Commandments Question

[Bible Highlighter]

ALL of it? No one, not even Yeshua could obey ALL of it. Observance always changes depending on the circumstances at an one time. I mean, there is no Temple so none of those can be kept...

Anyway, you did not answer my question:
What commands in the NT and not in the OT? Are you saying that Yeshua and The Father are at odds? A divided house can not stand...

Wow. Double trouble. Jesus did not obey the Law?
We are still under the Old Law? Is that what you are saying?

 

[klutedavid]

1 John 1:8 (KJV)
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Your quotation from that letter (1 John) is one very powerful verse.

1 John 1:9 (KJV)
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

This is an even better verse. Without the intervention of Jesus we cannot become righteous. The glory belongs only to Jesus.

Hebrews 10:26 (KJV)
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Out of context and your missing the argument that the author of Hebrews is pursuing.

An appalling misuse of the scripture.

 

[Vicky gould]

The Law is Perfect Grace. All of the prophecies and messages point to our victory over the very thing that had (past tense) us under a curse. Now that Someone has Perfectly followed all of the Law, not only did that Person vindicate the Most High God, but He also made a way for us to be alive again.

Christ is the Word of God personafied. The Law of the Most High God is part of the Word of God. If we say the Law is without Grace, we are saying the Word of God Himself is without Grace. He wouldn't have sacrificed Himself for a bunch of stiff-necked people if He wasn't Gracious.




We definitely have a duty to love, but the Law of Love is the same Law that we saw from Jeremiah, Noah, David, Moses, Enoch and so on. We are now free to love and be obedient even if we cannot be perfectly obedient - because we have been given GRACE by the sacrifice and resurrection of the Word of God. None of the Law has been removed, made inert or void unless the Most High God, or the Word of God Himself have said so. Is there any place in the canon, apocrypha or gnostics that directly show the Word of God or the Most High God giving us permission to put aside any of His Law? Or, has man made this dogma of setting aside Law and replacing it with a philosophy? We have to be very careful about where and how we align ourselves with the Most High God. Don't let any human (including me) tell you that the Most High God doesn't expect us to be obedient to every word He has ever said.

Hi , the Law is perfect Grace is that why we are told that to live you must do what it says to live and if you fail at one point you fail on the entire Law. Israel spent every day offering up sacrifices because the Law constantly condemns everyone under it all the time. If Israel had used the Law as it worked condemning they would have had any time to do anything else it would have been continually sacrifice,

Not only does the Kaw have no Grace in it it lso has no Faith in it and Scripture says whatever is not of Faith is sin. So Paul asks is that which is Holy, Righteous and Good turn bad? Perish the thought but one must use the Law as God designed it to work. If it is not used as designed and that is called missing the mark which is the description of sin. The Law did not become sin the one using it in opposition of God's purpose has literally become a lawbreaker. Here are a few verse a. 3: 23-5, Ro. 14: 23

 

[klutedavid]

No, people who say we don't have to follow the Law because it is done away with pick and choose what law to follow.

Where did Jesus Christ, or God the Father ever in the canon say we have permission to neglect following any of His law?

I would 100% stone an adulterer this day. However, I am not King - do you understand? The Word of God Himself is alive; He is the King now, and He told us to reserve judgment if you aren't perfect. If I stone an adulterer, then you would need to stone me for my sins, and then someone gets to stone you for yours. What you get is every dies. That is why mercy needs to be executed first - and that was ALWAYS what was supposed to be when God gave the Law to Moses. There will still be a judgment, however.

Law requires thinking and consideration - not blind obedience without any idea of why the law is being applied. You need to know the boundaries of the law in order to know how to follow it perfectly. The Redeemer/Word of God/Savior is the One who showed us the boundary of the Law - not that we get to stop following it. And, we murdered Him for it.

Please, where did the Redeemer, or the Most High God the Father ever in the canon say we have permission to neglect following any of His law? You can even bring up places from the Apocrypha or Gnostics - if you can find it - that show the Most High God or Word of God Himself giving us permission to throw away or ignore any of His Law. The Most High God is the One who made the Law, not Moses.

Romans 7:4
Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead.

 

[Kaon]

Hi , the Law is perfect Grace is that why we are told that to live you must do what it says to live and if you fail at one point you fail on the entire Law.

100% correct. If you fail to follow one Law, you are disqualified from being a perfect entity, and you are now a technical carnal entity. A little leaven makes the entire loaf rise.

The Grace we are afforded comes in the fact that if we are faithful to the Most High God in love and obedience, and if we believe in the Sacrifice of the Word of God, and His resurrection, then we no longer have to worry about our our sin condemning us a loss of salvation/death. It wasn't a concession by the Most High God to allow us to disobey or dismiss His Law.

Israel spent every day offering up sacrifices because the Law constantly condemns everyone under it all the time. If Israel had used the Law as it worked condemning they would have had any time to do anything else it would have been continually sacrifice,

It condemns every under it all the time because once you sin, you are no longer perfect. That is a consequence of imperfection under the Most High God. You atone for your lack of perfection by doing what the Most High God said - sacrificing.

But, it isn't just sacrificing animals and that's it. The Hebrews were husbands to the animals; to kil an animal because of your ignorance and iniquity should hurt you deeply - that this innocent animal has do die because of you. The Hebrews missed the point and got interested in having BBQs more than the pain/reproof that comes with killing an animal you grew up with because of your sin.

The Most High God told Israel He was tired of their vain oblations long before the Word of God came to this plane of existence as Son of Man.

Not only does the Kaw have no Grace in it it lso has no Faith in it and Scripture says whatever is not of Faith is sin. So Paul asks is that which is Holy, Righteous and Good turn bad? Perish the thought but one must use the Law as God designed it to work. If it is not used as designed and that is called missing the mark which is the description of sin. The Law did not become sin the one using it in opposition of God's purpose has literally become a lawbreaker. Hereare a few verse a. 3: 23-5, Ro. 14: 23

The Law is part of the Word of God Himself - it is part of the Christ/Redeemer. So, to say the Law has no grace or faith is to say the Redeemer has no grace or faith. He became sin because of us, not because of an inability to follow His Father perfectly, or because we feel we are owed immunity to the Law.

 

[Kaon]

Romans 7:4
Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead.

Paul said this, and this doesn't mean that the Law is inert, void or done away with - not in the least.

Even if it did, I would compare it against what the Most High God and/or the Word of God said. Neither of them insinuated that we have permission to break any of His laws. So, either our understanding is off, or the people we are reading are wrong at best - since no one has the authority to add to or remove Law, and no one has the authority to speak about the Law in opposition to the Word of God Himself.

 

[timothyu]

Romans 7:4
Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead.

Before Jesus in the flesh was the law which was the will of God. There was nothing else, no resurrection no Kingdom, so it was simply follow God's will/the law.

With Jesus and the Kingdom the will of God took on new faces but was still the will of God/the law. This scripture is simply saying move on up to the Kingdom but the will of God, be it law, Jesus or Kingdom, remains the same..

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Romans 7:6 says we are to serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. The oldness of the letter is the Torah or the 613 laws that are of the Law of Moses. We follow a new contract, or new covenant with new commands. Yes, some of the laws from the Old Law have been carried over into the New Covenant, but it is an entirely new contract or New Covenant. Hence, why we are to serve in newness of spirit.

When Paul speaks of the condemnation of the Law or works he is referring to the Law of Moses, and not the commands that come from Jesus and His followers. This is where many appear to slip up. Some think Paul was referring to all forms of Law and all we need is a belief in Jesus to be saved (Which is one extreme of wrong). Others think we have to obey the Law of Moses in some way as a part of salvation and that is another error (Which is the other end of the spectrum of wrong). One is Antinomianism (of which John fought against), and the other is trying to be justified by the Old Law (of which Paul fought against).

 

[timothyu]

Romans 7:6 says we are to serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. The oldness of the letter is the Torah or the 613 laws that are of the Law of Moses. We follow a new contract, or new covenant with new commands. Yes, some of the laws from the Old Law have been carried over into the New Covenant, but it is an entirely new contract or New Covenant. Hence, why we are to serve in newness of spirit.

As I said ... There was nothing else, no resurrection no Kingdom, so it was simply follow God's will/the law. Then the good news of the Kingdom opened a new door. The new covenant taking into consideration the new world and governance of God. A new covenant that required change for the old ways to the new involving Kingdom.

Others think we have to obey the Law of Moses in some way as a part of salvation and that is another error

Jesus said abandon the will of man for the will of God. Same message as the laws prior and in the new commandments. The Adversary and it's influence would be keen to shut down the concept of abandoning man's will for the will of God, simply because this new Kingdom is something it has no control over or admittance to.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In fact, there are those who reject the works of Paul because of his rejection against the Old Law. They are called Ebionites. They also reject Christ's divinity and the virgin birth (Which is wrong).
Then there are those who reject the book of James.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

As I said ... There was nothing else, no resurrection no Kingdom, so it was simply follow God's will/the law. Then the good news of the Kingdom opened a new door. The new covenant taking into consideration the new world and governance of God. A new covenant that required change for the old ways to the new involving Kingdom.

Jesus said abandon the will of man for the will of God. Same message as the laws prior and in the new commandments. The Adversary and it's influence would be keen to shut down the concept of abandoning man's will for the will of God, simply because this new Kingdom is something it has no control over or admittance to.

The New Covenant did not officially begin until Christ died upon the cross. But before that time, Christ was teaching primarily New Covenant and not Old Covenant because He was making many changes to the Old Law with His New Covenant teachings. I say "primarily" that Christ was teaching NT because Jesus told a man to offer a sacrifice after he first reconciled with his brother (See Matthew 5:24). Offering animal sacrifices is clearly an Old Covenant practice that has no more place in the New Covenant because Jesus is now our Passover Lamb or sacrifice.

 

[timothyu]

n fact, there are those who reject the works of Paul

Paul's works are easily manipulated by man because the purpose of the epistles was more religion building than teaching what Jesus taught (which he did a lot of with scripture showing the extent he went to to promote Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom. But when that is purposely overlooked with those teaching left out, it gives room for new meaning to his words in epistles by those religion builders wishing to divert attention from the Kingdom, even resurrection, and stopping at the cross.,

 

[Kaon]

In fact, there are those who reject the works of Paul because of his rejection against the Old Law. They are called Ebionites. They also reject Christ's divinity and the virgin birth (Which is wrong).
Then there are those who reject the book of James.

Ebionites were the poor - the same poor that remained very close to the Word of God while He gave His ministry on the plane of existence. The Ebionites may seem to reject Paul because of His rejection of the Old Law because that is exactly what a son of God is supposed to do. If someone says that you don't have to follow the Law of the Most High God, then that person is wrong at best.

I don't think Paul is saying anything about dismissing law, but if that is the message people get. If it is, then they need to compare it to what the actual Word of God Himself said - and He definitely didn't give any of us permission to make the Law void or done away with.

The Law given to Moses was given to Moses by the Most High God - literally. So, we don't get the luxury of dismissing those laws because it came from Moses; the Laws came from the Most High God. Moreover, the Word of God would never contradict the Most High God - and it is contradictory to suggest the Most High God would grant us permission to be disobedient, and ignore any of His Laws previously set up.

 

[timothyu]

The New Covenant did not officially begin until Christ died upon the cross.

It couldn't because there was no Kingdom until His work was finished. Finished without rejecting the will of the Father and reverting to His own. In that way He fulfilled the Law by putting the will of the Father ahead of his own.

 

[timothyu]

I don't think Paul is saying anything about dismissing law, but if that is the message people get. If it is,

All he was saying is the will of God has changed faces,See it in a new light (yet God's will itself never changed )

 

[timothyu]

Moreover, the Word of God would never contradict the Most High God - and it is contradictory to suggest the Most High God would grant us permission to be disobedient, and ignore any of His Laws previously set up.

Right because it wasn't the laws that mattered but that they represented putting His will before our own, Every time the Hebrew people fell into disfavour it wasn't because they broke one law or another. They put their will before the will of God. Same old story from the Garden until today.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It couldn't because there was no Kingdom until His work was finished. Finished without rejecting the will of the Father and reverting to His own. In that way He fulfilled the Law by putting the will of the Father ahead of his own.

Then why was the temple veil torn from top to bottom (Which was a sign of the ending of the priesthood and it's animal sacrifices) when Christ died?

Why did Christ say that the cup of the wine they were drinking at the last supper was representative of His blood which was shed for the New Testament?

Why does Hebrews say that a testament is not in force until the testator dies?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Ebionites were the poor - the same poor that remained very close to the Word of God while He gave His ministry on the plane of existence. The Ebionites may seem to reject Paul because of His rejection of the Old Law because that is exactly what a son of God is supposed to do. If someone says that you don't have to follow the Law of the Most High God, then that person is wrong at best.

I don't think Paul is saying anything about dismissing law, but if that is the message people get. If it is, then they need to compare it to what the actual Word of God Himself said - and He definitely didn't give any of us permission to make the Law void or done away with.

The Law given to Moses was given to Moses by the Most High God - literally. So, we don't get the luxury of dismissing those laws because it came from Moses; the Laws came from the Most High God. Moreover, the Word of God would never contradict the Most High God - and it is contradictory to suggest the Most High God would grant us permission to be disobedient, and ignore any of His Laws previously set up.

Try re-reading Acts of the Apostles 15:1, Acts of the Apostles 15:5, and Acts of the Apostles 15:24 very carefully.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Anyways, I gotta hit the hay. I have a big day tomorrow.

Blessings to you all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[klutedavid]

Before Jesus in the flesh was the law which was the will of God. There was nothing else, no resurrection no Kingdom, so it was simply follow God's will/the law.

With Jesus and the Kingdom the will of God took on new faces but was still the will of God/the law. This scripture is simply saying move on up to the Kingdom but the will of God, be it law, Jesus or Kingdom, remains the same..

But Abraham was reckoned righteous because he believed God. That was before the letter of the law ever existed. This is one of Paul's points in the letter to the Romans.

Romans 4:13
For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.

We are declared righteous apart from the law.

Romans 3:21-22
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe.