Rom 4 and Heb 8 see my post 41Choosing Christ does not mean we neglect the law. Christ did not come to abolish it but to fulfill it so he could be our substitute. To accept Christ and to continue to live like our old self, having no regards for the law is a big no no. In fact Christ has raised the standard of the law so high that the old law seems to become a new one.
The Gentiles were not under any Law at all. And yet they Attained righteousness without any old Law. It is called Faith in Jesus is enough to save without the old law. There are many many verses that say the old law is done away with. If you want I can post the verses than say the law was done away with, Jesus did not need the Law as a helper to save lives. But that is what many believe is He was not enough alone so they brought is part of the Law even though the Bible says one must follow ALL law or be judged under the law.Rom 4 and Heb 8 see my post 41
Acts 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.They are done away with as the method of salvation......
The old law did not offer salvation
it was only put in place till Jesus came to fulfill the old law and give us a way to fulfill the old law so we could move on past the old law to Faith which only came through Jesus Christ and offer life and salvation.
Rom 7Acts 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
The old law did not offer salvation it was only put in place till Jesus came to fulfill the old law and give us a way to fulfill the old law so we could move on past the old law to Faith which only came through Jesus Christ and offer life and salvation.
Gal 5
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
The above is talking about following the law ( circumcised)
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
The above say one can not follow part of the law.
The above will be judged under the law for not following all the law.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
The above is the only way to be one with Jesus.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision (Jew) availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; (Gentile) but faith which worketh by love.
Faith in the one who was actually on the cross for us is what matters.
7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
Above he is speaking of those who want Jesus and the old law.
8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
The above is saying you were not taught to mix Faith and the law.
I don't recall seeing this any where. Where did you find this info? I was under the impression there were Pharisees, Sadducees and the rest of the Jews but all were circumcised from the time of Abraham. All Jews were cut on day 8 by law and any/all sects that did not accept new covenant were referred to as circumsion. not just one sect.Paul calls the religious Sect of the Pharisees, "The Circumcision".
I don't recall seeing this any where. Where did you find this info?
I was under the impression there were Pharisees, Sadducees and the rest of the Jews but all were circumcised from the time of Abraham.
All Jews were cut on day 8 by law and any/all sects that did not accept new covenant were referred to as circumsion. not just one sect.
Paul calls the religious Sect of the Pharisees, "The Circumcision". He is teaching the Galatians that to turn away from God, and adopt or become a member of their religion, and rely on their religious traditions for Justification, shall profit them nothing.
It would be the same as a modern religion, who taught for doctrines the commandments of men, and "Full well they reject the commandment of God, that they may keep their own tradition.", telling others that unless they get baptized by their own ordained pastor, and follow the religious doctrines and traditions they promoted, they could not be saved.
From what I read there were 4 main sects of Jews in Jesus day. The Sadducees and Pharisees would imo be about half if not more of Jews and these two groups were trying to stop Jesus teaching. imo "the circumcision" are both of these sects ( Sadducees and Pharisees) Their circumcision is by hands on day 8.I found this in a Book called "The Holy Scriptures".
Gal. 2: 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were "of the circumcision."
Eph. 2: 11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who "are called Uncircumcision" by that which is called "the Circumcision" in the flesh made by hands;
Titus 1: 10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they "of the circumcision": 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
"They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Paul referred to the religious Jews and their religion, as "the Circumcision" in many of his letters. And he referred to the Body of Christ as "the circumcision" as well. Obviously, the Galatians were not being "Bewitched" by the Body of Christ.
I prefer to let the Scriptutres create Doctrine for me.
Col. 4:11 And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are "of the circumcision". These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me.
Phil. 3: 3 For "we are the circumcision", which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Obviously, Paul and the Body of Christ accepted God's version of His New Covenant but were still called by Paul "The Circumcision".
Paul tries to explain this to folks, but they don't believe him.
Rom. 2: 25 For circumcision "verily profiteth", if thou keep the law: but if thou be "a breaker of the law", thy circumcision "is made uncircumcision". 26 Therefore "if the uncircumcision" keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
This is the same thing Moses instructed.
Duet. 10: 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. 17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
Paul confirms this in another place. 1 Cor. 7: 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Here is what you replied to.
In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message. Furthermore, Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked. So Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and Galatians should not be interpreted as speaking against following Christ.I honestly feel that this question was decided long ago when Paul wrote that the Galatians were "bewitched" for thinking that they had to follow the law, including the Jewish dietary practices.
In Mark 7:1-13, Jesus criticized the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so he should not be interpreted as turning around and even more hypocritically doing what he just finished criticizing the Pharisees as being hypocrites for doing. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, so if Jesus had been speaking against obeying God's dietary laws as you suggest, then he would have sinned and therefore disqualified himself as being our Savior. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they teaching against obeying the Mosaic Law, so if Jesus had done that, then according to God we should consider him to be a false prophet. His critics would have for once had a legitimate reason to want to kill him and they wouldn't have needed to find false witnesses at his trial, but this incident was not even brought up, and no one reacted as though Jesus had made a radical statement in rebellion against the Father. The topic that they were discussing was whether someone could become common by eating bread with unwashed hands, which had nothing to do with eating unclean animals.Also, Christ declared all foods clean,
The word used in Genesis 9:3 refers to prey animals, which are clean animals, while unclean animals are predators and scavengers.God told Noah that he gave him "everything" to eat,
Peter could have obeyed God's commands in the Mosaic Law and His command in his vision by simply killing and eating one of the clean animals, so understanding why he refused to do what the Mosaic Law permitted him to do is the key to correctly understanding his vision. It should be noted that Peter did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also added that he had never eaten anything that was command and God did not rebuke Peter for his use of the word "unclean", but only rebuked him for referring to what He has made clean as being "common". In other words, Peter correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correctly knew that he was not permitted to eat them, but he incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill and eat. Peter interpreted his vision three times as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles without saying a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in their status.and Peter was given an entire vision in which he was told it was okay to eat unclean things in Acts.
Either Acts 15:19-21 contains an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required of mature Gentile believers or it does not, so it is contradictory to treat it as being a non-exhaustive list by saying that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow, such as the greatest two commandments, while also treating it as being an exhaustive list to limit which laws Gentiles should follow. Furthermore, in Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarized the Mosaic Law as being about how to love God and our neighbor and said that all of the other commandments hang on them, so the position that we should obey the greatest two commandments is the position that we should also obey all of the commandments that hang on them. In Acts 15:19-21, it was not given as an exhaustive list for mature believers, but rather as stated it was a list intended to avoid making things too difficult for new believers, which they excused by saying that they would continue to learn about how to obey Mosaic by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.Not to mention the church's decision not to impose the dietary laws upon Gentile Christians in the same book.
If you read a verse and interpret it as speaking against obeying what God has commanded, then I see three options:As for me, I feel no guilt for the conspicuous amount of ham and pork sausage I have eaten over the years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?