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.
Are you suggesting some people don't break God's laws?Are you suggesting that God approves of those that break His laws? BTW, which "law" are you referring to?
A "man-made" (Talmudic) legal system to be sure, but God's 'system" is a light yoke.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. Mat 11:30 For myyoke [is] easy, and my burden is light.
The putting off of a "man-made" religious system doesn't make void the law of God, it makes void that which is not of God.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Are you suggesting some people don't break God's laws?
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." ...[Peter stood up and said to them,] "Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." Ac 15:5, 10-11
Ge:
"IF JESUS HAD GIVEN THEM REST ... THEREFORE; ... SEEING HE ENTERED IN INTO HIS OWN REST GOD ... THEREFORE THERE REMAINETH FOR THE PEOPLE OF GOD KEEPING OF THE SABBATH DAY!"
This might be what the Mickey Mouse bible says, but not the KJV.
The actual text tells us that those who have entered into the rest that is faith, have ceased from their own works in the same way that God ceased from His. Thus it tells us that God is Himself our Rest, and that no day of the week is ordained at all.
The rest spoken of is the rest from trying to please God, not the rest from physical work. It is the rest that faith comprises, not the rest that the Hawaian islands comprise.
So the day-of-the week rest which you espouse, is actually work, and therefore you transgress the Sabbath, for you transgress the rest that is faith, for "the law is not of faith".
So you catch yourself out. Just like the Jews.
Just as the periodic entering in to the inner sanctum by the levitical high priest constituted reminder of sins, so too your periodic keeping of the sabbath day once a week constitutes reminder that you have not ceased from your own works as God did from His, and thus reminder also that you transgress the Sabbath of God.
RND,
There is no division within the law (no ceremonial law, health law, moral law etc), but only the one indivisible fabric of the law. Thus Deut 4:2.
So your dividing up the law into convenient parcels, is itself transgression of the law. Thus you will be judged according to the law at Deut 4:2, and found guilty.
You may not pick and choose your own sub-law from the law.
RND,
There is no division within the law (no ceremonial law, health law, moral law etc), but only the one indivisible fabric of the law. Thus Deut 4:2.
So your dividing up the law into convenient parcels, is itself transgression of the law. Thus you will be judged according to the law at Deut 4:2, and found guilty.
You may not pick and choose your own sub-law from the law.
Pronouncing judgment on me RTE?
Funny how legalist dont like to be judged by the law. You are guilty as charged pursuant to the law of Deut 4:2.
Of course I'm guilty! But then again, so are you!
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Hey the fact that you refuse to see the clea distinction of the law isn't an issue for me to worry about. If you want to pronounce judgment on me be my guest.
Actually Bible scholars for centuries have understood that there are indeed divisions of the law.
Irrelevant. They obviously were also transgressors of Deut 4:2.
No, it's only irrelevant to you. The fact that for centuries there has always been a clear distinction between the various Mosaic laws by most Bible scholars would only be irrelevant to someone denying obvious truth.
You simply have no case.
Fortunately you're not my judge so I have nothing to worry about!
So by your prior question are you suggesting God disapproves of everyone?Nope, everyone has sinned and come short of the glory of God.Are you suggesting that God approves of those that break His laws?Are you suggesting some people don't break God's laws?
First: y'ever look up the etymology of the Greek "forgive"?Is it ok for someone who is not circumcised to murder, steal, lie, or break any of the other Ten Commandments?
So by your prior question are you suggesting God disapproves of everyone?
First: y'ever look up the etymology of the Greek "forgive"?
Second: focus on the text. What question was the Council answering?
What was the nature of their answer?
Third: What do you mean by "ok"?
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:9-11
You didn't answer the question. In your view, since you've stated everyone sins, and you asked me if God disapproves of people who do sin -- do you therefore conclude God disapproves of everyone?God disapproves of sin.
Then you know that it means to let it occur.Yes.
The nature of Peter's response was quite different from simply circumcision. There was not an "unbearable" aspect to circumcision.Whether one had to be circumcised to be saved. But it's a lengthy stretch to conclude, as most Christians do, that the Council at Jerusalem was "abolishing" the Mosaic law or the Moral law for that matter. They require observance of four section of the Mosaic law. Fornication, idolatry, eating blood and eating strangled meats. To this day these are things that a Christian should not engage in.
The nature of the answer from Jerusalem Council reached further than this.The nature of the answer was that "circumcision" is not a sign of being saved or one's ability to accept Christ.
for ...?Permissible.
Why would anyone be willing to allow anything that any one passage might not mention?! Other passages mention homosexuality of all kinds.I guess women who practice homosexuality are exempt!?
You didn't answer the question. In your view, since you've stated everyone sins, and you asked me if God disapproves of people who do sin -- do you therefore conclude God disapproves of everyone?
I don't. Do you?
Yes.Then you know that it means to let it occur.
Certainly your view is not the view held by the majority of Christians who believe that the law was completely abolished by this council. It was not as you correctly pointed out.The nature of Peter's response was quite different from simply circumcision. There was not an "unbearable" aspect to circumcision.
And the observance determined by Jerusalem Council stated "no more than this". It already assumed the common equity of other practices Moses commanded, the Council didn't need to review anything that was clearly already commonly understood between Gentile and Jewish practice.
This conclusion is not a majority opinion of "most Christians" that the Council at Jerusalem was "abolishing Mosaic Law". In fact it's quite in line with Paul's statements of the function of the Law, and the establishment of the Law.
Not really.The nature of the answer from Jerusalem Council reached further than this.
OK.for ...?
Bingo! That's the point!Why would anyone be willing to allow anything that any one passage might not mention?! Other passages mention homosexuality of all kinds.
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?