The one flock
does not indicate Israel in any way. The one Shepherd is Jesus and not Israel. The Christian listens to the Shepherd as verse 5 says. There are some other very interesting statements by Jesus in this chapter. We have another proof text failure here. One body in what or Who? I read one body in Jesus. I do not read one body in Israel.It seems the highlighted part of the quoted text is ignored. The bolded one body part of the text indicates what is happening here is nothing more than a presentation of texts with one body easily found in any concordance. It is not proof that the gentile becomes part of Israel. Nothing more than a listing of verses with the word one body in them. The text says both Jews and Greeks are baptized into one body. It does not say Jews are Israel and Greeks become Israel. The "one body" is a concept picture of Christians, not Israel.Considering the discussion this is nothing more than a general off topic quote with the phrase "one body." The context of the chapter is clearly discussing the function(s) of the Church. The verse does not claim anything about being Israel.This verse says nothing about either group being or becoming Israel. Just another proof text failure.One what? I read one Lord, one faith and one baptism. I do not read one Israel. What does Mat 28 say?
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Where does the above say anything about teaching and requiring the law to be kept or becoming part of Israel? The above is in full compliance with the promise given to Abraham about blessing all nations. The above says nothing about becoming Israel.Thank-you for quoting this verse. What body does it say we are called into? I read Christ meaning Jesus Christ. I do not read we are called into Israel.We did I say or imply such a fool thing?I did not say Israel is rejected. That is not part of the discussion.They are graft into what? I read their own olive tree by the quoted verse. I fully understand "olive tree" is used to represent Israel. The discussion here is about the Root of the Olive Tree. The discussion of the subject is not Israel. The discussion is about Jesus, the Root. I have shown the Christian abides (lives) in Jesus and He in us by His own words found in John 15. This has been rejected. I wonder why.Not part of the discussion. At least not on my part I am discussing the Root, Jesus.Verse 12 says nothing about being part of the commonwealth of Israel. The verse also mentions being excluded from the covenants of promise meaning the covenants made wtih Abraham.
Verse 14 says the middle wall of partition was broken down. This wall of partition is the covenant made with Israel at Sinai which was for a limited time (Gal 3:19).
Verse 16 says nothing about being part of Israel.
Verse 19 says: but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
It does not say fellowcitizens of Israel. I believe I asked it to be considered who the saints are in Hebrews. My mistake. I should have asked about our elders are. I consider them as saints. Of course I am talking about the list in chapter 11 many of which are not part of Israel. NTL they are considered the righteous and referred to as saints by us these days. All prior to and including Abraham are not part (citizens) of Israel, yet are of the household of God.
bugkiller
So I guess what Jesus called the new covenant (testament) is being rejected.
bugkiller
It is well documented the unbelieving Jews chased the Christians from the synagogue and Christians worshiped on Sunday long before the RCC came to power.
i am beginning to believe you are SDA or Church of GOD 7th day.
Hi BK, it is so good to have you back. For some reason I knew you would not stay away. I welcome your responses to, at first glance, what is being presented on the forum. The proof in Jer31 that we are under a new and better covenant is naturally found in the New Testament. The adversary will try to make Christians believe we are still under the laws given to Israel. Those laws had nothing to do with our salvation. They were made for Israel only and God was showing them that that covenant would end and an new one would emerge. If it were the same covenant then I don't care where it is written it would be the same one just warmed over. The evidence that we have a new covenant is as clear as the nose on my face, but to Messianics, who have been programed to believe otherwise, it is foreign. How they can miss your quoting of Eph 2:14-15 is beyond me. 14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
The adversary will try to make Christians believe we are still under the laws given to Israel. Those laws had nothing to do with our salvation.
Then Acts must not be true. Not a single one of the full gentile converts were required to keep the law per the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) and no record about it such as the Philippian jailer in chapter 16 being required to keep the law for or as a result of salvation.There is much trouble discussing this passage here. But I will say that Jesus did not teach keeping the law is a requirement of or for salvation. I reference Jn 1:17, chapter 3 and 15:10.Now if you want to say a prophet like Moses, I would say the passage you quote is a reference to Paul. Jesus is God, not a prophet. Paul did the explanation of the new covenant like Moses did the covenant made at Sinai. Good calls Paul a chosen vessel in Acts.I would be much more careful here. Jeremiah said the covenant would change and Jesus (God) testified it did.
bugkiller
Then Acts must not be true. Not a single one of the full gentile converts were required to keep the law per the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) and no record about it such as the Philippian jailer in chapter 16 being required to keep the law for or as a result of salvation.
Hello Bob.Neither OT or NT required that gentiles be circumcised to be saved... we both knew that... right?
Hey bugkiller,
Acts 15 is actually how my dialogue with Bob S started.
If you don't mind, I'd like to begin our discussion with this reply.
If you would, please treat me as if I'm a Berean Jew and you are Paul (Acts 17:11). I'm going to test what you say to Scripture as Scripture was defined at that time - the Tanakh ("Old Testament") since there was no "New Testament" writings yet.
That said, bugkiller, could you tell me about this Jesus I'm hearing about, specifically why you think He's done away with/changed the Law?
That is definitely incorrect, the Greek word means, 'letter', that is the written law. In other words Paul is saying, you who have the written law and circumcision, the Jews.In Rom 2:27 the term means "scripture"... "having the Bible"
We are discussing Romans 2:27, not other texts.But in some other texts it is also used to contrast a mere surface reading of it - vs a true acceptance of the text.
What you have said has nothing to do with obeying the letter of the law. All Jews were required by law to not take God's name in vain. After you have strictly complied with the letter of the law, then you can concern yourself with the spirit of the law.Lets take "do not take God's name in vain" Exodus 20:7 for example.
To live in rebellion against the spirit of the law - and thus to only attempt some outward appearance of conformity to the letter of the law would mean that you still choose to take God's name in vain but try to hide it from others.
Kool. I like that. Since you are a Berean type you like them have searched the Scripture and agree with Paul. That being the case, I do not think we have anything to debate. Everything I post agrees with Paul. Paul wrote -Hey bugkiller,
Acts 15 is actually how my dialogue with Bob S started.
If you don't mind, I'd like to begin our discussion with this reply.
If you would, please treat me as if I'm a Berean Jew and you are Paul (Acts 17:11). I'm going to test what you say to Scripture as Scripture was defined at that time - the Tanakh ("Old Testament") since there was no "New Testament" writings yet.
That said, bugkiller, could you tell me about this Jesus I'm hearing about, specifically why you think He's done away with/changed the Law?
Sure I believe the OT is Scripture. I also believe what we call the NT.Im not sure bugkiller thinks the OT is Scripture anymore. I hope I'm wrong.
Marcion lives on today. So do the Nicolaitans and Gnostics.
Kool. I like that. Since you are a Berean type you like them have searched the Scripture and agree with Paul. That being the case, I do not think we have anything to debate. Everything I post agrees with Paul. Paul wrote -
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Rom 7
bugkiller
Hello Christopheralan.It's not going to be that easy lol.
Let's start here: The Law makes it clear it is a sin to add to/remove from the Law (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, and 28:14). Even if someone performs signs/miracles and then gives us new commands that add to/remove from the Law, then that person is a false prophet and we should not listen to him - in fact he should die (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).
We also know that God cannot sin and sin is transgression of the Law. So, God cannot break His own Law, which means He cannot add to/remove from the Law. So, if you're saying that your version of Jesus is God and He altered the Law (added to/removed from) then He has 1) sinned, 2) would not be the sinless/"blemishless" Passover Lamb to atone for our sins, 3) would be worthy of death, and 4) would not be God.
Side Note: Just to clarify, I feel like I need to say that I believe that Jesus is the Messiah - what I'm saying above is all hypothetical based on the idea that Jesus changed the Law. I believe that He did not change the Law, but taught the Law. I just wanted to clarify that, so, if you would, please continue to pretend that I am a Berean Jew.
Hello Christopheralan.
In the New Testament the phrase, 'the law', occurs often and describes at a minimum, the 613 laws commonly called the law of Moses. If God has not removed any of the law as you claim, then logically, the entire 613 laws are still in force for the Jews.
To claim that Gentiles are under these same 613 laws, would be an astonishing claim to make. I doubt whether anyone could provide sufficient scripture from the New Testament, to support such a remarkable claim.
Hello Christopheralan.
In the New Testament the phrase, 'the law', occurs often and describes at a minimum, the 613 laws commonly called the law of Moses. If God has not removed any of the law as you claim, then logically, the entire 613 laws are still in force for the Jews.
To claim that Gentiles are under these same 613 laws, would be an astonishing claim to make. I doubt whether anyone could provide sufficient scripture from the New Testament, to support such a remarkable claim.
Many of the laws are conditional. If you are a man, if you are a woman, if you are a priest, if you are in the land, if you are a farmer, etc. However, God being God and knowing the end from the beginning, made a provision in the scriptures for a change of the Priesthood, which is referred to in the NT. So no, not all laws apply to all people.
Please stop trying to make excuses. Jesus said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law until all is fulfilled and you don't believe Jesus fulfilled all He came to do. In that light you do not have any excuse for not having ALL the law enforced whether it personally pertains to you or not. Actually your answer is quite comical in light of Jesus words. You would have to rebuild the temple and set up the levitical priesthood. As it is because you tell us we have to observe the law we can see that you are really telling us to do as you say not as you do.
Jesus did come and do what the Father had Him do. He fulfilled all of the law. He brought it to an end at Calvary, "it is finished" He said. That was the end of the covenant of laws and the beginning of the covenant of grace. Amen, Thank you Jesus.
Please stop trying to make excuses. Jesus said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law until all is fulfilled and you don't believe Jesus fulfilled all He came to do. In that light you do not have any excuse for not having ALL the law enforced whether it personally pertains to you or not. Actually your answer is quite comical in light of Jesus words. You would have to rebuild the temple and set up the levitical priesthood. As it is because you tell us we have to observe the law we can see that you are really telling us to do as you say not as you do.
Jesus did come and do what the Father had Him do. He fulfilled all of the law. He brought it to an end at Calvary, "it is finished" He said. That was the end of the covenant of laws and the beginning of the covenant of grace. Amen, Thank you Jesus.
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?