1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Every jot and tittle

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by John Helpher, Mar 30, 2020.

Tags:
  1. Oldmantook

    Oldmantook Well-Known Member

    +1,514
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Each believer has a daily choice whether to sin or not to sin. And that is precisely why Paul stated in Rom 7:25 that WITH HIS MIND, he serves the law of God BUT - IN HIS FLESH, the law of sin.
    No contradiction whatsoever. You and I have a choice - obey the law or obey sin in our lives. Whichever one we serve is our master.
     
  2. klutedavid

    klutedavid Well-Known Member

    +4,354
    Non-Denom
    Single
    You misunderstand what Paul was saying in Romans 7.

    Paul was a dead man even though he served God in his mind.

    Just like you, on the one hand you know what the law requires. Yet you sin because you exist in a body of death. Your flesh cannot stop sinning.

    Unless of course you want to claim that you are free from sin?

    The law only condemns, obedience to the law saves no one.

    Gentiles were never under the law.
     
  3. not under law

    not under law Active Member

    428
    +115
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Widowed
    Was Paul condemning himself in Romans7:14?
    We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin

    Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death,or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? Rom6:16
     
  4. Yarddog

    Yarddog Senior Contributor Supporter

    +3,274
    Catholic
    Married
    I may point out that Jesus didn't break the law because there is no law against doing good. Thus, when faced with the possibility of violating a "thou shalt not" law when one can obey a "thou shall", choose to do good.
     
  5. YouAreAwesome

    YouAreAwesome ☝✌

    +964
    Christian
    Married
    @John Helpher

    Did you make these videos? This dudes voice is top notch! Clearly presents his viewpoint too.
     
  6. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +3,888
    Messianic
    Single
    In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, and Jesus was sinless, therefore he did not do that. Furthermore, if he had made any changes, then that would mean that he was in disagreement with what the Father commanded, and I see no indication of this, but rather he said in John 14:24 that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father. Even if he had been raising the bar, then it would at the very least still be inclusive of everything in the Mosaic Law. Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced, so he didn't raise the bar. Furthermore, he would have still taught full obedience to the Mosaic Law by example even if he had said nothing, and as his followers 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 (1 John 2:6).

    Luke 14:33 had nothing to do with tithing, nor was it given as a general command for everyone, nor was it a command to stop working, nor did Jesus say anything about doing that instead of obeying God's command to keep the Sabbath holy.

    A disciple had the goal of coming under a rabbi and learn from him how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, and in Matthew 11:28-30, Jesus was inviting people to become his disciples and to come to him for rest by taking this yoke upon them, not by rejecting his yoke. By saying that we would find rest for our souls, he was referencing Jeremiah 6:16-19, where the Mosaic Law is described as the good way where we will find rest for our souls. This rest for our souls comes from having faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live through His law, not from taking a break from following God's guidance. In Hebrews 4:9, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, so we should therefore continue to keep it holy. In Hebrews 4:6, they failed to enter into God's rest because of their disobedience and in 4:11, we should strive to enter into that rest so that no one may fall away by the same sort of disobedience, so using entering into God's rest to justify the same sort of disobedience is exactly the opposite of what was being said.

    The Israelites worshiped God on every day in addition to obeying His command to keep the 7th day holy. If God had wanted no one to do any work, then He could have commanded that instead of commanding to keep the 7th day holy, but God also wants us to work. In 2 Thessalonian 3:10, Paul said that those who don't work shall not eat.

    He was my paragraph on fulfilling the law:

    Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it, so you should not interpret that as meaning essentially the same thing, especially if you don't consistently interpret fulfilling the Law of Christ in Galatians 6:2 as abolishing it. Likewise, in Romans 15:18-19, Paul fulfilling the Gospel of Christ does not refer to abolishing it, but to fully preaching it. If you stop at a stop sign, then you have fulfilled that law, but you have not ended it. Rather, "to fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will as made known in His law to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfillment" (NAS Greek Lexicon pleroo 2c3). After Jesus said he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5, he proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it or by completing our understanding of it. In Galatians 5:14, loving our neighbor fulfills the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done, not to something unique that only Jesus did. Jesus said that not a jot or tittle would disappear from the law until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished, neither of which has happened yet, both of which won't happen until end times.
     
  7. John Helpher

    John Helpher John 3:16 Supporter

    +391
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    Nah I didn't make them (I could wish I had video making skills!). But yeah, I also like what seems to me a clear presentation. There's a no-nonsense quality that I like.
     
  8. klutedavid

    klutedavid Well-Known Member

    +4,354
    Non-Denom
    Single
    Your flesh is baptized into death, your flesh is dead in Christ.

    Romans 8:10
    If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
     
  9. John Helpher

    John Helpher John 3:16 Supporter

    +391
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    Look carefully at what you've done here; Jesus said, "take my yoke upon you" but you've changed it to "take this yoke upon you", with the "this" being a reference to the law of Moses. That is a distortion of what Jesus said for the sake of promoting your position on loyalty to the old testament.

    Every other argument you make is in the light of this same kind of distortion.
     
  10. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +3,888
    Messianic
    Single

    I spoke both about his yoke and what this yoke was. Jesus lived in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, so this was the yoke that he was inviting people to come under when he said to take his yoke upon them. It would make no sense to thing that he was inviting them to reject his example. Practically every time Jesus opened his mouth to teach, he was making references to the OT, so he was solidly rooted in the OT. About 1/3 of the verses in the NT contain quotes or allusions to the OT, which the NT authors did thousands of times in order to establish that it supported what they were saying and to show that they hadn't departed from it, so they certainly had a loyalty to the OT and saw it as still being authoritative, if not more authoritative than their own writings. If you don't want to take my word for it, you can look up for yourself the historical context of what it means in Judaism to come under a rabbi's yoke or to fulfill the law.

    I watched your video and wrote a response to points that you made, so the least you can do is discuss it.
     
  11. YouAreAwesome

    YouAreAwesome ☝✌

    +964
    Christian
    Married
    @Soyeong

    Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. (Matthew 11:29)

    Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? (Acts of the Apostles 15:10)

    Are you saying these two yokes are one and the same?
     
  12. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +3,888
    Messianic
    Single
    No. In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it says that God's law is not too difficult to obey and that obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! If Acts 15:10 were speaking about God's law, then that would mean that they were in direct disagreement with God and would therefore be wrong. Likewise, in 1 John 5:3 in confirms that to love God is to obey His commandments, which are not burdensome, so if Acts 15:10 were speaking against obeying God's law, then that would mean that the Jerusalem Council was bringing death and a curse to the Gentiles and saying that Gentiles shouldn't love God. In Matthew 23:3-4, Jesus criticized the Pharisees for placing heavy burdens on the backs of the people that they were unwilling to move with their finger, so if he were speaking about God's law, then that would mean that he was criticizing the Pharisees for teaching the people to do what God commanded them to do.

    In Mark 7:6-9, Jesus criticized the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so the way that I reconcile the above verses is accounting for the large body of supplementary Jewish oral laws, traditions, rulings, and fences, which were taught that people needed to obey in order to become justified. In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become justified, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man-made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded. So the Jerusalem Council upheld God's law by correctly ruling against that requirement and a ruling against requiring something that God never commanded should not be interpreted as being a ruling against requiring what God has commanded, especially because the Jerusalem Council did not have the authority to countermand God, or to tell anyone not to obey any of His laws.

    So the yoke that Jesus spoke about in Matthew 11:28-30 was in according with Deuteronomy 30:11-20, 1 John 5:3, and Jeremiah 6:16-19, but was in contrast with heavy burden in Matthew 23:3-4 and Acts 15:10. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 12:8-14, Joshua 22:2-4, and Hebrews 4:6-11, God giving us rest is associated with obedience to Him and contrasted with disobedience.
     
  13. not under law

    not under law Active Member

    428
    +115
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Widowed
    That doesn't answer the question. The man spoken of was sold as a slave to sin, so sin was his master. Paul wrote:
    For sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law but under grace Rom6:14 So according to Paul's usage of words it doesn't fit for the man spoken of in ch7:14-24 being Paul the christian

    Many make the mistake of believing if Paul is speaking of his life as a Pharisee in Rom7:14-24 that means Christians live sinless lives. This is simply not true. There is a world of difference between where that man was and sinless perfection, and truth is, Christians are probably somewhere in the middle. The man spoken of only had sin and defeat, no victory, that is the very opposite of Paul's message to believers isn't it.
    In verses 7-11 it should be unarguable Saul the Pharisee is being spoken of. He is relating what happened to him when the law came to him. Through his knowledge of the commandment: Thou shalt not covet all manner of concupiscence was aroused in him and he was slain. That is in relation to verse 5. Sinfull passions are aroused in people by the law if they live under it. Paul then affirms the law itself is holy, righteous and good, and that what is holy righteous and good did not bring death to him but rather sin did. Verses 14-24 goes into more detail as to his struggles and faliures to obey the commandment: Thou shalt not covet, for those verses are in relation to the same commandment mentioned in verses7-11
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2020
  14. YouAreAwesome

    YouAreAwesome ☝✌

    +964
    Christian
    Married
    @Soyeong

    I will address the passages you quoted.

    1. Deuteronomy 30:11-20 is followed by Deuteronomy 31:16-22 explaining how God knows the people will fail.

    2. 1 John 5:3 is in reference to 1 John 3:23 "And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as he gave us commandment."

    3. About Matthew 23:3-4 you say it can not be that
    but He was criticizing them because they were hypocrites as you explain yourself in Mark 7:6-9 on which we appear to agree.

    4. You are wrong about Acts of the Apostles 15:1 because in 15:5 it specifically states how the false argument was, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” So 15:10 is not solely about circumcision but includes the law of Moses.

    Finally you write:

    I agree, if we are speaking in the context of living under the old covenant. Peace was found in being obedient. Today peace is found in being obedient also (as in the Hebrews passage). But today we are obedient to the law of love. Because the word "rest" is a spiritual word, and we find rest in Jesus.
     
  15. John Helpher

    John Helpher John 3:16 Supporter

    +391
    United States
    Christian
    Celibate
    I have offered several points; each of which you have dismissed. You deliberately distorted Jesus' words about his yoke, insisting that what he really wanted most from his followers is that they follow Moses. If you are willing to distort his words in that area, then you will be willing to distort them in others areas.

    Jesus said the law and the prophets were up until John the Baptist and from there the Kingdom of Heaven is preached. Jesus said that he is the cornerstone. He said that he is lord even of the sabbath, indicating that he's the one to tell us how to rightly apply the sabbath, but you do not want to hear that. You want Moses to be the boss who tells Jesus how to apply the sabbath.

    I told you about Jesus' teachings on money and you dismissed them because Jesus is not your boss. Moses is your boss. You merely use Jesus as a figurehead to legitimize loyalty to Moses. It's basically the same thing Catholics do with Mary where Jesus' role is to bring glory to Mary.
     
  16. expos4ever

    expos4ever Well-Known Member

    +5,244
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    You are misrepresenting me. I never said we do not need the Bible, I said we do not need the Law of Moses to guide us.
     
  17. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +7,567
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    The Sabbath is no longer in effect under the New Covenant. So I am by no means a Sabbatarian. But to imply that Jesus was against the Old Law (Before the cross) is to mean Jesus was against God the Father (Which is simply not the case). What Jesus was doing was CHANGING the Law (See: Hebrews 7:12). There is a difference between breaking God's laws and making a change whereby you cannot break them. Jesus spoke and did things only by the commandment of the Father. So the changes were being made by God the Father Himself. The Sabbath was still in effect before the cross. Jesus never once broke the Sabbath, but Jesus did change certain Laws before the cross, and implemented NEW commands. Jesus said that you have heard it said an eye for an eye, but I say unto you turn the other cheek. This is a change of the Law. Not a breaking of the Law. Jesus could not have broken the Law otherwise He could not be our spotless Lamb so as to die on the cross for our sins. Anyways, you said that Jesus was hinting that Moses was wrong for writing a bill of divorce. This is simply not what Jesus was hinting at. Jesus was saying that Moses only did so out of the hardness of their heart. God permitted it (even though He was not happy about it). Jesus never said Moses was wrong on this point. Jesus did not imply that the Old Law was bad. Yes, after the cross, the Old Law is no more as a whole or package deal, but that does not mean Christians are lawless citizens of the kingdom. We follow the commands that come from Jesus and His followers.

    Unfortunately, your view is the majority view that is spoon fed to the churches at large. You did not derive this by your own study of God's Word and by asking God to show you the truth of His Word. God cannot approve of a person to justify their own sin with the thinking they are saved. Salvation does not work like that. So while the Sabbath is no longer in effect (Colossians 2:14-17), we are under the commands by Jesus and His followers. We cannot abide in the following sins such as: Hating, lusting, lying, murder, theft, unforgiveness, cursing, refusing to help the poor, refusing to tell others about Jesus and the gospel, etc. otherwise we will not inherit the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19-21) (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) (Matthew 5:28-31) (Matthew 6:15) (Matthew 12:37) (Matthew 25:31-46) (Luke 9:62).

    So while we are initially and ultimately saved by God's grace (Ephesians 2:8-9) (Titus 3:5) (Romans 4:3-5), His grace is not a license for immorality (Jude 1:4). For God's grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and that we should live righteously and godly in this present world (Titus 2:11-12).
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2020
  18. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +7,567
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I am not a Sabbatarian or one of those who say we must keep the Old Law. But under the New Covenant, that does not mean Christians are lawless or without having any commands in regards to being in favor with God. We are under a New Covenant with New Commands. For the confusion arises when people do not understand that the Law has changed (Hebrews 7:12).

    Jesus clearly was making changes to the Law (even before the cross):
    (Which means He was not teaching primarily Old Covenant, but New Covenant):

    The Old Way says:
    "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"
    (Matthew 5:38 cf. Exodus 21:23-25).

    The New Way (by Jesus) says:
    "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39).


    The Old Way says:
    "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment" (Matthew 5:21 cf. Numbers 35:30-32).

    The New Way (by Jesus) says:
    "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:22).


    The Old Way says:
    "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:" (Matthew 5:34 cf. Numbers 30:1-2, Deuteronomy 23:21).

    The New Way (by Jesus) says:
    34 "But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
    35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
    36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
    37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:34-37).


    The Old Way says:
    "And of thy mercy cut off mine enemies, and destroy all them that afflict my soul: for I am thy servant." (Psalms 143:12).

    "And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent." (Joshua 6:17).

    "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21).

    16 "But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
    17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee" (Deuteronomy 20:16-17).

    "They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them" (Psalms 106:34).

    The New Way (by Jesus) says:
    "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matthew 5:44).

    Note: Yes, I am aware that the Old Way (Old Testament) also teaches to love one's enemies (Exodus 23:4-5) (Proverbs 25:21), but this was in context to their own Israelite people, and not pagan nations. Pagan nations were to be destroyed when God commanded the Israelites to destroy them. But Jesus taught a radically different way. Love your enemies, and do good to them that hate you, and to pray for those who persecute you.


    The Old Way says:
    20 "But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
    21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
    22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel." (Deuteronomy 22:20-22).

    4 "They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
    5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" (John 8:4-5).

    The New Way (by Jesus) says:
    "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. " (John 8:7).


    Even after the cross, there were changes being made:

    The Old Covenant says this about circumcision:
    "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." (Genesis 17:14).

    Yet, the New Covenant says this about circumcision:
    "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."
    (Galatians 5:2).


    The Old Covenant says this about the Sabbath:
    32 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
    33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
    34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
    35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
    36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses." (Numbers 15:32-36).

    Yet, the New Covenant says this about the Sabbath:
    "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:" (Colossians 2:16).

    So it appears things have changed.

    This makes sense because again, Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed.

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

    “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
    (John 1:17).

    Jesus said,
    "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17).

    Jesus came not to abolish the Law (in the sense of destroying all forms of Law), but Jesus came to fulfill the Law (i.e. to nail to the cross those ordinances that were against us [like the Old Covenant ceremonial laws], and Jesus came to give us a more fulfilled and perfect way of obeying God via the commands that come directly from Him and His followers). For Jesus offered a more perfect way of loving God, and loving our neighbor (Which of course is only possible via if we are first saved by God's grace through faith).
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2020
  19. expos4ever

    expos4ever Well-Known Member

    +5,244
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    First, I am not sure exactly which text you are referring to when you say "both parties must be present" - can you please tell us?

    Your interpretation is speculative - what evidence do you offer to support it? Yes, your take is a possibility: the Pharisees could be trying to trap Jesus as you suggest. But that does not seem to fit with the way the story plays out. If this had been a trap, why did Jesus not call them on it? True - He certainly does call them of their hypocrisy as sinners themselves. But there is not really much of a case here that He thinks they are trying to trap Him in the way you suggest. So, yes, what you are saying is a possibility. But there are others that, I think, make more sense.

    Remember - Jesus does other things that are clear challenges to the Law of Moses. For example, he directly contradicts the Law of Moses when He says that "nothing that goes into a man defiles him". Now, I know that you, and others, have constructed this extremely contrived counterargument that the issue is hand-washing. But I suggest anyone who takes the text seriously will realize that if Jesus is still concerned specifically with the addition of man-made traditions to Levitical food laws, why is He challenging the very premise of the Levitical food laws, which is that foods that go into the man defile him?

    And there are other examples of Jesus challenging the Law as you have been shown.

    Obviously, Jesus could be challenging the Law of Moses in the account of the woman caught in adultery. And note what we read directly after the account:

    Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life

    ...and how does the Psalmist describe the Law of Moses?

    Your word is a lamp to my feet
    And a light to my path.
    I have sworn and I will confirm it,
    That I will keep Your righteous ordinances.

    I suggest that there is every likelihood that Jesus is hinting that He replaces the Law of Moses - in the past, the Law was your light, now you have Me.

    Remember: the Scriptural tale of redemption is an unfolding narrative - old covenant and new covenant. The Law of Moses is part of the old:

    But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter
     
  20. expos4ever

    expos4ever Well-Known Member

    +5,244
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    I have already explained my position in post 47. You are not really addressing my argument. Let me ask you this question: If Jesus is still concerned specifically with the addition of man-made traditions to Levtical food laws, why is He challenging the very premise of the Levitical food laws, which is that foods that go into the man defile him?
     
Loading...