WHEN WAS THE LAW TAKEN AWAY. AND GRACE BEGAN. ??

Soyeong · Thursday at 1:36 PM

under grace1 said:
You may take whatever position you like, but it's a plain fact the Jerusalem council only asked gentiles to follow four of the laws of Moses!

Even if your interpretation of the Jerusalem Council were correct, then that would mean that Gentiles should follow Jesus instead of the Jerusalem Council, so either way followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to the Law of Moses.

under grace1 said:
Quote where the bible says that?
Just use discernment.

It's good to be aware of when you start making things up.

under grace1 said:
Jesus said the Holy Spirit would be sent to guide believers into all truth.

The Spirit has the role of leading us in truth (John 16:13), the Spirit has the role of leading us to to obey the Law of Moses (Ezekiel 36:26-27), and the Law of Moses is truth (Psalm 119:142).

under grace1 said:
The Holy Spirit did not need to reside in anyone under the old covenant did He, in order for them to understand that covenant.

Please quote.

under grace1 said:
No, under the old covenant perfect obedience was not required. But Moses said it would not be hard for the people or beyond their reach to obey all of the law given. Therefore, he was NOT speaking of obedience to the letter was he, for the letter of the law does require perfect obedience, thou shalt NOT
And that letter would not be easy/not hard to obey!

He notably did not say anything about the division between the spirit or the letter of the law, so you are making things up again. God did not command anything that is too difficult for us to obey.

under grace1 · Thursday at 2:55 PM

Soyeong said:
Even if your interpretation of the Jerusalem Council were correct, then that would mean that Gentiles should follow Jesus instead of the Jerusalem Council, so either way followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to the Law of Moses.

It's good to be aware of when you start making things up.

The Spirit has the role of leading us in truth (John 16:13), the Spirit has the role of leading us to to obey the Law of Moses (Ezekiel 36:26-27), and the Law of Moses is truth (Psalm 119:142).

Please quote.

He notably did not say anything about the division between the spirit or the letter of the law, so you are making things up again. God did not command anything that is too difficult for us to obey.

My interpretation of the Jerusalem council is correct, according to what is plainly written.

Gentiles should follow Jesus instead of the Jerusalem council

Really?, So in your view, the leaders of the first century church, including, Peter, James and Paul, were being disobedient to Jesus where gentile converts were concerned in Acts 15? My oh my.

I don't have to quote. Do you think God gave the old covenant to people who could not understand it? So they understood the covenant without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, so my view is correct

So you do not believe it is difficult to obey the letter of thou shalt NOT
So it is easy for you, NOT to disobey the letter in your thoughts/desires,, the letter of thou shalt NOT, concerning the law only you and God need know you break? I don't believe you, I doubt anyone else would either

BobRyan · Thursday at 9:16 PM

Palmfever said:
It is true grace has always been an aspect of the charactor of God.
Before the foundations of the earth Christ was slain.
I think perhaps the tread title question may have been framed wrong.
As far as covenents and testaments Hebrews 9 deals with it.
It has always been faith. It has always been grace.
It was essencial that the death of Christ be carried out in real time in the natural world.
As Hebrews reads, ”there must first be the death of the testator.”

When Christ on the cross stated, ”It is finished,” and passed it was fulfilled.

In essence grace, being an aspect of Gods character has always existed in regard to His relationship with man.

The New Covenant itself is OT as we see in Jer 31:31-34 and is repeated verbatim unchanged from its OT form, in Heb 8

And the NT states explicitly that the gospel was preached "to them" as well as "to us" in places like Heb 4

Heb 4 (NKJV) 2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. 3 For we who have believed do enter that rest,

We see some of the OT "THEM" in Heb 11

1 Pet 1:10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.

BobRyan · Thursday at 9:18 PM

under grace1 said:
My interpretation of the Jerusalem council is correct, according to what is plainly written.

Gentiles should follow Jesus instead of the Jerusalem council

Really?, So in your view, the leaders of the first century church, including, Peter, James and Paul, were being disobedient to Jesus where gentile converts were concerned in Acts 15?

I would say that Jesus and the Acts 15 council were in complete agreement.

No change preCRoss vs postCross when it comes to gentiles and the Gospel.

BobRyan · Thursday at 9:27 PM

under grace1 said:
You may take whatever position you like, but it's a plain fact the Jerusalem council only asked gentiles to follow four of the laws of Moses!

Depends on what you mean.

Acts 15 does not include "honor your father and mother" but Eph6:1-2 does.
No NT text includes "do not take God's name in vain" but that still applies as well.

Acts 15 includes none of what we see in James 2 and Rom 13 yet they all apply as well.

Acts 15 is dealing specifically with ceremonial laws such as circumcision which did not apply to gentiles even in the OT if all they wanted to do was to worship the one true God in the synagogue or in the court of the gentiles.

under grace1 said:
Just use discernment. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would be sent to guide believers into all truth. The Holy Spirit did not need to reside in anyone under the old covenant did He, in order for them to understand that covenant.
No, under the old covenant perfect obedience was not required. But Moses said it would not be hard for the people or beyond their reach

Anyone saved without the Holy Spirit , would be saved by works not by grace, and able of their own strength to follow in obedience. that would not be the Jer 31:31-34 New Covenant, the gospel covenant, saved by grace.

That would be what Gal 1:6-9 calls "another gospel"

under grace1 said:
to obey all of the law given. Therefore, he was NOT speaking of obedience to the letter was he, for the letter of the law does require perfect obedience, thou shalt NOT
And that letter would not be easy/not hard to obey!

A perfect obedience covenant is what Adam was under in Gen 2 , Eden. Sinless beings can do it.
But once Adam fell. once the sinful nature became part of man's nature that Gen 1 "old covenant" would only condemn sinners as Rom 3:19-20 points out. It could not save, it could not rescue. not even once, not ever once mankind obtained the sinful nature.

Only the "one Gospel" of Gal 1:6-9 could save, only the New Covenant works in real life.

so then ALL in the OT that were saved, were in fact saved under the Jer 31 New Covenant, just as we still are to this very day.

Palmfever · 2026-02-27T00:00:19-0600

BobRyan said:
The New Covenant itself is OT as we see in Jer 31:31-34 and is repeated verbatim unchanged from its OT form, in Heb 8

And the NT states explicitly that the gospel was preached "to them" as well as "to us" in places like Heb 4

Heb 4 (NKJV) 2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. 3 For we who have believed do enter that rest,

We see some of the OT "THEM" in Heb 11

1 Pet 1:10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner They looked forward of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.

Old testament believers knew. They had faith.They were looking forward. They are saved by the grace of God as we are.
”But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.”
God determines the timing of His events and fulfills them.

”Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.”

under grace1 · 2026-02-27T00:21:02-0600

BobRyan said:
Depends on what you mean.

Acts 15 does not include "honor your father and mother" but Eph6:1-2 does.
No NT text includes "do not take God's name in vain" but that still applies as well.

Acts 15 includes none of what we see in James 2 and Rom 13 yet they all apply as well.

Acts 15 is dealing specifically with ceremonial laws such as circumcision which did not apply to gentiles even in the OT if all they wanted to do was to worship the one true God in the synagogue or in the court of the gentiles.

Anyone saved without the Holy Spirit , would be saved by works not by grace, and able of their own strength to follow in obedience. that would not be the Jer 31:31-34 New Covenant, the gospel covenant, saved by grace.

That would be what Gal 1:6-9 calls "another gospel"

A perfect obedience covenant is what Adam was under in Gen 2 , Eden. Sinless beings can do it.
But once Adam fell. once the sinful nature became part of man's nature that Gen 1 "old covenant" would only condemn sinners as Rom 3:19-20 points out. It could not save, it could not rescue. not even once, not ever once mankind obtained the sinful nature.

Only the "one Gospel" of Gal 1:6-9 could save, only the New Covenant works in real life.

so then ALL in the OT that were saved, were in fact saved under the Jer 31 New Covenant, just as we still are to this very day.

''''Acts 15 does not include "honor your father and mother" but Eph6:1-2 does.
No NT text includes "do not take God's name in vain" but that still applies as well.'''''

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” Acts15:5

They were debating which of the Mosaic laws gentiles be asked to follow, NOT the moral law

Anyone saved without the Holy Spirit , would be saved by works not by grace, and able of their own strength to follow in obedience. that would not be the Jer 31:31-34 New Covenant, the gospel covenant, saved by grace.

That would be what Gal 1:6-9 calls "another gospel"

The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives WITH you and will be[c] IN(IN) you. John14:17

The Holy Spirit was with the Israelites under the old covenant, but not indwelling them(IN them) as He is under the new covenant.

so then ALL in the OT that were saved, were in fact saved under the Jer 31 New Covenant, just as we still are to this very day.

The law being written in the mind and placed on the heart is part of the new covenant specifically, not the old covenant, as your Doug Bachelor stated. As is your sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more. The covenant began when sacrifices for sin were no longer neccessary.
It is true grace has always existed, however:
And if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.” Deut6:25
Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness for everyone who believeth Rom10:4
And:
But now(not before) apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. Rom3:21&22)

BobRyan · 2026-02-27T22:50:18-0600

under grace1 said:
''''Acts 15 does not include "honor your father and mother" but Eph6:1-2 does.

True and Acts 15 does not say 'delete all of scripture that you do not find in this letter or in some other letter written in this century"

under grace1 said:
No NT text includes "do not take God's name in vain" but that still applies as well.'''''

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” Acts15:5

Indeed. that is the issue, the ceremonial laws.
Not the moral laws such as the TEN Commandments where "the first commandment with a promise is Honor your father and mother" Eph 6:1-2

under grace1 said:
They were debating which of the Mosaic laws gentiles be asked to follow, NOT the moral law

agreed and the TEN are included in the moral law.
As James 2 points out "to break one of them is to break them all"

under grace1 said:
Anyone saved without the Holy Spirit , would be saved by works not by grace

yep

under grace1 said:
, and able of their own strength to follow in obedience. that would not be the Jer 31:31-34 New Covenant, the gospel covenant, saved by grace.

That would be what Gal 1:6-9 calls "another gospel"

true.

under grace1 said:
so then ALL in the OT that were saved, were in fact saved under the Jer 31 New Covenant, just as we still are to this very day.

true

under grace1 said:
The law being written in the mind and placed on the heart is part of the new covenant

yep. IT is in Jer 31:31-34
It is how we find Moses and Elijah standing with Christ in glory in Matt 17

under grace1 said:
Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness for everyone who believeth Rom10:4

1 Pet 1:9 receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls (NKJV/KJV)
1 Pet 1:9 receiving the outcome of your faith—the salvation of your souls (NASB)

Your Rom 10 statement is of the same form

under grace1 · 2026-02-27T23:42:17-0600

BobRyan said:
As James 2 points out "to break one of them is to break them all"

I agree with you.
Therefore, if a person dwells on any impure thought
If they desire anything of their neighbours, whether material goods or a member of their household
If they have lust/sexual desire for anyone apart from their spouse
If they fail to obey just once the law relating to the inner man, the law no one but they and God need know they break/thoughts/desires
If they tell even a little fib about another
If they erect any graven image in their mind
They have transgressed all of the ten commandments, as you stated
So who does not transgress all of the ten commandments?

under grace1 · 2026-02-27T23:55:31-0600

BobRyan said:
True and Acts 15 does not say 'delete all of scripture that you do not find in this letter or in some other letter written in this century"

Indeed. that is the issue, the ceremonial laws.
Not the moral laws such as the TEN Commandments where "the first commandment with a promise is Honor your father and mother" Eph 6:1-2

agreed and the TEN are included in the moral law.
As James 2 points out "to break one of them is to break them all"

yep

true.

true

yep. IT is in Jer 31:31-34
It is how we find Moses and Elijah standing with Christ in glory in Matt 17

1 Pet 1:9 receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls (NKJV/KJV)
1 Pet 1:9 receiving the outcome of your faith—the salvation of your souls (NASB)

Your Rom 10 statement is of the same form

BTW
Best not to to put in your posts
Under grace 1 said what he did not state, you knew in post 127 I was simply quoting your own words in the emboldened
Doesn't look good in my view
But I understand why you felt the need to do it.
Possibly more studying is needed

Studyman · 2026-02-28T07:24:34-0600

under grace1 said:
''''Acts 15 does not include "honor your father and mother" but Eph6:1-2 does.
No NT text includes "do not take God's name in vain" but that still applies as well.'''''

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” Acts15:5

They were debating which of the Mosaic laws gentiles be asked to follow, NOT the moral law

The Apostles never judged God's Laws as "moral" or "not moral". The Pharisees and many religions which exist in the world God placed me in, do exalt themselves as Judges of God's Word, but the Disciples never exalted themselves in such a way. So it wasn't a debate about whether God's Laws are "Moral" or not. It is a debate about what Moses actually taught, versus the traditions and commandments of men the Pharisees taught for doctrines.

For instance, God led, directed talked to and protected Abraham and Lot for 24 years, without demanding that they cut the loose skin off their penis. Proving that it wasn't a Law of God that to be saved, God made men first cut the lose skin off their penis. Which for me is perfectly understandable as I don't believe the Bible represents a God that was obsessed with the loose skin of a man's penis, and to imply HE was is quite an absurd judgment against God in my view. And yet even today there are religions of this world that promote such foolishness. The pharisees knew this, as Moses writings were read every Sabbath day. Yet they never incorporated this Truth into their religious philosophy. They omitted this important Biblical Fact in order to preserve and promote the commandments of men Jesus said they taught for doctrines, not God.

God led hundreds of thousands of Israelites to the Jordan River, the last obstacle between them and the Promised Land. He split the Jordan, just as HE did the Red Sea and brought all these men across the Jordan on dry ground. And yet only two men, Joshua and Caleb, had the loose skin of their penis cut off. God led hundreds of thousands of "Uncircumcised" men across the Jordan. Proving again the utter ridiculousness and foolishness of promoting the God of Abraham as a God that won't save a man unless he first cuts the loose skin off his penis.

Naaman, an uncircumcised Syrian, cleansed of Leprosy. God raises an uncircumcised child from the dead, though Elijah.

In the Law and Prophets, (KJV) the word "Circumcise" exists 6 times. 3 of those 6 times speak to the "circumcision of the heart". And yet the Pharisees that believed, didn't mention ONE WORD about this Circumcision "after the manner of Moses". They knew of it, but they omitted the weightier matters of the Law, as Jesus had already exposed.

All these Inspired Words of God proves that the wicked judgment against God, that HE only saves men who cut the loose skin off their penis, is blasphemy and absurd. And is not the "law of Moses" at all, if a man would consider "Every Word" that proceeds from the mouth of God. The Priests in the Temple knew all these things, but rejected them, refused to teach them in order to promote their own religion, with their own traditions, their own high days and their own righteousness.

And what was the difference between the behavior of Abraham from before he cut the loose skin off his penis, and after? There was no physical difference except maybe some hygiene benefit. The difference was Spiritual, because like Paul tries to teach men, "For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

And who would even know Abraham was circumcised, besides God? Did Abraham go around dropping his pants to show others his Love for God? I would say no, it's a token between God and man, not Alms to be seen of men.

So NO! the Pharisees were not promoting God's Laws, NO! the Pharisees were not promoting the Circumcision of Moses, and NO! the Bible doesn't support or promote the religious philosophy that God will not save a man, unless he cuts the loose skin off his penis. I know these things because I believe Jesus, and have heard Moses and the Prophets as HE instructed me to do. The Apostles also heard Jesus concerning those who sit in Moses seat.

So Acts 15 was about turning the Gentile converts who had turned to God, "AWAY" from the mainstream religions of this world that God placed them in, along with their religious philosophies and traditions of men, and "TOWARDS" the Law of Moses being read every Sabbath Day, that Jesus said "whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do".

"for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder "of them" that diligently seek him.

under grace1 · 2026-02-28T07:59:34-0600

Studyman said:
The Apostles never judged God's Laws as "moral" or "not moral". The Pharisees and many religions which exist in the world God placed me in, do exalt themselves as Judges of God's Word, but the Disciples never exalted themselves in such a way. So it wasn't a debate about whether God's Laws are "Moral" or not. It is a debate about what Moses actually taught, versus the traditions and commandments of men the Pharisees taught for doctrines.

For instance, God led, directed talked to and protected Abraham and Lot for 24 years, without demanding that they cut the loose skin off their penis. Proving that it wasn't a Law of God that to be saved, God made men first cut the lose skin off their penis. Which for me is perfectly understandable as I don't believe the Bible represents a God that was obsessed with the loose skin of a man's penis, and to imply HE was is quite an absurd judgment against God in my view. And yet even today there are religions of this world that promote such foolishness. The pharisees knew this, as Moses writings were read every Sabbath day. Yet they never incorporated this Truth into their religious philosophy. They omitted this important Biblical Fact in order to preserve and promote the commandments of men Jesus said they taught for doctrines, not God.

God led hundreds of thousands of Israelites to the Jordan River, the last obstacle between them and the Promised Land. He split the Jordan, just as HE did the Red Sea and brought all these men across the Jordan on dry ground. And yet only two men, Joshua and Caleb, had the loose skin of their penis cut off. God led hundreds of thousands of "Uncircumcised" men across the Jordan. Proving again the utter ridiculousness and foolishness of promoting the God of Abraham as a God that won't save a man unless he first cuts the loose skin off his penis.

Naaman, an uncircumcised Syrian, cleansed of Leprosy. God raises an uncircumcised child from the dead, though Elijah.

In the Law and Prophets, (KJV) the word "Circumcise" exists 6 times. 3 of those 6 times speak to the "circumcision of the heart". And yet the Pharisees that believed, didn't mention ONE WORD about this Circumcision "after the manner of Moses". They knew of it, but they omitted the weightier matters of the Law, as Jesus had already exposed.

All these Inspired Words of God proves that the wicked judgment against God, that HE only saves men who cut the loose skin off their penis, is blasphemy and absurd. And is not the "law of Moses" at all, if a man would consider "Every Word" that proceeds from the mouth of God. The Priests in the Temple knew all these things, but rejected them, refused to teach them in order to promote their own religion, with their own traditions, their own high days and their own righteousness.

And what was the difference between the behavior of Abraham from before he cut the loose skin off his penis, and after? There was no physical difference except maybe some hygiene benefit. The difference was Spiritual, because like Paul tries to teach men, "For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

And who would even know Abraham was circumcised, besides God? Did Abraham go around dropping his pants to show others his Love for God? I would say no, it's a token between God and man, not Alms to be seen of men.

So NO! the Pharisees were not promoting God's Laws, NO! the Pharisees were not promoting the Circumcision of Moses, and NO! the Bible doesn't support or promote the religious philosophy that God will not save a man, unless he cuts the loose skin off his penis. I know these things because I believe Jesus, and have heard Moses and the Prophets as HE instructed me to do. The Apostles also heard Jesus concerning those who sit in Moses seat.

So Acts 15 was about turning the Gentile converts who had turned to God, "AWAY" from the mainstream religions of this world that God placed them in, along with their religious philosophies and traditions of men, and "TOWARDS" the Law of Moses being read every Sabbath Day, that Jesus said "whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do".

"for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder "of them" that diligently seek him.

Gentiles were asked to follow four of the Mosaic laws, full stop!
As the two greatest commandments were not mentioned, neither was the ten commandments, discernment SHOULD lead to the correct conclusion

Studyman · 2026-02-28T10:57:28-0600

under grace1 said:
Gentiles were asked to follow four of the Mosaic laws, full stop!
As the two greatest commandments were not mentioned, neither was the ten commandments, discernment SHOULD lead to the correct conclusion

Acts 15: 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

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.

I don't believe that men are taught by the Apostles in Act's 15, to deny, reject and ignore the Christ's Saying, if they were born with certain DNA. But you are free to adopt and promote whatever religious philosophy you like.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

WHEN WAS THE LAW TAKEN AWAY. AND GRACE BEGAN. ??

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Junior Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads