Are Christians to Obey the Law of God/Jesus?

[bbbbbbb]

I fully agree with you. We are under a Covenant whereby the Law of Christ is written upon our hearts, which is VASTLY superior to the letter of law taught in synagogues.

Jr

Praise God!

 

[Dkh587]

[Neh 13:21 KJV] 21 Then I testified against them, and said unto them, Why lodge ye about the wall? if ye do [so] again, I will lay hands on you. From that time forth came they no [more] on the sabbath.

Looks like the threat of death was effective to those merchants. What threats do YOU level against those not keeping the Law of Moses? Do you even threaten them with what the Law of Moses commands?



How can I reason with someone who denies his own guilt? Look what you did that I quoted of your use of Nehemiah. He was prepared to ensure the Law of Moses was followed to the letter, but didn't have to after using threats.

So, again, who have YOU threatened lately with the death as prescribed by the Law of Moses? Anyone? After all, you fancy yourself a teacher of the Lawof Moses, so let's hear about your exploits of at least threatening Law breakers with a real death you're willing to meet out to them?

Nobody, you say? Hmm. So much for you being an authority to teach the Law of Moses when you're not even willing to fulfill its basic precepts.

Nothing to prove here except to observe that not even YOU are in obedience to that Law.

At least Nehemiah was willing to follow through with what the Law of Moses commanded....

Jr

According to your legalism, Nehemiah should’ve not shown them any mercy, and killed them on sight, as the commandment says “they shall be put to death”, not “they shall be threatened to put to death”.

So, why wasn’t Nehemiah adhering to your legalistic way of thinking?

for some reason, you’ve concocted up a bunch of ideas about what I do and don’t do, yet you don’t know me from a can of paint.

for you to be so legalistic, you should know that false accusations is breaking the law of God.

can you show me where I said I was a teacher/an authority of the law of God?

We might could get somewhere if you would stop shucklebucking and creating all these ideas in your head and falsely accusing me.

 

[Dkh587]

Well, am I correct in thinking that you eat hot food on the Sabbath which you cook in your home. If I am incorrect then please let me know and I will proceed to demonstrate to you very clear disobedience on your part to God's specific commandments in regard to His Sabbaths.

I’m not interested in adhering to your Talmudic doctrines. Keep that legalism & bondage for yourself.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I’m not interested in adhering to your Talmudic doctrines. Keep that legalism & bondage for yourself.

Nor am I. As I have posted elsewhere I am not under the Sinaitic covenant, but under the New Covenant instituted by Jesus Christ through His willing sacrifice on the cross of Calvary. I am merely pointing out to wannabe Law keepers the utter inability of them to keep the Law they profess to love.

 

[SwordmanJr]

According to your legalism, Nehemiah should’ve not shown them any mercy, and killed them on sight, as the commandment says “they shall be put to death”, not “they shall be threatened to put to death”.

So, why wasn’t Nehemiah adhering to your legalistic way of thinking?

So are you saying that because he was disobedient to the Law, that you too are justified in not obeying it? You're the one who claims we should all be following it, and here you are justifying non-adherence to it by another fallen man's failure.

for some reason, you’ve concocted up a bunch of ideas about what I do and don’t do, yet you don’t know me from a can of paint.

I can pretty much make a safe bet that you aren't in prison for obeying the Law you demand we all obey, unless they now allow internet access to convicts.

for you to be so legalistic, you should know that false accusations is breaking the law of God.

It's also a safe bet that if you were in genuine obedience to the Law you demand all the rest of us follow, you would be in prison by now. That bet, therefore, includes the conclusion that you are NOT in prison, so I can see quite clearly your color in that paint can.

can you show me where I said I was a teacher/an authority of the law of God?

You have indeed stated on numerous occasions that the Law of Moses is still binding upon us today. Are you now back-stepping from that? To make statements of affirmation to some alleged requirement to continue in obedience to the Law of Moses is to superposition yourself into being a teacher of the Law, although you did not lay out specifics as any deep study of the Law may entail.

We might could get somewhere if you would stop shucklebucking and creating all these ideas in your head and falsely accusing me.

You leave no room for any other conclusions to your words.

Jr

 

[bbbbbbb]

So are you saying that because he was disobedient to the Law, that you too are justified in not obeying it? You're the one who claims we should all be following it, and here you are justifying non-adherence to it by another fallen man's failure.

I can pretty much make a safe bet that you aren't in prison for obeying the Law you demand we all obey, unless they now allow internet access to convicts.

It's also a safe bet that if you were in genuine obedience to the Law you demand all the rest of us follow, you would be in prison by now. That bet, therefore, includes the conclusion that you are NOT in prison, so I can see quite clearly your color in that paint can.

You have indeed stated on numerous occasions that the Law of Moses is still binding upon us today. Are you now back-stepping from that? To make statements of affirmation to some alleged requirement to continue in obedience to the Law of Moses is to superposition yourself into being a teacher of the Law, although you did not lay out specifics as any deep study of the Law may entail.

You leave no room for any other conclusions to your words.

Jr

Actually, imprisonment as a form of punishment is foreign to the Old Testament law. The options were rather direct. Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.

 

[Dkh587]

So are you saying that because he was disobedient to the Law, that you too are justified in not obeying it? You're the one who claims we should all be following it, and here you are justifying non-adherence to it by another fallen man's failure.



I can pretty much make a safe bet that you aren't in prison for obeying the Law you demand we all obey, unless they now allow internet access to convicts.



It's also a safe bet that if you were in genuine obedience to the Law you demand all the rest of us follow, you would be in prison by now. That bet, therefore, includes the conclusion that you are NOT in prison, so I can see quite clearly your color in that paint can.



You have indeed stated on numerous occasions that the Law of Moses is still binding upon us today. Are you now back-stepping from that? To make statements of affirmation to some alleged requirement to continue in obedience to the Law of Moses is to superposition yourself into being a teacher of the Law, although you did not lay out specifics as any deep study of the Law may entail.



You leave no room for any other conclusions to your words.

Jr

How do you know I’m not in jail? There are many prisons/jails that allow internet access to inmates - that is why you should not assume and make judgements without having all the facts.

your posts in here have been full of false accusations & assumptions, which are not in accordance with the law of God.

it is you that is assuming role of a teacher of the law of God in here - you have been pushing your legalism and faulty understanding on me.

I know your understanding is faulty because the words of the Law & the Prophets are not in agreement with your legalistic heresy which leads to bondage.

As for me, I will continue to pursue freedom. Not interested in your Pharasaical bondage.

Psalm 119:45

And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.

 

[Dkh587]

Nor am I. As I have posted elsewhere I am not under the Sinaitic covenant, but under the New Covenant instituted by Jesus Christ through His willing sacrifice on the cross of Calvary. I am merely pointing out to wannabe Law keepers the utter inability of them to keep the Law they profess to love.

I’m not convinced by your posts to follow your example of disobedience to the law of God.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I’m not convinced by your posts to follow your example of disobedience to the law of God.

Nor am I convinced to follow your example of partial obedience to the law of God.

 

[SwordmanJr]

How do you know I’m not in jail? There are many prisons/jails that allow internet access to inmates - that is why you should not assume and make judgements without having all the facts.

Only if you're in a jail ran by AOC.

your posts in here have been full of false accusations & assumptions, which are not in accordance with the law of God.

So, asking you questions , in your mind, is a form of judging and assuming? My post started with questions, and you have yet to answer them.

it is you that is assuming role of a teacher of the law of God in here - you have been pushing your legalism and faulty understanding on me.

You are so funny. I've quoted the verses that clearly point out the Law being written upon our hearts, and this is the best you have as a response?

I know your understanding is faulty because the words of the Law & the Prophets are not in agreement with your legalistic heresy which leads to bondage.

Indeed? My quoting Paul and Peter and James places people under legalistic bondage? That's seriously messed up, but you have the right to believe it, like I've been saying all along. Your tirade of legalism is most telling, as other have commented to me in the background.

As for me, I will continue to pursue freedom. Not interested in your Pharasaical bondage.

You can't quote anything from my statements that would even hint at legalism to back up your name-calling, but I will defend your right to believe whatsoever you wish.

Jr

 

[BobRyan]

Only if you're in a jail ran by AOC.

ok.. that's pretty funny...

 

[BobRyan]

Nine of the ten are repeated in the NT as binding upon mankind.

agreed. The command "do not take God's name in vain" is not quoted at all in the NT.. the Sabbath commandment is quoted from a number of times. And "Every Sabbath" the believers were gathering for "more Gospel preaching" in Acts 18:4.

so then... Bible details.

You'll have to elaborate on this, because I did indeed bring up circumcision as a part of it, and showed that Peter was addressing not only circumcision, but also the Law of Moses.

#1 Peter is not condemning circumcision for Jews as Acts 21 proves beyond all doubt even Paul affirms this point. So again.. Bible details.

#2. Peter is not condemning any part of the Word of God.

#3. The issue is "circumcision for gentiles" which is something that the Christian Jews "made up" -- started a "new tradition" via "just making stuff up" -- Peter is referring to the practice of just-making-stuff up as that which was a burden that Jews piled on to themselves and could not bear.

#4. "Do not take God's name in vain" is in the LAW of Moses - and Peter is not condemning it -- even though it too is not quoted in Acts 15.

 

[BobRyan]

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

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

The point remains.

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

In actual fact you did not show a single text stating that Peter quoted the OT as saying that gentiles needed to be circumcised to be saved - or for any other reason in general.

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

Where nothing at all in vs 5 says that any OT text argued for gentiles to be circumcised to be saved - which is the "problem" being identified by Acts 15:1-2

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

see Acts 15 1 for "context"

"Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them,

That is the very point being debated in Acts 15 -- so then staying focused on that topic.

 

[BobRyan]

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

agreed. Jer 31:31-33 says it is the LAW of God that is written on the heart... and what did Jeremiah and his reader's know as the meaning for that term? Most certainly it would include the LAW that God himself spoke and wrote in Ex 20.

 

[BobRyan]

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

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

There are a lot of threads here discussing the TEN and one group arguing one way while another argues that all or some or one have been downsized. So we have a lot of "those" threads.

 

[Andrewn]

There are a lot of threads here discussing the TEN and one group arguing one way while another argues that all or some or one have been downsized. So we have a lot of "those" threads.

If the reference to the Law in all those threads means the Ten Commandments then of course and without a shadow of a doubt they should be followed. We may argue about keeping the Sabbath on the 7th day or the 1st day, but personally I'd keep both .

 

[SwordmanJr]

agreed. The command "do not take God's name in vain" is not quoted at all in the NT..

Not verbatim, no. The other eight are also not repeated verbatim, but we do have these:

Mat 6:9 KJV - After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

That's a pretty clear indicator that His name is reverenced, and therefore using a hallowed name in a manner that is disrespectful and vain can pretty well be understood to go against the nature of His name.

Eph 4:29 KJV - Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
Eph 4:30 KJV - And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Again, vain use of the name of the Lord would violate these.

Mat 12:34 KJV - O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Mat 12:35 KJV - A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

This too is a pretty indicator of that same principle.

Ecc 10:12 KJV - The words of a wise man's mouth [are] gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself.

All the above stand in unified backing to the injunction to using the Lord's name in vain.

All but one of the commandments are repeated in some sense (which I should have clarified from the beginning).

the Sabbath commandment is quoted from a number of times. And "Every Sabbath" the believers were gathering for "more Gospel preaching" in Acts 18:4.

so then... Bible details.

That one verse you ripped from its context in trying to get it to mesh with your religion is not a proper handling of the context. Paul himself was the one in the synagogues, not all the Gentile believers.

Nice try, but no dice. It's well known among Bible 101 students that Paul had a heart for his own people, and wanted to reach them wherever he could. Dragging Gentile believers into synagogues where the text doesn't even hint at that is just plain false.

#1 Peter is not condemning circumcision for Jews as Acts 21 proves beyond all doubt even Paul affirms this point. So again.. Bible details.

Straw man argument. I never said anything about any condemnation of circumcision.

Gal 5:6 KJV - For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

#2. Peter is not condemning any part of the Word of God.

Another straw man argument because it has nothing to do with what I have been saying.

#3. The issue is "circumcision for gentiles" which is something that the Christian Jews "made up" -- started a "new tradition" via "just making stuff up" -- Peter is referring to the practice of just-making-stuff up as that which was a burden that Jews piled on to themselves and could not bear.

Straw man.

#4. "Do not take God's name in vain" is in the LAW of Moses - and Peter is not condemning it -- even though it too is not quoted in Acts 15.

Straw man. I never said it had to be in Acts 15. Paul established the necessity for rebirth, and in that rebirth, the Law Giver indwells us, and writes His Law upon our hearts. We therefore do not need to try and live by the letter, but by the Spirit in newness of life, not legalism.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

In actual fact you did not show a single text stating that Peter quoted the OT as saying that gentiles needed to be circumcised to be saved - or for any other reason in general.

What are you talking about? You clearly are pulling stuff out of think air, because I never took issue with circumcision and salvation. I was talking about the alleged necessity for us to live by the Law of Moses today. Where do you get this stuff? Maybe I don't want to know....

Where nothing at all in vs 5 says that any OT text argued for gentiles to be circumcised to be saved - which is the "problem" being identified by Acts 15:1-2

You conveniently left out the Law of Moses in general. Nobody anywhere in the Bible talked about circumcision being a burden upon the fore fathers nor to the apostles. Peter was clearly identifying the Law of Moses as such. You can deny that all day long, and all you will do is prove your denial of the obvious.

"Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them,

That is the very point being debated in Acts 15 -- so then staying focused on that topic.

Let's quote the actual verses in that context that speak to what I've been saying, shall we:

Act 15:5 KJV - 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.
Act 15:10 KJV - 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?

How is it that you so easily overlook the obvious?

Jr

 

[BobRyan]

Regarding Jer 31:31-33 what Law did Jeremiah and his readers know about as being included in the moral law of God?

I suggest it "included" the one where "the first commandment with a promise" is the 5th commandment - as Paul reminds us in Eph 6:1-2

If the reference to the Law in all those threads means the Ten Commandments then of course and without a shadow of a doubt they should be followed.

1. So that is a big step forward in clarity - to join with all these other groups as noted in my signature line.

====================================
I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm all TEN of the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

And of course 7th day groups

Seventh-day Baptists
Seventh-day Adventists
(and 100's of others)

======================================

We may argue about keeping the Sabbath on the 7th day or the 1st day, but personally I'd keep both .

as I read the documents that those groups write - they seem to all agree that at the time that Jermiah is writing there was zero ambiguity on the point "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD (YHWH)" Ex 20:10.

So then it occurs to me that at least some of these details are not as disputed/debated/questioned as others.

 

[Andrewn]

as I read the documents that those groups write - they seem to all agree that at the time that Jermiah is writing there was zero ambiguity on the point "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD (YHWH)" Ex 20:10.

We we're talking about the Law, we're really only disagreeing about the Sabbath. This is a rather minor agreement considering the entire Torah has 613 laws. We know that in OT time, the command was to rest on the 7th day / Sabbath. So, there are 3 possibilities for us:

1) Rest on the Sabbath.
2) Rest on Sunday, instead.
3) No day of rest or any day of rest that you can manage as a lot of Christians now advocate.

I take position #2 in agreement with Christians of previous generations as noted in your signature line.

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one judge you regarding food, or drink, or in respect of a holy day or new moon or sabbath days. 17 These are shadows of things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

A verse like this in addition to the entire Church tradition throughout the centuries should put this discussion to "rest."

What both you and I should do is promote Sunday not as a "rest" day (people today cannot understand this concept) but as a "family" day for gathering with family, neighbors, and friends and hopefully worshipping together. If you want top promote Saturday for the same function this is also OK with me. Perhaps we can ask people to choose according to their work schedules. I'm not against 7th day Sabbath so long:

1) It is to be understood that Sunday is the day of worship, it's the Lord's Day as called in the NT.
2) Saturday rest should not be enforced by law.
3) People who believe in keeping the Sabbath (Saturday or Sunday) can work together to convince group #3 (above).