Are Christians to Obey the Law of God/Jesus?

BobRyan said:

....and that the practice of making-stuff-up is what was being condemned by Peter ...

Click to expand...

And I quoted the fact that Peter was directly and expressly addressing the Law of Moses, not stuff that man made up.

hint there is no OT command for gentiles to be circumcised in order to be saved -- not in OT or NT - it was something that Christian Jews "made up" ... and Peter is condemning the practice of "making stuff up".

Click to expand...

HINT: Read verse 5 of Acts 15, and see how it leads into the very statement Peter made in relation to the yoke of which he was addressing, which the context makes clear is circumcision AND the Law of Moses.

HINT: I never said anything about anyone saying declaring an OT command to be circumcised for salvation. I don't even know from where that came in relation to this conversation.


Jr

We are to obey the Law that has been written upon our hearts.

[Isa 51:6-7 KJV] 6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished. 7 Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart [is] my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings.

When men revile you for not pursuing the living of the letter of the Law as some sort of measure of your love for God, or of solidifying your place in Heaven, remember the words inspired by the Lord through such prophets as Isaiah, quoted above. Do the Law that is in your heart. WHO is in your heart? The Spirit of the Most High, and that Spirit will guide you in every way.

[1Jo 2:27 KJV] 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

When you are in Christ Jesus, He is within you, and will teach you all things, as is stated emphatically above. The legalists will harangue and clamor their chains, beckoning you to become enslaved with them in their chains as they. The choice is yours. Hear and obey the Lord, or hear and obey them.

Jr

SwordmanJr said:

Tell you what, I'll do some one-upmanship on the alleged Law followers:

[Mat 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44 KJV] 22 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. ... 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. ... 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. ... 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: ... 39 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. ... 44 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;

There. Those things are not written in the Law of Moses, nor were they said before the Law of Moses.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it seems you have not carefully read the body of writing you are speaking against. What Jesus did in Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28,32,34,39.44, was not to amend or rewrite any of the commandments but was to repeat and enlarge (magnify-Isaiah 42:21; Psalm 40:6-8; Hebrews 10:5-10) what was already in the Law and prophets.

N.B. The Law did not permit you to hate or be angry with anyone; "Thou shall not hate thy brother in thine heart..." (Leviticus 19:17).

The Law and the prophets were against lusting or desires which are wrong; "Lust not after her beauty in thine heart;..." (Proverbs 6:25).

The Ten Commandments itself was also strongly against these things when it said; "Thou shall not covet...thy neighbours wife...nor anything that is thy neighbour's." (Exodus 20:17).


Covet - CHAMAD (HEB.) - to desire strongly, to delight in.

Also in keeping with the statements in Matthew 5:39,44, similar sentiments are expressed in the following passages:

“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 ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.”(Exodus 23:4,5)


“If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:”(Proverbs 25:21)

And concerning Matthew 5:32,the roots of Jesus’ teaching is found in Deuteronomy 24:1,2.


The teaching of Matthew 5:34 is found in Deuteronomy 23:22:


“But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee.”


Jesus has repeated and enlarged what was said in the Ten Commandments and the Law and prophets. He did not amend nor rewrite any commands. These were not new rules or teaching from Jesus but it was Jesus taking what was best from the Law as He was prophesied to do.

safswan said:

Unfortunately it seems you have not carefully read the body of writing you are speaking against. What Jesus did in Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28,32,34,39.44, was not to amend or rewrite any of the commandments but was to repeat and enlarge (magnify-Isaiah 42:21; Psalm 40:6-8; Hebrews 10:5-10) what was already in the Law and prophets.

Click to expand...

This type of discussion characteristically involves a lot of circular logic. This is evident in 100 back-and-forth messages so far. To get to the bottomline, here, I need you to answer one question:

What specific laws do you find that Christians ignore but you yourself follow and would like other Christians to follow, also?

Andrewn said:

This type of discussion characteristically involves a lot of circular logic. This is evident in 100 back-and-forth messages so far. To get to the bottomline, here, I need you to answer one question:

What specific laws do you find that Christians ignore but you yourself follow and would like other Christians to follow, also?

Click to expand...

That is what it ultimately comes down to. Various Christians, in order to boost their personal worth, try to puff themselves up by being "better" or "more spiritual" than the rest of us. Usually this means that their behavior is different (therefore "better") because they are obeying various rules and traditions not followed by other Christians.

I happen to attend a church near another church which is firmly in this trap of legalism. On one hand they have a strict dress code (suits for males and floor-length skirts and dresses for women with short hair on men and uncut hair on women). On the other hand, they embrace such non-traditional practices as women in leadership roles.

Andrewn said:

This type of discussion characteristically involves a lot of circular logic. This is evident in 100 back-and-forth messages so far. To get to the bottomline, here, I need you to answer one question:

What specific laws do you find that Christians ignore but you yourself follow and would like other Christians to follow, also?

Click to expand...

I am not sure I can agree that there is a lot of circular logic taking place in the discussion.I have observed persons trying to prove their points by using the scriptures and my contribution was to correct an error which was stated several times in this thread without being addressed.

This error is sign of a serious and fundamental misunderstanding of the word and specifically about the changes brought by the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.If we can understand and accept this, then it may be possible to go on to get to the bottom line but if not,then the back and forth will continue.

safswan said:

I am not sure I can agree that there is a lot of circular logic taking place in the discussion.I have observed persons trying to prove their points by using the scriptures and my contribution was to correct an error which was stated several times in this thread without being addressed.

This error is sign of a serious and fundamental misunderstanding of the word and specifically about the changes brought by the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.If we can understand and accept this, then it may be possible to go on to get to the bottom line but if not,then the back and forth will continue.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, do you intend to answer his question?

What specific laws do you find that Christians ignore but you yourself follow and would like other Christians to follow, also?

bbbbbbb said:

I happen to attend a church near another church which is firmly in this trap of legalism. On one hand they have a strict dress code (suits for males and floor-length skirts and dresses for women with short hair on men and uncut hair on women). On the other hand, they embrace such non-traditional practices as women in leadership roles.

Click to expand...

Is it possible that the other church may believe your church (or others)is in the trap of legalism for strictly sticking to having only men in leadership roles if that is what your church does?

bbbbbbb said:

Out of curiosity, do you intend to answer his question?

What specific laws do you find that Christians ignore but you yourself follow and would like other Christians to follow, also?

Click to expand...

What do you understand my response to be saying?

safswan said:

Is it possible that the other church may believe your church (or others)is in the trap of legalism for strictly sticking to having only men in leadership roles if that is what your church does?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Not only that, we are despised in their opinion, along with every other denomination.

safswan said:

What do you understand my response to be saying?

Click to expand...

Nothing in regard to the question he asked. So, please tell me what I missed.

`````````````````````````````````

bbbbbbb said:

Nothing in regard to the question he asked. So, please tell me what I missed.

Click to expand...

Now your response above shows we are not only misunderstanding the scriptures but we are also misunderstanding each other.Let me try to explain what was said.

When I wrote:
"If we can understand and accept this, then it may be possible to go on to get to the bottom line but if not,then the back and forth will continue."

I was attempting to find a point where one who made a clear error,which is fundamental to the understanding of the topic,could admit to that error.By so doing, then a further step could be taken to enlighten that person and others who believed like them.However if this does not happen then the back and forth will continue or persons will agree to disagree or just leave the discussion without a resolution.

For myself,it just would not make sense to continue a discussion if persons are intransigent when clear and fundamental errors are identified.

bbbbbbb said:

Absolutely. Not only that, we are despised in their opinion, along with every other denomination.

Click to expand...

So I guess it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

safswan said:

I am not sure I can agree that there is a lot of circular logic taking place in the discussion.I have observed persons trying to prove their points by using the scriptures and my contribution was to correct an error which was stated several times in this thread without being addressed.

This error is sign of a serious and fundamental misunderstanding of the word and specifically about the changes brought by the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.If we can understand and accept this, then it may be possible to go on to get to the bottom line but if not,then the back and forth will continue.

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed!

[Heb 7:11-13 KJV] 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

[Heb 10:16-18 KJV] 16 This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin.

The externalists will continue to argue the letter and the ten commandments, disregarding that only nine of them are repeated in the NT. They will continue trying to hammer the stake of guilt through the hearts of those who do not practice the keeping of the sabbath as THEY keep. That's what we call the "bandwagon bondage" of group-think. I have sat in charismatic services where the preacher was on fire, slamming his fist down on the podium for emphasis, demanding that those who were not in church every Sunday were "violating the sabbath" and "bringing to shame the name of Christ Jesus."

(yawn) All that self-righteous snobbery grew so old that I left churchianity, refusing to continue living the hypocrisy of going through the motions of choreographed, religious services, plopping my money into the plate under the guise of a required tithe when, in fact, what I was doing was supporting the luxury of a communal facility and professional staffing. Never would they accept the FACT that the word of God NEVER defined the tithe as EVER having anything to do with monetary wages, but forcing the lines of parallel is something they felt was absolutely necessary to fulfill the age old ethic of, "The end justifies the means!"

My, my, but aren't we sophisticated? So, your observation was astute and timely.....very much worth bringing up.

Jr

safswan said:

`````````````````````````````````


Now your response above shows we are not only misunderstanding the scriptures but we are also misunderstanding each other.Let me try to explain what was said.

When I wrote:
"If we can understand and accept this, then it may be possible to go on to get to the bottom line but if not,then the back and forth will continue."

I was attempting to find a point where one who made a clear error,which is fundamental to the understanding of the topic,could admit to that error.By so doing, then a further step could be taken to enlighten that person and others who believed like them.However if this does not happen then the back and forth will continue or persons will agree to disagree or just leave the discussion without a resolution.

For myself,it just would not make sense to continue a discussion if persons are intransigent when clear and fundamental errors are identified.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your explanation. I agree with your final point completely and have decided to end some conversations I have been having with Hark! on some other threads here.

I wonder how many of the 13 who voted “yes” teach people to not keep the Sabbath holy.

Dkh587 said:

I wonder how many of the 13 who voted “yes” teach people to not keep the Sabbath holy.

Click to expand...

Probably not many. The Sabbath seems not to have been much, if any, issue to anybody at the time. The discussion was primarily focused on circumcision and, secondarily, the Law, especially dietary restrictions. There was probably complete agreement that commandments related to the Temple and its sacrifices were no longer valid, even though they were on-going at the time in Jerusalem.

bbbbbbb said:

Probably not many. The Sabbath seems not to have been much, if any, issue to anybody at the time. The discussion was primarily focused on circumcision and, secondarily, the Law, especially dietary restrictions. There was probably complete agreement that commandments related to the Temple and its sacrifices were no longer valid, even though they were on-going at the time in Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

Did you vote “Yes”?

Dkh587 said:

Did you vote “Yes”?

Click to expand...

I did not. I apologize for not understanding your previous post. I thought it was related to the Jerusalem council, not the poll.

It seems to me that there are some folks who loudly teach Christian obedience to the laws of God. However, they eliminate and redefine the biblical commandments to accord with their own self-righteous behavior.

bbbbbbb said:

I did not. I apologize for not understanding your previous post. I thought it was related to the Jerusalem council, not the poll.

It seems to me that there are some folks who loudly teach Christian obedience to the laws of God. However, they eliminate and redefine the biblical commandments to accord with their own self-righteous behavior.

Click to expand...

I would hope there are Christians who teach obedience to the laws of God - to teach people to not obey the laws of God would be leading them to sin & destruction(death).