If you Love Me - KEEP My Commandments

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
The Ten Commandments are included in the LAW of God - included in the LAW of Jer 31:31-33 "This is the NEW Covenant ...I will write My LAWs on their heart and on their mind" . Jeremiah knew of that Law - so also did his readers.
...

Your argument that they would take Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" and Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart" as Laws to be used to delete God's spoken Word in Ex 20 where it then says in Deut 5 "And He added no more" -- is pure fiction. So you merely 'quote you'.

And we both know it.

Most impressively - so also do your own pro-sunday scholars know it. They know that the Ten Commandments were not deleted by Lev 19:18 or Deut 6:5 in either the OT or the NT.

Actually that is not what I am saying Bob, I have never said to delete any of these commandments.
I could never be accused of saying 'love your neighbor as yourself' (Deut 6:5) either, that is the law.

So then - just how much of scripture do you reject????

John 13
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you.

You have the NEW commandment right there Bob, this is not an old commandment

In Matt 22 Jesus affirms both Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 as the greatest, as still binding... as the bedrock foundation of all the LAW and the prophets sustaing rather than deleting them.

Is this yet "another" part of scripture and the teaching of Christ that you delete?

Christ does not say in John 13 "I delete all of the commandments of God with this new commandment"???

or shall we eisegete that into the text?

and I will explain why.
The NEW commandment tells us to love others as Jesus loved us, not as we love ourselves. Anyone who
quotes the Leviticus commandment to love your neighbor, misunderstands the NEW Commandment.

So then... that would be Jesus in Matt 22.

34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. 35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

Is Jesus to be condemned in Matt 22 or followed and obeyed??

is Jesus deleting not only the entire bible but also his own Matt 22 statement in John 13? Do we see anything like "I hereby delete"??

Answer is: No!

There is an astronomical difference between the love of Christ for us and self love, never equate these.

One of them is "evil"?
One of them is "deleted by the other"??

I repeat Bob, I never said to delete any commandments, I have said that we are under a New Covenant.

A new Covenant with the LAW of God as known to Jeremiah - the author of the text.

Exegesis would be good thing - just then.

You need to admit that God does indeed change, God annulled hundreds of laws, i.e., commandments.
You do not need to be circumcised and there is no doubt that circumcision was a very important commandment.
The law is established as a guideline for understanding what sin is, we most certainly do not ignore the law.
But we are not under the law, otherwise, we would be circumcised and still in fact be under the whole law.

1. There was no law for gentiles to be circumcised - NT or OT.
2. Rom 3:19-21 "Under the LAW" according to Paul is exactly where the whole world is to this very day -- all condemned by the LAW of God until they accept the Gospel

I am not a follower of the Reformation movement, nor am I 'pro-sunday' advocate. I am not even a protestant Bob.

It is difficult for me creatively imagine that you are keeping the Bible 7th-day Sabbath instead of week-day-1 worship services.

Nor is there a NT text saying 'these two laws delete the OT, delete scripture, delete the commandments of God.."

Or in your case "this one law deletes all of known scripture" in John 13.

Eph 6:2 the text you keep religiously avoiding "Honor your father and Mother - which is the FIRST commandment with a promise" -- FIRST commandment WHERE??/ in Lev 19:18???? No!! how about in Deut 6:5??/ No !!

I fully endorse this commandment, though I would exceed this commandment and suggest you love your parents.
You cannot claim to just honor your parents and love everyone else. Love your parents Bob.

The detail you are avoiding... FIRST commandment WHERE??

1. in Lev 19:18???? Is the 5th commandment the "first commandment in Lev 19:18 with a promise"??? No!!

2. how about in Deut 6:5??/ Is the 5th commandment the "first commandment in Deut 6:5 with a promise"??? No!!

how about the first commandment in John 13 with a promise??? no! that is not the case and we both know it.

It just does not get any easier than this - and even your own pro-sunday scholars know it. Indeed even you and I both know it.

 

[Travis93]

The bottom line is this, either a prophet conforms to the law of Moses are they are rejected (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). If someone can come along with a special new revelation, then nothing in the NT is certain either. Muhammad and Joseph Smith also claim to have new revelations from God, but apparently Paul is except from the criticism they get for contradicting the existing word of God. He's allowed to come in and change the rules with his special visions he received, but not them. Now I see Paul saying faith establishes the law rather than voiding it (Romans 3:31) and saying all scripture is profitable for instruction (2 Timothy 3:16), so I think he's legit but misunderstood (2 Peter 3:16). But everyone who pits him against the law is making him to be a false prophet with no light in him (Isaiah 8:20) and an adamant stone of a heart (Zechariah 7:12).

 

[BobRyan]

The bottom line is this, either a prophet conforms to the law of Moses are they are rejected (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). If someone can come along with a special new revelation, then nothing in the NT is certain either. Muhammad and Joseph Smith also claim to have new revelations from God, but apparently Paul is except from the criticism they get for contradicting the existing word of God. He's allowed to come in and change the rules with his special visions he received, but not them. Now I see Paul saying faith establishes the law rather than voiding it (Romans 3:31) and saying all scripture is profitable for instruction (2 Timothy 3:16), so I think he's legit but misunderstood (2 Peter 3:16). But everyone who pits him against the law is making him to be a false prophet with no light in him (Isaiah 8:20) and an adamant stone of a heart (Zechariah 7:12).

How much scripture are you willing to delete to pursue your beliefs?

If you delete a sufficient amount - then the claim seems to be - you could defend almost any position.

But as Christians - we choose not to do that.

 

[Jan001]

You take the entire OT and throw it out the window and you chase after "doing right in your own eyes" We are CALLED to walk as Messiah walked. That is plainly stated no matter how hard you try and distort what 1 John is saying, that IS what he is saying. Modern Gentile Christians vainly attempt to make the Apostles anything but Jews....

Some Jewish Christians vainly attempt to make the Gentiles/Greeks into Jews. Some Jewish Christians tell the Gentile Christians that they must be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses or else they cannot be saved. The apostles gave the Gentile Christians no such command.

Acts 15:1-5, 7-11, 23-29
And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.

3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. 4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” rsv

7 Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” rsv

23 They wrote this letter by them:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law” —to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Farewell. rsv
​

The Gentile Christians were not ever commanded by the apostles to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses.

​

 

[BobRyan]

Some Jewish Christians vainly attempt to make the Gentiles/Greeks into Jews. Some Jewish Christians tell the Gentile Christians that they must be circumcised

True - but that was not being done by the non-christian Jews in Acts 13, or Acts 17:4 or Acts 18:4 nor was it commanded in the OT or NT. It was another example of "made up rules" - as is pointed out in Acts 15:1-2.

in the true spirit of Mark 7:6-13 placing tradition ahead of scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

You take the entire OT and throw it out the window and you chase after "doing right in your own eyes" We are CALLED to walk as Messiah walked. That is plainly stated no matter how hard you try and distort what 1 John is saying, that IS what he is saying. Modern Gentile Christians vainly attempt to make the Apostles anything but Jews....

There is a theology that basically describes the Bible as evil - and that most of it must be deleted to make it "good".

happened in the dark ages too - they simply burned the Bible.

 

[klutedavid]

BobRyan said: ↑
The Ten Commandments are included in the LAW of God - included in the LAW of Jer 31:31-33 "This is the NEW Covenant ...I will write My LAWs on their heart and on their mind" . Jeremiah knew of that Law - so also did his readers.
...

Your argument that they would take Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" and Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart" as Laws to be used to delete God's spoken Word in Ex 20 where it then says in Deut 5 "And He added no more" -- is pure fiction. So you merely 'quote you'.

And we both know it.

Most impressively - so also do your own pro-sunday scholars know it. They know that the Ten Commandments were not deleted by Lev 19:18 or Deut 6:5 in either the OT or the NT.



So then - just how much of scripture do you reject????



In Matt 22 Jesus affirms both Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 as the greatest, as still binding... as the bedrock foundation of all the LAW and the prophets sustaing rather than deleting them.

Is this yet "another" part of scripture and the teaching of Christ that you delete?

Christ does not say in John 13 "I delete all of the commandments of God with this new commandment"???

or shall we eisegete that into the text?



So then... that would be Jesus in Matt 22.

34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. 35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

Is Jesus to be condemned in Matt 22 or followed and obeyed??

is Jesus deleting not only the entire bible but also his own Matt 22 statement in John 13? Do we see anything like "I hereby delete"??

Answer is: No!



One of them is "evil"?
One of them is "deleted by the other"??



A new Covenant with the LAW of God as known to Jeremiah - the author of the text.

Exegesis would be good thing - just then.



1. There was no law for gentiles to be circumcised - NT or OT.
2. Rom 3:19-21 "Under the LAW" according to Paul is exactly where the whole world is to this very day -- all condemned by the LAW of God until they accept the Gospel



It is difficult for me creatively imagine that you are keeping the Bible 7th-day Sabbath instead of week-day-1 worship services.

Nor is there a NT text saying 'these two laws delete the OT, delete scripture, delete the commandments of God.."

Or in your case "this one law deletes all of known scripture" in John 13.

Eph 6:2 the text you keep religiously avoiding "Honor your father and Mother - which is the FIRST commandment with a promise" -- FIRST commandment WHERE??/ in Lev 19:18???? No!! how about in Deut 6:5??/ No !!



The detail you are avoiding... FIRST commandment WHERE??

1. in Lev 19:18???? Is the 5th commandment the "first commandment in Lev 19:18 with a promise"??? No!!

2. how about in Deut 6:5??/ Is the 5th commandment the "first commandment in Deut 6:5 with a promise"??? No!!

how about the first commandment in John 13 with a promise??? no! that is not the case and we both know it.

It just does not get any easier than this - and even your own pro-sunday scholars know it. Indeed even you and I both know it.

Hello Bob.

May I ask you for your informed opinion on a text in the New Testament?

Here is the text.

Acts 15
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials,
29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from
fornication. If you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.

The Gentiles were instructed by the apostles to abstain from blood. Now a Gentile will read this decree by
the apostles and then ask, what does abstaining from blood mean? Is this a direct reference to the laws
written in Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, relating to eating meat with the blood in it?

Obviously the apostles are enforcing upon the Gentiles, an adherence to these blood laws!

In fact, the reference to 'from things strangled', reinforces this idea that the apostles are placing the
Gentiles under these laws.

Now Bob, I need your informed opinion on this very difficult text. If you eat meat with the blood still
in it, does this mean that you have failed to obey the Holy Spirit?

Also Bob, can the blood laws be regarded as direct commandments to the Gentile Christians?

 

[klutedavid]

True - but that was not being done by the non-christian Jews in Acts 13, or Acts 17:4 or Acts 18:4 nor was it commanded in the OT or NT. It was another example of "made up rules" - as is pointed out in Acts 15:1-2.

in the true spirit of Mark 7:6-13 placing tradition ahead of scripture.

Hello Bob.

Just wondering what you meant by 'nor was it commanded in the OT or NT'?

 

[BobRyan]

Hello Bob.

Just wondering what you meant by 'nor was it commanded in the OT or NT'?

if you find a command in NT or OT for all gentiles to become Jews if they want to be saved -- you know in true Acts 15:1-2 style -- please quote it.

If you don't have such a text - why write as if you did??

 

[BobRyan]

Hello Bob.

May I ask you for your informed opinion on a text in the New Testament?

Here is the text.

Acts 15
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials,
29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from
fornication. If you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.

The Gentiles were instructed by the apostles to abstain from blood.

Lev 17 does indeed make that command against eating blood. And Acts 15 does affirm it. in Genesis 7 Noah takes in the unclean animals by two's and the clean by 7's. Noah is not a Jew.

But circumcision was just for Jews. Ephesians two points out that it is the dividing wall between the two groups - and even the non-Christian Jews refer to gentiles according to Ephesians 2 as the "non circumcised".

In Acts 13 it is gentiles that are showing up "Sabbath after Sabbath" in the Synagogue for gospel preaching.

In Acts 17:4 it is the gentiles that show up in the synagogue "Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath" for gospel preaching.

In Acts 18:4 it is the gentiles that show up "every Sabbath" in the synagogue.

Acts 15 does not say "do not take God's name in vain" as we both know. So how interesting that Lev 17 is being upheld in Acts 15 - but the command against "taking God's name in vain" is not mentioned at all.

A sure sign that Acts 15 is not "deleting all of the Bible"

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul -- were so".

instead of 'they deleted the scriptures daily as Paul instructed".

We had enough of that Bible-burning solution in the dark ages.

no need to return to it.

 

[bugkiller]

BobRyan said: ↑
The Ten Commandments are included in the LAW of God - included in the LAW of Jer 31:31-33 "This is the NEW Covenant ...I will write My LAWs on their heart and on their mind" . Jeremiah knew of that Law - so also did his readers.
...

Your argument that they would take Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" and Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart" as Laws to be used to delete God's spoken Word in Ex 20 where it then says in Deut 5 "And He added no more" -- is pure fiction. So you merely 'quote you'.

And we both know it.

Most impressively - so also do your own pro-sunday scholars know it. They know that the Ten Commandments were not deleted by Lev 19:18 or Deut 6:5 in either the OT or the NT.



So then - just how much of scripture do you reject????



In Matt 22 Jesus affirms both Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 as the greatest, as still binding... as the bedrock foundation of all the LAW and the prophets sustaing rather than deleting them.

Is this yet "another" part of scripture and the teaching of Christ that you delete?

Christ does not say in John 13 "I delete all of the commandments of God with this new commandment"???

or shall we eisegete that into the text?



So then... that would be Jesus in Matt 22.

34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. 35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

Is Jesus to be condemned in Matt 22 or followed and obeyed??

is Jesus deleting not only the entire bible but also his own Matt 22 statement in John 13? Do we see anything like "I hereby delete"??

Answer is: No!



One of them is "evil"?
One of them is "deleted by the other"??



A new Covenant with the LAW of God as known to Jeremiah - the author of the text.

Exegesis would be good thing - just then.



1. There was no law for gentiles to be circumcised - NT or OT.
2. Rom 3:19-21 "Under the LAW" according to Paul is exactly where the whole world is to this very day -- all condemned by the LAW of God until they accept the Gospel



It is difficult for me creatively imagine that you are keeping the Bible 7th-day Sabbath instead of week-day-1 worship services.

Nor is there a NT text saying 'these two laws delete the OT, delete scripture, delete the commandments of God.."

Or in your case "this one law deletes all of known scripture" in John 13.

Eph 6:2 the text you keep religiously avoiding "Honor your father and Mother - which is the FIRST commandment with a promise" -- FIRST commandment WHERE??/ in Lev 19:18???? No!! how about in Deut 6:5??/ No !!



The detail you are avoiding... FIRST commandment WHERE??

1. in Lev 19:18???? Is the 5th commandment the "first commandment in Lev 19:18 with a promise"??? No!!

2. how about in Deut 6:5??/ Is the 5th commandment the "first commandment in Deut 6:5 with a promise"??? No!!

how about the first commandment in John 13 with a promise??? no! that is not the case and we both know it.

It just does not get any easier than this - and even your own pro-sunday scholars know it. Indeed even you and I both know it.

Unfortunately for you a few of us here at CF have actually read the whole Bible and believe it.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

There is a theology that basically describes the Bible as evil - and that most of it must be deleted to make it "good".

happened in the dark ages too - they simply burned the Bible.

Yours is fit for nothing else.

bugkiller

 

[klutedavid]

Lev 17 does indeed make that command against eating blood. And Acts 15 does affirm it.

But circumcision was just for Jews. Ephesians two points out that it is the dividing wall between the two groups - and even the non-Christian Jews refer to gentiles according to Ephesians 2 as the "non circumcised".

In Acts 13 it is gentiles that are showing up "Sabbath after Sabbath" in the Synagogue for gospel preaching.

In Acts 17:4 it is the gentiles that show up in the synagogue "Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath" for gospel preaching.

In Acts 18:4 it is the gentiles that show up "every Sabbath" in the synagogue.

Acts 15 does not say "do not take God's name in vain" as we both know. So how interesting that Lev 17 is being upheld in Acts 15 - but the command against "taking God's name in vain" is not mentioned at all.

A sure sign that Acts 15 is not "deleting all of the Bible"

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul -- were so".

instead of 'they deleted the scriptures daily as Paul instructed".

We had enough of that Bible-burning solution in the dark ages.

no need to return to it.

Lev 17 does indeed make that command against eating blood. And Acts 15 does affirm it. in Genesis 7 Noah takes in the unclean animals by two's and the clean by 7's. Noah is not a Jew.

But circumcision was just for Jews. Ephesians two points out that it is the dividing wall between the two groups - and even the non-Christian Jews refer to gentiles according to Ephesians 2 as the "non circumcised".

In Acts 13 it is gentiles that are showing up "Sabbath after Sabbath" in the Synagogue for gospel preaching.

In Acts 17:4 it is the gentiles that show up in the synagogue "Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath" for gospel preaching.

In Acts 18:4 it is the gentiles that show up "every Sabbath" in the synagogue.

Acts 15 does not say "do not take God's name in vain" as we both know. So how interesting that Lev 17 is being upheld in Acts 15 - but the command against "taking God's name in vain" is not mentioned at all.

A sure sign that Acts 15 is not "deleting all of the Bible"

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul -- were so".

instead of 'they deleted the scriptures daily as Paul instructed".

We had enough of that Bible-burning solution in the dark ages.

no need to return to it.

Hello Bob.

Thanks for the reply, a reply that I will have to unscramble.

You said.

Lev 17 does indeed make that command against eating blood. And Acts 15 does affirm it.

Correct, there can be no doubt that the apostles in Jerusalem have enforced this rule on blood.

Does your church enforce the decree of the apostles or not, Bob?

Also I am not sure if you understood the text (Acts 15).

But circumcision was just for Jews.

Hope you do not mind Bob. Technically speaking, Abraham was not a Jew, Abraham circumcised
and all his descendants will be circumcised. So as far as we are concerned Bob, yes physical circumcision
was for the Jews only, agreed. After all, that is one of the reasons for this gathering of the apostles.

Ephesians two points out that it is the dividing wall between the two groups - and even the non
Christian Jews refer to gentiles according to Ephesians 2 as the "non circumcised".

This seems scambled here Bob, what are you trying to say about 'the dividing wall'?

Do you believe Ephesians two, the dividing wall, is talking about circumcision?

Do you believe Ephesians two, the dividing wall, is talking about the commandments?

Or do you believe that Ephesians two, the dividing wall, is talking merely about ordinances?

 

[Travis93]

There is a theology that basically describes the Bible as evil - and that most of it must be deleted to make it "good".

happened in the dark ages too - they simply burned the Bible.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Psalms 19:7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
Psalms 19:8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.
Psalms 19:9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
Psalms 19:10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

 

[BobRyan]

Correct, there can be no doubt that the apostles in Jerusalem have enforced this rule on blood.

Does your church enforce the decree of the apostles or not, Bob?

My church teaches that everyone should be vegetarians and that eating blood is bad.

Is this what you were asking?

Does this prove the OT has been deleted?

Also I am not sure if you understood the text (Acts 15).

Not according to anything you have actually posted. In all your posts you show nothing but preference against certain parts of scripture. How is that then "my problem with Acts 15"??

You ignored almost every detail in the chapter that we discussed so far.

Hope you do not mind Bob. Technically speaking, Abraham was not a Jew, Abraham circumcised
and all his descendants will be circumcised.

On the contrary - Romans 4 says that Abraham receives the promise while uncircumcised so that he can be the father of all believers that are uncircumcised.

Rom 4
9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.” 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

Nothing in NT or OT demanding that all gentiles be circumcised or they can't be saved - can't go to heaven.

Your efforts so far - only show that you "made that up".

Which is why I ask - why do that? Why not stick with the Bible - instead?

So as far as we are concerned Bob, yes physical circumcision
was for the Jews only, agreed.

Ok so that is clear - which means that Acts 15 is not deleting some OT imaginary text where circumcision was for all gentiles -- now supposedly change in the NT.

Which is why I requested that you not make that up when appealing to Acts 15.

This seems scambled here Bob, what are you trying to say about 'the dividing wall'?
Do you believe Ephesians two, the dividing wall, is talking about circumcision?

Eph 2 the dividing wall between the two groups - where one is called the circumcision and the other the uncircumcision - to stand for literal Jews vs literal physical gentiles - had to do with the ceremonies and rituals.

Notice how in Isaiah 66:23 it does not say "all mankind shall be circumcised" but rather "all mankind will come before Me to worship - from Sabbath to Sabbath".

Do you believe Ephesians two, the dividing wall, is talking about the commandments?

Obviously that is false since both Jews AND Gentiles are required to not take God's name in vain.

Please be serious.

Or do you believe that Ephesians two, the dividing wall, is talking merely about ordinances?

Sacrifices - ordinances - ceremonies that divide Jews vs gentiles.

As opposed to "all mankind will come before Me to worship - from Sabbath to Sabbath". and as we see in Acts 13, Acts 17:4 and even Acts 18:4 "every Sabbath" Jews and gentiles worship together in the synagogues.

 

[BobRyan]

Hello Bob.

Thanks for the reply, a reply that I will have to unscramble.

in your unscrambling you appear to be carefully avoiding this -- in my posts... as I keep insisting that you are avoiding it.

======================================
There is no NT text saying 'these two laws delete the OT, delete scripture, delete the commandments of God.."

Or in your case "this one law deletes all of known scripture" in John 13.

Eph 6:2 the text you keep religiously avoiding "Honor your father and Mother - which is the FIRST commandment with a promise" -- FIRST commandment WHERE??/ in Lev 19:18???? No!! how about in Deut 6:5??/ No !!

I fully endorse this commandment, though I would exceed this commandment and suggest you love your parents.
You cannot claim to just honor your parents and love everyone else. Love your parents Bob.

The detail you are avoiding... FIRST commandment WHERE??

1. in Lev 19:18???? Is the 5th commandment the "first commandment in Lev 19:18 with a promise"??? No!!

2. how about in Deut 6:5??/ Is the 5th commandment the "first commandment in Deut 6:5 with a promise"??? No!!

how about the first commandment in John 13 with a promise??? no! that is not the case and we both know it.

It just does not get any easier than this - and even your own pro-sunday scholars know it. Indeed even you and I both know it.

 

[BobRyan]

Yours is fit for nothing else.

bugkiller

Here Bugkiller adds his standard level of "substance" to the discussion.

The guy is consistent if nothing else. In a positive way you could call it "reliable".

 

[BobRyan]

Unfortunately for you a few of us here at CF have actually read the whole Bible and believe it.

bugkiller

Is this where we all start re-posting your war against the Commandments of God - posts that are refuted not only by the Bible but by your own pro-sunday scholarship???

Or were we all just "not supposed to notice"???

 

[BobRyan]

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Psalms 19:7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
Psalms 19:8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.
Psalms 19:9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
Psalms 19:10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

Careful now because "Bible deleters" and "Bible disbelievers" might see that and want to claim that we should all ignore that part of scripture.

But who is it that would tend more to AFFIRM rather then deny and contradict the texts you posted? Is it not these groups?

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

And of course 7th day groups

Seventh-day Baptists
Seventh-day Adventists
(and 100's of others)

 

[Jan001]

True - but that was not being done by the non-christian Jews in Acts 13, or Acts 17:4 or Acts 18:4 nor was it commanded in the OT or NT. It was another example of "made up rules" - as is pointed out in Acts 15:1-2.

in the true spirit of Mark 7:6-13 placing tradition ahead of scripture.

Non-Christian Jews would not touch Gentiles with even a ten-foot pole. The Gentiles were regarded as "unclean". Jews would not ever eat with Gentiles. The Jews who had not converted to Christianity would never try to convert the Gentiles to Judaism. John 4:9

BTW, it is OT Scripture that OT Jews must keep the sabbaths.

There was a circumcision party among the Christian brethren. These Jews were Christians.

The law of Moses has no power over Christians. The commandments in the law of Moses including its Sabbath laws do not apply to Christians.

Titus 1:6-11
For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; 9 he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. 10 For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party; 11 they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach. rsv​

The members of the circumcision party within the Christian community were continually harassing the non-Jewish Christians, telling them that they had to keep the dietary laws, Sabbath, new moons, and festivals of the OT or else they could not be saved. Paul wrote this letter to these harassed non-Jewish Christians:

Colossians 2:15-17
Therefore let no one (in the circumcision party) pass judgment on you (Christians) in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. 17 These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. rsv​

IOW, Paul told the Gentile Christians to ignore the Christian circumcision party's teachings. The Gentiles are not required to keep the food and drink laws, the festivals, the new moons, or the sabbaths of the Jews.


Requirements for Christians in regard to the OT law of Moses:

Acts 21:19-26
After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed; they are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law. 25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.” 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself with them and went into the temple, to give notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for every one of them. rsv​

Please note that the apostles do not command the Gentile converts to be circumcised, to keep the law of Moses other than to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled; and to abstain from unchastity.

Please note that the apostles do not command the Gentile converts to keep the Sabbath of the Jews.

Obviously, God changed His laws in the New Covenant so that both Jew and Gentile could be saved.

That is why Jesus made a new covenant. The old covenant was for the Israelite/Jew only. The new covenant is for both Jew and Gentile and there is no sabbath requirement in Jesus' new covenant. It states exactly what is required of Gentile Christians in Acts 21 regarding the OT laws.

RE: "The Sabbath was made for man" simply means that the Pharisees had made arduous rules for the Jews concerning what was proper to do on the Sabbath. Jews may not cook a meal on the Sabbath. They may not do much at all on the Sabbath. Jesus healed people on the Sabbath. Jesus' work on the Sabbath benefited mankind. The sabbath was made for man and so it is beneficial to all mankind for a person to do good for his neighbor on the Sabbath.

Modern-day Jewish rules for the Sabbath:

"Following is a brief summary of some of the Shabbat laws you are most likely to encounter.

Let's start with some basic activities from which we refrain on Shabbat:

• writing, erasing, and tearing;
• business transactions;
• driving or riding in cars or other vehicles;
• shopping;
• using the telephone;
• turning on or off anything which uses electricity, including lights, radios, television, computer, air-conditioners and alarm clocks;
• cooking, baking or kindling a fire;
• gardening and grass-mowing;
• doing laundry;

Does all this mean that Shabbat is somewhat of a miserable affair, where we sit hungry in the dark? Not at all. It simply means that we have to prepare for Shabbat in advance, so that, on the contrary, we celebrate in luxury, without doing any of the actual work, on Shabbat.

For example: Lights which will be needed on Shabbat are turned on before Shabbat. Automatic timers may be used for lights and some appliances as long as they have been set before Shabbat. The refrigerator may be used, but again, we have to ensure that it's use does not engender any of the forbidden Shabbat activities. Thus, the fridge light should be disconnected before Shabbat by unscrewing the bulb slightly and a freezer whose fan is activated when the door is opened may not be used.

Another example: We may not cook or light a fire, so we cook before Shabbat and keep the food warm through special methods that do not violate any Shabbat prohibitions. See Food Preparation on Shabbat for the laws and methods involved.

In addition to those mentioned above, two other important categories which are not permitted are using or touching items that are considered muktzah and carrying outdoors.

Muktzah

Many objects have been designated by our sages as Muktzah--we are forbidden from moving them, in some cases, even for activities permitted on Shabbat. Muktzah may not be moved directly with one's hand or even indirectly with an object (such as sweeping it away with a broom). However, Muktzah may be moved in a very awkward, unusual manner, with other parts of the body, e.g.: with one's teeth or elbow, or by blowing on it.

Some of the categories of Muktzah are:

1. Objects which have no designated use, e.g.: Stones, plants, flowers in a vase, raw food (inedible in its present state, such as beans); an object that has broken and become no longer useful such as a broken bowl, a button that falls off;

2. Valuable objects or those which would be used only for their designated task, for fear of damaging it, e.g.: Expensive items: camera, crystal decoration; Professional tools: scalpel, electric wiring; Important documents: passport, birth certificate;

3. Objects that are forbidden from use because of Torah prohibition, e.g.: Non-kosher food, chametz on Passover; also included are objects used for a mitzvah, such as tefillin, schach (rooftop greenery) that fell off a sukkah;

4. An object whose primary purpose is for an activity forbidden on Shabbat, e.g.: Hammer, stapler, pen. However, one is allowed to move these objects if a)they are needed for an activty permitted on Shabbat and nothing else can perform that task, e.g., a hammer to open a coconut or a telephone book as a booster seat or b) The place the object occupies is needed, e.g., if a pen is on a chair you want to sit on.

Anything that a muktzah object rests upon is a basis--base for the muktzah and becomes muktzah itself if:

A. The muktzah item was left on the spot intentionally, so that it remain there for at least part of Shabbat;

B. The object was placed there by the owner or with the knowledge of the owner;

C. At the start of Shabbat, the basis supported only the muktzah and no non-muktzah items.

An example of basis encountered every Shabbat is the Shabbat candles on the table. The candlesticks are muktzah, and may not be removed from the table on Shabbat. The table holding the candlesticks may thus become a base for muktzah and muktzah itself, preventing it from being moved if necessary. To remedy this, we simply put another non-muktzah item required for Shabbat on the table while setting up the candles. Thus, although the candlesticks are muktzah, the table holds the challah or prayerbook as well and is therefore not muktzah.

Carrying

On Shabbat one may not carry or transfer objects between a "reshut ha-yachid" (private, enclosed domain, such as the house); and a "reshut ha-rabim" (public domain, such as the street). Examples of this prohibition include: carrying in one's pocket; carrying anything in the hand; wheeling a baby carriage or shopping cart, going outside with gum or food in the mouth. This prohibition also includes carrying in public hallways or yards of multiple dwellings, unless an eiruv chatzeirot is made. An eiruv chatzeirot is an arrangement whereby carrying in some of the above situations is permitted. In addition, the area in which one wishes to carry must be enclosed. This enclosure, commonly referred to as an eiruv, can occur naturally or be man-made, and must be constructed before Shabbat.

The Jewish community in some cities or neighborhoods constructs an eiruv which encloses several blocks. The area within the eiruv is then considered a private domain where carrying is permitted. If there is an eiruv, it is important to know its boundaries so as not to carry beyond them, and also to ensure before Shabbat that the eruv is up and not damaged."

From http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/95907/jewish/The-Shabbat-Laws.htm
​

You claim you keep the Sabbath holy. Are you keeping all of these Sabbath rules perfectly?

Matthew 23:1-3Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. ​