Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Whether you like or not that is not conveyed in the text as bugkiller showed with Lk 24:44. Besides John 1:16 is talking about the fullness of Jesus and not the law. You need something that says grace was added to the law. The law is not grace. The law does not provide for grace either. I did not say grace did not exist.Whether you like it or not, that is historically how rabbis used the phrase and when the historical facts don't match your interpretation, usually it's best to adjust your interpretation. John 1:16 makes it clear that grace is being added to grace, not in opposition. Jesus did not disagree with the Father and did nothing contrary to the Father's will, so he did not command anything different in nature than what the Father had commanded, but rather he was talking about having them follow his example of obedience. With Luke 24:44, neither the Law nor the Prophets write about the Messiah doing away with the law, so that's not referred to.
We can read.Nope, it doesn't say that.
No it plainly says no work. It does not say minor or miniscule work.Interpreting the original intent of the law =/= amending the law.
Give us commentary on why you posted the passage and what you think it says. So far all you are doing is bypassing a problem for you that you refuse to deal with.All I did was quote the NT, so your disagreement and misunderstanding is with the NT. I have said nothing about discarding the NT and enforcing compliance with to a defunct covenant, and have in fact repeatedly said just the opposite. The idea that Gentiles were never required to keep the Sabbath is purely fictional. In Acts 15:21, they were already keeping the Sabbath in obedience to God. It was a given that followers of God should obey God.
Where is the evidence Christians were keeping the Sabbath anywhere in Acts 15.All I did was quote the NT, so your disagreement and misunderstanding is with the NT. I have said nothing about discarding the NT and enforcing compliance with to a defunct covenant, and have in fact repeatedly said just the opposite. The idea that Gentiles were never required to keep the Sabbath is purely fictional. In Acts 15:21, they were already keeping the Sabbath in obedience to God. It was a given that followers of God should obey God.
Jesus did not come to deliver us from the vain babblings of men.Yes, I am aware of that custom, but whether they have a correct interpretation of the law's intent is another issue. Jesus said he came to explain how to correctly understand and follow the law and part of that involved cutting through the mountains of traditions that Jews had for how they thought the law should be followed.
you misuse Acts 15:21, that was not for the churches.All I did was quote the NT, so your disagreement and misunderstanding is with the NT. I have said nothing about discarding the NT and enforcing compliance with to a defunct covenant, and have in fact repeatedly said just the opposite. The idea that Gentiles were never required to keep the Sabbath is purely fictional. In Acts 15:21, they were already keeping the Sabbath in obedience to God. It was a given that followers of God should obey God.
right on!The sign of the Sinaitic covenant is circumcision. When a man converts to Judaism he is circumcised, if he has not already been circumcised. The sign of the new covenant is baptism. You stated previously that if a Gentile wishes to dine on the Passover lamb he must become circumcised.
This runs counter to the New Covenant, which does not require circumcision for its members. What you are saying is that if one wants to become Jewish (i.e. eat the Passover lamb) one must be circumcised. This is a true statement. However, a Gentile under the New Covenant has no such requirement in order to parkake of the Passover Lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ.
yes it does, to keep it, one had to convert to Judaism, so your post is incorrect!.Nope, it doesn't say that.
Passover of the Gentiles, or Jews?Nope, it doesn't say that.
Passover of the Gentiles, or Jews?
John 2:13
The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
John 6:4
Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.
John 11:55
Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves
We have a copy of the Scripture.Passover was instituted way before the word Jew even showed up in the scriptures.
Plus God said the feast days were his feast days, not the Jews in Lev 23.
you saw that I posted the thread on 15:21. here is the link, go for it!Who exactly was 15:21 addressing then, since everything leading up to that point in chapter 15 was addressing the gentiles.
But why did peter call it the passover of the Jews, and we know from text, to keep it one had to be Jewish via circumcision?Passover was instituted way before the word Jew even showed up in the scriptures.
Plus God said the feast days were his feast days, not the Jews in Lev 23.
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?