JESUS and the APOSTLES OBEYED GOD'S LAW and the SABBATH!

SwordmanJr · Nov 28, 2020

LoveGodsWord said:
In your post here you bring up ACTS 15 as your sticking point of scripture so lets discuss it. The purpose of Acts 15 was never about God's 10 commandments being a requirement for Christian living. It was always about settling the question is the Mosaic law of "CIRCUMCISION" a requirement for salvation or not a requirement for salvation.

No. That's a misrepresentation of what Acts 15 actually says.

[Act 15:5] But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.

See that? It clearly states circumcision AND keeping the law of Moses. It's not about circumcision IN the law of Moses, but circumcision AND the law of Moses.

I hope you therefore can appreciate the resulting decision of the council of the apostles.

"CIRCUMCISION" is not one of Gods 10 commandments and never has been. The whole topic of conversation of ACTS 15 is over the question "Is the Mosiac law of circumcision a requirement for salvation for new gentile Christians". This was the question that was being discussed at Jerusalem that Paul and Barnabas went to discuss with the other Apostles. This is the context of the whole chapter...

[Act 15:10] Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

What yoke? The law of Moses. Some have tried to say that circumcision was that burden, but that doesn't follow.

[Act 15:19-21, 24, 28-29] 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. ... 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment: ... 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Now, were the Gentiles practicing an idea that they were required to adhere to the law of Moses and be circumcised BEFORE they obtained salvation, or were the Judaisers saying to them that the Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved thereafter?

However, some out there have tried to say that, no, they were only told that to be saved, they don't have to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, but AFTER their salvation, the keeping of the law of Moses is necessary for the...dare I say it...the MAINTENANCE, or upkeep section of their believing lives.

Peter declared the law of Moses that very yoke their forefathers and that THEY could not bear, and yet there are those who say, "No, no, no. Peter wasn't calling the law of Moses a yoke they could not bear."

Um, when I see people negating the very text, and its contextual subject matter upon which that whole section of scripture was built, I'm left wondering about their agenda.

So, does that give some closure to Acts 15, or is there more?

Jr

SwordmanJr · Nov 28, 2020

LoveGodsWord said:
Depends on what you mean by adherence to the law?

Here let me explain to you exactly what I means so there is no misunderstandings. We are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves, it is a gift of God and not of works lest any man should boast *Ephesians 2:8-9. OBEDIENCE to God's LAW is not how we are saved it is the FRUIT faith of one that is already been given Gods promise of salvation and the fruit of God's work in us *PHILIPPIANS 2:13 as we BELIEVE and FOLLOW his WORD. If our faith has no fruit it is dead *JAMES 2:18-20; 26 and our tree will be cast down and thrown into the fire *MATTHEW 3:10; 7:19-20; 13:49-50.

So, how do you define "the law"? What is it to you?

According to God's new covenant promise, unless we are born again to love we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven *John 3:3-7 because those who have been born again and given a new heart to love do not practice sin *1 John 3:6-9; Hebrews 8:10-12; Romans 13:8-10. This is why JESUS says "If you love me keep my commandments *John 14:15 and on these two great commandments of love to God and man hang all the law and the prophets *Matthew 22:46-40. God's salvation is from sin (breaking God's commandments and not believing God's Word - 1 John 3:4; Romans 14:23) if we continue believing and following God's Word *John 8:31-36 so that we can be free to walk in God's Spirit *Romans 8:1-4; Galatians 5:16.

Hope this helps clear up any misunderstanding you may have. No one I know here believes we are saved by keeping God's law. We keep God's law because we have been made free to walk in God's Spirit to love.

May God bless you as you seek him through His Word.

Ok, so what remains is an understanding of what you believe is the extent of that law.

Jr

LoveGodsWord · Nov 28, 2020

SwordmanJr said:
No. That's a misrepresentation of what Acts 15 actually says.

[Act 15:5] But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.

See that? It clearly states circumcision AND keeping the law of Moses. It's not about circumcision IN the law of Moses, but circumcision AND the law of Moses.

I hope you therefore can appreciate the resulting decision of the council of the apostles.

[Act 15:10] Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

What yoke? The law of Moses. Some have tried to say that circumcision was that burden, but that doesn't follow.

[Act 15:19-21, 24, 28-29] 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. ... 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment: ... 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Now, were the Gentiles practicing an idea that they were required to adhere to the law of Moses and be circumcised BEFORE they obtained salvation, or were the Judaisers saying to them that the Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved thereafter?

However, some out there have tried to say that, no, they were only told that to be saved, they don't have to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, but AFTER their salvation, the keeping of the law of Moses is necessary for the...dare I say it...the MAINTENANCE, or upkeep section of their believing lives.

Peter declared the law of Moses that very yoke their forefathers and that THEY could not bear, and yet there are those who say, "No, no, no. Peter wasn't calling the law of Moses a yoke they could not bear."

Um, when I see people negating the very text, and its contextual subject matter upon which that whole section of scripture was built, I'm left wondering about their agenda.

So, does that give some closure to Acts 15, or is there more?

Jr

Nonsense. The reason the Gentiles were given only some laws was because they were new Christians and it is written in the same chapter they would continue to learn from the scriptures every Sabbath *Acts 15:21. The topic of conversation and the context of Acts 15 was about "circumcision as a requirement for salvation" and this was the question decided at Jerusalem and this was the question and reason why Paul and Barnabas traveled Jerusalem to discuss this question with the other Apostles. This is proven in Acts 15:1-2 which is the chapter context. To go with the interpretation that the 10 commandments are not a requirement for christian living contradicts the whole bible in both old and new testament scriptures and makes Paul contradict himself when he latter tells the Corinthians that "CIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING, AND UNCIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING (Jerusalem decision of Acts 15), BUT THE KEEPING OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD. *1 Corinthians 7:19. Perhaps you should pray about it and ask God and seek him through his Word. The interpretation your holding on to contradicts the whole bible and is a teaching of lawlessness and is not biblical. That Acts 15 interpretation goes way outside of God's Sabbath and the same arguments can be made to justify the practices of stealing, murder, adultery etc..... We all know that those who practice these sins do not end up in Gods kingdom.

LoveGodsWord · Nov 28, 2020

SwordmanJr said:
So, how do you define "the law"? What is it to you? Ok, so what remains is an understanding of what you believe is the extent of that law. Jr

Of course we are talking about moral laws of our duty of love to God and man. What is it that was not clear to you in the post and scriptures you were responding to? What is sin and where does it start? Why do we need to be born again to have a new heart? What is the result of being born of God and made free to walk in God's Spirit? So many questions. Do you not know the answers?

HIM · Nov 29, 2020

Where was the fault found to be in the first covenant? Verse 8 tells us.

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

The fault was found in them. How so? Verse 9 tells us.

Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

SwordmanJr said:
Have you asked the Lord this question? I mean, there are the things the Spirit speaks to my heart, but what does Holy Spirit say to you about the faults of the Law of Moses? I do not presume to speak in the place of the Lord what will settle this in your heart. What the Lord has shown to me may not be what brings you to that place of understanding, giving to you the depths you seek.

I prayed for the truth and continue to. If we "think" God is speaking to our hearts and the thing spoke is contrary to what is written chances are it is not God.

The Scripture is quite explicit here. The fault was not in the Law that God said was perfect

Ps 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Ps 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

The fault was with the people. The context of the fault is found in verse six in that it mentions promises. Our Father God did not break any promises the children of Israel did. They said numerous times, "All that the Lord God Commanded we will do." Ex 19:8, Ex 24:3,7; Deut 5:27-29

They broke the Covenant not God. They did not live up to their promise. They were at fault not God. The fault is defined in verse eight. Verse eight starts with the word "for". What follows is the reason or mind you the answer for what was previously stated or implied.

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Precisely. NOW you're asking the right question. Good for you, my friend. I wish more people would think to ask that question. What the Lord writes in each heart is exactly what each one needs. That is the perfection of a Holy and Righteous Lord.

No God is rather precise. It is a package. It is His laws, which at the very least would be the Ten Commandments.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Well, Acts 15 seems to set it all straight for those who care to read it for what it says in relation to us Gentiles, and leave all else by the wayside of assumptions the contrary.

Jr

You do realize that none of the Ten Commandments are mentioned. So according to your analysis all the Gentiles need to concern themselves with is idol worship, a few diet restrictions and fornication. They can kill, steal, dishonor their parents, covet and lie all they want.

And gez what of the other moral laws contained in the writing of Moses, if they were not adhered to our society would be rather base.

SwordmanJr · Nov 29, 2020

LoveGodsWord said:
Nonsense. The reason the Gentiles were given only some laws was because they were new Christians and it is written in the same chapter they would continue to learn from the scriptures every Sabbath *Acts 15:21.

Adam Clark provided a better way of putting it, as that verse can be and is confusing to many:

"Moses of old time hath in every city - The sense of this verse seems to be this: As it was necessary to write to the Gentiles what was strictly necessary to be observed by them, relative to these points, it was not so to the converted Jews; for they had Moses, that is, the law, preached to them, κατα πολιν, in the city, that is, Antioch; and, by the reading of the law in the synagogues every Sabbath day, they were kept in remembrance of those institutions which the Gentiles, who had not the law, could not know. Therefore, James thought that a letter to the converted Gentiles would be sufficient, as the converted Jews had already ample instruction on these points."

The topic of conversation and the context of Acts 15 was about "circumcision as a requirement for salvation" and this was the question decided at Jerusalem and this was the question and reason why Paul and Barnabas traveled Jerusalem to discuss this question with the other Apostles.

Don't forget the law of Moses. It wasn't only about circumcision.

[Act 15:5] But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.

That last part, which is repeated later in the same chapter, is overlooked by many.

This is proven in Acts 15:1-2 which is the chapter context. To go with the interpretation that the 10 commandments are not a requirement for christian living contradicts the whole bible in both old and new testament scriptures and makes Paul contradict himself when he latter tells the Corinthians that "CIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING, AND UNCIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING (Jerusalem decision of Acts 15), BUT THE KEEPING OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.

It is not I who has made issue with the ten commandments. I simply pointed out what is a part of the overall context, which is the law of Moses along with circumcision. Trying to limit the context ONLY to the first two verses is questionably convenient at best.

Perhaps you should pray about it and ask God and seek him through his Word. The interpretation your holding on to contradicts the whole bible and is a teaching of lawlessness and is not biblical.

Oh, I have indeed prayed, and the Spirit confirmed what I have said to you. Now, the caveat to that is your throwing the ten commandments into that mix is not at all in keeping with my points.

Additionally, what the Spirit has confirmed to me is vastly different, because you conveniently leave out the law of Moses as being a part of that context, even though it is literally spelled out more than once throughout. So, one of us is not hearing the right spirit, or both of us are hearing from the wrong spirit for there to be such differentiation in our views. That being the case, we will simply not enter into any agreement on this topic so long as one or both of us is hearing from a demonic, devlish, satanic spirit....or the flesh. Whatever the case, I don't see any way we will ever agree apart from a change in who one or both of us are hearing.

So, I fall back to what is written:

[Rom 3:4] God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

So, I confess I'm a liar in relation to the totality of God's being the TRUTH in every way, in totality, just as Jesus said of Himself.

Jr

SwordmanJr · Nov 29, 2020

HIM said:
Where was the fault found to be in the first covenant? Verse 8 tells us.

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

The fault was found in them. How so? Verse 9 tells us.

I don't know what version your quote came from, but it makes it sound as if it's the men who are at fault. The most reliable versions, in relation to the Interlinear, says the following:

[Heb 8:7 KJV] 7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

THAT is what I had made reference, not verse 8. The first covenant, the covenant of law, was faulty.

Keeping in mind that the Bible is an EASTERN book, not WESTERN, we have to think outside the box of our westernized mindset. Fault in something can be multifaceted. It can have faults within itself only, which is not what verse 7 is saying. The written law is faulty because of mankind. The letter itself lacks the power for connection and obedience to the Law Giver. The letter kills. So, living in perfect obedience to the Letter was only achieved by Christ Jesus. That Law pointed to Christ, and Him as the ONLY fulfillment of perfect obedience so that He could THEN write His law upon our hearts.

The fault was with the people.

That is somewhat what I just said. The law was weak in its ability to inherit the heart and soul of men, and thus infuse them with its perfection. That was the fault within the letter of the law. It lacked in ability to reside within the heart. That's why the Lord prophesied through Jeremiah that the day was coming when He would write His law in the inward parts of men, in our hearts. That points to the superior law, because it's not just letters and words on parchment or stone, but written in the living flesh of our inward parts.

But the law within us is much more than just the letter upon parchment and stone. Jesus made that abundantly clear in Matthew 5, giving us hints with His referring to numerous times where "It is written...BUT I SAY..."

So, when I see or hear someone assuming that what is written within us is exactly what's written in the law of Moses, with it being alleged that we must therefore celebrate the Jewish feasts, dietary laws and all the other stipulations therein, I'm left with shaking my head. The Lord has not written those things in my heart.

That leaves us all with SIX possibilities, given that there is disagreement over this:

1) They have a demonic spirit within them writing falsehoods in their heart, and therefore deceived,
2) I have a demonic spirit within me writing falsehoods in my heart, and therefore deceived,
3) We all have demonic spirit(s) within us driving us all to falsehoods and disputes, and therefore deceived,
4) They are driven by their flesh rather than the Lord writing His law in their hearts, and therefore deceived,
5) I am motivated by my flesh rather than the Lord writing His law in my heart, and therefore deceived, or
6) We ALL are governed by our fleshly desires and thinking, and therefore deceived.

Jr

SwordmanJr · Nov 29, 2020

Do you law of Moses adherence types attend synagogue each week, hearing the Law?

I personally don't mind those who have thought themselves my judges by declaring that I am lawless for not observing Sabbath as they do, and the Mosaic/Jewish feasts, adhering to the dietary laws, build railing around the perimeter my roof as the letter of the Law commands, and many, many other of the commandments within those 613 Laws.

I pray for those judges, and leave them in the hands of the Lord, for I judge them not.

[Heb 10:31] [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Jr

LoveGodsWord · Nov 29, 2020

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ Nonsense. The reason the Gentiles were given only some laws was because they were new Christians and it is written in the same chapter they would continue to learn from the scriptures every Sabbath *Acts 15:21.

Your response here...

SwordmanJr said:
Adam Clark provided a better way of putting it, as that verse can be and is confusing to many: "Moses of old time hath in every city - The sense of this verse seems to be this: As it was necessary to write to the Gentiles what was strictly necessary to be observed by them, relative to these points, it was not so to the converted Jews; for they had Moses, that is, the law, preached to them, κατα πολιν, in the city, that is, Antioch; and, by the reading of the law in the synagogues every Sabbath day, they were kept in remembrance of those institutions which the Gentiles, who had not the law, could not know. Therefore, James thought that a letter to the converted Gentiles would be sufficient, as the converted Jews had already ample instruction on these points."

You were provided scripture alone earlier....Acts 15 has nothing to do with keeping the Sabbath or not or God's 10 commandments. In fact the scriptures say as proven earlier that the reason for the Jerusalem decision was that the new gentile Christians were to continue to learn the Word of God every Sabbath...

Acts 15:21 [21], FOR MOSES OF OLD TIME HAS IN EVERY CITY THEM THAT PREACH HIM, BEING READ IN THE SYNAGOGUES EVERY SABBATH DAY.

In response to posting the direct Word of God above you post a scholarly commentary from the teachings of men over the bible? Ironically it was the very scholars in the days of JESUS that rejected him and put him on a tree and crucified him. What has changed today? It is these same scholars that have led God's people away from God and His Word and you want to point to them as proof of your position? Yet it is quite ironic that even these same scholars you point to over the scriptures that have been shared with you that do not even agree among themselves. I can post commentaries on single scripture devoid of contexts as well but what does that prove? Fact is though and you have not addressed it is that ACTS 15 is over the question of "is circumcision a requirement for salvation" not if the 10 commandments are a requirement for Christian living in those who have faith in God's Word.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him,.... That is, for many years past, even from the times of Ezra, the law of Moses has been publicly expounded by them, whom the Jews call Derashim, preachers, or expounders, in every city where there was a synagogue; and every city belonging to the Jews, were obliged to build a synagogue, yea, they were obliged to do it where there were but ten Israelites (n): this is given by James as a reason why the Gentiles should be wrote unto concerning the above things; because that they hearing the law read and expounded every week, would be ready to conclude that they were obliged to submit unto it, as to circumcision, and other things; unless they were told that they were free from it; only in order to maintain peace with their brethren the Jews, it would be necessary for them to abstain from the above things: and it may also carry in it a reason, why the Jews need not be wrote unto, and why they had no reason to complain for thus writing to the Gentiles; since they had the law read and explained to them every week, and there would be no attempt to make any alteration in that form of service:

There are many more commentaries here that could be posted but why turn to the teachings of men that do not even agree among themselves to try and support teachings of lawlessness when God's Word is clear as to what it says? Acts 15 is over "circumcision" not God's 10 commandments. You do know that after the Jerusalem council Paul visits the Corinthian believers telling them...

"CIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING, AND UNCIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING (Jerusalem decision of Acts 15), BUT THE KEEPING OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD. *1 Corinthians 7:19.

Your interpretation promoting lawlessness for Gentile believers has Paul contradicting himself as well as pretty much the whole old and new testament scriptures (see OP for a few more scriptures that disagree with you).

SwordmanJr said:
Don't forget the law of Moses. It wasn't only about circumcision. [Act 15:5] But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses. That last part, which is repeated later in the same chapter, is overlooked by many.

Nope. It was only about "circumcision" your trying to read into the scripture what the scriptures do not say or teach. Let's look at the context...

Acts of the Apostles 15:1-6
[1], And certain men who came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, EXCEPT YOU BE CIRCUMCISED AFTER THE MANNER OF MOSES YOU CANNOT BE SAVED.

NOTE: ACTS 15:1 is the question that needs to be answered and the topic of conversation and CONTEXT of the chapter of ACTS 15. Here we have Jewish believers coming to Paul and Barnabas saying if the new GENTILES believers are not circumcised and made proselytes then they cannot be saved. This is the chapter context and issue of contention.

[2], When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, THEY DETERMINED THAT PAUL AND BARNABAS AND CERTAIN OF THEM SHOULD GO UP TO JERUSALEM UNTO THE APOSLTLES AND ELDERS ABOUT THIS QUESTION.

NOTE: ACTS 15:2 Which question? Weather your salvation depends on being CIRCUMCISED.
They then travelled to Jerusalem about this question to determine if new gentile believers needed to be CIRCUMCISED in order to be saved. Once they got to Jerusalem, the question was then asked and the discussion continued with the Pharasees stating their case first..

[5], But there rose up CERTAIN OF THE SECT OF THE PHARISEES WHO BELIEVED, SAYING, IT IS NEEDFUL TO CIRCUMCISE THEM, AND TO COMMAND THEM TO KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES.

NOTE: KEEP in mind here the question as shown in the context in Acts of the Apostles 15:1-2 was never over if gentile believers should obey God's 10 Commandments but to keep the Shadow laws of Moses, in regards to CIRCUMCISION as a means of salvation. CIRCUMCISION is from the law of MOSES not one of God’s 10 Commandments written by God on two tables of stone. God's 10 commandments are called the law of God not the law of Moses.

[6], And the apostles and elders came together TO CONSIDER THIS MATTER.

NOTE: Again the topic of discussion and chapter CONTEXT that is being considered is the question stated in ACTS 15:1 which was IS CIRCUMCISION A REQUIREMENT OF SALVATION?

Sorry dear friend what ever way you want to view it your interpretation of lawlessness from Acts 15 is not biblical.

LGW wrote: This is proven in Acts 15:1-2 which is the chapter context. To go with the interpretation that the 10 commandments are not a requirement for christian living contradicts the whole bible in both old and new testament scriptures and makes Paul contradict himself when he latter tells the Corinthians that "CIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING, AND UNCIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING (Jerusalem decision of Acts 15), BUT THE KEEPING OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.

Your response here...

SwordmanJr said:
It is not I who has made issue with the ten commandments. I simply pointed out what is a part of the overall context, which is the law of Moses along with circumcision. Trying to limit the context ONLY to the first two verses is questionably convenient at best.

Seems you do have issue with the 10 commandments as your trying to argue an unbiblical interpretation of Acts of the Apostles 15 claiming that it is talking about the 10 commandment not being a requirement for Christian living for gentile believers when the topic of conversation of Acts 15 is in regards to circumcision being a requirement for salvation which has nothing to do with God's 10 commandment providing an interpretation of the scriptures that promotes lawlessness contradicting the teachings of JESUS, the Apostles and the whole bible. Something to pray about dear friend.

SwordmanJr said:
Oh, I have indeed prayed, and the Spirit confirmed what I have said to you. Now, the caveat to that is your throwing the ten commandments into that mix is not at all in keeping with my points.

God's Spirit is the Spirit of the Word of God and works through the Word of God as we believe God's Word not outside of the Word of God as we do not believe Gods'Word *John 6:63. If you believe a Spirit is confirming with you to promote teachings of lawlessness dear friend it is not God's Spirit according to the scriptures. Please read 1 John 2:3-4.

Something to pray about.

LoveGodsWord · Nov 29, 2020

SwordmanJr said:
Do you law of Moses adherence types attend synagogue each week, hearing the Law?

I personally don't mind those who have thought themselves my judges by declaring that I am lawless for not observing Sabbath as they do, and the Mosaic/Jewish feasts, adhering to the dietary laws, build railing around the perimeter my roof as the letter of the Law commands, and many, many other of the commandments within those 613 Laws.

I pray for those judges, and leave them in the hands of the Lord, for I judge them not.

[Heb 10:31] [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Jr

No one judges you dear friend or anyone here that I know of. You are free to believe and do as you wish. It is the very Word of God we accept or reject that is our judge come judgement day...

JOHN 12:47-48 [47], And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. [48], He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

1 JOHN 2:3-4 [3], And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.[4], He that said, I know him, and keeps not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow them over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God *Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29. JESUS says if we knowingly *James 4:17 follow the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God once we have been given a knowledge of the truth of God's Word and reject it we are not following Gods in Matthew 15:3-9; Hebrews 10:26-31.

There is not one scripture in all of God's Word that says God's 4th commandment has been abolished and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a Holy day. If you are right I will see you in God's Kingdom. If you are wrong and you have received a knowledge of God's Word and choose to reject it, then that is a different story of course according to what the scriptures teach in Hebrews 10:26-31. God is calling his people out from BABYLON back to worship Him in Spirit and in truth. Gods sheep will hear His Voice (the Word) and follow him. Those who do not hear and do not follow are not His sheep *John 10:26-27

Something to pray about dear friend while we still can.

SwordmanJr · Dec 1, 2020

HIM said:
The Scripture is quite explicit here. The fault was not in the Law that God said was perfect

You're not reading what I said, so I really don't see any use striving with you. To argue for argument's sake, you'll have to find someone else with more typing time.

Jr

SwordmanJr · Dec 1, 2020

LoveGodsWord said:
Your response here...

You were provided scripture alone earlier....Acts 15 has nothing to do with keeping the Sabbath or not or God's 10 commandments. In fact the scriptures say as proven earlier that the reason for the Jerusalem decision was that the new gentile Christians were to continue to learn the Word of God every Sabbath...

Like another in here, you're not reading what I said, so I will let you continue shadow boxing. Knock yourself out, and declare your imagined victory. I don't have time to type over and over to you that I was not arguing in relation to the ten commandments. I specifically stated what Acts 15 states, which is in relation to the law of Moses. You won't accept that, so best of luck to you...if you believe in luck.

Jr

LoveGodsWord · Dec 1, 2020

SwordmanJr said:
Like another in here, you're not reading what I said, so I will let you continue shadow boxing. Knock yourself out, and declare your imagined victory. I don't have time to type over and over to you that I was not arguing in relation to the ten commandments. I specifically stated what Acts 15 states, which is in relation to the law of Moses. You won't accept that, so best of luck to you...if you believe in luck.

Jr

Not really dear friend. I read everything you wrote to me. Perhaps you did not like the responses given from the scripture that disagreed with you. I responded exactly to what you posted with God's Word which is not mine but God's showing the context you left out of your interpretation of Acts 15 from Acts of the Apostles 15:1-2 showing that the question being considered was "is circumcision a requirement for salvation" which has nothing to do with God's 10 commandments.

Then went through the scriptures verse by verse to further prove this above. Circumcision of the law of Moses is not the law of God (10 commandments). Your interpretation is one of lawlessness for Gentile believers. Paul, and Jesus taught no such thing. In fact as posted earlier your interpretation of Acts 15 has Paul contradicting himself when he latter tells the Corinthians after the decision of Jerusalem that "circumcision" is not a requirement for salvation...

"CIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING, AND UNCIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING (Jerusalem decision of Acts 15), BUT THE KEEPING OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD. *1 Corinthians 7:19.

You will not accept the scriptures shared showing the context your leaving out of your interpretation of the scriptures so best of luck to you...if you believe in luck. I do not believe in luck. I prefer the bible because to me only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it *Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29.

Nice talking to you

Bob S · Dec 1, 2020

HIM said:
Where was the fault found to be in the first covenant? Verse 8 tells us.

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

The fault was found in them. How so? Verse 9 tells us.

Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. I prayed for the truth and continue to. If we "think" God is speaking to our hearts and the thing spoke is contrary to what is written chances are it is not God.

The Scripture is quite explicit here. The fault was not in the Law that God said was perfect

Ps 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Ps 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

The fault was with the people. The context of the fault is found in verse six in that it mentions promises. Our Father God did not break any promises the children of Israel did. They said numerous times, "All that the Lord God Commanded we will do." Ex 19:8, Ex 24:3,7; Deut 5:27-29

They broke the Covenant not God. They did not live up to their promise. They were at fault not God. The fault is defined in verse eight. Verse eight starts with the word "for". What follows is the reason or mind you the answer for what was previously stated or implied.

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

No God is rather precise. It is a package. It is His laws, which at the very least would be the Ten Commandments.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

You do realize that none of the Ten Commandments are mentioned. So according to your analysis all the Gentiles need to concern themselves with is idol worship, a few diet restrictions and fornication. They can kill, steal, dishonor their parents, covet and lie all they want.

And gez what of the other moral laws contained in the writing of Moses, if they were not adhered to our society would be rather base.

God told Moses in Ex19:5-6 what the covenant He was about to make with the Israelites was for:
5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
God did not intend for that covenant to be salvational. Salvation has never been about keeping laws, salvation is and always has been about faith. The covenant Jesus gave to all mankind is all about salvation, so you see the new covenant is not just the old one warmed over and put in our hearts. If it were then why was the vail torn at Calvary? Why was the Temple completely destroyed and has never been rebuilt? Why did Paul write that Israel's ten commandments were temporary and replaced with the Holy Spirit? 2Cor3:6-11 Where in scripture does it tell Gentiles that they must keep the Mosaic covenant? It was never given to Gentile nations while Israel existed. The fact is that nowhere in all of scripture does it command that Gentiles observe the ritual laws that were imposed on Israel.

The question is why do you and others on this forum try to make it seem like we new covenant believers have to place ourselves under the Mosaic Covenant and if we don't bow to your thinking you refer to us as being lawless? You keep telling us God's old covenant laws are forever. There were 613 of them. Why are not all of them part of anyone's belief system?

SwordmanJr · Dec 3, 2020

LoveGodsWord said:
Not really dear friend. I read everything you wrote to me. Perhaps you did not like the responses given from the scripture that disagreed with you.

You do indeed flatter yourself. Had you actually dealt with what I actually said, then we could talk rather than you talking past me.

Thanks anyway.

Jr

LoveGodsWord · Dec 3, 2020

SwordmanJr said:
You do indeed flatter yourself. Had you actually dealt with what I actually said, then we could talk rather than you talking past me.

Thanks anyway.

Jr

The thing is Gods Word (not mine), dealt exactly with what you said showing the context you left out that does not agree with your interpretation of Acts 15 as does Paul elsewhere after the Jerusalem decision in 1 Corinthians 7:19 when he says "CIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING, AND UNCIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING (Jerusalem decision of Acts 15), BUT THE KEEPING OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD." Circumcision from the law of Moses is not God's 10 commandments from God's law (10 commandments). Acts 15 is not about the 10 commandments it is about the question of circumcision being a requirement for salvation *Acts of the Apostles 15:1-2. These are Gods' Words not mine so your argument is with God not me. Of course you are free to believe as you wish. I prefer the bible. Trying to teach a belief that Acts 15 teaches that God's 10 commandments are not a requirement for Christian living and not God's moral standard for right and wrong is a teaching of lawlessness which the bible warns us about *1 John 2:3-4; Matthew 5:17-20.

SwordmanJr · Dec 3, 2020

LoveGodsWord said:
The thing is Gods Word (not mine), dealt exactly what you said showing the context you left out that does not agree with your interpretation of Acts 15 as does Paul elsewhere after the Jerusalem decision in 1 Corinthians 7:19 when he says "CIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING, AND UNCIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING (Jerusalem decision of Acts 15), BUT THE KEEPING OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD." Circumcision from the law of Moses is not God's 10 commandments from God's law (10 commandments). Acts 15 is not about the 10 commandments it is about the question of circumcision being a requirement for salvation *Acts of the Apostles 15:1-2. These are Gods' Words not mine so your argument is with God not me. Of course you are free to believe as you wish. I prefer the bible. Trying to teach a belief that Acts 15 teaches that God's 10 commandments are not a requirement for Christian living and not God's moral standard for right and wrong is a teaching of lawlessness which the bible warns us about *1 John 2:3-4; Matthew 5:17-20.

It's your interpreting the "Commandments of God" is the core problem that you keep missing. Most assume that's a reference to the law of Moses, and it's not.

[Num 15:29] Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, [both for] him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.

I do not soujourn among them, and most others here don't do that either.

[Deu 4:44] And this [is] the law which Moses set before the children of Israel:

Very targeted, but most ignore this...and I am not one of the children of Israel, nor sojourn there...

[Deu 33:10] They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law: they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar.

This one is unfair since it points out how legalists ignore those parts of God's law they have chosen to ignore...claiming Jesus fulfill sacrifices, but not the other sections of the Law/Commandments.

[2 Kings 17:13] Yet the LORD testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, [and by] all the seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments [and] my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets.

It's interesting how so many will interpret targeted peoples as being the ones to whom something is binding upon in almost any other literature, but when it comes to the Bible and their personal beliefs, well, everything is different, right?

[Rom 9:31] But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Let's take this in its context:

[Rom 9:32-33] 32 Wherefore? Because [they sought it] not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

I believe in Him, and am therefore not ashamed. Why? Because He indwells us by His Spirit, and writes His commandments upon our hearts that are superior to those written upon parchment and stone. Our hearts are not stone, but flesh. Flesh is alive, not stone or parchment.

Ligonier Ministries said it very well:

"The legalist isolates the law from the God who gave the law. He is not so much seeking to obey God or honor Christ as he is to obey rules that are devoid of any personal relationship. There’s no love, joy, life, or passion. It’s a rote, mechanical form of law-keeping that we call externalism. The legalist focuses only on obeying bare rules, destroying the broader context of God’s love and redemption in which He gave His law in the first place." [3 Types of Legalism]

Pointing at the ten commandments as still binding runs into yet another problem. The rich young man, who along with all the others at that time were still under the law of Moses, was told to follow all the commandments, which he claimed he already did.

If the ten commandments were intended as the totality of it all, and FOR all, and therefore superior to what the Law Giver writes in our hearts, then Jesus must have been mistaken when He also added for that fella the requirement to sell all he had, give to the poor, and then follow Him.

Notice the following:

[Luke 18:22] Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

That young man claimed he followed all the commandments, and Jesus did not say anything that would cast any doubt about that man's claim, unless someone in here thinks he's deity, and therefore knows the heart of a man he has never even met. What Jesus commanded that fella is not one of the ten, so what does that say?

Bottom line: If you personally want to bind your faith and life to those ten, and/or even all the law of Moses, then go for it. I will defend your right to do just that, but I will never be in agreement with you over it. The Lord over all has written His commands in my heart, and they do not push and shove me to the letter of commandments and laws that kill. It is His Power by which He has written His commands to each one of us in our hearts. Sometimes they resonate His will to us since He deals with us as individuals in addition to a collective. If that doesn't jive with your personal take on it all, then I will simply have to point out something else Jesus said:

[John 21:22] Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee? follow thou me.

THAT is the ultimate in sage advice. The Lord has not led many toward sabbath keeping in the manner you or anyone else in the world thinks it should be observed.

Be very careful in that you may be undermining the very will of God in the lives of other believers in whom He has written His commands and laws. The power of the letter at which you point is nothing compared to what is written in us by the very indwelling Lord you and so many others claim to believe in and follow. Pointing at translations is even more suspect.

For all the sabbaterians out there, read it all for what it says:

[Exo 31:16] Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant.

I am not an Israelite in this world. I am what they would and do call a "gentile".

Jr

LoveGodsWord · Dec 3, 2020

SwordmanJr said:
It's your interpreting the "Commandments of God" is the core problem that you keep missing. Most assume that's a reference to the law of Moses, and it's not.

[Num 15:29] Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, [both for] him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.

I do not soujourn among them, and most others here don't do that either.

[Deu 4:44] And this [is] the law which Moses set before the children of Israel:

Very targeted, but most ignore this...and I am not one of the children of Israel, nor sojourn there...

[Deu 33:10] They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law: they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar.

This one is unfair since it points out how legalists ignore those parts of God's law they have chosen to ignore...claiming Jesus fulfill sacrifices, but not the other sections of the Law/Commandments.

[2 Kings 17:13] Yet the LORD testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, [and by] all the seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments [and] my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets.

It's interesting how so many will interpret targeted peoples as being the ones to whom something is binding upon in almost any other literature, but when it comes to the Bible and their personal beliefs, well, everything is different, right?

[Rom 9:31] But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Let's take this in its context:

[Rom 9:32-33] 32 Wherefore? Because [they sought it] not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

I believe in Him, and am therefore not ashamed. Why? Because He indwells us by His Spirit, and writes His commandments upon our hearts that are superior to those written upon parchment and stone. Our hearts are not stone, but flesh. Flesh is alive, not stone or parchment.

Ligonier Ministries said it very well:

"The legalist isolates the law from the God who gave the law. He is not so much seeking to obey God or honor Christ as he is to obey rules that are devoid of any personal relationship. There’s no love, joy, life, or passion. It’s a rote, mechanical form of law-keeping that we call externalism. The legalist focuses only on obeying bare rules, destroying the broader context of God’s love and redemption in which He gave His law in the first place." [3 Types of Legalism]

Pointing at the ten commandments as still binding runs into yet another problem. The rich young man, who along with all the others at that time were still under the law of Moses, was told to follow all the commandments, which he claimed he already did.

If the ten commandments were intended as the totality of it all, and FOR all, and therefore superior to what the Law Giver writes in our hearts, then Jesus must have been mistaken when He also added for that fella the requirement to sell all he had, give to the poor, and then follow Him.

Notice the following:

[Luke 18:22] Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

That young man claimed he followed all the commandments, and Jesus did not say anything that would cast any doubt about that man's claim, unless someone in here thinks he's deity, and therefore knows the heart of a man he has never even met. What Jesus commanded that fella is not one of the ten, so what does that say?

Bottom line: If you personally want to bind your faith and life to those ten, and/or even all the law of Moses, then go for it. I will defend your right to do just that, but I will never be in agreement with you over it. The Lord over all has written His commands in my heart, and they do not push and shove me to the letter of commandments and laws that kill. It is His Power by which He has written His commands to each one of us in our hearts. Sometimes they resonate His will to us since He deals with us as individuals in addition to a collective. If that doesn't jive with your personal take on it all, then I will simply have to point out something else Jesus said:

[John 21:22] Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee? follow thou me.

THAT is the ultimate in sage advice. The Lord has not led many toward sabbath keeping in the manner you or anyone else in the world thinks it should be observed.

Be very careful in that you may be undermining the very will of God in the lives of other believers in whom He has written His commands and laws. The power of the letter at which you point is nothing compared to what is written in us by the very indwelling Lord you and so many others claim to believe in and follow. Pointing at translations is even more suspect.

For all the sabbaterians out there, read it all for what it says:

[Exo 31:16] Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant.

I am not an Israelite in this world. I am what they would and do call a "gentile".

Jr

Nonsense dear friend that is not true at all but let me explain why. A legalist is one according to the scriptures, that seeks their salvation outside of God's free gift of grace through faith and seeks to justify himself through what he does outside of faith in God's Word *Romans 9:31-33; Galatians 2:16-18; Galatians 3:1-10. I do not know anyone here that believes such things so your claims of legalism are nonsense.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says We are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves, it is a gift of God and not of works lest any man should boast. OBEDIENCE to God's LAW is not how we are saved it is the FRUIT faith of one that is already been given Gods promise of salvation and the fruit of God's work in us *Philippians 2:13 as we BELIEVE and FOLLOW his WORD. If our faith has no fruit it is dead *James 2:18-20; 26 and our tree will be cast down and thrown into the fire *Matthew 3:10; 7:19-20; 13:49-50.

It seems you do not know the biblical definition of a legalist and have made yourself a judge of the heart that only God knows by calling your brothers and sisters in Christ who follow God's Word because they love God legalists when you do not know their heart. In which case dear friend, if this is true and you cannot read the heart like God can, perhaps you should consider *Matthew 7:1-5 or Romans 2:1-8. As for me I do not judge you because I know I am a sinner in need of God's grace and because I know only God's Word is our judge that judges us for the Word of God, we accept or reject come judgement day as written in *Matthew 12:47-48.

I do believe God's Word so let's discuss it and ask a few questions that might be helpful here. If JESUS says in John 14:15 "IF you love me keep my commandments", is someone a legalist because they love God and keep His commandments or was Jesus mistaken in your view and really meant if you love me break my commandments? If JESUS goes on to say in John 15:10 " IF you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." Does that really mean if you break my commandments as I have broken my fathers commandments you shall abide in my love? Of course not. Yet this is the interpretation your trying to put on the scriptures in teaching lawlessness dear friend. Can you see your error here?

Lets play this out a little more in detail. If I do not steal from my neighbour because I love my neighbour am I being a legalist in your view or am I loving my neighbour by not stealing from them as JESUS, PAUL and JAMES state in Matthew 22:36-40; Romans 13:8-10 and James 2:8-12?

God's ISRAEL in the new covenant is a name that God gives to all those who believe and follow Gods' Word *Romans 9:6-8. Gentile believers are now grafted in *Romans 13:11-27. There is now no Jew or Gentile believers as all are now one in Christ *Ephesians 2:11-13 ; Galatians 3:28-29; Romans 2:28-29; Colossians 3:11 and Romans 10:11-13. If you are not a part of God's ISRAEL then you have no part in God's new covenant promise *Hebrews 8:10-12 as the promise is to God's people who God calls ISRAEL. So yep! The Sabbath is a perpetual (ongoing forever covenant as is all God's 10 commandments which are our duty of love to God and man *Exodus 31:16; Isaiah 66:22-23; Romans 13:8-10; Matthew 22:36-40; Revelation 14:12: Revelation 22:14.

Gentiles (those who do not believe and follow God's Word) do not enter God's kingdom but end up in the lake of fire *2 Thessalonians 1:8-9; Revelation 20:14-15; Hebrews 10:26-31; Revelation 22:14-15. Remember dear friend "This is the love of God that we keep His Commandments and his commandments are not grievous *1 John 5:4 and "Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that said, I know him, and keeps not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him * 1 John 2:3-4. Only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it *Romans 3:4, over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God *Matthew 15:3-9. God's Words does not teach lawlessness. This is the difference between the children of God and the children of the devil according to 1 John 3:6-10. Those who are born of God do not practice sin (breaking God's commandments) *1 John 3:4-6.

The bottom line is those who continue in known unrepentant sin breaking anyone of God's 10 commandments *James 2:10-11, do not enter the kingdom of Heaven because they reject the gift of God's dear son and count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing doing despite to the Spirit of God's grace *Romans 6:23; Hebrews 10:26-31 and find themselves with those who JESUS says "depart from my you who work iniquity (sin) I never knew you *Matthew 7:22-27; 1 John 2:3-4; 1 John 3:6-10; Revelation 14:12; John 14:15; John 15:10.

Hope this is helpful.

SwordmanJr · Dec 8, 2020

LoveGodsWord said:
I do not know anyone here that believes such things so your claims of legalism are nonsense.

My application of the term "legalist" was and is defined in the sense of what's written in a much broader scope throughout the scriptures. However, I will abstain from using that term for the moment so that it doesn't remain a sticking point to you.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says We are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves, it is a gift of God and not of works lest any man should boast. OBEDIENCE to God's LAW is not how we are saved it is the FRUIT faith of one that is already been given Gods promise of salvation and the fruit of God's work in us *Philippians 2:13 as we BELIEVE and FOLLOW his WORD. If our faith has no fruit it is dead *James 2:18-20; 26 and our tree will be cast down and thrown into the fire *Matthew 3:10; 7:19-20; 13:49-50.

This is where we do indeed disagree. Obedience to the letter of the law (ten commandments or the law of Moses) is not the basis of works.

[Jer 31:31-32] 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

The covenant of the ten commandments was to be superseded at some point in the future. This is evidenced in the fact that when they were led free from Egypt, the tablets of Law were what they were given soon after being led free.

[Jer 31:33] But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And yet there are those who argue against this, refusing to accept the inferiority of the letter of the law to that which the Law Giver writes within the "...inward parts...in their hearts..." They also argue against the fact that this text specifically states that the covenant of that law was with specifically made with the "...house of Israel, and with the house of Judah..." So, do you accept what is written, or do you not? If not, do you reject it on the basis of expanding it beyond the scope clearly stated? Who authorized you or anyone else to expand it thus?

[1Ki 8:21] And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein [is] the covenant of the LORD, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.

[1Ki 8:9] [There was] nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made [a covenant] with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.

That pretty much establishes that the covenant spoken of by Jeremiah is in fact the ten commandments.

[2 Cor. 3:7-11] 7 But if the ministration of death, written [and] engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which [glory] was to be done away: 8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9 For if the ministration of condemnation [be] glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11 For if that which is done away [was] glorious, much more that which remaineth [is] glorious.

So, that which was written on those stones "...was to be done away..." because it was superseded by "...the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious..." Again, your degree of acceptance of this is of your own doing. The measures in the text and its context is beyond dispute. Word games only demonstrate a desperation on the part of those who hold the letter in higher regard than the Spirit.

No thanks. I will not accept that. Not for me. In that mix of what was done away with is the fourth commandment as well. Perhaps your acceptance of the statement "...was to be done away..." has some other subjective meaning, I don't know, but as for me, I will not accept anything that is a departure from what is actually stated in the text and the overall context.

I do believe God's Word so let's discuss it and ask a few questions that might be helpful here. If JESUS says in John 14:15 "IF you love me keep my commandments", is someone a legalist because they love God and keep His commandments or was Jesus mistaken in your view and really meant if you love me break my commandments?

The words of Jesus, given the verses I shared above, has different meaning between those who heard His words before the cross, and those who heard AFTER the cross. Before the cross, it was the letter that "killeth." After the cross it is what He writes in the inward parts, in the heart.

How about we call those who are still stuck on the "letter" something else. How about "letterists"? Will that get us beyond the word/label games? The letterists seem to feel that they are floating aimlessly through the air without something solid to root them to the grounding of some reality they can feel under their feet. Hey, I'm just trying to give some sort of meaning to them always going back to the letter written into stone tablets that Jeremiah clearly prophesied, and Paul stated was replaced.

Additionally, you seem to think that with the passing of the letter, none of it is still relevant for today. That is an argument from silence because I have never seen nor heard anyone in here even hint at that. Jesus gave to us a massive HINT! HINT! when He pointed out the first two of the ten. Those two being written into the heart in language vastly superior to the mere letters on stone tablets is of a superior power energized by the very Spirit of God. Conversely, letterists want to hug those stone tablets to themselves, and sink beneath the waves only to drown and die with those letters held to their bosoms. The letters engraved in stone cannot keep one afloat and breathing.

The Spirit, then, writes SUPERIOR language of Spirit within the heart of those who are of Israel, of Judah, AND of us Gentiles that infinitely outshine those dim letters of human language written on stone tablets.

So, my friend, you can certainly hug those stone tablets to your chest, just stay away from the deep end of God's word, because those tablets will accomplish nothing for you but to drag you down to the bottom, and drown the life out of you.

HINT: Those who had nothing more than the "letter" were kept in Abraham's Bosom until the letter was fulfilled, and THEN they were led free, with the power of the law of the Spirit THEN written in their hearts, as it is for us all today, both believing Jew and Gentile.

Letterists will continue to refuse acceptance of this, and that's their problem, not mine.

Love transcends mere letters written on stone tablets. Love created this universe, and all that is therein, and Love writes His Language in our hearts. Before the cross, the expectation was to strive in obeying the letter, ALL the letter. They could not, we cannot. They all failed, just as we all fail when we try to go back to that and do what they could not, and we cannot. Get it?

Jr

LoveGodsWord · Dec 8, 2020

SwordmanJr said:
My application of the term "legalist" was and is defined in the sense of what's written in a much broader scope throughout the scriptures. However, I will abstain from using that term for the moment so that it doesn't remain a sticking point to you.

Actually it doesn't. You provided a man made interpretation that was not biblical. You were provided biblical definitions through the scriptures. What is it that you do not agree with?

LGW wrote: Ephesians 2:8-9 says We are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves, it is a gift of God and not of works lest any man should boast. OBEDIENCE to God's LAW is not how we are saved it is the FRUIT faith of one that is already been given Gods promise of salvation and the fruit of God's work in us *Philippians 2:13 as we BELIEVE and FOLLOW his WORD. If our faith has no fruit it is dead *James 2:18-20; 26 and our tree will be cast down and thrown into the fire *Matthew 3:10; 7:19-20; 13:49-50.

Your response here...

SwordmanJr said:
This is where we do indeed disagree. Obedience to the letter of the law (ten commandments or the law of Moses) is not the basis of works.

Sure it is. What do you think *Romans 3:27; Romans 9:32; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:2-10 are all talking about?

SwordmanJr said:
[Jer 31:31-32] 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
The covenant of the ten commandments was to be superseded at some point in the future. This is evidenced in the fact that when they were led free from Egypt, the tablets of Law were what they were given soon after being led free.
[Jer 31:33] But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And yet there are those who argue against this, refusing to accept the inferiority of the letter of the law to that which the Law Giver writes within the "...inward parts...in their hearts..." They also argue against the fact that this text specifically states that the covenant of that law was with specifically made with the "...house of Israel, and with the house of Judah..." So, do you accept what is written, or do you not? If not, do you reject it on the basis of expanding it beyond the scope clearly stated? Who authorized you or anyone else to expand it thus? [1Ki 8:21] And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein [is] the covenant of the LORD, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt. [1Ki 8:9] [There was] nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made [a covenant] with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt. That pretty much establishes that the covenant spoken of by Jeremiah is in fact the ten commandments.

There is no scripture that says that the 10 commandments are to be suspended in the future. The old covenant is replaced by the new covenant as outlined in Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiah 31:31-32 and Ezekiel 36:24-27. Gods' 10 commandments has the same role it always has and that is to give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken in the new covenant *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4 and to lead us to Christ that we might be forgiven by faith and free to be born again in the Spirit to walk in newness of life *Galatians 3:22-25; Romans 8:1-4; Galatians 5:16. Those who have been born again in God's new covenant promise to love do not knowingly practice sin (breaking God's commandments) *1 John 3:6-9. We are in the new covenant dear friend not the old. We are now free from the flesh to walk in the Spirit if we believe and follow God's Word. Those who practice sin (knowingly breaking anyone of God's commandments) have neither seen him or know him *1 John 2:3-4 according to the scriptures

SwordmanJr said:
[2 Cor. 3:7-11] 7 But if the ministration of death, written [and] engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which [glory] was to be done away: 8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9 For if the ministration of condemnation [be] glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11 For if that which is done away [was] glorious, much more that which remaineth [is] glorious.

So, that which was written on those stones "...was to be done away..." because it was superseded by "...the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious..." Again, your degree of acceptance of this is of your own doing. The measures in the text and its context is beyond dispute. Word games only demonstrate a desperation on the part of those who hold the letter in higher regard than the Spirit.

No thanks. I will not accept that. Not for me. In that mix of what was done away with is the fourth commandment as well. Perhaps your acceptance of the statement "...was to be done away..." has some other subjective meaning, I don't know, but as for me, I will not accept anything that is a departure from what is actually stated in the text and the overall context.

The words of Jesus, given the verses I shared above, has different meaning between those who heard His words before the cross, and those who heard AFTER the cross. Before the cross, it was the letter that "killeth." After the cross it is what He writes in the inward parts, in the heart.

How about we call those who are still stuck on the "letter" something else. How about "letterists"? Will that get us beyond the word/label games? The letterists seem to feel that they are floating aimlessly through the air without something solid to root them to the grounding of some reality they can feel under their feet. Hey, I'm just trying to give some sort of meaning to them always going back to the letter written into stone tablets that Jeremiah clearly prophesied, and Paul stated was replaced.

Additionally, you seem to think that with the passing of the letter, none of it is still relevant for today. That is an argument from silence because I have never seen nor heard anyone in here even hint at that. Jesus gave to us a massive HINT! HINT! when He pointed out the first two of the ten. Those two being written into the heart in language vastly superior to the mere letters on stone tablets is of a superior power energized by the very Spirit of God. Conversely, letterists want to hug those stone tablets to themselves, and sink beneath the waves only to drown and die with those letters held to their bosoms. The letters engraved in stone cannot keep one afloat and breathing.

The Spirit, then, writes SUPERIOR language of Spirit within the heart of those who are of Israel, of Judah, AND of us Gentiles that infinitely outshine those dim letters of human language written on stone tablets.

So, my friend, you can certainly hug those stone tablets to your chest, just stay away from the deep end of God's word, because those tablets will accomplish nothing for you but to drag you down to the bottom, and drown the life out of you.

HINT: Those who had nothing more than the "letter" were kept in Abraham's Bosom until the letter was fulfilled, and THEN they were led free, with the power of the law of the Spirit THEN written in their hearts, as it is for us all today, both believing Jew and Gentile. Letterists will continue to refuse acceptance of this, and that's their problem, not mine. Love transcends mere letters written on stone tablets. Love created this universe, and all that is therein, and Love writes His Language in our hearts. Before the cross, the expectation was to strive in obeying the letter, ALL the letter. They could not, we cannot. They all failed, just as we all fail when we try to go back to that and do what they could not, and we cannot. Get it? Jr

Not really dear friend but let me explain why. Love is not separated from God's law, it is expressed through obedience to it. For example if we love our neighbor we will not steal from them or murder them of commit adultery with their spouse. If we love God we will not make other Gods, idols and bow down and worship them, use God's name in vain and remember to keep His seventh day Sabbath as a holy day of rest and a memorial of creation and celebration of God as the creator of heaven and earth. That is why JESUS says "On these two commandments of love to God and man hang all the law and the prophets." *Matthew 22:36-40. Paul says the same things in Romans 13:8-10 as does James in James 2:8-12. Unless we are born again and made clean from the inside out and made free to walk in God's Spirit, we will never enter into God's kingdom. As shown through the scriptures already there is no more Jewish believe and Gentile believers in the new covenant Ephesians 2:11-13 ; Galatians 3:28-29. Gentile believers are now grafted in *Romans 11:13-27. God's Israel according to the new covenant scriptures are no longer those of the flesh but of the Spirit *Romans 9:6-8; 2 Corinthians 3:3-11. God's Israel in the new covenant are all those who believe and follow God's Word *Galatians 3:28-29; Romans 9:6-8; Romans 2:28-29; Colossians 3:11; Romans 10:11-13. If we are not a part of Gods Israel in the new covenant we have no part in God's new covenant promise *Hebrews 8:10-12.

May God help you as you seek him through his Word.

JESUS and the APOSTLES OBEYED GOD'S LAW and the SABBATH!

Double-edged Sword only

Double-edged Sword only

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Friend

Double-edged Sword only

Double-edged Sword only

Double-edged Sword only

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Double-edged Sword only

Double-edged Sword only

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Double-edged Sword only

Well-Known Member

Double-edged Sword only

Well-Known Member

Double-edged Sword only

Well-Known Member

Similar threads