Christ is the end of the law

[bugkiller]

There are holy days other than the Sabbath, but those we examples.



If you follow Noah's example, then you will only eat clean animals. In Genesis 7, Noah was told to take seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals, but he was not told how to distinguish between the two, which implies that he had already been given prior instructions about the differences between the two, and knew that unclean animals were not to be eaten or offered as sacrifices (Genesis 8:20), which is in agreement with Leviticus 11:46-47. God's word does not change (Psalms 105:8 Psalms 119:89-92, Isaiah 40:8), Jesus is the word of God (John 1:14, Revelation 19:13), and Jesus has always been the same (Hebrews 13:8). So there is and has always been a difference between clean and unclean animals, and we have never been permitted to eat unclean animals.

In regard to Genesis 9:3, the word "reh'mes" refers to a specific category of animal, which Noah was given permission to eat.

Your statement only remains true for those who will not verify it. the word "remes" means -

1. creeping things, moving things, creeping organism
   
   1. creeping things
      
      
   2. gliding things (of sea animals)
      
      
   3. moving things (of all animals)

"The noun (remes) and the associated verb (rms) each occur 17 times in the Old Testament, ten times each in Genesis 1-9. This word group is distinct from both the wild (predatory) beasts and domesticated flocks and herds. Neither verb nor noun is ever used to refer to larger wild animals or to domesticated animals. In no place is remes a catch-all category for all creatures. It is is one category of creature only. The division of Hebrew terms used up to this point in Genesis reflects the nature of the animal..."

No way. You need to discuss each of those 17 passages.

"These animals were typically characterized as being the prey of hunters and wild beasts," - John H. Walton (PhD, Hebrew Union College)

Need your source of this quote.

This would mean that Noah could not eat all things, but only those that were remes, and this is in agreement with God's statement to Noah (Genesis 9:2). Not coincidentally, the animals considered remes are all fit the description of animals that are considered clean in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. So Noah was not given permission to eat unclean animals, he just needed permission to eat clean animals, which he didn't have while they were on the ark, otherwise they wouldn't be around today.

Not according to the definition. The definition is all inclusive.

Genesis 6:20-21 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive. 21 Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up. It shall serve as food for you and for them.”

The goal of bringing animals on the ark was to preserve them from extinction, so God temporarily restricted Noah from eating clean animals by commanding him to keep them alive and to eat the same food as they did.

Birds eat snakes, mice, rats, racoons, opossums and even dogs. None of which are considered clean by the levitical law.

"God here does not bestow on men more than he had previously given, but only restored what had been taken away, that they might again enter on the possession of those things from which they had been excluded." - John Calvin

This quote by itself has no meaning except as a quote source to establish false doctrine. This is very common by your side oft he argument.

What do you mean by legalism? Are you being legalistic if you think that the laws of your country should be obeyed? Was Jesus being legalistic when he lived in perfect obedience to the Mosaic Law? Is it legalistic to think that Jesus' example should be followed by his followers? Is it being legalistic to think that the 613 commands of the OT should be obeyed, but not being legalistic if you think the 1,050 commands in the NT should be obeyed?

When the saying of Jesus are disregarded, yes because you teach keeping the law for salvation. If not then your point is worthless.

bugkiller

 

[jaybird88]

You are trying to obligate others to the law. There is nothing in the NT requiring believers to keep the law in part or whole.

only when you flip scripture on its head to fit the man made doctrine.

If we do not have a new and different covenant Jesus is a false prophet, teacher and can not be a priest replacing the Levitical priesthood. You have to deny Jesus to accept the law as your rule of conduct.No your post is mocking.

bugkiller

and if we follow your philosophy we have to teach others, everything that Jesus did, dont do it cause its wrong, and then call ourselves "followers" of Christ.

 

[bugkiller]

only when you flip scripture on its head to fit the man made doctrine.

What do you mean flip the Scripture on its head?

and if we follow your philosophy we have to teach others, everything that Jesus did, dont do it cause its wrong, and then call ourselves "followers" of Christ.

Are you physically circumcised? Why not? You indicate it is the correct thing to do. Are you single as in never married? Jesus was single and never married, you indicated we are to do the same.

We are not to teach others they are obligated to the law of Israel. Jer 31:31-33; Lk 16; Jn 1, 3, 5, 10 and 15; Rom 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8; Gal 4, 5; I Jn 3:23. Need some more?

bugkiller

 

[klutedavid]

That is a loaded question because I think theses Laws are taught in the NT. We are told to follow Messiah's example and we have many examples of him keeping the Sabbath in the NT, as well as of people continuing to keep the Sabbath throughout Acts. In Acts 15:21, it is taken as granted that Gentiles are going to be continuing to keep the Sabbath and learn about how to obey the Law of Moses every week.

The interesting thing about your question is that many Gentile Christians already keep much of what the Mosaic Law requires. It is important to note that even when the Law was given, there was not a single person who was required to obey every single law and not even Jesus could obey the laws in regard to a woman giving birth or to a woman's period. Some laws were for the King, the High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, children, widows, people living in the land, aliens living among them, and for everyone. It is also important to note that many laws have other conditions under which they apply, such as the Sabbath that only applies on the 7th day, so there is a difference between someone saying that we don't need to keep the Sabbath when it is a Tuesday and saying that we don't need to keep the Sabbath. Likewise, laws in regard to temple practice only apply when there is a temple in which to practice them. Understanding which laws apply to us today and how they apply is a matter of careful study, prayer, and the leading of the Spirit.

With that out of the way, the biggest difference is in regard to God's instructions for how to have a holy conduct. In 1 Peter 1:13-16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, so where do you suppose we can look up what that means for how we should conduct ourselves? In 1 Peter 2:9-10, we are told that we now part of a royal priesthood and a holy nation, so again same question. The phrase "be holy for God is holy" is reference to Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to be holy for God is holy, such as Leviticus 11:44-45, which is in regard to God's dietary laws. It should also be fairly straightforward that keeping the Sabbath holy observing God's other holy days is part of what it means to have a holy conduct, and we see that they continued to keep them throughout Acts. God's holy days are extremely important shadows of the Messiah that are rich with teachings about him and about God's plan of redemption and are rehearsals of what we will be doing during his reign. Furthermore, Revelation incorporates the symbolism of God's holy days, so not studying them hinders our understanding of the book. It is less an issue of what we are required to do and more an issue of what we get the delight and the divine privilege of doing.

Hello Soyeong.

Which laws are Christians under?

The New Testament uses the phrase, 'the law', in general this phrase means the entire law of Moses. Take for example the following verse.

Romans 7
5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

The sinful passions are aroused by the entire law, not just a few of the laws. Unless of course you believe that say witchcraft, is permissible now? The law means the entire law.

 

[listed]

Jesus is the way, so how exactly does one follow Jesus when they teach we are not to follow that way? His example was obedience to the laws of His Father. almost seems like a completely different belief system when you think about it.

Are you suggesting we are to become Jews? Since Jesus was obedient to the laws of His Father, pray tell what are they? Is the new covenant just so called or is it actually enforce? If so is it like the covenant given to the Jews in the dessert? What does the Bible say?

 

[Soyeong]

Hello Soyeong.

Which laws are Christians under?

The New Testament uses the phrase, 'the law', in general this phrase means the entire law of Moses. Take for example the following verse.

Romans 7
5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

The sinful passions are aroused by the entire law, not just a few of the laws. Unless of course you believe that say witchcraft, is permissible now? The law means the entire law.

Hello,

God's Law, works of law, and the law of sin all refer to different categories. In Romans 7, Paul said that God's Law is not sin, but that it reveals to us what sin is (7:7), that it is holy, righteous, and good (7:12), that it is the good that he wanted to do (7:13-20), the good that he delighted in doing (7:22), and that he served it with his mind (7:25), but contrasted that with a law of sin that came about to increase tresspasses (5:20), that stirred up sin to bear fruit unto death (7:5), that held him captive (7:6), that gave sin its power (7:8), that caused him not to do the good that he wanted to do (7:13), that held him captive (7:23), and that he served with his flesh (7:25). In Romans 7:23, Paul clearly described the law of sin as being the law that held him captive and Romans 7:6 specifies that we are released from the law that held us captive.

Romans 6:14-15 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. 15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

Paul described the the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over us, which fits his description of the law of sin perfectly, but does not at all fit his description of God's holy, righteous, and good Law that is not sin, but instructs how to avoid sin. Furthermore, sin is defined as Lawlessness (1 John 3:4), so wouldn't make any sense for Paul to say that we aren't under God's Law, but that we are still required to avoid doing what it revealed to be sin. In either case, if we are not to do what God has revealed to be sin, then we are to live in obedience to the Mosaic Law. That is how the Israelites knew what sin was and how they knew what they should repent of doing when Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent of their sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and it is how we can look up what we should be repenting of doing. In addition, it doesn't make any sense to pit God's grace against His law, as though a house divided against itself could stand, and would be difficult to reconcile with verses like Psalms 119:29, where David asked God to be gracious to him by teaching him His Law or Titus 2:11-14, where it says that our salvation involves being trained by grace to do things that are in accordance with God's Law. So Christians are under the Mosaic Law, but are not under the law of sin.

 

[Soyeong]

No. Noah could eat from any animal. Your facts are wrong.

Please explain how what I said is wrong and how it should be correctly understood.

 

[Soyeong]

W2L said: ↑
Besides the Sabbath, what law must i follow that isn't taught in the NT?
and you wrote: 21 And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.

Can't you see that is not an answer to W2L's question?

I disagreed that these things weren't taught in the NT, such as Jesus teaching us to follow the Sabbath by example. I also talked about ceremonial laws, such as God's other holy days and keeping kosher.

To be like Jesus we would be celibate, not marry, rome the country teaching the law, bring back life to others, die for mankind's sins and come back from death. To be like Jesus we would have to be fully sinless without the gift of grace. Is this what you mean?

Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21), so it involves being made to be like one in whom there is no sin (1 Peter 2:21-22) and verse 24 says he gave himself that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, so that is the example we should follow. Being celibate, not marrying, and roaming the country are not in regard to avoiding sin or doing what is righteous.

1 John 2:3-6New International Version (NIV)

Love and Hatred for Fellow Believers
3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

I answered what commands mean from the same book you have used. 1Jn3:19-24 To live like Jesus we would be celibate, not marry, rome the country teaching the law, bring back life to others, die for mankind's sins and come back from death. Is this what you mean by your quote? I don't believe John was referring to how Jesus physically lived, do you?

One's walk or halakhah is the way that they walked out the commands of God, and we are to do so in the same way that he did. Jesus said that his teaching was not his own, but that of the Father (John 7:16) and that anyone whoever does not love him will not keep his commands, which are not his, but that of the Father (John 14:24), so his commands were not his own, but we the same as what the Father had commanded. Again, this is not referring to any command to be celibate, not marry, or to rome the country, to in regard to doing what is righteous and avoiding sin.

1 Corinthians 11:1New International Version (NIV)

11 1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.
Acts 15:21. Paul in 1Cor11 is referring to prophesying and how to observe the Lord's supper. He didn't mean by the verse you quoted that his life was an example of Jesus life. You have used that vers completely out of context.

It is connected to the previous thought, but I see no good reason to think that Paul was saying that he only imitated Christ is those two specific areas.

You have a problem, you seem to disregard everything we write. You know that is twisting the meaning of what I wrote. Sure all the laws are moral as to being immoral. Some had to do with morality and some had to do with ceremony or being ritual. The ritual laws were made by God for Israel only. Morality was made by God for all men and is eternal.

The ritual laws are God's instructions for how to have a holy conduct and in 1 Peter 1:13-16 we are told to have a holy conduct, so either they were not only for Israel, or they are for us because we have become fellow citizens of Israel.

Matthew 22:36-40New International Version (NIV)

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

You may, because of you belief system, think that means Christians must observe Torah. I do not see those verses telling me that. I see Jesus telling us to love God with all our hearts and loving others like Jesus loves us. The greatest command is to love. The law and the prophets came to an abrupt end at the Cross where Jesus finished His work for man.

Jesus was not asked what asked what the only command that we should follow was, but what the greatest command was, and the two greatest commands are such because the summarize all of the other commands. All of the other commands hang on the greatest two, so they are examples or the explain for how to correctly obey them. The command to love the Lord your God will all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength is a lot easier said than done, so thankfully we have all of the other commands and Christ's example of obedience to those commands to paint us a picture of what that looks like.

If before Christ came taking a particular action was acting in accordance with God's righteousness, but after Christ came that is no longer the case, or vice versa, then God's righteousness has changed, but God's righteousness is eternal and does not change (Psalms 119:142), so all of God's righteous instructions for how to act according to His righteousness are likewise eternal and do not change (Psalms 119:160). This means that God's Law can't come to an end without God's righteousness first coming to an end. According to Titus 2:14, it does not say that Christ gave himself to free us from the Law, but to free us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession a people who are zealous for doing good works, and His Law as part of OT Scripture is profitable for equipping us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Not in a million years. That is a false preposition.
fulfill means: to bring to an end; finish or complete, as a period of time:
For the entire law is brought to an end in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.

Romans 15:18-19 For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed, 19 by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God—so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ;

So according to you, these verses are saying that Paul brought an end to the Gospel?

Pleroo:
to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it, that not the least part would disappear from the Law until heaven and earth disappeared and all is accomplished, and he gave a warning to those who would relax the least of the laws or teach others to do the same. Heaven and earth are still here and not all has been accomplished, which either refer to end times, or are idioms for saying that it will never happen, but either way you would do well to heed his warning. After he said that, he went on to fulfill the law five times in the rest of the chapter by causing God's will as made known in the Law to be obeyed as it should be.

I suppose you would have to reinterpret what is written , but just maybe the real Jews know better than to use interpretation. Excuses and more excuses. You sound just like the SDAs do with how they "keep" Sabbath. Yep, I was part of all that.

The issue of how to correctly obey the Law is a different issue than whether it should be obeyed. I do not dispute whether the Law should be obeyed, so if I become convinced that it was referring to not trimming sideburns, then that is what I would do by grace through faith. However, I have never used anything like those terms to refer to trimming hair, so I think there are good grounds to think that it is referring to something more than that. Jesus came in conflict with many Jewish traditions, so while we should certainly consider whether they have any merit, I am not beholden to them.

Romans 9:6-8New International Version (NIV)

God’s Sovereign Choice
6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

As you can plainly see Rom 9:6-8 does not tell Christians we become Israel. Christians are God's children. Israel is defunct no longer in existence.

Ephesians2:12-19 means one in Christ not that we become an Israelite

Not all descended from Israel are Israel, but rather those who are Israel are reckoned through faith in the promise, so if you have faith in the promise, then you are child of Abraham and a child of God, which is also referred to as Israel. They were once alienated from Israel, but are now no longer strangers or aliens, but are fellow citizens. I don't know how it can get any clearer than that. Israel is God's chosen people and one of the better promises that the New Covenant is based upon is that God will never forsake Israel (Jeremiah 31:35-37), and we are now part of God's chosen people, which is Israel (1 Peter 2:9-10).

Yes, God was instructing them. Jesus is instructing us. Jesus kept His Father's commands and we are to keep Jesus commands. Jesus didn't teach all mankind Torah.

I agree that God was instruction them, but He was doing that so that they would be his representatives to the world to teach them how to serve Him and walk in His ways. So it God's ways, not the ways or the Israelites that we are talking about. They are not instructions for how to act like Jews, but for how to act according to God's holiness, righteousness and goodness. The Bible often makes parallel statements, which are two ways of saying the same thing, which help us to understand it correctly, so he was not contrasting God's commands with His own. As he said elsewhere, his teaching was not his own, but that of that Father, and he only came to do the Father's will, so he was not in disagreement with the Father about what conduct we should have.

I do not have to look any further than the New Testament to find out how we are to live a Christian life. the Old Testament taught Israel how to live a their lives. We are not Israel. Israel waas a spot on this Earth. God had/has a plan for the remainder of the planet. It is the Royal Law of Love. Jesus gave His life for us and we are to love others as He loves us. There is nothing in the Torah equal to the laws Christians live under. You are not living under rules that are not for Christians and therefore are not fulfilling Christ's example. You are the ones who are lawless. You are observing defunct laws, we are observing the laws Jesus set forth for Christians. Jews have never accepted Jesus and the new covenant. Why would I want to observe their meaningless laws?

Psalms 119:1 Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord!

Is this verse true and do you want to be blessed? Jesus was sinless, so if you are his follower, then you need to look up the OT to find out what that means for how he lived and for how you should follow. You are not Israel, but you are one of the nations who Israel has the task of teaching to walk in God's ways, which revealed in the Mosaic Law. All of the 613 commands in the OT and 1,050 commands of the NT can and have been summarized as instructions for how to love God and our neighbor, so if you correctly understand what it means to love, then you will at least live in accordance with those commands, and all of the commands in the NT are in accordance or derived from the commands of the OT. You are sadly depriving yourself of the delight and the divine privilege of living in obedience to God's commands. Acts records tens of thousands of Jews who accepted Jesus and the New Covenant who became zealous for the Law, likely because they were able to see Messiah on every page.

 

[jaybird88]

What do you mean flopt Scripture on its head?Are you physically circumcised? Why not? You indicate it is the correct thing to do. Are you single as in never married? Jesus was single and never married, you indicated we are to do the same.
We are not to teach others they are obligated to the law of Israel. Jer 31:31-33; Lk 16; Jn 1, 3, 5, 10 and 15; Rom 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8; Gal 4, 5; I Jn 3:23. Need some more?

bugkiller

Mt 5 19
19Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[bugkiller]

Mt 5 19
19Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So are you arguing about your position in heaven? Who cares. Now I want you to show that anyone here at CF is promoting murder, stealing, lying, adultery, etc.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Are you suggesting we are to become Jews? Since Jesus was obedient to the laws of His Father, pray tell what are they? Is the new covenant just so called or is it actually enforce? If so is it like the covenant given to the Jews in the dessert? What does the Bible say?

Excellent questions. Doubt they will be answered.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Hello,

God's Law, works of law, and the law of sin all refer to different categories. In Romans 7, Paul said that God's Law is not sin, but that it reveals to us what sin is (7:7), that it is holy, righteous, and good (7:12), that it is the good that he wanted to do (7:13-20), the good that he delighted in doing (7:22), and that he served it with his mind (7:25), but contrasted that with a law of sin that came about to increase tresspasses (5:20), that stirred up sin to bear fruit unto death (7:5), that held him captive (7:6), that gave sin its power (7:8), that caused him not to do the good that he wanted to do (7:13), that held him captive (7:23), and that he served with his flesh (7:25). In Romans 7:23, Paul clearly described the law of sin as being the law that held him captive and Romans 7:6 specifies that we are released from the law that held us captive.

Yes those are all different things. Paul is giving a lesson in psychology.

The law Paul is clearly talking about is the 10 Cs by quote. Paul is calling them the law of death because they found him guilty and pronounced a sentence of death. The law always gets its demand for violation - death.

No one here is claiming the law is sin.

Paul is not contrasting any law.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: Rom 5

13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. Rom 7

Romans 6:14-15 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. 15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

Paul described the the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over us, which fits his description of the law of sin perfectly, but does not at all fit his description of God's holy, righteous, and good Law that is not sin, but instructs how to avoid sin. Furthermore, sin is defined as Lawlessness (1 John 3:4), so wouldn't make any sense for Paul to say that we aren't under God's Law, but that we are still required to avoid doing what it revealed to be sin. In either case, if we are not to do what God has revealed to be sin, then we are to live in obedience to the Mosaic Law. That is how the Israelites knew what sin was and how they knew what they should repent of doing when Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent of their sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and it is how we can look up what we should be repenting of doing. In addition, it doesn't make any sense to pit God's grace against His law, as though a house divided against itself could stand, and would be difficult to reconcile with verses like Psalms 119:29, where David asked God to be gracious to him by teaching him His Law or Titus 2:11-14, where it says that our salvation involves being trained by grace to do things that are in accordance with God's Law. So Christians are under the Mosaic Law, but are not under the law of sin.

Paul quoted the law he was talking about as the 10 Cs in 7:7. Paul continues with the word "commandment" identifying the 10 Cs. Your law of sin and death has no commands.

Sin is not defined as only transgression of the law. You are using half a sentence to base you idea on. The verse says sin also is transgression of the law. Sin was before the law (Rom 5:13), therefore sin was not transgression of the law because it did not exist. Gal 3:19 says the reason the law came was because of transgression.

"so wouldn't make any sense for Paul to say that we aren't under God's Law"

This above statement is sophistry because you are talking about and promoting the covenant issued to Israel. You continue with "we are to live in obedience to the Mosaic Law." We do not live in or practice sin because we follow the leading of the Holy Spirit - Gal 5:18. The Holy Spirit (God) does not lead us to the law nor sin.

God's grace is pitted against the covenant issued to Israel also called the law. In operation grace voids the law in all laws. A criminal does not ask for the law to be upheld, they always ask for mercy which grace (the judge) grants against the requirements of the law.

While grace trains us it does not lead us to the covenant issued to Israel called the law.

The Mosaic law operates the law of sin and death.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I disagreed that these things weren't taught in the NT, such as Jesus teaching us to follow the Sabbath by example. I also talked about ceremonial laws, such as God's other holy days and keeping kosher.

Jesus did not teach following the law by example per Jn 1:17 -

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Jesus kept the sabbath and the rest of the law because He was obligated by the law issued at Sinai to Israel alone. Jesus did not come to convert the whole world to Judaism.

Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21), so it involves being made to be like one in whom there is no sin (1 Peter 2:21-22) and verse 24 says he gave himself that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, so that is the example we should follow. Being celibate, not marrying, and roaming the country are not in regard to avoiding sin or doing what is righteous.

True are salvation is from sin. Since the law only makes sin more sinful were are also free from the law. One of the purposes of the law or any law for that matter is so wrong (sin/transgression) may be charged and punished.

15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Rom 4

32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. Rom 11

Since you address the life style of Jesus as being celibate, etc the issue you are trying to enforce is keeping the law (submitting to Judaism) opposed to following the example of Jesus.

One's walk or halakhah is the way that they walked out the commands of God, and we are to do so in the same way that he did. Jesus said that his teaching was not his own, but that of the Father (John 7:16) and that anyone whoever does not love him will not keep his commands, which are not his, but that of the Father (John 14:24), so his commands were not his own, but we the same as what the Father had commanded. Again, this is not referring to any command to be celibate, not marry, or to rome the country, to in regard to doing what is righteous and avoiding sin.

Yes you promote "halakhah" Judaism instead of Christianity. The sect of Judaism referred to as "halakhah" give the Jews a great deal of pain and trouble.

The commands of Jesus are not the same as those issued by His and our Father per Jn 13:34, 15:10 and I Jn 3:23.

It is connected to the previous thought, but I see no good reason to think that Paul was saying that he only imitated Christ is those two specific areas.

The ritual laws are God's instructions for how to have a holy conduct and in 1 Peter 1:13-16 we are told to have a holy conduct, so either they were not only for Israel, or they are for us because we have become fellow citizens of Israel.

We are fellow citizens with the saints and not Israel per Eph 2:19.

Jesus was not asked what asked what the only command that we should follow was, but what the greatest command was, and the two greatest commands are such because the summarize all of the other commands. All of the other commands hang on the greatest two, so they are examples or the explain for how to correctly obey them. The command to love the Lord your God will all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength is a lot easier said than done, so thankfully we have all of the other commands and Christ's example of obedience to those commands to paint us a picture of what that looks like.

If before Christ came taking a particular action was acting in accordance with God's righteousness, but after Christ came that is no longer the case, or vice versa, then God's righteousness has changed, but God's righteousness is eternal and does not change (Psalms 119:142), so all of God's righteous instructions for how to act according to His righteousness are likewise eternal and do not change (Psalms 119:160). This means that God's Law can't come to an end without God's righteousness first coming to an end. According to Titus 2:14, it does not say that Christ gave himself to free us from the Law, but to free us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession a people who are zealous for doing good works, and His Law as part of OT Scripture is profitable for equipping us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The righteousness required by God does not come through the law.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Rom 3

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: Rom 4

Romans 15:18-19 For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed, 19 by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God—so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ;

Obedience to what? the law - no.

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Rom 7

Rom 6:14, 15 also say we are not under (obligated) to the law.

So according to you, these verses are saying that Paul brought an end to the Gospel?

Pleroo:
to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

Fulfill (pleroo) means to render full, i.e. to complete.

In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it, that not the least part would disappear from the Law until heaven and earth disappeared and all is accomplished, and he gave a warning to those who would relax the least of the laws or teach others to do the same. Heaven and earth are still here and not all has been accomplished, which either refer to end times, or are idioms for saying that it will never happen, but either way you would do well to heed his warning. After he said that, he went on to fulfill the law five times in the rest of the chapter by causing God's will as made known in the Law to be obeyed as it should be.

Evidence of the law and prophets being fulfilled Jesus spoke about in Mat 5 is found in Lk 24:44. More evidence is found in Heb 7:12. If Jesus is not your priest contrary to the levitical law you are not a Christian. Two witnesses say it is all or none of the law and Mat 5 says jot or tittle will not pass til all has been fulfilled.

The issue of how to correctly obey the Law is a different issue than whether it should be obeyed. I do not dispute whether the Law should be obeyed, so if I become convinced that it was referring to not trimming sideburns, then that is what I would do by grace through faith. However, I have never used anything like those terms to refer to trimming hair, so I think there are good grounds to think that it is referring to something more than that. Jesus came in conflict with many Jewish traditions, so while we should certainly consider whether they have any merit, I am not beholden to them.

IOW you refuse to submit to the whole law. That is voiding jots and tittles of the law which you oppose.

Not all descended from Israel are Israel, but rather those who are Israel are reckoned through faith in the promise, so if you have faith in the promise, then you are child of Abraham and a child of God, which is also referred to as Israel. They were once alienated from Israel, but are now no longer strangers or aliens, but are fellow citizens. I don't know how it can get any clearer than that. Israel is God's chosen people and one of the better promises that the New Covenant is based upon is that God will never forsake Israel (Jeremiah 31:35-37), and we are now part of God's chosen people, which is Israel (1 Peter 2:9-10).

Yep fellow citizens with the saints, not Israel. You deleted "with the saints" and substituted Israel.

Psalms 119:1 Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord!

Is this verse true and do you want to be blessed? Jesus was sinless, so if you are his follower, then you need to look up the OT to find out what that means for how he lived and for how you should follow. You are not Israel, but you are one of the nations who Israel has the task of teaching to walk in God's ways, which revealed in the Mosaic Law. All of the 613 commands in the OT and 1,050 commands of the NT can and have been summarized as instructions for how to love God and our neighbor, so if you correctly understand what it means to love, then you will at least live in accordance with those commands, and all of the commands in the NT are in accordance or derived from the commands of the OT. You are sadly depriving yourself of the delight and the divine privilege of living in obedience to God's commands. Acts records tens of thousands of Jews who accepted Jesus and the New Covenant who became zealous for the Law, likely because they were able to see Messiah on every page.

You are trying to force living like a Jew under Judaism and not righteous living as a Christian. Following the leading of the Holy Spirit is so much easier.

bugkiller

 

[W2L]

Please explain how what I said is wrong and how it should be correctly understood.

What?

 

[Soyeong]

What?

I would appreciate it if you would engage with what I said, so don't just say you disagree, but explain why you disagree. That way it promotes a conversation where we can discuss whether there are any merits to why you disagreed or whether you disagreed for poor reasons. If I am wrong about something, then I want to know, and I hope the same is true of you, but I find you simply stating that you disagree to be completely unpersuasive because I am already well aware that many people disagree. I grew up attending a Baptist church, so for most of my life I did not have the view in regard to the Mosaic Law that I currently have, but only switched because I spent a few years studying the Jewish cultural context of the Bible and eventually was persuaded to come to the conclusion that what I had been taught was wrong. Perhaps I made a mistake or perhaps you are the one who has made a mistake, but we're never going to find out if we do not evaluate whether the view of the other has any merit. Many of your replies to my posts in this thread have not interacted with many of the points that I made in them.

 

[W2L]

I would appreciate it if you would engage with what I said, so don't just say you disagree, but explain why you disagree. That way it promotes a conversation where we can discuss whether there are any merits to why you disagreed or whether you disagreed for poor reasons. If I am wrong about something, then I want to know, and I hope the same is true of you, but I find you simply stating that you disagree to be completely unpersuasive because I am already well aware that many people disagree. I grew up attending a Baptist church, so for most of my life I did not have the view in regard to the Mosaic Law that I currently have, but only switched because I spent a few years studying the Jewish cultural context of the Bible and eventually was persuaded to come to the conclusion that what I had been taught was wrong. Perhaps I made a mistake or perhaps you are the one who has made a mistake, but we're never going to find out if we do not evaluate whether the view of the other has any merit. Many of your replies to my posts in this thread have not interacted with many of the points that I made in them.

With respect Soyeong, whats the point? If you keep ignoring the fact that Noah was allowed to eat anything he wanted, then whats the point in further discussion?

 

[jaybird88]

Are you suggesting we are to become Jews? Since Jesus was obedient to the laws of His Father, pray tell what are they? Is the new covenant just so called or is it actually enforce? If so is it like the covenant given to the Jews in the dessert? What does the Bible say?

what does becoming Jewish have to do with anything. Namaan didnt become Jewish and still worshipped the Most High. and the temple was a house to all nations not just the Jews. the pharisees were Jews, Jesus and John called them sons of the devil. becoming Jewish is not the issue.
these are common sense issues. how can one follow Jesus and not follow His example.

 

[jaybird88]

So are you arguing about your position in heaven?

????
never said anything about that. i was responding to . .

We are not to teach others they are obligated to the law of Israel.

with . .

Mt 5 19
19Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Soyeong]

Are you suggesting we are to become Jews? Since Jesus was obedient to the laws of His Father, pray tell what are they? Is the new covenant just so called or is it actually enforce? If so is it like the covenant given to the Jews in the dessert? What does the Bible say?

2 Samuel 22:22 For I have kept the ways of the Lord; I am not guilty of turning from my God.

2 Chronicles 17:6 His heart was devoted to the ways of the Lord; furthermore, he removed the high places and the Asherah poles from Judah.

Psalms 18:21 For I have kept the ways of the Lord; I am not guilty of turning from my God.

Psalms 25:10 All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful toward those who keep the demands of his covenant.

When the Bible speaks about following the ways of the Lord, what are these ways? And are they the ways of the Jews or the ways of the Lord? The New Covenant is indeed not like the Mosaic Covenant, but not because it doesn't involve following God's ways.

 

[Soyeong]

With respect Soyeong, whats the point? If you keep ignoring the fact that Noah was allowed to eat anything he wanted, then whats the point in further discussion?

I made an argument that Noah was never allowed to eat everything that he wanted, so I was not ignoring your claim, but instead of interacting with my argument and evaluating whether anything I said had any merit, you just reasserted your claim and said that my facts were wrong. Perhaps my facts are wrong, but if I am wrong, I need to be persuaded that I am wrong, so I would appreciate it if you would engage with what I said rather than just assert that I am wrong.