Do you agree that Christians should obey all 613 commandments?

[cyberlizard]

no, it was not the fence, it was not oral law, it was Moses.


acts 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”

the key to this passage is that the believers who were Pharisees taught the doctrine of Ger Tzedek. This doctrine teaches that before someone can follow the Torah, they should first convert to Judaism by way of circumcision. However, Ger Tzedek is based upon a shaky interpretation of several key passages.

the question from Acts is not whether Torah be followed, but whether one is supposed to convert to Judaism to do so.
where does the Torah inform Gentiles to convert to Judaism?


Steve

p.s. for a fuller doctrinal examination of these concepts, I would recommend the books called Restoration by Daniel Lancaster, Grafted In by Daniel Lancaster and finally Fellow Heirs by Tim Hegg.

 

[yedida]

Well, on one hand I have to remember this scripture:

Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Exactly!! Notice your highlighted part - a change NOT an abrogation. The change was in the sacrificial system - that would not longer be required. It was better, why? Because under the Levitical system there was NO sacrifice for intentional, premeditated sin, none. Now there is. The other "change" was in the administration. In Deut 6:4-9 the Israelites were told to write these words on their hearts, in Jer. 31:31-34 we are told that God will write these words on the heart.
The Mosaic Covenant was NOT made between God and the Jews, it was made between God and Israel (the WHOLE house of Israel). Does not Paul state that the Christian is now a member of the commonwealth of Israel? Do not the promises and covenants made with Israel belong also now to the Gentiles as fellow-heirs? If you agree that you are now a part of God's Chosen People I just don't see where the problem is. The covenants were not unilateral, they were bilateral, two parties were involved, two parties remain actively involved.

 

[Frogster]

Because the false teachers hadn't crawled out from under the rocks yet!! Hold on though, they're coming soon.

It says they were believers, and they were in the church. 15;5.

besides, it gives the context, when peter said the law was a yoke, it was Moses, not oral.

 

[Frogster]

the key to this passage is that the believers who were Pharisees taught the doctrine of Ger Tzedek. This doctrine teaches that before someone can follow the Torah, they should first convert to Judaism by way of circumcision. However, Ger Tzedek is based upon a shaky interpretation of several key passages.

the question from Acts is not whether Torah be followed, but whether one is supposed to convert to Judaism to do so.
where does the Torah inform Gentiles to convert to Judaism?


Steve

p.s. for a fuller doctrinal examination of these concepts, I would recommend the books called Restoration by Daniel Lancaster, Grafted In by Daniel Lancaster and finally Fellow Heirs by Tim Hegg.

Sorry..but the trip to Jerusalem was to ward off circumcision, which after conversion meant...

3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law



Thoughts?

 

[Frogster]

Exactly!! Notice your highlighted part - a change NOT an abrogation. The change was in the sacrificial system - that would not longer be required. It was better, why? Because under the Levitical system there was NO sacrifice for intentional, premeditated sin, none. Now there is. The other "change" was in the administration. In Deut 6:4-9 the Israelites were told to write these words on their hearts, in Jer. 31:31-34 we are told that God will write these words on the heart.
The Mosaic Covenant was NOT made between God and the Jews, it was made between God and Israel (the WHOLE house of Israel). Does not Paul state that the Christian is now a member of the commonwealth of Israel? Do not the promises and covenants made with Israel belong also now to the Gentiles as fellow-heirs? If you agree that you are now a part of God's Chosen People I just don't see where the problem is. The covenants were not unilateral, they were bilateral, two parties were involved, two parties remain actively involved.

That would be incorrect, the law was one, and the cov.


Leviticus 26:15
if you spurn my statutes, and if your soul abhors my rules, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant,

Therefore the old cov is gone, to which the priesthood was based off of.


7;11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?

 

[yedida]

So how does that apply to Christians?

Almost missed this. Gentiles are not bound by the rulings of the beit din.

 

[cyberlizard]

Sorry..but the trip to Jerusalem was to ward off circumcision, which after conversion meant...

3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law



Thoughts?

poor Timothy!!! Inflicted to a life of Sabbath and Festival observance and only eating clean foods... I suppose he would have had to stop fellow shipping with Paul as he kept sinning (by breaking the law).


Steve

 

[from scratch]

the key to this passage is that the believers who were Pharisees taught the doctrine of Ger Tzedek. This doctrine teaches that before someone can follow the Torah, they should first convert to Judaism by way of circumcision. However, Ger Tzedek is based upon a shaky interpretation of several key passages.

the question from Acts is not whether Torah be followed, but whether one is supposed to convert to Judaism to do so.
where does the Torah inform Gentiles to convert to Judaism?


Steve

p.s. for a fuller doctrinal examination of these concepts, I would recommend the books called Restoration by Daniel Lancaster, Grafted In by Daniel Lancaster and finally Fellow Heirs by Tim Hegg.

Then the foundation of your argument is destroyed and by you no less.

 

[yedida]

That would be incorrect, the law was one, and the cov.


Leviticus 26:15
if you spurn my statutes, and if your soul abhors my rules, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant,

Therefore the old cov is gone, to which the priesthood was based off of.


7;11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?

I'm sorry you can't see that without the Law Jesus died in vain. If there is no law there is no transgression - Your beloved Paul got that one right - therefore, no need of a blood sacrifice.
But if indeed there was/is a need for a blood sacrifice, then the Law stands, there's just a different sacrificial system at work over the Law now.

 

[Frogster]

poor Timothy!!! Inflicted to a life of Sabbath and Festival observance and only eating clean foods... I suppose he would have had to stop fellow shipping with Paul as he kept sinning (by breaking the law).


Steve

oh please, been there already, evangelistic reasons with tim. Was Titus cut?

3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.

The whole point was, no moses for the churches, and peter under inspiration, called the mosaic law a yoke, that he nor the fathers could bear, and even james did not want to burden the gentiles with torah life.

Thoughts?

 

[Frogster]

I'm sorry you can't see that without the Law Jesus died in vain. If there is no law there is no transgression - Your beloved Paul got that one right - therefore, no need of a blood sacrifice.
But if indeed there was/is a need for a blood sacrifice, then the Law stands, there's just a different sacrificial system at work over the Law now.

I proved it was one law, one priesthood, one cov,now over...

I change in the law, meant a change in the cov...

 

[from scratch]

Exactly!! Notice your highlighted part - a change NOT an abrogation. The change was in the sacrificial system - that would not longer be required. It was better, why? Because under the Levitical system there was NO sacrifice for intentional, premeditated sin, none. Now there is. The other "change" was in the administration. In Deut 6:4-9 the Israelites were told to write these words on their hearts, in Jer. 31:31-34 we are told that God will write these words on the heart.
The Mosaic Covenant was NOT made between God and the Jews, it was made between God and Israel (the WHOLE house of Israel). Does not Paul state that the Christian is now a member of the commonwealth of Israel? Do not the promises and covenants made with Israel belong also now to the Gentiles as fellow-heirs? If you agree that you are now a part of God's Chosen People I just don't see where the problem is. The covenants were not unilateral, they were bilateral, two parties were involved, two parties remain actively involved.

So is the law changed as stated or merely a part of the law? Remember James says the law is a single undivisible unit.

Jeremaih doesn't say the 10 Cs would be written on our heart anywhere.

Paul doesn't say that a Christian partakes in the commonwealth of Israel. He does say that Christian are fellowcitizens with the saints - 2 entirely different things.

 

[from scratch]

Because the false teachers hadn't crawled out from under the rocks yet!! Hold on though, they're coming soon.

So then Christians are false teachers if I follow the conversation. What were the subverts? And what were they doing?

 

[SummaScriptura]

There are laws just for women. He kept those????? There are laws for homeowners, He said He had no home, how'd he keep those? There are more, He did not, and could not keep.
You are right, He did write them, and then He walked among us and showed how they were intended to be kept, as with joy, not burdensome at all.

Good.

I think we are maknig progress.

So, not all 613 commandments are binding on all Christians, but I assume they are binding on the Church in general, right?

Humor me this...

For you, Yedida, how many of the 613 apply?

 

[yedida]

I proved it was one law, one priesthood, one cov,now over...

I change in the law, meant a change in the cov...

You didn't prove anything of the sort.
I stated what the change was.
And why is it you have yet to show me where Jesus unmistakenly, unambiguously, in no uncertain terms said that He was going to do away with the Law? I'm getting the impression that you cannot. This is my 3rd day asking for this simple request. No one has stepped forward.

 

[from scratch]

Almost missed this. Gentiles are not bound by the rulings of the beit din.

So what is the beit din?

 

[from scratch]

You didn't prove anything of the sort.
I stated what the change was.
And why is it you have yet to show me where Jesus unmistakenly, unambiguously, in no uncertain terms said that He was going to do away with the Law? I'm getting the impression that you cannot. This is my 3rd day asking for this simple request. No one has stepped forward.

Why is it necessary to show Jesus did so, when His Father made the change? And I don't even need Paul to prove the point.

 

[cyberlizard]

Good.

I think we are maknig progress.

So, not all 613 commandments are binding on all Christians, but I assume they are binding on the Church in general, right?

Humor me this...

For you, Yedida, how many of the 613 apply?

cyberlizard here... for the last part, which country do you want to ask the question in, different countries will be nature of the law having a different answer, again due to the nature of the law.


Steve

p.s. do you mean how many apply for men or the women?

 

[yedida]

Good.

I think we are maknig progress.

So, not all 613 commandments are binding on all Christians, but I assume they are binding on the Church in general, right?

Humor me this...

For you, Yedida, how many of the 613 apply?

I couldn't give you a number. But if it is something that can be done then I do it. There are many things that cannot, such as what would apply to a daughter (my parents are no longer living, I can still honor their memory and uphold their good reputation, but I cannot do anything for them physically); things that require the Temple cannot be done; things that require I be in the Land I cannot do; things that require me to be an employer or an employee, no go, I'm retired/disabled (when I was an employee, yes); things that are for homeowners, I do not own a home, etc. The commands concerning a wife and mother, yes (the purification, no, I came into the faith after all that); things that require me to be a renter, yes; commands that are for a merchant, I'm a cat breeder, so yes; commands concerning a consumer, yes; etc. I'm sure I missed some areas, but I gave you a fairly well-rounded look at the yeas and nays.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Jesus said He did not come to abolish the law, and He said all the law and prophets are summed up with the two great commandments. If we follow the two great commandments, we're keeping all 613 or however many laws. I think many Christians fail to see the value of the law. Non-Christians will be judged by the law, it revealed the Holy standard of God, it did not become invalid because of the "New Covenant". The Covenants of Scripture are progressive in scope.