• 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.

OT Feasts

O

OntheDL

Guest
YeshuamySalvation said:
One wonders why do some still keep on insisting that kosher laws and the Tithing principle should be kept... If they believe the ceremonial laws are abolished? What happened to Homosexuality, beastiality, fornication, drunkeness, and all of the other gross sins that are not contained in the decalouge but are contained in the book of the Law of Adonai. Are we supposed to believe that they are no longer sins if we are to practice them? If they are abolished then we can certainly practice those acts without transgressing...
Ralph..

Shalom Ralph,

The 10 commandments cover all these areas. The first 4 cover our duty to God and last 6 cover our duty to man.

Sexual immorality is prohibitted by the commandment on adultry which forbids sex outside marriage.

About the dietary laws...the church promotes vegetarianism which is taken from Genesis. We do not eat food that's harmful to our bodies. That's honoring God's creation and His temple. It falls under 'Thou shalt not kill'.

About tithing, it also started before Mosaic law. Abraham paid tithe to Melchesidek. It's a principle of submitting one's life to God, similar to keeping the sabbath.

The Mosaic laws are like the our municipal laws and traffic laws. If people would just keep the golden rules, we wouldn't need all these laws. But people try to look for loopholes to justify their actions. Moses added these laws to close all the possible loopholes. These were necessary for the old covenant which man promised to keep the law (by work). The law of Moses which was in the old covenant waxed old and passed away for the new covenant which God promises to help us keep the law (by grace).

By this reason, Paul rejected the attempts to bring the new gentile believers under the law of Moses. And James concluded in Acts 15 that gentiles should not be troubled with these old laws (look into my last post please).

The law is the knowledge of sin. But before anything was written down, the believers knew what sins were by knowing God's character from having a close relationship with Him. OT saints were also saved not by keeping the law by having faith in God. Having 613 laws and keeping them will not help us to be closer to Him (that's why it failed). They are provisions God provided for that specific time period. They had fulfilled their purpose after the (covenant of) grace was ractified.

Look, I think we are chasing our tails a little bit. I have presented my arguments on this topic. It's not my job to convince anyone. So I'm going to leave up to Him. God bless! :)
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,690
6,107
Visit site
✟1,049,204.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
winslow said:
Another verse some people use to try and say the sabbath was abrogated at the cross. The usual Adventist response is that the sabbaths reffered to are annual sabbaths and not the weekly seventh day sabbath. This interpretation is questionable and can't stand to critical analysis. The important thing to remember is to take the verse in it's context. The issue Paul was addressing here is not whether or not the sabbath was abrogated, but how it is being observed. Paul was addressing a heresy that had fallen on the local church. They had relegated the sabbath day to a day of false humility and angel worship (v18) and putting regulations on food and drink (v 21). The leaders of the church were saying you had to observe the sabbath in a certain manner [not according to scripture]. It wasn't a matter of "to observe or not to observe", but a matter of "how to observe". The sabbath day not only points forward to the rest at the second coming(shadow), it is symbolic of our recreation and redemption. Hebrews 4:9 tells us that there remains a (sabbath) rest for the people. The word translated rest is used only in this place in the NT. In other writings it always denotes the seventh day sabbath rest.

indeed, it is not the ceremonial law nailed to the cross. When I first came to that realization i thought I was alone in it. But happily found I was not.

Here is my treatment of that part of the text:

I agree that Christ did away with parts of the system of sacrifice, or perhaps better put, He removed the need for them, bieng the sacrifice. But I am not sure I agree with your interpretation of Colossians 2.

I have felt for years that the church sells Jesus short in this passage. The "handwriting" is a reference to a statement of debt, a reference to a record of wrong. (For those interested, see my textual reasons for this at the end of the post)

Since Jesus was said by Paul to have "Become" sin for us, it is clear that in fact the handwriting is a reference to Jesus himself bearing our sin on the cross, paying the price for us. I mean, if we think about it...what was nailed to the cross? Jesus.

This is quite a bit more in line with the context of the passage.

COL 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

COL 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

in Verse 11 it states that we were circumcised, putting off the sinful nature, and then in verse 12, we were buried with him through faith.

It is referring to the very essential points of the gospel Jesus died to cancel our sin, and we participated in this experience, dying and then living in new life. It echoes Romans 6. Then he goes on to elaborate on that resurrection. He says we were DEAD in our transgressions and sins. Ie, we were under a death sentance because of our record of sins against us. Now it says he cancelled the written code. This is that certificate of debt...the debt he paid with his life. in fact the phrase itself occurs within the context of the last part of verse 13...HE FORGAVE US ALL OUR SINS. Verse 14 continues the parallel thought..ie...how did he forgive us our sins? By paying them in the form of Jesus when He was nailed to the cross!

All one need do is look at what actually WAS nailed to the cross--Our SAVIOR!

Now I have trouble saying the ordinances are the ceremonial law...or those parts of the ceremonial law that dealt with sacrifices....first because of the textual evidence that it is a certificate of debt. But also,
how did that stand against us? It helped them to see Jesus.

For those who think it was the moral law...how did the moral law stand opposed to us? It was not the law that was the problem. It was our sin. Get rid of the sin and the law has no problem with us! And that is exactly what Jesus did. he paid the DEBT of our sin, freeing us from condemnation of the law.

In light of this, if we were to tranlsate the passage anew we might say...

COL 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the certificate of debt, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Strangely enough the only Bible I have seen translate this correctly is the Jerusalem Bible...a Catholic Bible that , in the English version at least, is derived from a French tranlation of the text.

The only thing contextually that backs up the idea that it is the ceremonial law is the verses following directly on that passage.....


COL 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

In other words, Paul goes on to apply the teaching of forgiveness. Since Christ fulfilled the laws demands, the ceremonial law was no longer the way to understand God, but focusing on Christ was.

So this is not opposed to the view that it was speaking of our debt of sin.

In fact, we must remember that Paul is here fighting against false teachers who are making much of the ceremonial law, but diminishing Christ. He begins the whole passage with a warning to cling to Christ but avoid empty philosophies which urge strict observance, but have no power.

COL 2:6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7 rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

COL 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Even the verses referencing the ceremonial law and the sabbath feast days etc. refer to this false system the teachers were trying to put in place...

COL 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19 He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

In other words, the whole passage was an appeal to put Christ first..as in fact is the whole letter of Colossians. They were depeding on knowledge, and strict observance rather than on Christ.


-------------------------------

Textual note on the translation of χειρογραφον τοις δογμασιν

Strongs references of the term handwriting of ordinances...

χειρόγραφον
cheirographon
khi-rog'-raf-on
Neuter of a compound of G5495 and G1125; something hand written (“chirograph”), that is, a manuscript (specifically a legal document or bond (figuratively)): - handwriting.

Literally it is simply a combination of the word hand, cheir, and the verb write...grapho. It meant a handwritten form, legal document of bond. it is not apparently a reference to a concept of law, be it moral, ceremonial or otherwise, , but a literal legal document.


and the second word...

G1378
δόγμα
dogma
dog'-mah
From the base of G1380; a law (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical): - decree, ordinance.

Derived from dokeo, to think, imagine, etc.

Thayers defines dogma as decree, statute, ordinance.

So it is a legal form, perhaps of bond.

Even the commentators in the NIV Study Bible correctly translated the word in their notes--but then mystifyingly went on to say the exact opposite....

14. Written code. A business term, meaning a certificate of indebtedness in the debtor's handwritting. Paul uses it as a designation for the mosaic law, with all its regulations, under which everyone is a debtor to God.

Their textual work was fine, but then they bent it to fit their idea. It was referring to the debt, our sin, which was placed on Christ and nailed to the cross. Even in the case of debts the law is not changed that caused the debt to be owed, but rather the debt is PAID! .
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,690
6,107
Visit site
✟1,049,204.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0
O

OntheDL

Guest
Just one more thought on this...

tall73 said:
I agree that Christ did away with parts of the system of sacrifice, or perhaps better put, He removed the need for them, bieng the sacrifice. But I am not sure I agree with your interpretation of Colossians 2.

I have felt for years that the church sells Jesus short in this passage. The "handwriting" is a reference to a statement of debt, a reference to a record of wrong. (For those interested, see my textual reasons for this at the end of the post)

Since Jesus was said by Paul to have "Become" sin for us, it is clear that in fact the handwriting is a reference to Jesus himself bearing our sin on the cross, paying the price for us. I mean, if we think about it...what was nailed to the cross? Jesus.
Indeed Jesus was nailed to the cross. But the record of sin is not nailed to the cross, not until the sanctuary is cleansed on the Day of Atonement anyway. To say the 'handwriting' is the statement of debt or the record of wrong is a far stretch. When an animal is slaughtered, the sin was transferred from the sinner to the blood. The blood was carried around and sprinkled in the sanctuary. On Yom Kippur, the blood was cleansed. It's not possible for Paul, ex-pharisee, who understood the sanctuary services, to term record of sin as handwritting and to write about its removal.

The handwriting that was against us was quoted by Paul out of this:

Deut 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

The book of law is the book of law of Moses. It was placed outside of the ark unlike the 10 commandment tablets were placed inside of the ark. This is another hint that we are not judged/under the law of Moses.

tall73 said:
It is referring to the very essential points of the gospel Jesus died to cancel our sin, and we participated in this experience, dying and then living in new life.
No offence, but this statement is a fundamental misunderstanding of the plan of salvation. Jesus did NOT die to cancel our sin. Jesus died to remove the seperation between man and God caused by sin. Our sins are forgiven upon repentance but not forgotten. The record is preserved for the final judgement. Then it's cancelled, wiped away.

tall73 said:
indeed, it is not the ceremonial law nailed to the cross. When I first came to that realization i thought I was alone in it. But happily found I was not.
Many in the Christian world also have a veil before their eyes and heart. They do not see to the end of that which was done away. They do not see that it was only the ceremonial law which was abrogated at the death of Christ. They claim that the moral law was nailed to the cross. {Selected Message, p239.}

There is more study needed on this subject.
 
Upvote 0

YeshuamySalvation

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2005
985
30
45
Miami Lakes
✟1,336.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
OntheDL said:
Shalom Ralph,

The 10 commandments cover all these areas. The first 4 cover our duty to God and last 6 cover our duty to man.

Sexual immorality is prohibitted by the commandment on adultry which forbids sex outside marriage.

Ex 20:3-17

3"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
4"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.


5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I, the LORD thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me,


6and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments.


7"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.


8"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.


9Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work;


10but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God. In it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.


11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.


12"Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.


13"Thou shalt not kill.


14"Thou shalt not commit adultery.


15"Thou shalt not steal.


16"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.


17"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."

So far from verses 3 - through 17 - i see nothing on homosexuality, drunkeness, sex out of marriage, prohibition on eating unclean meats ect.. ..ect..

About the dietary laws...the church promotes vegetarianism which is taken from Genesis. We do not eat food that's harmful to our bodies. That's honoring God's creation and His temple. It falls under 'Thou shalt not kill'.
But come on brother these passages say nothing on kosher laws the decalouge does not prohibit the eating of unclean meats..

About tithing, it also started before Mosaic law. Abraham paid tithe to Melchesidek. It's a principle of submitting one's life to God, similar to keeping the sabbath.
Again i am aware of that, so was kosher, animal sacrifice, circumcision, Altars, offerings... All of these were before Moses, lets be honost with the text the decalouge has nothing to say on tithing....

The Mosaic laws are like our municipal laws and traffic laws. If people would just keep the golden rules, we wouldn't need all these laws. But people try to look for loopholes to justify their actions. Moses added these laws to close all the possible loopholes. These were necessary for the old covenant which man promised to keep the law (by work). The law of Moses which was in the old covenant waxed old and passed away for the new covenant which God promises to help us keep the law (by grace).
Brother only the priesthood and the sin offerings waxed old not the Law..

By this reason, Paul rejected the attempts to bring the new gentile believers under the law of Moses. And James concluded in Acts 15 that gentiles should not be troubled with these old laws (look into my last post please).
Eph.2:13-15

13
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

YeshuaMySalvation> Gentiles are now brought nigh by the redemtion that is in Christ Jesus, they are no longer strangers but partakers of the Covenants and promises.


14
¶ For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

YeshuaMySalvation> Jesus is the peace between "Jews and Gentiles" alike, he made both Jews and Gentiles one breaking down the middle wall of "partition" that was between them.


Eph 2:15-16 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;

YeshuaMySalvation> The " law of commandments contained in ordinances" is not the law of God, it's the law of man this law was exactly what seperated "Jews" from "Gentiles" Christ abolished this law in his flesh, it was this law that said that no Gentile could come into the Temple, no Jews could eat nor fellowship with a Gentile, this law considered Gentiles to be dogs greatly inferior to the Jews.

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:"

YeshuaMySalvation> the origin of the circumcision made by hand comes from men not from God, the circumcision that was given to Abraham came from God not from men.

Acts.17:24
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

It saids God
dwelleth not in temples made with hands, yet God told his people ..... Exodus.25:8 8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

YeshuaMySalvation> 1 Cor 7:19 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
from first glance Paul statement seems to be contradictory. First he saids
"Circumcision" is nothing, and "uncircumcision" is also nothing, but the keeping of the "commandments of God" which does not exclude circumcision. That sounds pretty weird but it's not, What he means In other words, one does not have an advantage over the other, yet, he says, we must keep the commandments of God. "Which also includes circumcision".

YeshuaMySalvation> Sounds like a contradiction but it's not... Rather there is an allusion to circumcision for the purpose of a sign of conversion having been substituted by baptism, but circumcision remains as a hygienic requirement. Paul is stating that circumcision is not enough.... We must circumcise the foreskin of our hearts(Deut.10:16;) (Deut.30:6;) (Jere.4:4).. by Keeping all of the commandments of God and not just circumcision alone.


The law is the knowledge of sin. But before anything was written down, the believers knew what sins were by knowing God's character from having a close relationship with Him. OT saints were also saved not by keeping the law by having faith in God. Having 613 laws and keeping them will not help us to be closer to Him (that's why it failed). They are provisions God provided for that specific time period. They had fulfilled their purpose after the (covenant of) grace was ractified.
Hmmmmm.. I believe my dear brother is saying that God had to Altar his word just to accomodate the transgressors Hmmmmmm...

(Yeshua -) did not have to keep all the 613 - laws in the first five books of the Bible. Some commands apply just to men, some just to the king of Israel, some just to the priests, some just to the High Priest, and some like the giving 10% of grain and fruits only to farmers. Yeshua wasn't a farmer, so when did he give his 10%? He didn't and he wasn't commanded to... But he did observe the commandments that applied to him, as a Jew.


Look, I think we are chasing our tails a little bit. I have presented my arguments on this topic. It's not my job to convince anyone. So I'm going to leave up to Him. God bless! :)
Thanks my friend....

God bless you..

in Christ,

Ralph...
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,690
6,107
Visit site
✟1,049,204.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is indeed something that deserves study. It is a complex subject. A few notes on your earlier comments.

OntheDL said:
Just one more thought on this...


Indeed Jesus was nailed to the cross. But the record of sin is not nailed to the cross, not until the sanctuary is cleansed on the Day of Atonement anyway. To say the 'handwriting' is the statement of debt or the record of wrong is a far stretch. When an animal is slaughtered, the sin was transferred from the sinner to the blood. The blood was carried around and sprinkled in the sanctuary. On Yom Kippur, the blood was cleansed. It's not possible for Paul, ex-pharisee, who understood the sanctuary services, to term record of sin as handwritting and to write about its removal.

I am aware of the day of atonement service. But the problem is Paul did say that. Notice what he says:
COL 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Paul says plainly He forgave all our sins. It is aorist, past tense. While the day of atonement is the pre-figure of the judgement, that does not in anyway mean that Jesus’ death on the cross was not the sacrifice, necessary to forgive us. Paul is using the business debt certificate as an illustration of Christ’s forgiving power. He cancelled all our debts. He is dealing with the nature of the sacrifice, and its power, not the timing of our judgement.

And that forgiveness made possible our renewing, from death to life with Christ. His power over the authorities and powers is now, not just in the world to come.
The handwriting that was against us was quoted by Paul out of this:

Deut 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

Since the early church usually used a Septuagint-like text, we would then expect similarities in the terms. But there are none.

Deu 31:26 Λαβόντες τὸ βιβλίον τοῦ νόμου τούτου θήσετε αὐτὸ ἐκ πλαγίων τῆς κιβωτοῦ τῆς διαθήκης κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν, καὶ ἔσται ἐκεῖ ἐν σοὶ εἰς μαρτύριον.

Wheras Col. Uses the term χειρόγραφον handwritten document, or handwriting. Deuteronomy used the very different phrase,τὸ βιβλίον τοῦ νόμου, the book of the law. Now perhaps there are other passages in the LXX that use something similar, but I don't see χειρόγραφον anywhere in the lxx or Col. besides here. But if Paul wanted to give the same impression he simply could have said τὸ βιβλίον τοῦ νόμου,the book of the law.

The book of law is the book of law of Moses. It was placed outside of the ark unlike the 10 commandment tablets were placed inside of the ark. This is another hint that we are not judged/under the law of Moses.

Actually, I am not in particular saying we are judged under the law of Moses. Perhaps here I disagree with Yeshuamysalvation. The Acts Council did in fact show that the gentiles did not have to keep all of the regulations, seeing as they were not Jews. They simply followed what the law (of Moses as it turns out) said they had to..which really harkened back to the covenant with Noah. But the feasts apparently were still kept by both Jewish Christians, and the Christians in the east, though obviously not with the sacrifices. So they saw lasting value to them. And this too was in accord with the law of Moses. Foreigners who wished to keep the feasts, could.


No offence, but this statement is a fundamental misunderstanding of the plan of salvation. Jesus did NOT die to cancel our sin. Jesus died to remove the seperation between man and God caused by sin. Our sins are forgiven upon repentance but not forgotten. The record is preserved for the final judgement. Then it's cancelled, wiped away.

I refer you to Paul’s statement again that says we are forgiven. The handwriting is not even the real question. We are told more than once we have forgiveness through Him. The Sanctuary doctrine does not reduce us to moral influence theory, in the face of all the statements that Jesus was in fact the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

Many in the Christian world also have a veil before their eyes and heart. They do not see to the end of that which was done away. They do not see that it was only the ceremonial law which was abrogated at the death of Christ. They claim that the moral law was nailed to the cross. {Selected Message, p239.}

There is more study needed on this subject.

Paul was hopeless before, because he was unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. He said the law was spiritual though. That sin used the law, which was good, to put him to death. But the solution was found in Christ. There was NO CONDEMNATION for Paul .For He did what the law was powerless to do, He died a sin offering. (Romans 7 and 8 summarized).

it is good to have these discussions in any case. I don't yet know what to make of the feasts. But it seems apparent that the early Christians, both jews and gentiles continued to find meaning in at least the passover feast until Rome pushed for the change from the traditional dating.
 
Upvote 0
O

OntheDL

Guest
Greetings,

tall73 said:
I am aware of the day of atonement service. But the problem is Paul did say that. Notice what he says:

Paul says plainly He forgave all our sins. It is aorist, past tense. While the day of atonement is the pre-figure of the judgement, that does not in anyway mean that Jesus’ death on the cross was not the sacrifice, necessary to forgive us. Paul is using the business debt certificate as an illustration of Christ’s forgiving power. He cancelled all our debts. He is dealing with the nature of the sacrifice, and its power, not the timing of our judgement.

And that forgiveness made possible our renewing, from death to life with Christ. His power over the authorities and powers is now, not just in the world to come.
The Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. Yes, the sins were/are transferred from the sinner to the lamb. Taken away, yes. But the record of sins are erased: if I understand you correctly.

Since the early church usually used a Septuagint-like text, we would then expect similarities in the terms. But there are none.

Deu 31:26 Λαβόντες τὸ βιβλίον τοῦ νόμου τούτου θήσετε αὐτὸ ἐκ πλαγίων τῆς κιβωτοῦ τῆς διαθήκης κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν, καὶ ἔσται ἐκεῖ ἐν σοὶ εἰς μαρτύριον.

Wheras Col. Uses the term χειρόγραφον handwritten document, or handwriting. Deuteronomy used the very different phrase,τὸ βιβλίον τοῦ νόμου, the book of the law. Now perhaps there are other passages in the LXX that use something similar, but I don't see χειρόγραφον anywhere in the lxx or Col. besides here. But if Paul wanted to give the same impression he simply could have said τὸ βιβλίον τοῦ νόμου,the book of the law.
I'm not quite sure if Jesus and the disciples indeed quoted from Septuagint. Jesus seemed to be referring to the hebrew letters when He said the jot and tittle. Besides, the supposed LXX text is only found in ecumenical bibles: Sinaiticus, Vaticanus & Alexandrinus. We can not make a conclusion base on the translation.
Again from the context, lets start from vs24,
Deut 31
24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,
26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

This writing/handwriting was against us. There is no other writing mentioned in the bible that was against us.

Actually, I am not in particular saying we are judged under the law of Moses. Perhaps here I disagree with Yeshuamysalvation. The Acts Council did in fact show that the gentiles did not have to keep all of the regulations, seeing as they were not Jews. They simply followed what the law (of Moses as it turns out) said they had to..which really harkened back to the covenant with Noah. But the feasts apparently were still kept by both Jewish Christians, and the Christians in the east, though obviously not with the sacrifices. So they saw lasting value to them. And this too was in accord with the law of Moses. Foreigners who wished to keep the feasts, could.
There are some extrabiblical readings on the book of Hebrews. Paul for this specific reason urged them to focus on Christ, the heavenly high priest and His heavenly ministry rather than earthly things. There was the danger for those dwelled in these things because the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. I'm pressed for time against the sabbath so I'll not look it up. But I think it's published in Maranatha.
I refer you to Paul’s statement again that says we are forgiven. The handwriting is not even the real question. We are told more than once we have forgiveness through Him. The Sanctuary doctrine does not reduce us to moral influence theory, in the face of all the statements that Jesus was in fact the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

Paul was hopeless before, because he was unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. He said the law was spiritual though. That sin used the law, which was good, to put him to death. But the solution was found in Christ. There was NO CONDEMNATION for Paul .For He did what the law was powerless to do, He died a sin offering. (Romans 7 and 8 summarized).

it is good to have these discussions in any case. I don't yet know what to make of the feasts. But it seems apparent that the early Christians, both jews and gentiles continued to find meaning in at least the passover feast until Rome pushed for the change from the traditional dating.
No question, our sins are forgiven. But they are not forgotten. Therefore it was not the record of sins that was nailed to the cross(abolished), but the ordinances. The 10 commandments had never been referred as ordinances.
 
Upvote 0

MiamiHeat

Active Member
Dec 10, 2005
70
2
43
Miami, Florida
✟191.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
OntheDL said:
Deut 31
24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,
26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

This writing/handwriting was against us. There is no other writing mentioned in the bible that was against us.

No question, our sins are forgiven. But they are not forgotten. Therefore it was not the record of sins that was nailed to the cross(abolished), but the ordinances. The 10 commandments had never been referred as ordinances.
The Ten Commandments are called ordinances, take a look at the following!

Deut 5:1 And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and observe to do them.

This verse is strong evidence, because the very first statutes and the ordinances Moses speaks is the 10 commandments! Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and observe to do them.

Clearly the ten commandments are called ordinances, take alook at Ezek 20:19-21

(Ezek 20:19-21) I am Jehovah your God: walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them; and hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am Jehovah your God. But the children rebelled against me; they walked not in my statutes, neither kept mine ordinances to do them, which if a man do, he shall live in them; they profaned my sabbaths. Then I said I would pour out my wrath upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the wilderness.

By no shout of a doubt the weekly Sabbath is called a statutes and ordinance of Jehovahs it couldn't be any clearer.

Neh 8 - uses the following terms interchangeably without making any distinctions at all, the "the book of the law of Moses", the law, "the book of the law", "the law of God", the "book of the law of God" it is clear that no distinction is being made in (Neh 8).

Neh 9:13-14 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them commandments, and statutes, and a law, by Moses thy servant,

Here we got the weekly Sabbath being mentioned without any distinction being made

Most Adventist try to create this unbiblical distinction between the "10 commandments" and the "book of the law" by claiming the decalouge contains moral laws and the Mosaic ceremonial laws only. Most Adventists create the false impression that there is nothing moral in the "book of the law" and nothing ceremonial in the 10 commandments when in fact nothing could be further from the truth Jesus said the two greatest commandments were not part of the 10 commandments!
(Mt 22:36-40) (Deut 6:5) (Lev 19:18)


If the Torah was abolished and only the decalouge remains, then why did God put two copies of the 10 commandments in his Torah?
(Ex 20) (Deut 5)



The Sabbath at least in my opinion is both "moral" and "ceremonial" at the same time. Think about it, keeping a day is ceremony. I also believe the Sabbath to be a feast day to the Lord because a Shabbat with out food is no Shabbat at all.

I don't believe the feast days are done away because my wonderful holy Sabbath is atributed to them, thus if the feast days are destroyed so is our Sabbath celebration. The feasts sprang from the fourth commandment of the Law of God so they are still binding.

I think this debate was over a long time ago when it was proven from the "Greek" words and there defenitions that something is obviously wrong with our current position on sabbath days, it cannot be supported by scripture.
 
Upvote 0

YeshuamySalvation

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2005
985
30
45
Miami Lakes
✟1,336.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
OntheDL said:
Greetings,


Again from the context, lets start from vs24,
Deut 31
24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,
26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

This writing/handwriting was against us. There is no other writing mentioned in the bible that was against us.
Greeting my brother and Shalom.....

The reason the book of the Law is mentioned in this verse as a witness against them is because every single commandment that proceeds out of God's mouth was written in it, not because they were laws of enmity... The book of the law also contained the Ten Commandments and the addministration of the Law as well written in it.. The book of the Law is the (Torah -) the law itself... If someone attempts by poor interpretation of scripture to abolish it unknowingly they are trying to abolish God's very word completely.. An interpretation that makes an attempt to make the book of the Law look as if they are laws of enmity can only come from the antinomions...

OntheDL said:
No question, our sins are forgiven. But they are not forgotten. Therefore it was not the record of sins that was nailed to the cross(abolished), but the ordinances. The 10 commandments had never been referred as ordinances.
The Ten commandments are called ordinances in scripture and they were also a law given by Moses as Yeshua himself clearly states... (John 7: 19) Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

(Mark 7:10)... For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

Moses Laws are God's law they were just given a "nickname" because of the person God used to write them.. We see in scripture that there was a Law that was against us, this was not the Law itself as i mentioned earlier but the "addministration".. It was added 430 years later because of sin, these are not Moses law as some continue to insist incorrectly, as we know the book contained every jot and tittle that is in the Law.... The Apostal Paul tells us this Law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.... Whatever these laws are they are not God's law because God's laws are eternal.. God's law is not something that was added 430 hundred years later.... The hand of the mediator was Moses everyone agrees with that, it was ordained by the angels and given to Moses.. We find our answer in -
(Heb 2:2 -)
2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;

This law that was given by angels was not the Law itself but the addministration that was added because of transgression... The law that the book of Galatians speaks of is the law of sin and death.... Christ has made us free from the Law of sin and death as scripture clearly states...(Rom 8:2)

It's the very letter of the law that we are not supposed to follow as believers we are told to follow the spirit of the law and not the letter...

God bless you....:)
 
Upvote 0
O

OntheDL

Guest
Greetings,
MiamiHeat said:
Most Adventist try to create this unbiblical distinction between the "10 commandments" and the "book of the law" by claiming the decalouge contains moral laws and the Mosaic ceremonial laws only. Most Adventists create the false impression that there is nothing moral in the "book of the law" and nothing ceremonial in the 10 commandments when in fact nothing could be further from the truth Jesus said the two greatest commandments were not part of the 10 commandments!

(Mt 22:36-40) (Deut 6:5) (Lev 19:18)

Maybe you didn't read my previous posts, I never said Mosaic laws contained ceremonial laws only.

The 2 great commandments Jesus talking about sum up the 10 commandments, 1-4 and 5-10. This is the spirit of the law, honor God and honor man.

Look at the story where Jesus said what one must do to have eternal life in Matt 19 and also in Mark 10 and Luke 18.

Matt 19
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

The Jesus asked him about the second part of 10 commandments, 5-10, duty to man. Then Jesus asked if he would put God first (before his possessions). That covers the first part of the commandments.

What law was abolished here: Law of Moses or the 10 commandments of God?

Ephesians 2:15 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;
If the Torah was abolished and only the decalouge remains, then why did God put two copies of the 10 commandments in his Torah?

(Ex 20) (Deut 5)

The laws contained in the book of law written by Moses in the Torah was abolished. The 10 commandments reflect God's character revealed before mount Sinai remain.

All God's blessing and promises are conditional. Those which had met its purpose or broken by men's adultery are finished. One needs to understand this to fully comprehend Christ's now heavenly ministry and be prepared for the coming end time events.
The Sabbath at least in my opinion is both "moral" and "ceremonial" at the same time. Think about it, keeping a day is ceremony. I also believe the Sabbath to be a feast day to the Lord because a Shabbat with out food is no Shabbat at all.

I don't believe the feast days are done away because my wonderful holy Sabbath is atributed to them, thus if the feast days are destroyed so is our Sabbath celebration. The feasts sprang from the fourth commandment of the Law of God so they are still binding.

I think this debate was over a long time ago when it was proven from the "Greek" words and there defenitions that something is obviously wrong with our current position on sabbath days, it cannot be supported by scripture.

Heard the saying if you know the 'why' you don't to have worry about the 'how'? The 'why' is far more important than the 'how' in the essence of doing anything. 'How' was expended to show the 'why' because of the lack of faith by the Israelites.

Although the feasts had some resemblance of the sabbath in term of no servile works, the feasts were mere shadows of Christ's work of salvation. 7th day sabbath was instituted after creation. Were the feasts also??? Had Adam not sinned, would there still be these feasts? No. Would there still be the 7th day sabbath? Yes.

I'd expect a messianic to defend the law of Moses. But answer me two questions that I previously asked: did James sin when he said the new christians didn't have to keep the law of Moses? Was Ellen White a false prophet when she wrote the ceremonial law was abrogated by the cross (Selected Message p239)?
 
Upvote 0

MiamiHeat

Active Member
Dec 10, 2005
70
2
43
Miami, Florida
✟191.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
OntheDL said:
Greetings,

Maybe you didn't read my previous posts, I never said Mosaic laws contained ceremonial laws only.

The 2 great commandments Jesus talking about sum up the 10 commandments, 1-4 and 5-10. This is the spirit of the law, honor God and honor man.

Look at the story where Jesus said what one must do to have eternal life in Matt 19 and also in Mark 10 and Luke 18.

Matt 19
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

The Jesus asked him about the second part of 10 commandments, 5-10, duty to man. Then Jesus asked if he would put God first (before his possessions). That covers the first part of the commandments.

What law was abolished here: Law of Moses or the 10 commandments of God?
But you totally ignored my post were i have shown that no such distinction exists between the Law of God and the Law of Moses they are both one and the same, one binding law period.

MiamiHeat said:
Deut 5:1 And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and observe to do them.

This verse is strong evidence, because the very first statutes and the ordinances Moses speaks is the 10 commandments! Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and observe to do them.


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;
[/b]
The laws contained in the book of law written by Moses in the Torah was abolished. The 10 commandments reflect God's character revealed before mount Sinai remain.
But this was not God's law being abolished, it was mans law. Christ Abolished in his flesh the enmity that is the man made laws that seperated Jews from Gentiles. Not one of God's commandments are enmity.

All God's blessing and promises are conditional. Those which had met its purpose or broken by men's adultery are finished. One needs to understand this to fully comprehend Christ's now heavenly ministry and be prepared for the coming end time events.
Ive really been questioning the investigative judgement doctrine i don't think i could accept it.


Heard the saying if you know the 'why' you don't to have worry about the 'how'? The 'why' is far more important than the 'how' in the essence of doing anything. 'How' was expended to show the 'why' because of the lack of faith by the Israelites.
Although the feasts had some resemblance of the sabbath in term of no servile works, the feasts were mere shadows of Christ's work of salvation. 7th day sabbath was instituted after creation. Were the feasts also??? Had Adam not sinned, would there still be these feasts? No. Would there still be the 7th day sabbath? Yes.
But he did, now would it had been ok for Adam to fall in love with another man if he hadn't sin? Would this act be considered not sinful since it is not recorded in the decalouge?

I'd expect a messianic to defend the law of Moses. But answer me two questions that I previously asked: did James sin when he said the new christians didn't have to keep the law of Moses? Was Ellen White a false prophet when she wrote the ceremonial law was abrogated by the cross (Selected Message p239)?
I'd lost my faith in Ellen G.W writtings i do not see her as an inspired prophet any longer.

The law of Moses is the law of God and it has not been abrogated you cannot show me one scripture that would indicate that. When scripture shows Paul opposing the Law he did it because some were teaching a legalistic way of observing it that is you have to keep them to be saved this would make Paul furious because he knew there was no power in the law to save but in the son of God only.
 
Upvote 0
O

OntheDL

Guest
MiamiHeat said:
I'd lost my faith in Ellen G.W writtings i do not see her as an inspired prophet any longer.

The law of Moses is the law of God and it has not been abrogated you cannot show me one scripture that would indicate that. When scripture shows Paul opposing the Law he did it because some were teaching a legalistic way of observing it that is you have to keep them to be saved this would make Paul furious because he knew there was no power in the law to save but in the son of God only.


Ok. Answer my other question: was James wrong or not to conclude that new christians didn't have to keep the law of Moses?
 
Upvote 0
O

OntheDL

Guest
MiamiHeat said:
Scripture please!!!

Acts 15
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon 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, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
 
Upvote 0

MiamiHeat

Active Member
Dec 10, 2005
70
2
43
Miami, Florida
✟191.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
OntheDL said:
Acts 15
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Firstly circumcision is not the "Law of Moses" because the law of Moses is God's law in it's fullness to start and circumcision is included. This verse says circumcise and the law of Moses, you mean to say that this "identifies it as the Mosaic laws" to support your previous statement's that "the Mosaic laws are the laws of offerings blood sacrifice and circumcision" thus they are all abolished. If I say grapes and oranges that doesn't mean oranges are part of grapes, they are two different things. Circumcision is NOT part of the "Mosaic laws" It's included since circumcision was given to Abraham as a seal of righteousness of the faith.

6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon 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, even as they.

12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Can anyone keep all the commandments of the O.T and N.T? Come on - That is not the issue – the issue was “You have to follow the commandments OUR WAY to be saved. If we are all saved by faith, as verses 9 and 11 clearly say, keeping the commandments is not an issue of salvation. 11 "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."

James then guided by the Holy Spirit gives the Gentiles a starting point so they can have fellowship with their Jewish brethren:

19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,
20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

These were the ESSENTIALS and from there they were to meet in the synagogues every Sabbath to learn more:

21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

The Gentiles were given these four essentials.

1. They were not to observe the Law for salvation.
2. They were not imposed as a legalistic request.
3. They were for those Gentiles TURNING to God.
4. They were something that was necessary for the Gentiles as they were called “essentials”.

19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,
20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

It is like a new convert today – you give him what he can handle – a little at a time and you do not expect him to know everything or become a totally different person with a totally spiritual mindset from the first moment he believes. This would be a “burden” that would not be too great for them to handle. As they matured they would learn more and accept more of the instructions of the Lord, as implied in verse 21.

If verse 21 is not for the Gentile believer, who was this statement for? The Jewish believers already knew Moses’ teaching and sat in on the teachings every Sabbath.

If you cannot agree that this is what these "essentials" were for then why do you think James and Paul and more particularly the Holy Spirit would impose any of the “Laws of Moses” upon the Gentiles?

Christians and Adventist Christians tend to attach "legalism" to any OT commandment. Adventist by making the false distinction and the others by obolishing it completely. They were God's instructions and no more legalistic than any NT commandment if considered in the appropriate way. God never put into place a legalistic system, it is man's perversion of His commandments that might make them so. That is why I think any Adventist who does not understand this needs to study further God's foundational truths.

And lastly no one has addressed the fact that the "GREEK" language tells us that the WORD Sabbaton is the Seventh Day Sabbath. Anyways I think we have pretty much covered the issue, you presented your arguments, I've presented mine.
 
Upvote 0
O

OntheDL

Guest
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
...
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

If one can not comprehend or will not accept the plain verses here, I'm afraid it is not something I can help with.
 
Upvote 0

MiamiHeat

Active Member
Dec 10, 2005
70
2
43
Miami, Florida
✟191.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
OntheDL said:
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
...
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

If one can not comprehend or will not accept the plain verses here, I'm afraid it is not something I can help with.
Notice what scripture you are quoting? (Acts 15: 24) No distinction is being made, it says Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law. Notice not Moses law but the Law making no distinctions. So, by your own statement that leaves us with no Law at all. Again, you continue to make this distinction that does not exist. This verse says clearly circumcise AND the law, circumcision is no more part of the Law of Moses then are the Ten Commandments part of circumcision.

Why would you assume all of God's commands are abolished? I mean we should accept that nothing throughout the entirety of Scripture including the Torah, the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Apostolic Writings is abolished. So, i disagree with you that the law we are no longer under is the Mosaic Covenant. The law which we are no longer "under" is the "law of sin and death", the flesh, the "law of sin that is in" our "members." Another way of putting it--because we have been justified, we are no longer under condemnation by the torah (instruction) of God (the Mosaic Law, being the fullest expression of that compendium of torah). We now benefit from the blessing of following God's instructions.


This is starting to look more like the game jeapordy. You have an answer, but I'm not sure I have the right question for it.

Take a look at this, a detailed interpretation of Acts 15") so you can better understand my position.

Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. Because Antioch was the first church to have a significant number of Gentile believers, they were the first group to grapple with the issue of what should be required of Gentile converts before they would be considered full members of the assembly of Christian believers. The requirements for membership are not the same as the requirements for salvation, although they are so closely related that some people might not recognize the difference. That may have been the case with the men who were teaching, "Unless you are circumcised ... you cannot be saved." However, those men may not have been referring to salvation at all -- the Greek word translated as "be saved" also means "be healed", "do well" or "be made whole".

The issue in Antioch was whether or not male converts needed to be circumcised when they joined the Christian assembly. This was an issue that was also disputed within Judaism at that time. The Pharisees interpreted the law of Moses to mean that all males had to be circumcised. Some other sects within Judaism interpreted the law to mean that only eight-day old male babies were to be circumcised and that adult converts fulfilled this requirement by agreeing to circumcise any future baby boys. The dispute in Antioch boiled down to a matter of interpretation of the law. They had to appeal to a higher authority for a decision on this issue because Paul's position could not be proven from existing Scripture, and he did not agree with the prevailing interpretation of the law among Christian Jews.

The Council in Jerusalem

Acts 15: 4-5 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." This statement of the believing Pharisees seems to imply that circumcision was not the primary dispute at Antioch, but was only part of a larger issue -- whether or not the Gentile believers were supposed to observe the whole law of Moses. Additionally, it is often assumed from the Pharisees' statement that because Paul opposed these men, Paul must have been teaching the Gentile believers to disregard the law of Moses. However, these interpretations contradict other evidence within the context of Acts 15 which shows that obedience to the law of Moses was not part of the dispute at Antioch. That evidence will be presented in context below.

Some of the original implications of the Pharisees' argument may have been lost in translation, especially if the original discussion took place in Hebrew or Aramaic and was subsequently translated into Greek and then into English. The Greek text of this passage suggests two alternative interpretations of the Pharisees' argument, either of which which would harmonize with the overall context of Acts 15.





  • One interpretation of the Greek is that the Pharisees were arguing that the Gentile believers must be circumcised because allowing them to remain uncircumcised would erode the the authority of the Torah, something which all of the believers agreed should be upheld. Their assertion could be understood as “The Gentiles must be circumcised, and thereby uphold the law of Moses.” This would confirm that the primary issue was still circumcision, as it had been at Antioch.
  • Another possible interpretation of the Greek is that these Christian Pharisees were advocating not only circumcision, but also the man-made traditions and laws of the rabbis that had been added to Jewish law in order to "guard" the Torah. (For example, the Old Testament teaches that a person is not to carry a burden on the Sabbath, but the rabbis taught that a person is not to carry anything at all on the Sabbath.) These stricter regulations were supposed to prevent the Jews from inadvertently breaking the Torah. In this verse, the words "to obey" are translated from the Greek verb tereo which means literally "to guard". The argument of the Pharisees can be translated as "The Gentiles must be circumcised and commanded to guard the law of Moses," with the implication that the Gentiles should be taught to observe the man-made laws that the rabbis put in place to guard the Torah. This intention would have become clear in the discussion which ensued.
Acts 5:6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.

The fact that the apostles seriously discussed this question shows that they still had high regard for the law of Moses and considered such questions to be important.​







 
Upvote 0

MiamiHeat

Active Member
Dec 10, 2005
70
2
43
Miami, Florida
✟191.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Second part.

Acts 15:7-9
After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.

Peter reminds the elders about the first uncircumcised believers and how they received the Holy Spirit at the house of Cornelius in Caesarea. Peter says specifically that God made no distinction between the Gentile believers and the Jewish believers.

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

Is it possible that Peter could have been referring to the law of Moses as an unbearable yoke? Remember, this is the same Peter that exclaimed, "Surely not, Lord!" when in a vision he was told to disobey the dietary laws. (Acts 10:14) It would have been rather uncharacteristic for Peter to refer to the Law of Moses as an unbearable yoke. Years later when the elders spoke of the Christians where Peter lived they said, "many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law." (Acts 21:20) Apparently they observed the law of Moses quite enthusiastically, so it would have been totally untrue for Peter to say the law of Moses was something they had been unable to bear. Such a statement would have directly contradicted the Scriptures which describe the law as a delight and something to rejoice about. (Psalm 119) It would also have been disagreeing with Paul who wrote, "For in my inner being I delight in God's law," (Romans 7:22) and with Moses who wrote, "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." (Deut 30:11)

So, what was the yoke that Peter was speaking about? We don't know for certain what he had in mind, but there are some other options to consider. Peter could have been referring to what Jesus said about the man-made requirements that had been added by the Pharisees but were not actually part of the Torah. "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." (Matthew 23:4) Another possibility is suggested by the tense of the verb in the Greek, which indicates that bearing the yoke was a one-time event, rather than an ongoing process. In that case, Peter would not be referring to a life-long practice such as observing the laws of the Jews. Peter may have been addressing the original question regarding adult circumcision for the Gentile converts. As Jews, the apostles and their fathers had all been circumcised when they were eight days old, so they had not been required to undergo circumcision as adults. Requiring the Gentiles to be circumcised as adults would have made it more difficult for Gentiles to become Christians than it was for Jews.

Acts 15:11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

Again Peter makes no distinction between the Gentiles and the Jews – they are both saved by grace. The Jewish Christians were observing the laws of Moses and were saved by grace, so the Gentile believers would also be able to observe the laws of Moses while being saved by grace.

Acts 15:12-18 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.
When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:


'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things' that have been known for ages.’
James called on the authority of the Old Testament prophets to support what Peter had said and what James was about to recommend. Although the elders in Jerusalem had the authority to interpret the laws, they didn't presume to have the authority to change the law.

Acts 15:19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

On many issues pertaining to the interpretation of the law, the Christian believers followed the teachings of the Pharisees. However, James realized that it would be quite a burden on the Gentile Christians to require adult converts to be circumcised. His recommendation followed the precedent that God set when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the new Gentile converts in the situation that Peter (Simon) had spoken about earlier. It also agreed with the teaching of the Jewish sects that interpreted the law less literally than did the Pharisees.

Acts 15:20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

These four requirements listed by James were all part of the law of Moses and pertained specifically to foreigners living in Israel:

abstain from food polluted by idols - Leviticus 17:8-9 "Say to them: 'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice and does not bring it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to sacrifice it to the LORD--that man must be cut off from his people.'" (To guard more carefully against idolatry, this command was interpreted by the Jews to prohibit eating any meat that had been offered in a prohibited manner.) from sexual immorality - Leviticus 18:6-26 lists a wide range of sexually immoral activities and ends with, “The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things,” from the meat of strangled animals - Leviticus 17:13,15 "'Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth,
"'Anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean."
and from blood - Leviticus 17:10 "'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood--I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people."
Rather than canceling or withdrawing these Old Testament regulations, James and the apostles actually extended the scope of these regulations by applying them to Gentile believers living outside the land of Israel. There is a significant correlation between these requirements suggested by James and the requirements that the Jewish rabbis required for their Gentile converts to Judaism. Besides these four requirements the rabbis also required baptism, circumcision for males, and additional instruction from the Torah.
 
Upvote 0

MiamiHeat

Active Member
Dec 10, 2005
70
2
43
Miami, Florida
✟191.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Acts 15:21 For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

James knew that the Gentile converts were already receiving the necessary Torah instruction each Sabbath as they met with the Christian believers.

Except for baptism and circumcision, James had listed all of the normal requirements for Gentiles joining into Judaism. Baptism was not an issue for the church at Antioch because the Gentile believers were already being baptized by Paul and others. So, by purposely leaving circumcision out of the list of requirements, James was giving a direct answer to the original question of the Antioch believers -- "Do adult converts need to become circumcised when they join the Christian assembly?" Because these guidelines for Gentile converts to Christianity were nearly identical to the rabbis' requirements for converts to Judaism, it is evident that the Christians also thought of their Gentile converts as being adopted into the people of Israel.

There certainly would have been more debate regarding those guidelines if the apostles had actually intended to exempt the Gentile believers from the entire law of Moses and replace it with only four guidelines for Christian behavior. Surely they would not have exempted the Gentiles from "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength" (Deut. 6:5) and "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18) which Jesus endorsed as the greatest of commandments. Also, Peter had just finished saying (twice) that God did not differentiate between the Gentile believers and the Jewish believers, so we could expect that Peter (along with Paul) would have opposed any decision that created a distinction between the two groups of Christians.

Among Christians today it is recognized that the four requirements James listed for Gentile believers do not comprise a complete guide for Christian behavior. Every church bases its discipleship program for new believers on a much broader foundation. The apostles also expected Gentile converts to receive additional training, and James specifically mentions the teachings of Moses as the foundation of discipleship training for Gentile Christians. Paul also recommended the writings of Moses for instructing both Jewish and Gentile believers (1 Tim 4:13; 2 Tim 3:16).

Acts 15:22-29 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul-- men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
The phrase "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit" refers to the precedent that was set when the Holy Spirit fell on the devout but uncircumcised Gentiles of Cornelius’ household (Acts 10). Both Peter and James referred to that incident while explaining the reasons for their recommendations.

Notice that the apostles' letter to Antioch does not refer at all to salvation or to any requirements for being saved. So it appears that in the original dispute over circumcision at Antioch, "being saved" was not the primary issue. It is possible that the men who had stirred up trouble in Antioch were saying, "Unless you are circumcised ... you cannot do well" (see comments on Acts 15:1 above). In that case, "doing well" would have been the primary issue. That is the issue the apostles addressed at the conclusion of the letter -- "If you keep yourself free from such things, you will do well." (NASB).

To avoid any misunderstanding, the elders from Jerusalem sent a delegation to Antioch to deliver the letter. Christians today would be more likely to understand the intent of the apostles’ letter if it was explained to them by a delegation of Torah-observant believers like the men who delivered the letter to Antioch.
 
Upvote 0

Cliff2

Well-Known Member
Oct 7, 2004
3,831
63
74
✟26,993.00
Faith
SDA
tall73 said:
I was just about to post this question when I noticed some had a head start over in the reformed board.

In any case, what do you see as the significance of the feasts today, if any?

Just for more discussion, I just started reading the selected chapters here on Bacchiocchi's site.

I am reading it partly due to some things in the Sabbath thread, and because there are some obvious passages in the NT that show that Paul at least still wanted to be around for the feasts.

I do not think there is any significance for them today.

Paul apparently kept some as this was very Jewish in nature and not all traditions stopped after the cross right away.

This is one area where I think that Dr B may have it wrong.

Am a bit reluctant to be critical of him but this time he may have put his foot in his mouth.
 
Upvote 0