade Pharisee religion - what Moses & the Prophets taught is NOT Judaism.

the Spirit is given by God to those who believe in him and obey his commandments - Acts of the Apostles 5:32

Gentiles and Israelites receive the Spirit in the same way - faith that produces obedience

The Israelites are still scattered - they will not return until the Messiah returns, so anybody who says they are Levites or builds a temple Prior to the Messiah returning is an imposter.

Dkh587 · Mar 21, 2020

DamianWarS said:
The scripture is 1 Cor 9 which contrasts the law with God law/Christ law. Paul is not under the law yet he is under the law of Christ thus they are different. I'm not sure how much clearer that can be and this is also the immediate context of the OP. May I suggest, as the OP suggests, there is the surface component of the law which is limited as well as the deeper meanings which are extend beyond covenants. When Paul address the law he refers to these surface components and when he expresses freedom from the law but under the law of Christ he expresses the deeper meanings. Just like the aforementioned ox not being muzzled. Paul doesn't care what you do with your ox and if you think he does you've missed the point.

Classic example of course is the sacrificial system, it points to Christ and we no longer have to spill the blood of animals as per the letter of the law but instead look to what the law points to, namely Christ. Let's take another example, the Sabbath, it's controversial but there is no need for it be. The surface components point to a system around a day of rest but it's deeper meaning points to Christ (just like the sacrafice) and just like the sacrificial system the day of the sabbath is limited but what it points to, namely Christ, gives us a greater rest and fulfills the sabbath and goes beyond it. A day cannot give us the rest of God just as a bull, lamb or goat cannot redeem us. It is only Christ that gives us these things not a day or an animal. But it doesn't stop there it is a part of the entire law, the mixing of grains or threads, the dietary system or the tabernacle... all point to systems under Christ (his law) and their requirements are no longer about the practice of the letter of the old.

Abstractly I know you agree, except for some reason where the sacrificial system no longer is practiced according to the letter of the law this doesn't apply to the sabbath or dietary laws (or others) which is illogical, counter-gospel and carries a pagan mindset.

Your explanation of 1 Corinthians 9 is not in harmony with the rest of the scriptures.

Paul is not contrasting the law of Moses with the law of God - this is where you are lacking understanding, because the law of Moses is the law of God.

You are trying to force your misunderstanding into the text(eisegesis) rather than bringing out the meaning of what it says(exegesis), and adjusting your understanding

The evidence that Paul is referring to manmade/oral/Pharisee law, and contrasting it with the law of God(the law of Moses) is that we are told by many prophets and even God that Moses got his law from God, and their law is the same.

it’s quite simple if you would be willing to let go of the erroneous doctrine you are holding on to.

Dkh587 · Mar 21, 2020

pasifika said:
James 4:12...there is only One Lawgiver and judge. ..

The difference in the law of Moses and Christ is about their "righteous requirements "...
Law of Moses (10) ...based on your own works...
Law of Christ (Spirit )...based on Faith (wisdom & understanding )

Do you agree that the law of Moses is the law of God?

Bible Highlighter · Mar 21, 2020

Dkh587 said:
Your explanation of 1 Corinthians 9 is not in harmony with the rest of the scriptures.

Paul is not contrasting the law of Moses with the law of God - this is where you are lacking understanding, because the law of Moses is the law of God.

You are trying to force your misunderstanding into the text(eisegesis) rather than bringing out the meaning of what it says(exegesis), and adjusting your understanding

The evidence that Paul is referring to manmade/oral/Pharisee law, and contrasting it with the law of God(the law of Moses) is that we are told by many prophets and even God that Moses got his law from God, and their law is the same.

it’s quite simple if you would be willing to let go of the erroneous doctrine you are holding on to.

I believe the Bible is very clear between the differences between the Law of Moses, and the Law of Christ, brother. Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed.

"For when there is a change of the priesthood,
there must be a change of law as well."
(Hebrews 7:12).

Romans 7:6 says,
"we should serve in newness of spirit,
and not in the oldness of the letter."

At the time of this writing by Paul to the Romans, the New Testament Scriptures were still being formed. For the church today (Who now has a complete Bible): The newness of spirit we are to serve in is following the instructions given to us by Jesus and His followers within the New Testament Scriptures (unless of course you reject the New Testament and or our Lord's instructions). Scripture is inspired by the Spirit, so we are to walk in the newness of Spirit (i.e. follow the New Testament Scriptures).

The "Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus" is a New Covenant Law that makes us free from the "Law of Sin and Death" [i.e. the Old Law] (See: Romans 8:2). The "Law of Christ" is a New Covenant Law because we are to bear one another's burdens, i.e. we are to bear the burdens of our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ (Galatians 6:2). Jesus said He gave us a New Commandment which is to love the brethren in the same way that He loved them (John 13:34).

"A new commandment I give unto you,
That ye love one another; as I have loved you,
that ye also love one another." (John 13:34).

Jesus clearly was making changes to the Law (even before the cross):
(Which means He was not teaching primarily Old Covenant, but New Covenant):

The Old Way says:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"
(Matthew 5:38 cf. Exodus 21:23-25).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39).

The Old Way says:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment" (Matthew 5:21 cf. Numbers 35:30-32).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:22).

The Old Way says:
"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:" (Matthew 5:34 cf. Numbers 30:1-2, Deuteronomy 23:21).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
34 "But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:34-37).

The Old Way says:
"And of thy mercy cut off mine enemies, and destroy all them that afflict my soul: for I am thy servant." (Psalms 143:12).

"And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent." (Joshua 6:17).

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21).

16 "But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee" (Deuteronomy 20:16-17).

"They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them" (Psalms 106:34).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matthew 5:44).

Note: Yes, I am aware that the Old Way (Old Testament) also teaches to love one's enemies (Exodus 23:4-5) (Proverbs 25:21), but this was in context to their own Israelite people, and not pagan nations. Pagan nations were to be destroyed when God commanded the Israelites to destroy them. But Jesus taught a radically different way. Love your enemies, and do good to them that hate you, and to pray for those who persecute you.

The Old Way says:
20 "But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel." (Deuteronomy 22:20-22).

4 "They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" (John 8:4-5).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. " (John 8:7).

Even after the cross, there were changes being made:

The Old Covenant says this about circumcision:
"And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." (Genesis 17:14).

Yet, the New Covenant says this about circumcision:
"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."
(Galatians 5:2).

The Old Covenant says this about the Sabbath:
32 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses." (Numbers 15:32-36).

Yet, the New Covenant says this about the Sabbath:
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:" (Colossians 2:16).

So it appears things have changed.

This makes sense because again, Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed.

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (Hebrews 7:12).

“For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
(John 1:17).

Jesus said,
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17).

Jesus came not to abolish the Law (in the sense of destroying all forms of Law), but Jesus came to fulfill the Law (i.e. to nail to the cross those ordinances that were against us [like the Old Covenant ceremonial laws], and Jesus came to give us a more fulfilled and perfect way of obeying God via the commands that come directly from Him and His followers). For Jesus offered a more perfect way of loving God, and loving our neighbor (Which of course is only possible via if we are first saved by God's grace through faith).

DamianWarS · Mar 21, 2020

HARK! said:
Sorry if I offended you; but your translation is wrong. So is the CLV; but at least the CLV acknowledges that it is two different thoughts. The CLV is not without bias. The point is that in the Greek, two different words are being used in this passage. All of them correctly translate to 'under the law' υπο νομον, except for the one concerning Messiah. εννομος or 'en nomos' could be correctly translated as 'in law'.

Now in this context, maybe everything else i said will start to make sense. If it doesn't; then I would propose that you study the Greek out for yourself.

You keep going back to the same failed argument. I don't know how else to explain it to you.

You're right the CLV does acknowledge there are two different usages of the word. I've been able to revisit the text on a better screen to get a better understanding of the words used and for the most part my redacted post still stands (I just didn't do a good job including v20). Paul does use "under law" or "hypo nomon" he uses this to identify those under the law and also uses it to identify that he is not under this law.

Paul also uses "nomon" in an adjective form which I already addressed. it is used to express "with-law" and "without-law" but the problem with these words is there aren't great adjectives in english for this so a bridge word is used to connect it to the noun. Most translations use words like under and I see no reason to reject this. CLV uses an adverb, and it perhaps may be laudable that it uses different words to get the reader to understand it is actually a different greek word being used but it misses the mark and it also does so inconsistently.

for example here is 20 and 21 in the CLV

And I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I should be gaining Jews; to those under law as under law (not being myself under law), that I should be gaining those under law;" to those without law as without law (not being without God's law, but legally Christ's), that I should be gaining those without law."

blue: hypo nomon (under law)
red: anomos (neg-law)
green: ennomos (with-law)

If CLV wanted to be consistent it would translate the red "without law" as "illegally" (which is silly) or better green should be "with law" as this is a more literal meaning of the adjective combining "en" (with) and "nomos" (law). So I still think CLV has a bias here and is agenda driven. "en" is a preposition so it can have some flexibility however "under" is not typically one of them but rather "in, on, at, by, with", lexicons however seem happy with "under [the] law" for this word. Even still English needs to make sense and this is why dominantly most every translation out there uses "under" for this word. You may disagree but the numbers are very favourable especially over obscure translations like "legally". All I can see out of this is the CLV is bias on this subject and probably should not be used.

Since it is an adjective and it expresses "with law" (or something pro law) I would think "lawful" would be a better word. Christ is used in the genitive case so "to/of Christ" or some sort of possession of Christ is correct. the NASB (also a very literal translation) says: "though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ" using the information we know it should say something like "though not being lawless to God but lawful of Christ" Does this make sense? I think it's a little awkward but it stays true to the words in context being adjectives and express without-law and with-law. Now this is a different conversation because what Paul really identifies is not law but obedience and subjectivity, this however doesn't diminish v20 where Paul explicitly states he is not under the law (hypo nomos)

edit: very many translations use "under the law" and the number is so high it's hard to find an alternative outside a paraphrase. YLT attempts it more consistently than the CLV saying "not being without law to God, but within law to Christ" and I think if we are going to nitpick the words YLT might carry a better mirror of the words being used without compromising the meaning. The text still identifies Paul as not under the law and I'll say "subject" to Christ. I don't see how Paul is equating the law of Moses with the law of God here and this hyper analysing of the words only moves it further not closer. To keep it simple Paul tells us he is free but still belongs to Christ.

Dkh587 · Mar 21, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
I believe the Bible is very clear between the differences between the Law of Moses, and the Law of Christ, brother. Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed.

"For when there is a change of the priesthood,
there must be a change of law as well."
(Hebrews 7:12).

Romans 7:6 says,
"we should serve in newness of spirit,
and not in the oldness of the letter."

At the time of this writing by Paul to the Romans, the New Testament Scriptures were still being formed. For the church today (Who now has a complete Bible): The newness of spirit we are to serve in is following the instructions given to us by Jesus and His followers within the New Testament Scriptures (unless of course you reject the New Testament and or our Lord's instructions). Scripture is inspired by the Spirit, so we are to walk in the newness of Spirit (i.e. follow the New Testament Scriptures).

The "Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus" is a New Covenant Law that makes us free from the "Law of Sin and Death" [i.e. the Old Law] (See: Romans 8:2). The "Law of Christ" is a New Covenant Law because we are to bear one another's burdens, i.e. we are to bear the burdens of our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ (Galatians 6:2). Jesus said He gave us a New Commandment which is to love the brethren in the same way that He loved them (John 13:34).

"A new commandment I give unto you,
That ye love one another; as I have loved you,
that ye also love one another." (John 13:34).

Jesus clearly was making changes to the Law (even before the cross):
(Which means He was not teaching primarily Old Covenant, but New Covenant):

The Old Way says:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"
(Matthew 5:38 cf. Exodus 21:23-25).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39).

The Old Way says:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment" (Matthew 5:21 cf. Numbers 35:30-32).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:22).

The Old Way says:
"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:" (Matthew 5:34 cf. Numbers 30:1-2, Deuteronomy 23:21).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
34 "But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:34-37).

The Old Way says:
"And of thy mercy cut off mine enemies, and destroy all them that afflict my soul: for I am thy servant." (Psalms 143:12).

"And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent." (Joshua 6:17).

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21).

16 "But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee" (Deuteronomy 20:16-17).

"They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them" (Psalms 106:34).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matthew 5:44).

Note: Yes, I am aware that the Old Way (Old Testament) also teaches to love one's enemies (Exodus 23:4-5) (Proverbs 25:21), but this was in context to their own Israelite people, and not pagan nations. Pagan nations were to be destroyed when God commanded the Israelites to destroy them. But Jesus taught a radically different way. Love your enemies, and do good to them that hate you, and to pray for those who persecute you.

The Old Way says:
20 "But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel." (Deuteronomy 22:20-22).

4 "They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" (John 8:4-5).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. " (John 8:7).

Even after the cross, there were changes being made:

The Old Covenant says this about circumcision:
"And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." (Genesis 17:14).

Yet, the New Covenant says this about circumcision:
"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."
(Galatians 5:2).

The Old Covenant says this about the Sabbath:
32 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses." (Numbers 15:32-36).

Yet, the New Covenant says this about the Sabbath:
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:" (Colossians 2:16).

So it appears things have changed.

This makes sense because again, Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed.

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (Hebrews 7:12).

“For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
(John 1:17).

Jesus said,
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17).

Jesus came not to abolish the Law (in the sense of destroying all forms of Law), but Jesus came to fulfill the Law (i.e. to nail to the cross those ordinances that were against us [like the Old Covenant ceremonial laws], and Jesus came to give us a more fulfilled and perfect way of obeying God via the commands that come directly from Him and His followers). For Jesus offered a more perfect way of loving God, and loving our neighbor (Which of course is only possible via if we are first saved by God's grace through faith).

Hebrews 7:12 actually says the priesthood and the law of Moses/God have been transferred, not changed. Look up the words.

the Messiah was teaching the proper application of the law of God(Moses).

He wasn’t teaching against it - for example, Cain was ANGRY, and then he killed his brother. Murder comes from anger. It’s not just an outward action - it starts in the heart(the mind)

Loving your enemy is not a new concept:

Proverbs 25:21-22

If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: for thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and Yahweh shall reward thee.

Exodus 23:4-5

If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.

If thou see the donkey of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.

We are taught not to seek revenge:

Leviticus 19:18

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am Yahweh

Romans 12:19

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says Yahweh

He was not against eye for an eye, but he was teaching against the incorrect application. The command of “eye for an eye” is not a general, every day rule for every single situation, like many of Messiah’s people thought it was. It’s a concept of giving a penalty that is fitting to the crime.

the Colossians were Sabbath keepers. You misunderstand what Paul is saying to them. They didn’t go to church on Sunday’s and celebrate Christmas & Easter. Read Colossians 2 More carefully - there are outsiders of the body of the Messiah judging them for keeping the holy days and food laws, and he tells them to not let any man(except for the body of Messiah) judge them in regards to them keeping the Holy days and food laws etc.

the New Covenant is the Law of God(Moses) being written on the heart and God causing us to obey His law - Jeremiah 31:31-33 , Ezekiel 36:26-27

Paul was against people getting circumcised according to Pharisee law(oral law, Talmud) to attain righteousness.

he was not completely against circumcision, Acts of the Apostles 16:3

this shows that the context of circumcision is most often misunderstood, because if Paul says Messiah will profit nothing because of circumcision, but turns around and circumcises Timothy due to peer pressure, he would be a major flip flopper. Think about it.

Need answers · Mar 21, 2020

Dkh587 said:
Peter was responding to the first statement in Acts of the Apostles 15:1. Circumcision according to the custom of Moses is a specific ritual process of conversion to Judaism(Pharisee religion).

How is circumcision a yoke that they were not able to bear? Its just a medical procedure.

Dkh587 · Mar 21, 2020

Need answers said:
How is circumcision a yoke that they were not able to bear? Its just a medical procedure.

that’s not what “circumcision according to the custom of Moses” is. It’s a ritual conversion process to Judaism/Pharisee law - Pharisee law is based on commandments and doctrines of men, and they teach that righteousness is based on THEIR commandments, instead of God’s commandments.

You can’t become righteous based on manmade laws and traditions... that’s a yoke nobody can bear. It’s impossible to be righteous before God by manmade commandments.

the Israelites were NEVER made righteous through manmade doctrines and commandments. They were declared righteous by grace through faith which produces obedience to God’s commandments.

they basically made the claim “you can’t be saved unless you join our group & keep our commandments” which were manmade... you can’t be saved unless you join their group... their group didn’t even have salvation.

DamianWarS · Mar 21, 2020

Dkh587 said:
Your explanation of 1 Corinthians 9 is not in harmony with the rest of the scriptures.

Paul is not contrasting the law of Moses with the law of God - this is where you are lacking understanding, because the law of Moses is the law of God.

You are trying to force your misunderstanding into the text(eisegesis) rather than bringing out the meaning of what it says(exegesis), and adjusting your understanding

The evidence that Paul is referring to manmade/oral/Pharisee law, and contrasting it with the law of God(the law of Moses) is that we are told by many prophets and even God that Moses got his law from God, and their law is the same.

it’s quite simple if you would be willing to let go of the erroneous doctrine you are holding on to.

I am consistently looking at the text for what it says and how it would be understood. grabbing all kinds of other verses from other books I think is irresponsible if we can't find these meanings in the text itself, it of course should agree with other scriptures but the meaning starts in the context and this is where we should be focused on. Paul says he is not under the law, you interpret this as "manmade/oral/Pharisee law" where in the text does it give you this indication? and how does he help his audience he writes to understand this? If this was written in Hebrew what word do you think Paul would use to say he is not under the law? Do you think he would have to clarify what he meant by this or would the meaning be clear enough?

You're in a position that you have to insert a parenthetical note stating what law it is when all this time everyone else thought it was clear. v8 establishes a context of law and v9 identifies it as the law of Moses. v20 uses law again... don't you think Paul would be a little irresponsible if he intended some other law but chose not to tell us what it is? It actually is the first time he even speaks of law in this letter... you seem to be forcing a square peg in a round hole.

Need answers · Mar 21, 2020

Dkh587 said:
that’s not what “circumcision according to the custom of Moses” is. It’s a ritual conversion process to Judaism/Pharisee law - Pharisee law is based on commandments and doctrines of men, and they teach that righteousness is based on THEIR commandments, instead of God’s commandments.

You can’t become righteous based on manmade laws and traditions... that’s a yoke nobody can bear. It’s impossible to be righteous before God by manmade commandments.

the Israelites were NEVER made righteous through manmade doctrines and commandments. They were declared righteous by grace through faith which produces obedience to God’s commandments.

they basically made the claim “you can’t be saved unless you join our group & keep our commandments” which were manmade... you can’t be saved unless you join their group... their group didn’t even have salvation.

Not sure if that accurate, maybe. From what i understand circumcision was a sign of Gods covenant between Abraham and God.

Dkh587 · Mar 21, 2020

Need answers said:
Not sure if that accurate, maybe. From what i understand circumcision was a sign of Gods covenant between Abraham and God.

You are correct, circumcision is a sign of the covenant between God & Abraham and his descendants.

“Circumcision according to the custom of Moses“ is not the same thing as the circumcision given to Abraham as a sign of the covenant between him & God.

dqhall · Mar 21, 2020

Dkh587 said:
Nobody ever received the Spirit of God through circumcision or converting to Judaism. Judaism is manmade Pharisee religion - what Moses & the Prophets taught is NOT Judaism.

the Spirit is given by God to those who believe in him and obey his commandments - Acts of the Apostles 5:32

Gentiles and Israelites receive the Spirit in the same way - faith that produces obedience

The Israelites are still scattered - they will not return until the Messiah returns, so anybody who says they are Levites or builds a temple Prior to the Messiah returning is an imposter.

While the Torah is flawed, Jesus affirmed commandments against lying, stealing, adultery, murder and so forth. God made families to take care of each other and neighbors to be kind to one another.

Dkh587 · Mar 21, 2020

dqhall said:
While the Torah is flawed, Jesus affirmed commandments against lying, stealing, adultery, murder and so forth. God made families to take care of each other and neighbors to be kind to one another.

What makes you think the Torah is flawed?

are you not in agreement with King David?

Psalm 19:7

The Torah of Yahweh is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of Yahweh are trustworthy, making wise the simple.

Jesus confirmed all of the law, because doing otherwise would make him a false prophet.

Need answers · Mar 21, 2020

Dkh587 said:
“Circumcision according to the custom of Moses“ is not the same thing as the circumcision given to Abraham as a sign of the covenant between him & God.

Could you elaborate?

dqhall · Mar 21, 2020

Dkh587 said:
What makes you think the Torah is flawed?

are you not in agreement with King David?

Psalm 19:7

Jesus confirmed all of the law, because doing otherwise would make him a false prophet.

Exodus 31 (WEB)
12 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, 13 “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying, ‘Most certainly you shall keep my Sabbaths; for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am Yahweh who sanctifies you. 14 You shall keep the Sabbath therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to Yahweh. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

If you try stoning someone to death in the United States, you may get life in prison. This is not a Jewish Forum.

Dkh587 · Mar 21, 2020

dqhall said:
Exodus 31 (WEB)
12 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, 13 “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying, ‘Most certainly you shall keep my Sabbaths; for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am Yahweh who sanctifies you. 14 You shall keep the Sabbath therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to Yahweh. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

If you try stoning someone to death in the United States, you may get life in prison. This is not a Jewish forum.

There’s no commandment for Israelites to stone people while in captivity

do you disagree with David that the law of God is perfect?

Bible Highlighter · Mar 21, 2020

Dkh587 said:
Hebrews 7:12 actually says the priesthood and the law of Moses/God have been transferred, not changed. Look up the words.

Transfer implies that there is no change. If I transfer information to you, the content of the transmission remains the same but it simply had moved to one place to another but the information is unchanged. You are the second person recently on the forums to propose such a ridiculous concept. If such is the case, and the Old Covenant Law simply moved to the New Covenant like a code of information being transferred from one place to another, then there would be no new commands, and we would not see any changes between the Laws between the two covenants. But is that what we see? Do we see the 613 Laws of Moses identifically within the New Covenant? Do Christians sacrifice animals to priests? Do Christians circumcise so as not to be cut off from the New Covenant? Do Christians keep the Saturday Sabbath, and if they do not keep it, they are to stone one another? Do we see no new commands? Yeah, I just do not see that in the New Covenant. Maybe your reading a different Bible than me.

You said:
the Messiah was teaching the proper application of the law of God(Moses).

There is a difference between teaching against something and making a change within the Law. Jesus quoted an eye for an eye within the Old Testament Law of Moses. But Jesus said to turn the other cheek instead. Jesus was making a change in God's laws here. The Jews brought forth a woman caught in the act of adultery, and they said according to the Law of Moses she should be stoned. They were correct according to the Old Law. She should have been stoned according to the Old Law. But Jesus created a new and better way. He allowed for forgiveness and said that if anyone who is without sin, let them cast the first stone. So again, we see a change of the Law taking place here.

You said:
He wasn’t teaching against it - for example, Cain was ANGRY, and then he killed his brother. Murder comes from anger. It’s not just an outward action - it starts in the heart(the mind)

Loving your enemy is not a new concept:

Proverbs 25:21-22

This is true. But God also commanded His people to totally destroy God's enemies in many other cases in the Old Testament. This appears to be entirely absent in the New Covenant with the teachings of Jesus and His followers. We also do not see Jesus cheering Peter to chop off Malchus' other ear or to run him through as a part of defending Him.

He was not against eye for an eye, but he was teaching against the incorrect application. The command of “eye for an eye” is not a general, every day rule for every single situation, like many of Messiah’s people thought it was. It’s a concept of giving a penalty that is fitting to the crime.

No. He mentioned an eye for an eye, and then said, but I say unto you turn the other cheek. This is a change in the Law.

If things are as you say, Jesus would have said, You have heard it said an eye for an eye, now while this may good to do sometimes, also consider in turning the other cheek sometimes. This is not what Jesus said. Jesus mentioned the Old Law, and then He said.... BUT I SAY UNTO YOU.... and then Jesus gave the new instructions.

You said:
the Colossians were Sabbath keepers. You misunderstand what Paul is saying to them. They didn’t go to church on Sunday’s and celebrate Christmas & Easter. Read Colossians 2 More carefully - there are outsiders of the body of the Messiah judging them for keeping the holy days and food laws, and he tells them to not let any man(except for the body of Messiah) judge them in regards to them keeping the Holy days and food laws etc.

Colossians 2:14 says that the ordinances have been nailed to the cross.
Paul still talking about the ordinances says in Colossians 2:16-17 that we are not to let others judge us (like Jews, or Sabbatarians) to judge us in not keeping the Saturday Sabbaths, etc. For they are merely shadows that was cast from the body of Jesus Christ.

You said:
Paul was against people getting circumcised according to Pharisee law(oral law, Talmud) to attain righteousness.

he was not completely against circumcision, Acts of the Apostles 16:3

this shows that the context of circumcision is most often misunderstood, because if Paul says Messiah will profit nothing because of circumcision, but turns around and circumcises Timothy due to peer pressure, he would be a major flip flopper. Think about it.

Paul was against circumcision for salvation. This is clear if you were to re-read Galatians 5:2, Acts of the Apostles 15:1, Acts of the Apostles 15:5, and Acts of the Apostles 15:24. Paul was not against circumcision for one of his fellow brothers in Christ at another time because this brother needed to move about freely in Jewish territory. By this other fellow brother being circumcised, he would be able to be accepted by the Jews so he could move about to preach the gospel. This was not done as a part of salvation like it was in the Old Covenant. A male who was not circumcised in the OT would be cut off from God's covenant. But that was the Old Covenant and this was not the New Covenant.

Dkh587 · Mar 21, 2020

DamianWarS said:
I am consistently looking at the text for what it says and how it would be understood. grabbing all kinds of other verses from other books I think is irresponsible if we can't find these meanings in the text itself, it of course should agree with other scriptures but the meaning starts in the context and this is where we should be focused on. Paul says he is not under the law, you interpret this as "manmade/oral/Pharisee law" where in the text does it give you this indication? and how does he help his audience he writes to understand this? If this was written in Hebrew what word do you think Paul would use to say he is not under the law? Do you think he would have to clarify what he meant by this or would the meaning be clear enough?

You're in a position that you have to insert a parenthetical note stating what law it is when all this time everyone else thought it was clear. v8 establishes a context of law and v9 identifies it as the law of Moses. v20 uses law again... don't you think Paul would be a little irresponsible if he intended some other law but chose not to tell us what it is? It actually is the first time he even speaks of law in this letter... you seem to be forcing a square peg in a round hole.

Paul speaks of 2 laws. The law of God(which is also the law of Moses) and another law. It is not disputable that God’s law and Moses’ law are the same.

So, What other law is there? answer: it’s called the oral law.

you have a different understanding than Paul & the Corinthians - you are still erring in your understanding by thinking the law of God and the law of Moses are the same, despite being proven otherwise.

This is why you are failing to understand Paul, and see what he is actually saying - your eisegesis is hindering you. You cannot see the bigger picture because you, in your words, are trying to force a square peg in a round hole.

Paul Enforces Animal Husbandry Law

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads