WHY THE LAW HAD TO GO. !!

Sadly a misunderstanding of Scripture as if its okay to break the law that says to not worship other gods, or murder our neighbor.

According to God His laws did not "have to go" they are perfect Psa19:7, holy, just and good Rom7:12 so instead He placed His laws Heb8:10, in the believers heart based on better promises Heb8:6 of Him helping us keep through our love and cooperation John14:15-18 its the ones who won't subject themselves to the law of God are the ones in rebellion Rom8:7-8

According to Scripture this is the fruit of someone saved:

Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

And are blessed that no man can take away the Blessings of God. Num23:20

Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

Sadly the lawless are the ones who Jesus says depart from Me Rom7:23 I do not know you 1 John2:4

According to my Bible, we are saved by grace through faith. When does faith mean not listening to God? According to Scripture this is rebellion, sin and unbelief Heb3:7-19

Dan Perez said:

And I have attended many churches in. my 88 years even those that kept the sabbath. ,

And you say that you. really KEPT. all the LAW and even. Peter. in ACTS 15 : 10. says it was a burden.

So do you BELEIVE what HEB. 9:18 , YES or NO. ??

And the apostle Paul wrote 14 epistles and that INCLUDED HEBREWS. !!

AN you of course are keeping all. the LAW and Peter in. ACTS 15:10 says he could NOT !!

So. what does Acts 15:11. REALLY MENS. ??

dan. p

Click to expand...

If one believes only worshipping God is a burden or not stealing from our neighbor is, perhaps doesn't really know God. 1John2:3 1John5:3. If we love Him why would we want to harm Him by worshipping other gods, or not keeping His name holy, or breaking the least of these commandments Mat5:19, sorry this logic does not make sense to me, nor will it ever.

Dan Perez said:

And I have attended many churches in. my 88 years even those that kept the sabbath. ,

And you say that you. really KEPT. all the LAW and even. Peter. in ACTS 15 : 10. says it was a burden.

Click to expand...

Peter us not talking about the TEN, the moral law of God in Acts 15

He is not arguing for taking God's name in vain since it is just too difficult not to.

Dan Perez said:

AN you of course are keeping all. the LAW and Peter in. ACTS 15:10 says he could NOT !!

So. what does Acts 15:11. REALLY MENS. ??

dan. p

Click to expand...

Sounds like the perfect poster for antinomianism

Your posts on this thread, fit perfectly as examples in another thread on antinomianism. Sometimes it is difficult to find someone as eager to make those kind of statements, but since you do embrace it, might as well comment on this thread below.

Dan Perez said:

And I have attended many churches in. my 88 years even those that kept the sabbath. ,

And you say that you. really KEPT. all the LAW and even. Peter. in ACTS 15 : 10. says it was a burden.

So do you BELEIVE what HEB. 9:18 , YES or NO. ??

And the apostle Paul wrote 14 epistles and that INCLUDED HEBREWS. !!

AN you of course are keeping all. the LAW and Peter in. ACTS 15:10 says he could NOT !!

So. what does Acts 15:11. REALLY MENS. ??

dan. p

Click to expand...

Dan,

Jesus warned about the "leaven", defined as "deception" promoted by the mainstream religions of the world at that time, "Who Professed to know God" and told me to "Take Heed" I am not deceived by them. Before God Sent Jesus, HE sent Jeremiah to warn about the same deception promoted by the mainstream preachers of his time, "who professed to know God".

Jer. 23: 16 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD. 17 They say still unto them that despise me, The LORD hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you.

So because I believe all that is written in the Law and Prophets, I am careful not to just believe anyone who calls Jesus Lord, Lord, but to prove the teaching based on what is actually written in Scriptures. In doing so, I have discovered many "leavens" promoted by the religions of this world God placed me in.

For instance, the very popular but false teaching that Peter is calling God's Laws, Statutes and commandments, "a burden or Yoke" in Acts 15.

The mainstream preachers of that time, the Pharisees, were certainly attempting to place a Yoke on the necks of the Disciples that they nor their fathers could bear. Jesus spoke of this "Burden" when HE instructed the multitudes and the Disciples to listen to Moses, "when he was read in the Temple on God's Holy Sabbath Days". (Keep in mind this was the only way at that time that they could hear Moses)

Consider what the Jesus "of the Bible" said about the mainstream preachers of that time, who said they promoted the Law of Moses, but did not.

Matt. 23: 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: "for they say", and do not.

4 For they (Pharisees, not God) bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Peter was there when Jesus taught this. To promote the philosophy that Peter forgot, or rejected His Lord's teaching in Act's 15 is foolishness, and when a man considers all that is written, it is a deception.

Peter wanted to keep the Gentiles away from the traditions of men that Jesus said the Pharisees taught for doctrines, when they claimed to believe Moses, and directed them toward the actual Word's of God through Moses. It's right there in the Scriptures, all a man needs is belief.

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

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, (Law of Moses) and from fornication, (Law of Moses) and from things strangled, (Law of Moses) and from blood. (Law of Moses)

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city "them that preach him", (Pharisees and Scribes) being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. (Just don't do what they do because they "profess to know God" but reject His Commandments to promote their own religious traditions))

Peter and the Apostles directed the Gentiles to do the exact same thing that the Jesus "of the Bible" commanded of them.

This entire philosophy promoted by this world's religions God placed us in, that somehow God's Judgments, Laws and instruction in righteousness is the plague on mankind leading them astray, burdening men with blindness and ignorance, and are a Yoke of Bondage, Beggarly Elements and Rudiments of this world is certainly a popular philosophy dating back to Eve and the first mainstream preacher "of this world", who professed to know God, ever to be recorded. Consider the foundation of his philosophy.

Gen. 3: 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (God Lied to you)

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, (Reject the Commandment) "then" your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, "knowing" good and evil.

The "Yoke/burden" that the mainstream preachers of that time were tempting God, by attempting to place them on the Gentiles was not God's Laws given to Moses. They "said" it was, but Jesus had already shown the Apostles that it wasn't.

This is just ONE of the "many Leavens" promoted by the "many" who come in Christ's Name, that Jesus warned about. I hope you might consider.

Dan Perez said:

And I have attended many churches in. my 88 years even those that kept the sabbath. ,

And you say that you. really KEPT. all the LAW and even. Peter. in ACTS 15 : 10. says it was a burden.

So do you BELEIVE what HEB. 9:18 , YES or NO. ??

And the apostle Paul wrote 14 epistles and that INCLUDED HEBREWS. !!

AN you of course are keeping all. the LAW and Peter in. ACTS 15:10 says he could NOT !!

So. what does Acts 15:11. REALLY MENS. ??

dan. p

Click to expand...

You did not address her post. You just spoke over it with questions without actually addressing any of her points

Studyman said:

Dan,

Jesus warned about the "leaven", defined as "deception" promoted by the mainstream religions of the world at that time, "Who Professed to know God" and told me to "Take Heed" I am not deceived by them. Before God Sent Jesus, HE sent Jeremiah to warn about the same deception promoted by the mainstream preachers of his time, "who professed to know God".

Jer. 23: 16 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD. 17 They say still unto them that despise me, The LORD hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you.

So because I believe all that is written in the Law and Prophets, I am careful not to just believe anyone who calls Jesus Lord, Lord, but to prove the teaching based on what is actually written in Scriptures. In doing so, I have discovered many "leavens" promoted by the religions of this world God placed me in.

For instance, the very popular but false teaching that Peter is calling God's Laws, Statutes and commandments, "a burden or Yoke" in Acts 15.

The mainstream preachers of that time, the Pharisees, were certainly attempting to place a Yoke on the necks of the Disciples that they nor their fathers could bear. Jesus spoke of this "Burden" when HE instructed the multitudes and the Disciples to listen to Moses, "when he was read in the Temple on God's Holy Sabbath Days". (Keep in mind this was the only way at that time that they could hear Moses)

Consider what the Jesus "of the Bible" said about the mainstream preachers of that time, who said they promoted the Law of Moses, but did not.

Matt. 23: 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: "for they say", and do not.

4 For they (Pharisees, not God) bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Peter was there when Jesus taught this. To promote the philosophy that Peter forgot, or rejected His Lord's teaching in Act's 15 is foolishness, and when a man considers all that is written, it is a deception.

Peter wanted to keep the Gentiles away from the traditions of men that Jesus said the Pharisees taught for doctrines, when they claimed to believe Moses, and directed them toward the actual Word's of God through Moses. It's right there in the Scriptures, all a man needs is belief.

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

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, (Law of Moses) and from fornication, (Law of Moses) and from things strangled, (Law of Moses) and from blood. (Law of Moses)

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city "them that preach him", (Pharisees and Scribes) being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. (Just don't do what they do because they "profess to know God" but reject His Commandments to promote their own religious traditions))

Peter and the Apostles directed the Gentiles to do the exact same thing that the Jesus "of the Bible" commanded of them.

This entire philosophy promoted by this world's religions God placed us in, that somehow God's Judgments, Laws and instruction in righteousness is the plague on mankind leading them astray, burdening men with blindness and ignorance, and are a Yoke of Bondage, Beggarly Elements and Rudiments of this world is certainly a popular philosophy dating back to Eve and the first mainstream preacher "of this world", who professed to know God, ever to be recorded. Consider the foundation of his philosophy.

Gen. 3: 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (God Lied to you)

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, (Reject the Commandment) "then" your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, "knowing" good and evil.

The "Yoke/burden" that the mainstream preachers of that time were tempting God, by attempting to place them on the Gentiles was not God's Laws given to Moses. They "said" it was, but Jesus had already shown the Apostles that it wasn't.

This is just ONE of the "many Leavens" promoted by the "many" who come in Christ's Name, that Jesus warned about. I hope you might consider.

Click to expand...

The interesting thing about Jerimiah and God giving Him a prophecy that His laws would be written in the hearts, it would have to be a law known to Jeremiah. In the Book of Jeremiah all of the Ten Commandments as repeated including the Sabbath.

SabbathBlessings said:

The interesting thing about Jerimiah and God giving Him a prophecy that His laws would be written in the hearts, it would have to be a law known to Jeremiah. In the Book of Jeremiah all of the Ten Commandments as repeated including the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

I do believe God's 2 Greatest Commandments, and all that hang on them, are written on the hearts (Minds) of the Faithful, including of course, the 10 Commandments and the Sabbath Days.

Studyman said:

I do believe God's 2 Greatest Commandments, and all that hang on them, are written on the hearts (Minds) of the Faithful, including of course, the 10 Commandments and the Sabbath Days.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to the annual sabbath(s) feast days as in animal sacrifices and offerings?

SabbathBlessings said:

Are you referring to the annual sabbath(s) feast days as in animal sacrifices and offerings?

Click to expand...

The animal sacrifices and offerings were always a Shadow of the reality, in my understanding. Passover is Still a Holy Day, like Pentecost, and First Day of Unleavened Bread and the Weekly Sabbath. The Sacrifices were symbolic of what would be done, what had to be done, to make it possible for a man to "Change his ways". To remove the Sin that held men in the bondage of death. I think it's a mistake to concentrate on the blood of animals, as if the Holy Days were all about killing animals. Not because some religious sect or business tells me these things, but because God Himself said HE didn't desire the blood of animals. And yet HE did desire the promotion of, what HE called, the "Feasts of the Lord", in which HE didn't differentiate between any of His Sabbaths, as if one was worthy of my respect, and the others were not.

And certainly the first church of God under His Prophesied New Priest, didn't judge between the Sabbaths of God either, but honored God in them as is clear in Acts, and never killed even one animal. And God rewarded them with His Holy Spirit, that Peter says God gives to those who obey Him.

So I know that this understanding is not widely taught or held by this world's religious sects, and I won't argue about it in this thread, I was simply trying to answer your question concerning the shadows of things yet to come, and how it appears God had them written on the hearts of the first Church of God under His Prophesied New High Priest.

Studyman said:

The animal sacrifices and offerings were always a Shadow of the reality, in my understanding. Passover is Still a Holy Day, like Pentecost, and First Day of Unleavened Bread and the Weekly Sabbath. The Sacrifices were symbolic of what would be done, what had to be done, to make it possible for a man to "Change his ways". To remove the Sin that held men in the bondage of death. I think it's a mistake to concentrate on the blood of animals, as if the Holy Days were all about killing animals. Not because some religious sect or business tells me these things, but because God Himself said HE didn't desire the blood of animals. And yet HE did desire the promotion of, what HE called, the "Feasts of the Lord", in which HE didn't differentiate between any of His Sabbaths, as if one was worthy of my respect, and the others were not.

And certainly the first church of God under His Prophesied New Priest, didn't judge between the Sabbaths of God either, but honored God in them as is clear in Acts, and never killed even one animal. And God rewarded them with His Holy Spirit, that Peter says God gives to those who obey Him.

So I know that this understanding is not widely taught or held by this world's religious sects, and I won't argue about it in this thread, I was simply trying to answer your question concerning the shadows of things yet to come, and how it appears God had them written on the hearts of the first Church of God under His Prophesied New High Priest.

Click to expand...

The animal sacrifices that were attached to the annual feast days and annual sabbaths were literal sacrifices according to Scripture and were a shadow pointing forward to Jesus. So if we keep the Passover or other feast days, we would not be keeping them according to the Bible because animal sacrifices ended at the Cross and Jerusalem where these feasts occurred was destroyed. So if one was still keeping them, they would be according to a new tradition, not according to Scripture, but I will not judge anyone if they wish to keep them, but Scripture doesn't tell us to. The annual feasts days and annual sabbaths all came after the fall, where are the Sabbath in the Ten Commandments started at Creation Exo20:11 according to God's perfect plan before sin took over.

SabbathBlessings said:

The animal sacrifices that were attached to the annual feast days and annul sabbaths were literal sacrifices according to Scripture and were a shadow pointing forward to Jesus. So if we keep the Passover or other feast days, we would not be keeping them according to the Bible because animal sacrifices ended at the Cross and Jerusalem where these feasts occurred was destroyed. So if one was still keeping them, they would be according to a new tradition, not according to Scripture, but I will not judge anyone if they wish to keep them.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I said. The Feasts of the Lord didn't become old and vanish, the literal animal sacrifices become old and vanished. The Day God sanctified and made Holy by God, is still sanctified Holy to God, and was also still Holy to the members of God's First church under His New Priest. It was never about killing animals, in my view, just as "Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn", was never about the Oxen, in my view.

⭐ Christians do something that Paul said not to do in Colossians 2 - judging Christians for keeping the feasts and the Sabbath!

Acts 15:21 confirms that Gentiles should keep the Torah. This is the verse, "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” Why would Peter say this immediately after saying Gentiles should keep four laws from the Torah?

When Jesus said whatever enters the body is not unclean, he meant that whatever is entered into the mouth with unwashed/dirty hands. That was what the Pharisees were arguing about if you read the context. By the way, Mark 7:15 ("…Thus he declared all foods clean") is not found in any early manuscript - it was added later.

Matthew 5:17 says "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Notice that it doesn't say, "…I have not come to abolish them but to abolish them" nor does it say, "…I have not come to abolish them but to do with away them". Jesus fulfilled the Law by giving/explaining the full meaning of the Torah by giving examples regarding adultery and murder a few verses later.

Paul confirms Jesus' confirmation and Peter's declaration the Torah has not been abolished by saying the following verses:

Romans 3:31 - "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law"

Romans 7:12 - "So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good". Why would something holy, righteous and good be abolished?

Romans 7:22 - "For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being"

Romans 7:25 - "…I myself serve the law of God with my mind…"

The Sabbath was never changed from the 7th day of the week to the 1st day of the week. It’s a deep shame that the vast majority of Christians keep the Sabbath on the wrong day of the week. Romans 14 is a common argument against keeping the Sabbath on the 7th day. But think about why would Paul mention food at the beginning of Romans 14 to suddenly talk about days of the week? The answer is because he was talking about fasting. There was a debate between Christians and the Pharisees on which they should fast on.

The Law of Christ isn't a brand new law. It’s the Law of Moses/Mosaic Law but keeping the principle of the law or the spirit of the law and not just the letter of the law.

Gentiles should keep the dietary laws the Jews keep because we are now part of the "… commonwealth of Israel…" (Ephesians 2:12). We should keep the dietary laws and the other applicable laws from the Torah just like Jewish Christians do. It’s weird that Jewish Christians keep one law and Gentile Christians pick and choose some laws to follow from the Torah (For example, not getting tattoos but eating shrimp).

Keeping the Torah is definitely not required for salvation. Gentile Christians who follow the Torah commandments are not living like Jews, but living like people who keep God's commandnents!

The Bible makes a lot more sense when you read it from a 1st century Jewish/Hebraic perspective. The entire Bible was almost written by Jews to Jews in a Jewish context and in a Jewish mindset.

ultra.immaculate said:

⭐ Christians do something that Paul said not to do in Colossians 2 - judging Christians for keeping the feasts and the Sabbath!

Acts 15:21 confirms that Gentiles should keep the Torah. This is the verse, "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” Why would Peter say this immediately after saying Gentiles should keep four laws from the Torah?

Click to expand...

I think the reason is shown to us in Matt. 23:1-4. Peter wasn't trying to keep the New converts away from Moses, he was turning them away from the traditions, commandments and philosophies these men taught for doctrines. Yes, they "Said" they were promoting God's Laws, but Jesus Himself said they were not. The Yoke Peter speaks to in Act's 15 is the "Burden" Jesus spoke of in Matt. 23:4.

This insight you have is rare, and good for you for addressing what is actually written. Peter directed the Gentiles in the exact same instruction Jesus directed the Disciples and the multitudes in Matt. 23.

ultra.immaculate said:

When Jesus said whatever enters the body is not unclean, he meant that whatever is entered into the mouth with unwashed/dirty hands. That was what the Pharisees were arguing about if you read the context. By the way, Mark 7:15 ("…Thus he declared all foods clean") is not found in any early manuscript - it was added later.

Click to expand...

Again, you are actually considering what is actually written. Clearly Jesus didn't make maggots, snails or swine's flesh clean in Mark 7. Disobedience comes from within, just as honor and respect for God comes from within. The Disciples weren't eating animals strangled or drinking blood, they were just refusing to partake in the traditions of men the Pharisees taught for commandments.

Good for you for seeking to understand what is actually written.

ultra.immaculate said:

Matthew 5:17 says "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Notice that it doesn't say, "…I have not come to abolish them but to abolish them" nor does it say, "…I have not come to abolish them but to do with away them". Jesus fulfilled the Law by giving/explaining the full meaning of the Torah by giving examples regarding adultery and murder a few verses later.

Click to expand...

How wonderful. I have made this point myself many times. Abolish and Fulfil are opposites, not the same. And yet this world's religious system promotes that it they mean the same.

"Proving all things", good for you.

ultra.immaculate said:

Paul confirms Jesus' confirmation and Peter's declaration the Torah has not been abolished by saying the following verses:

Romans 3:31 - "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law"

Romans 7:12 - "So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good". Why would something holy, righteous and good be abolished?

Romans 7:22 - "For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being"

Romans 7:25 - "…I myself serve the law of God with my mind…"

Click to expand...

And another:

Rom. 2: 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Great Post.

ultra.immaculate said:

The Sabbath was never changed from the 7th day of the week to the 1st day of the week. It’s a deep shame that the vast majority of Christians keep the Sabbath on the wrong day of the week. Romans 14 is a common argument against keeping the Sabbath on the 7th day. But think about why would Paul mention food at the beginning of Romans 14 to suddenly talk about days of the week? The answer is because he was talking about fasting. There was a debate between Christians and the Pharisees on which they should fast on.

Click to expand...

It's good for you to question the popular teachings of this world's religions regarding Paul's letter concerning the weak in faith.

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

What difference does it make what day "one man" esteems as Holy, or what day "another man" esteems as not holy? Who makes a Day Holy? Man, or God? I am now fully persuaded in my mind, that the God of Abraham is the creator of Righteousness and true Holiness. There was a time when I wasn't persuaded, "Wherein in time past I walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience". But that man is to be crucified with Christ, replaced by a "new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness".

ultra.immaculate said:

The Law of Christ isn't a brand new law. It’s the Law of Moses/Mosaic Law but keeping the principle of the law or the spirit of the law and not just the letter of the law.

Click to expand...

Jesus makes this clear in His Commandment, "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."

It's a Command, required for Salvation no doubt. It's something we must do to inherit life, but obviously we don't search for literal meat and blood. But if a man can understand that meat is Spiritual Food, that HE fed Israel before becoming a flesh and blood human, and the Blood is the Life of Christ we place on our works and thoughts (2 door posts and Lintel), then is can begin to make sense.

ultra.immaculate said:

Gentiles should keep the dietary laws the Jews keep because we are now part of the "… commonwealth of Israel…" (Ephesians 2:12). We should keep the dietary laws and the other applicable laws from the Torah just like Jewish Christians do. It’s weird that Jewish Christians keep one law and Gentile Christians pick and choose some laws to follow from the Torah (For example, not getting tattoos but eating shrimp).

Keeping the Torah is definitely not required for salvation. Gentile Christians who follow the Torah commandments are not living like Jews, but living like people who keep God's commandnents!

Click to expand...

That is what a "Jew" really is in the first place, Yes? A person who does the Works of Abraham, who joins himself to the Lord. Who "sojourns with them", as God's Law clearly states.

Lev. 19: 34 But the stranger (Non-Jew) that dwelleth with you shall "be unto you" as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

After all, Jesus did say, "Salvation is of the Jews" and that would be of a Jew who is one inwardly.

ultra.immaculate said:

The Bible makes a lot more sense when you read it from a 1st century Jewish/Hebraic perspective. The entire Bible was almost written by Jews to Jews in a Jewish context and in a Jewish mindset.

Click to expand...

It is written that the Kingdom of God is within a man, and the Temple of God is in his mind. And God's People that HE gives to Jesus are being trained to be Kings and Priests of God. I will share with you my understanding of this given you have addressed the same issues that I have, and concluded the same, in spite of popular traditions.

If the Kingdom of God dwells within me, then who are my subjects? Would these not be my thoughts? Am I not then learning to discern my thoughts according to God's Laws, discerning which ones are clean and unclean, holy and unholy, righteous and unrighteous? And what of the evil thoughts, do I let them run freely in my kingdom? Or do I fight against them with the Sword of the Lord, and the Armor of God. And what is the instruction from God, isn't it to completely destroy the thought, man, women, child, goats idols, etc. To wipe out every part of the thought, to make sure this thought doesn't influence others in my kingdom and becomes a ruler which causes the king to fall, like Solomon.

Isn't that the reason why God's Laws are written on the hearts of His people, because what comes from within man defiles a man?

When I started looking at the Law and Prophets this way, they align perfectly with Paul's letters.

Great Post, thanks for sharing.

BobRyan said:

Peter us not talking about the TEN, the moral law of God in Acts 15

Click to expand...

"moral law" is not a biblically defensible title as it relates to any specific grouping of laws. The 10 does not detail 10 inalienable moral actions. 1-3 have monotheistic values and are moral in a monotheistic framework, but are not about moral action; rather about abstaining from immoral (monotheistic) action. 6-10 are like 1-3, they are not about moral action but rather about abstaining from immoral action, in this case, as it relates to not harming others. 5 is about the only law of the 10 that actually describes action; it's morality is in a hierarchical order sense in this case as it pertains to your parents and relies on a framework where your parents share the same values, which works in a system with shared cultural values and under the same set of rules (like the old covenant) but we can all think of examples where this falls apart. Even the 5th can be argued, it's still about abstaining from dishonour to show honor (which you can pick up if you read the discipline of dishonour to your parents, but there is no clause for how to honor your parents).

The 4th is not about innate moral action or innate immorality; it is about a ritual legal code of rest that depends on knowledge of the ritual in order to know what action or inaction is required. Failing this critical knowledge, there is no way our natural leanings would align with this legal code, where you could argue that the others have a natural foundation (even the monothesitic based one) and can be self-discovered. Even if rhythms of ritual rest are discovered as benifital aligning with our natural circaseptan rhythms without knowledge of the 4th it's not going to align with the legal code. Circaseptan rhythms are aproximations not exact 7 24 hour periods nor does it align with any specific day of the week and it certainly doesn't detail orthopraxy. You can argue we don't need to be told not to kill each other, sure, that is self-discoverable, but you can't agrue the requirement of the 4th as discoverable at that level or hit the requirements of the legal code. "moral law" then seems to be a traditionally based term for post-biblical doctrinal claim in a contextual space that don't align to definitoins of what moral is or what moral is not. In the end it is not biblical defensible itself and should be discouraged, especially when it promotes confusion. You need to first defend why the term "moral law" can or should be used for the 10 at all and that simply can't be done, biblically speaking

the whole 10 is about a prohibition describing the moral point of failure than about active moral behaviour, but even in this it is a legal code point of failure, and should not be confused with a standar of what is moral and what is not. "Moral law" is ill-suited and again it is a covenant legal point-of-failure (the tablets are literally called the two tables of covenant law) but I honestly don't want to live my life just knowing I didn't kill, steal or lie, didn't make graven images and kept the sabbath, etc... so I can check my moral checkbox and forget about any other moral responsibility I have. The 10 in that regard fail, they do not direct my every step, it just tells me failure points (more properly, it accuses me). The HS on the otherhand does direct my every step so I align myself to the HS, not the legal code failure point of the old covenant.

DamianWarS said:

"moral law" is not a biblically defensible title

Click to expand...

IN fact it is biblically defensible

Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become

1 John 3:4 "sin IS transgression of the LAW"

Rom 7 "I would not know what sin is, if the LAW had not said..."

Eph 6:1-2 "Honor your father and mother is the first commandment WITH a promise"

We notice that Ex 20:12 command to honor parents is NOT the first commandment in Exodus.
Is NOT the first commandment in the book of Genesis
Is NOT the first commandment in the Law of Moses

But IS The FIRST commandment in what Deuteronomy 4 and 5 call "THE TEN Commandments"

and the TEN are the only commandments kept inside the Ark of the Covenant

DamianWarS said:

as it relates to any specific grouping of laws.

Click to expand...

Until you read those verses above

Heb 10 'God takes away the first" speaking of animal sacrifice and offerings explicitly, and exclusively, "to establish the second"

The phrase "Moral law" does not mean "This is an exhaustive list of every single thing you are supposed to do"
Rather it means "this is a list of commands you should not violate because doing so is a sin, a moral sin, a sin that results in you being cast into the lake of fire, second death.

Great post DWS. The world would be full of Sabbath keepers on some day of the week if it were indeed written on the heart.

SB tells us the ten commandments started with Adam, which there is no way to prove. If that were true, then there must be two different adultery laws, because man would not have been able to procreate without sinning under just the ten. The Deut. rendition of the fourth commandment tells the Israelite story to observe it because of God's leading them out of captivity in Egypt. That couldn't have been more foreign to anyone living before God gave it to Israel at Sinai. The commandment to honor parents would have bewildered Adam since he didn't have any parents.