The first heresy

[BobRyan]

I see the old covenant remaining until 70AD.

According to Rom 3:19-20 it still remains to this very day - condemning all mankind "all the world" , "every mouth" - as under the Law, under the condemnation of the Law and everyone needing to accept the gospel. As long as one rejects the gospel they are under the Rom 3:19-20 old Covenant.

Hebrews 8:13 states the first covenant was made old when the new covenant came.

Indeed - the New Covenant IS the Gospel. The one and only gospel of Gal 1:6-9 which is "The gospel preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8.

The New Covenant text can be found in Heb 8:6-12 and it can also be found verbatim in Jer 31:31-34.

Are you familiar with the New Covenant as it reads in scripture?

Galatians 5:14 says all the law is fulfilled in one word, even this; thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self.

That is Lev 19:18. Gal 5 simply affirms that Command in the Law of Moses.

in Matt 22 Jesus says that the Lev 19:18 command is not the greatest commandment but it is second.
In Matt 22 Jesus says the greatest commandment is Deut 6:5 "love God with all your heart".

Yet another appeal to the Law of Moses in the New Testament.

This statement wasn’t valid for those who were told to observe and do what those in Moses seat told them to do (Matthew 23:1-4).

No reputable Bible scholar on planet Earth today says that Lev 19:18 was not valid at the time of Matt 23. I think we all can agree on at least that much.

Galatians 5:14 is new covenant,

In fact Jer 31:31-34 IS THE TEXT of the NEW Covenant.

Why keep talking about the New Covenant without actually quoting it? What is the point of that?

how are you determining the difference between requirements of the old covenant and new covenant? Examining what took place in the synagogues in Acts can arguably be shown as old covenant that was in the process of decaying.

There is not one text of scripture that says that the One Nation Church set by God to worship the one true God -- is one iota opposed to the Jer 31:31-34 NEW Covenant or opposed to the Gal 3:8 "Gospel preached to Abraham" -- and I think we all know it.

No wonder Paul ways "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
Where "the first commandment with a promise is - "honor your father and mother'' Eph 6:2 in that still valid unit of TEN.
Rev 14:12 "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"
Rom 3:31 "What then ? Do we make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law of God"

. In the new covenant there is no difference between Jew and Gentiles

True. Because as Romans 2 points out the gentiles are considered Jews under that system.

Rom 2:
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a violator of the Law, your circumcision has turned into uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

So then it is "still a sin" in the NT to take God's name in vain --- not just in the old testament.

And Heb 8 says this about the actual New Covenant

Heb 8:7
“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I will bring about a new covenant
With the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
On the day I took them by the hand
To bring them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I did not care about them, says the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel
After those days, declares the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds,
And write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.
11 And they will not teach, each one his fellow citizen,
And each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
For they will all know Me,
From the least to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful toward their wrongdoings,
And their sins I will no longer remember.”

 

[ozso]

1. Taking God's name in vain is just one of many forms of blasphemy as I already pointed out in the case of Christ's own accusers who never argue that Christ "Took God's name in vain" but did argue that He blasphemed. Jesus also accused his enemies of blasphemy in Matt 12 but did not say that they "took God's name in vain" as the way they did it.

that has not changed.

2. In addition we can see that "Do not take God's name in vain" is never quoted at all in the NT -- by contrast we see quotes from the Sabbath commandment Ex 20:8-11 in a number of different places in the NT and it can be proven in Rev 14:7 and also the book of Acts and the book of Hebrews..

There being other forms of blasphemy doesn't negate the fact that taking God's name in vain is blasphemy. When the NT says to put off all blasphemy that includes taking God's name in vain.

3. And then there is this mountain of Bible affirmation for the TEN as being included in the moral law of God including the Sabbath commandment

For the Old Covenant yes. As for the New Covenant there's a small pile of eisegesis repeatedly used by a small number who are seventh-day adventists et al.

Almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" as included in the moral law of God applicable to Christians today

Almost every Christian denomonation rejects seventh day adventism et al.

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19

That's only two.

[*]Voddie Baucham

That's a man, not a denomonation. And apparently a "first day sabbatarian".

[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy
[*]R.C. Sproul

Those are people, not denominations. And none of those 5 men taught keeping the seventh day sabbath. You should add H.W. Armstrong to your list. That cult leader taught that Christians are under the old covenant.

[*]many others as well..

...not worth mentioning.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

1. Taking God's name in vain is just one of many forms of blasphemy as I already pointed out in the case of Christ's own accusers who never argue that Christ "Took God's name in vain" but did argue that He blasphemed. Jesus also accused his enemies of blasphemy in Matt 12 but did not say that they "took God's name in vain" as the way they did it.

that has not changed.

2. In addition we can see that "Do not take God's name in vain" is never quoted at all in the NT -- by contrast we see quotes from the Sabbath commandment Ex 20:8-11 in a number of different places in the NT and it can be proven in Rev 14:7 and also the book of Acts and the book of Hebrews..

There being other forms of blasphemy doesn't negate the fact that taking God's name in vain is blasphemy. When the NT says to put off all blasphemy that includes taking God's name in vain.

No doubt but the point remains that it is a commandment never quoted in the NT. In fact it is the only one of the TEN from which nothing is quoted in the NT.

My argument is not FOR taking God's name in vain.. rather my argument is AGAINST making up ad hoc rules for deleting one of the Commandments of God because "it is not quoted in the NT". (for example).

You may have seen that done a time or two

For the Old Covenant yes. As for the New Covenant there's a small pile of eisegesis repeatedly used by a small number who are seventh-day adventists et al.

False accusations like that are easy enough for any of us to post - but I am more interested in facts than name-calling or pejoratives.

Almost every Christian denomonation rejects seventh day adventism et al.

False accusations like that are easy enough for any of us to post - but I am more interested in facts than name-calling or pejoratives.

The fact that Methodists "are not Baptists" is not the same thing as the wild accusation that Methodists "reject Baptists". You need an actual Bible argument. Think sola scriptura... think "exegesis".. make an actual Bible point.

And try to do it without breaking CF forum rules.

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19

That's only two.

You don't seem to be aware of the number of denominations that affirm the Westminster Confession of faith.

Baptists, Congregationalists, the Reformed and Presbyterians

you also don't seem to understand how many Baptist groups there are

That's a man, not a denomonation. And apparently a "first day sabbatarian".

like most Christian groups in the 1800's and early 1900's.

You have drifted very far from your prior "just SDAs"

Those are people, not denominations. And none of those 5 men taught keeping the seventh day sabbath

They all affirm the TEN and they all affirm the Sabbath Commandment - only for a lot of them it is "edited" to point to week-day-1.

You need something beyond name-calling to make your case.

Try actual facts.

 

[grafted branch]

Yes, if you don't want to answer questions posed to you, regarding your religious philosophy, you can deflect from answering, by asking questions. In this way you distract from the problems pointed out to you in your own religious philosophy.

I was simply asking you the very same question you asked me, I only rephrased it. I don’t think a Gentile can do anything they want except for the things listed in Acts 15:20 and you don’t think the entire law applies to Gentiles. No use in either of us trying to create straw man arguments for either side of a debate.

So certainly the Apostles were promoting the same obedience that Isaiah, who was Inspired by the Spirit of Christ, also promoted to Non-Jews.

Is. 56: 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Right, but what really matters here is which covenant you think Isaiah 56:6 is referring to.

You do understand that this Lord, if the Christ, the Rock of Israel, Yes?

Yes, I do understand this and I also understand that according to Hebrews 4:8 there is another day that we enter into. This is what Isaiah 66:23 is referring to when it says from one sabbath to another. The other sabbath is described in Hebrews 4.

God didn't "Remember His Law". He remembered His Covenant. Two different things.

I agree here, the law is not a covenant.

Can you explain how this Law was not valid when Jesus created it?

How is it you are preaching that this Law is New?

Galatians 5:14 says the law is fulfilled in one word.

John 1:1 the word was God.

Matthew 5:17 Jesus fulfills the law.

Hebrews 9:15 Jesus is the mediator of the New Testament.

The law of love thy neighbor as thy self became fulfilled through the testator (Jesus) when he died. It became valid or efficacious in fulfilling the law after Jesus died.

Loving your neighbor as yourself wasn’t valid or effective at fulfilling the law during the old covenant. For example loving your neighbor as yourself couldn’t satisfy the law for supplying a Passover lamb to be sacrificed during the old covenant.

Loving your neighbor as yourself is something that comes from the heart, the new covenant is written in the heart. Not that someone in the old covenant couldn’t love their neighbor, only that its fulfillment is in the new covenant.

Please show me the Scriptures which teach that God is a respecter of persons.

I agree God is not a respecter of persons but that doesn’t mean just anyone could’ve jumped in and took over the duties of the priest in the old covenant. When the Philistine Gentiles took the ark of God in 1 Samuel 5 would it have been possible for them to repent and take over the priesthood to become the new chosen people? I think we all would agree the answer is no, even though God is not a respecter of persons.

 

[grafted branch]

According to Rom 3:19-20 it still remains to this very day - condemning all mankind "all the world" , "every mouth" - as under the Law, under the condemnation of the Law and everyone needing to accept the gospel. As long as one rejects the gospel they are under the Rom 3:19-20 old Covenant.

Romans was written prior to 70AD so at that time the old covenant hadn’t vanished yet.

Are you familiar with the New Covenant as it reads in scripture?

Yes

Yet another appeal to the Law of Moses in the New Testament.

Right, absolutely agree we’re on the same page here.

No reputable Bible scholar on planet Earth today says that Lev 19:18 was not valid at the time of Matt 23. I think we all can agree on at least that much.

Could someone during the old covenant love their neighbor as themselves instead of providing a Passover lamb?

Why keep talking about the New Covenant without actually quoting it? What is the point of that?

Well I figured most everyone on this forum has access to the scriptures, if you need me to quote Jeremiah 31:31-34 every time I mention the new covenant these posts are going to get lengthy.

There is not one text of scripture that says that the One Nation Church set by God to worship the one true God -- is one iota opposed to the Jer 31:31-34 NEW Covenant or opposed to the Gal 3:8 "Gospel preached to Abraham" -- and I think we all know it.

And I’m not opposed to the new covenant either. I’m not sure which One Nation Church you are talking about but if you look at Jeremiah 31:35-36 you will see that Israel will cease from being a nation before God. This is the “not all Israel” being referenced in Romans 9:6.

 

[trophy33]

@Saber Truth Tiger

Well, to summarize my arguments:

1) There is obviously figurative speech in the prophecy of Isaiah
2) Prophecies were generally used figuratively in the New Testament and interpreted as Christ-centered
3) New moons and Sabbaths were shadows, but the reality is in Christ, per the apostolic teaching

However, you still want to read prophecies literally and think that what came in Christ will be somehow put aside and God will want people to return to Jewish shadows and physical Jerusalem, again. You do not want to read Isaiah as being spiritual and Christ-centered.

Not making much sense to me on Christian forums, but as you wish. There is not much more to say.

In conclusion:
Either the prophecy is about us, therefore new moons and sabbaths are obviously figurative, together with the rest.
Or, the prophecy is not about us at all and therefore it has no meaning for us.
Or, some parts are figurative, some parts literal, some parts about us, some parts not about us (or even are both) and in this case its purely based on our individual speculation what is what, because we have no authoritative interpretation available.

The rule of thumb and the basic rule of hermeneutics (as you like to say) is to hold to what is said in the New Testament and to how it works with the Old Testament.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

@Saber Truth Tiger

Well, to summarize my arguments:

1) There is obviously figurative speech in the prophecy of Isaiah

There is indeed figurative speech in prophecies throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. It doesn't logically follow that Isaiah 66:22-23 is therefore figurative.

2) Prophecies were generally used figuratively in the New Testament and interpreted as Christ-centered

There were indeed many Christ-centered prophecies in the New Testament, especially in Matthew. But it doesn't logically follow that Isaiah 66:22-23 is therefore figurative.

3) New moons and Sabbaths were shadows, but the reality is in Christ, per the apostolic teaching

Yes, new moons and Sabbaths were shadows but Bible prophecy reveals they will be used during the Millennium. Why? I don't know because the scripture doesn't tell us why. Nevertheless, Isaiah 66:22-23 reveals they will once again be used.

However, you still want to read prophecies literally and think that what came in Christ will be somehow put aside and God will want people to return to Jewish shadows and physical Jerusalem, again. You do not want to read Isaiah as being spiritual and Christ-centered.

No, that is not true. I don't believe ALL prophecies are to be read literally. I do believe Isaiah 66:23 is literal though. It seems YOU want all prophecies to be figurative. Am I correct? You seem to be hung up on the "shadows" thing. Maybe that is what is stumbling you. Just because new moons and sabbaths are shadows in the present doesn't mean they will not be observed in the Millennium. Yahweh decides if they will be used in the Millennium. Your presuppositions seem to be that once the Law was set aside for the New Testament that they were set aside forever. There is no scripture that indicates that. But there is a scripture, plain for all to see, that in the Millennium the new moons and the Sabbaths will once again be observed by mankind. Incidentally, in Mark 2:27 Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man. The greek word that was translated as man is *anthropos* which means mankind. Jesus did not say the Sabbath was made for the Jew, he said it was made for man. You seem to object that I do not want to read Isaiah as being spiritual and Christ centered. That is not true because just because I read Isaiah 66:22-23 literally it doesn't logically follow that I use a wooden literal approach to all scipture in Isaiah. The problem is YOU don't want to read Isaiah 66:22-23 as literal because that contradicts something you have been taught. And you will not change your mind.

Not making much sense to me on Christian forums, but as you wish. There is not much more to say.

You're right. There is not much more to say. I have given you proof that the new moons and sabbaths will be in force during the Millennium and you want to "spiritualize" it all away by insisting it is figurative. Re-instituting the new moons and the Sabbaths in the Millennium does not in any way contradict anything Yahweh says in the scriptures. That is God's prerogative. Let's not take lightly to what he has revealed to us.

In conclusion:
Either the prophecy is about us, therefore new moons and sabbaths are obviously figurative, together with the rest.

No, the new moons and the sabbaths are NOT obviously figurative to someone who rightly interprets scripture. One of the top rules of interpreting the Bible is if a passage in context makes sense, then it is better to translate it literally. I opt for the literal interpretation because in context there is nothing that is nonsense. It flows well with context Isaiah 66:14-24. I see no need to make this figurative.

14 And when ye see this, your heart shall rejoice, and your bones shall flourish like an herb: and the hand of the Lord shall be known toward his servants, and his indignation toward his enemies.
15 For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many.
17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord.
18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.
19 And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.
20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord.
21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord.
22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.
24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Or, the prophecy is not about us at all and therefore it has no meaning for us.

The prophecy is about those who will live in the Millennium and I assume you want to live in the Millennium. Of course, there is the possibility that we Christians living today will rule over the earth, with Christ, for a thousand years. Maybe, just maybe, those that are Christians now in the 21st century and those that came before us will be exempt from the observing of the Sabbath, although I see no proof for that. But this prophecy specifically about mankind in the Millennium and not us today.

Or, some parts are figurative, some parts literal, some parts about us, some parts not about us (or even are both) and in this case its purely based on our individual speculation what is what, because we have no authoritative interpretation available.

Taking the Bible literally is one of the key rules of Biblical interpretation. If a passage makes sense literally and there is no contradictions involved, then you read the text literally. If the text doesn't make sense literally and it creates a contradiction in context, then you either translate it figuratively or call it a contradiction, which is a big no no if you are seeking to trust the Bible as God's word.

The rule of thumb and the basic rule of hermeneutics (as you like to say) is to hold to what is said in the New Testament and to how it works with the Old Testament.

No, that is not correct. First of all, no matter what the New Testament says, Isaiah 66:22-23 reveals in the Millennium the new moons and the sabbaths will be observed by mankind. It does NOT contradict the New Testament to say that in the Millennium the new moons and the sabbaths will be observed by mankind. You read each scripture in the Old Testament and interpret them in context. Then, when you find a verse in the New Testament that claims to be a prophecy you go back to the scripture it is taken from and try to make it fit with what the Old Testament says. But, there is no New Testament scripture that denies that the new moon and the sabbaths will be re-instituted by God during the Millennium. The Basic rule of Hermeneutics is not to hold to what is said in the New Testament but rather if the text makes sense in context. If it does, then the literal interpretation is preferred over the figurative.

 

[Studyman]

I was simply asking you the very same question you asked me, I only rephrased it. I don’t think a Gentile can do anything they want except for the things listed in Acts 15:20 and you don’t think the entire law applies to Gentiles. No use in either of us trying to create straw man arguments for either side of a debate.

I was replying to your statement. "At the council at Jerusalem, in Acts 15:20 James gives the rules for Gentiles which doesn’t include the rules for the Sabbath".

So then be both apparently know there were Commandments of God that were implied and would be known by listening to Moses that were not included in the 4 laws of Moses they commanded Gentiles to observe. You are promoting the religious philosophy that one of the 10 commandments was not included. I pointed out that the Christ of the Bible didn't teach this as the Holy One of Israel, and there is no evidence I have found, that would support the religious philosophy that HE changed HIS mind regarding His Father's Commandment that was "made for men" after HE was murdered. And Acts 15 certainly doesn't instruct the Gentiles to reject God's Law. Rather, to abstain from breaking it.

I am glad to know that you understand there were other laws of God implied in Acts 15.

Right, but what really matters here is which covenant you think Isaiah 56:6 is referring to.

Gen. 17: 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

Is. 61: 8 For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. 9 And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the LORD hath blessed.

Jer. 32: 38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God: 39 And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them: 40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.

Heb. 13: 20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, 21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

This "Covenant" never changed. This is the covenant Isaiah spoke of. Not the Covenant God made with Israel "Because they broke this covenant". The Priesthood Covenant God made after the Golden calf is what changed, according to what is written.

Heb. 7: 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Yes, I do understand this and I also understand that according to Hebrews 4:8 there is another day that we enter into. This is what Isaiah 66:23 is referring to when it says from one sabbath to another. The other sabbath is described in Hebrews 4.

Heb. 4: 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

Yes, Jesus is not the Sabbath. The Sabbath of God foreshadows an event that has yet to come. God's Sabbath was created for men, for the purposes which are shown, in part, in Is. 58, so that we are prepared for the Day of His return. This is why God's People, "seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

"Many" who come in Christ's Name, are "hearers" of these sayings, but not "doers". Jesus speaks to them in Matt. 7. And the Pharisees and their fathers polluted His sabbaths and despised His Judgments because of "Unbelief".

When the Holy One of Israel said;

Ex. 20: 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But 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: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Most of Israel didn't believe Him, just as most of today's modern religions, who come in Christ's name, don't believe Him. Hebrews warns of this.

Heb. 4: 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Remember, the Same Gospel of Christ given to them, was also given to us.

Heb. 4: 1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith(Belief) in them that heard it.

I agree here, the law is not a covenant.

Galatians 5:14 says the law is fulfilled in one word.

This world's popular religious interpretation of this one sentence, doesn't make the Christ of the Bible's Word Void, in my view.

A person should include the whole teaching of Paul, not just those words that can be used to promote popular religious philosophies of this world.

Gal. 5: 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

What is the Spirit?

John 6: 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

In the religion you are promoting, are the Word's that the Christ of the Bible spoke before becoming a man, Spiritual? Paul said they were.

Rom. 7: 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. And again; 14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

So what does Paul say about the "works of the Flesh" which are carnal?

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, (Against God's Law) fornication, (Against God's Law) uncleanness, lasciviousness, (Against God's Law) 20 Idolatry, (Against God's Law) witchcraft, (Against God's Law) hatred, (Against God's Law) variance, (Against God's Law) emulations, (Against God's Law) wrath, (Against God's Law) strife, (Against God's Law) seditions, (Against God's Law) heresies, (Against God's Law) 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: (ALL against God's Law or as Paul calls them, "instruction in God's Righteousness") of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

And what has Paul told us before this?

Rom. 2: 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Rom. 6: 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. (That means NO!) 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

There are many more words of Paul that sheds light on the short sentence "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Consider that this is God's Love that is being discussed here, not man's. And that one must first "Love himself" with this Love, before being able to share this Love with others. And this would mean knowing the truth about your own flesh to begin with, which is not an easy thing to do. The Christ of the bible teaches that we are given a tool to help us "not to hide ourself from our own flesh". This is part of the benefit of the Sabbath Fast the Holy One of Israel, at His Fathers direction, gave "for man".

At least according to the Holy scriptures.

I'll finish in another post

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I was replying to your statement. "At the council at Jerusalem, in Acts 15:20 James gives the rules for Gentiles which doesn’t include the rules for the Sabbath".

Do you think Sabbath observance is compulsory for Christians? Is it a sin to not observe it?

 

[Studyman]

John 1:1 the word was God.

Matthew 5:17 Jesus fulfills the law.

Matt. 5: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

But this world's religions have preached to me since my youth that Jesus destroyed God's Law, "abolished it" is what "MANY" who come in Christ's Name preach. Even though Jesus Himself said not to even "THINK" such a thing, it is the foundation of mainstream Christianity as it is promoted today.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

But this world's religions do not reflect this Truth from this Christ at all. In fact, since my youth "many" religious businesses and corporations promote the false religious doctrine that Jesus has already "Fulfilled" all that was written about Him. Which is simply foolish, since if HE doesn't return to "Fulfill" what is Prophesied in the Law and Prophets, my faith is in vain.

These religions make the Holy One of Israel a liar, and when this same Christ became a man, they imply HE is also a liar. "Keep the Commandments HE said. But this world's religious "many", who come in His Name, declare, "we are free from God's instruction in righteousness", Jesus has abolished the Law and the Prophets.

You and I were placed by God into this world, and HE warned us of the religions that exist therein to test His People. I advocate that men turn to the God of the Bible, and rely in His Inspired Word "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.", as Paul instructs, and "take heed" of the religions of this world we were born into.

Hebrews 9:15 Jesus is the mediator of the New Testament.

Yes, the Priesthood changed, as Prophesied. The sacrificial "works of the law" for forgiveness given in the Covenant God made after the golden Calf, are no longer required. And the Holy One of Israel did exactly what HE was Prophesied to do. Don't be lured away from Him by those "many" who call Him Lord, Lord. Those "many" who come in His Name that HE warned us about. Follow Him, not the religions of this world, as those who fell in Israel did.

The law of love thy neighbor as thy self became fulfilled through the testator (Jesus) when he died. It became valid or efficacious in fulfilling the law after Jesus died.

It was always the Law of God to Love your neighbor as yourself. As it is written:

Lev. 10: 3 Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.

10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.

14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.

17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Lev. 19: 33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.

In other words, ALL the Law is fulfilled in these words "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself".

We were given the Same gospel, let's not make the same mistake they made, after all, Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

Loving your neighbor as yourself wasn’t valid or effective at fulfilling the law during the old covenant. For example loving your neighbor as yourself couldn’t satisfy the law for supplying a Passover lamb to be sacrificed during the old covenant.

You have it backwards, in my view. It was their choice to partake of the Passover, so they could be freed from the bondage and deception of Sin/Egypt, in order for God to show them how to Love Him (the First and Greatest Commandment), and How to Love others, the 2nd Greatest commandment. (See 10 Commandments which show both) On these two Laws of God, "Hang all the Law and Prophets", according to the Christ of the Bible. It seems prudent to include all of Paul's teaching, in seeking Biblical truth. He doesn't contradict the Holy Scriptures, or the Christ "of the Bible" in any of his teaching, although "many" who come in His Name, preach that he does.

Loving your neighbor as yourself is something that comes from the heart, the new covenant is written in the heart. Not that someone in the old covenant couldn’t love their neighbor, only that its fulfillment is in the new covenant.

I disagree according to what is actually written.

1 John 3: 10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

It's not the covenant that is written on the hearts of men, rather, God's Laws. In the New covenant GOD defines, which I believe we should trust, there are two things that changed.

#1. How God's Laws are received. (No longer do people receive God's Law through the Levitical Priesthood). As it is written "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,)"

#2. How Forgiveness of Transgression of God's Law is provided for. No longer do we bring an animal to the Levite Priest and kill it. ( And the priest shall take of the blood thereof (Goat of sheep or cattle) with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering)

Religious men, also prophesied, have created their own religion with their own high days, their own sabbaths, their own images of God in the likeness of some random long haired handsome man. This is not the "New Covenant" God made. At least not the God of the bible.

I agree God is not a respecter of persons but that doesn’t mean just anyone could’ve jumped in and took over the duties of the priest in the old covenant.

Not sure what you are talking about here. It's called the "Levitical Priesthood" "After the Order of Aaron". It is clear who could partake of the Priesthood in the Old Priesthood covenant.

When the Philistine Gentiles took the ark of God in 1 Samuel 5 would it have been possible for them to repent and take over the priesthood to become the new chosen people?

LOL, I think you should actually read 1 Sam 5-7 before you continue. The entire point of this example was that the Philistines believed in their god over the God who destroyed the Egyptians. They knew about God and His Chosen people, they just didn't believe in Him. Jerico had already happened, I'm sure they knew of Rehab as well.

I think we all would agree the answer is no, even though God is not a respecter of persons.

I was replying to your statement "Examining what took place in the synagogues in Acts can arguably be shown as old covenant that was in the process of decaying. For example, the decaying showed up in the less stringent stipulations put on the Gentiles. In the new covenant there is no difference between Jew and Gentiles but in the old covenant there is."

The Pharisees, AKA "The Circumcision" may have promoted the religious philosophy that Gentiles "were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:"

But there doesn't exist a Covenant created by God that teaches any such thing. This world's religions falsely teach that God was a respecter of persons in this manner, and the Pharisees also of this world, taught the same thing as well.

But when a man separates himself from this world's religions, and reads the Holy Scriptures for himself, no such "difference" exists. In fact, God's Laws teach just the opposite, as I have posted.

Consider your own confusion here if I can be so bold to point it out. I posted IS. 56 as an example of how God placed no difference between the Jew and the Gentile who "Joined themselves to the Lord" in the Law and Prophets. And you implied it was the Old Covenant and therefore not valid.

But now you are saying that in the Old Covenant God "DID" make a difference between a Jew and the Gentile who "Joined themselves to the Lord".

So I would humbly ask, which one of your opposing statements is true, and which one is false. They can't both be true can they?

 

[Studyman]

Do you think Sabbath observance is compulsory for Christians? Is it a sin to not observe it?

That's kind of a trick question. What is a Christian? Is it any person who calls Jesus Lord, Lord, or preaches in His Name? Or a person who denies himself and puts on "the new man, which after God is "Christlike"?

I'll answer assuming the latter is what God considers a "Christian".

Certainly, it cannot be denied that the Holy One of Israel, the Rock of their Salvation, their Redeemer, taught that God's Sabbath was Holy, and it was a Sin not to honor HIM in it. And it is my understanding that this same Christ, the Rock of Israel became a man in the person of Jesus. I find no evidence that HIS Mind changed in this transition, though there are "many" who come in Him Name, who preach that it did.

Since I am a man, a purchased possession that was told both to "Put this mind in you that was in Christ Jesus", and also "To walk, even as HE walked", and also was told by this same Christ that HE was "Lord of the Sabbath" and that this same Sabbath was made for me, it's a no brainer for me.

I believe it's a Sin to dishonor the Christ by rejecting the Sabbath Fast from this world that HE created for me. And why would I do such a thing anyway? Where would the idea come from, to single out one Commandment of 10, and reject it? Certainly not from any voice in Scriptures. For me it's like with Eve. Where would she even get the idea to reject God's instruction, if not from another religious voice, who quotes some of God's Word. She would surely have been better off just listening to God. I have found that to be true in my life as well.

 

[grafted branch]

Not sure what you are talking about here. It's called the "Levitical Priesthood" "After the Order of Aaron". It is clear who could partake of the Priesthood in the Old Priesthood covenant.

I said different stipulations were put on Jews and Gentiles in Acts 15 and you asked me where it was written that God placed a difference between repentant Jews and Gentiles.

Now you state it’s clear who can partake of the priesthood in the old priesthood covenant. If a repentant Gentile couldn’t become a priest in the Levitical Priesthood then you should understand that different stipulations were put on people. So what am I missing here? Do you think there was a difference between Jew and Gentile or not?

If there was a difference in the old covenant then every time we read about this difference that means it’s the old covenant, and when we don’t see a difference between Jew and Gentile it’s new covenant. As I have been saying all along the old covenant didn’t vanish until 70AD while the new covenant arrived after Christ died.

Consider your own confusion here if I can be so bold to point it out. I posted IS. 56 as an example of how God placed no difference between the Jew and the Gentile who "Joined themselves to the Lord" in the Law and Prophets. And you implied it was the Old Covenant and therefore not valid.

But now you are saying that in the Old Covenant God "DID" make a difference between a Jew and the Gentile who "Joined themselves to the Lord".

So I would humbly ask, which one of your opposing statements is true, and which one is false. They can't both be true can they?

What I was referring to in regards to Isaiah 56 is that it matters what covenant is in view. I thought you were saying it’s the old covenant and that there is no difference in the old covenant between Jew and Gentile.

I think Isaiah 56 is referring to the new covenant where there is no difference between Jew and Gentile.

I’m not sure where I gave the impression that Isaiah 56 is invalid, I did say or at least implied that Galatians 5:14 was invalid in its ability to fulfill the law under the old covenant and it couldn’t satisfy the demands of those in Moses seat in Matthew 23. I doesn’t make sense why anyone would bear heavy burdens, grievous to be borne if all they had to do is love thy neighbor as thy self.

 

[Studyman]

I said different stipulations were put on Jews and Gentiles in Acts 15 and you asked me where it was written that God placed a difference between repentant Jews and Gentiles.

Now you state it’s clear who can partake of the priesthood in the old priesthood covenant. If a repentant Gentile couldn’t become a priest in the Levitical Priesthood then you should understand that different stipulations were put on people. So what am I missing here? Do you think there was a difference between Jew and Gentile or not?

You are missing a lot. A repentant Reubenite couldn't partake of the Priesthood either. A repentant Zebulunite couldn't partake of the Priesthood either. Or a Josephite! Or Ephriamite. They were all Jews in the context we are talking about, YES? (Israelites) So where it is written that God placed a difference between repentant Jews, and repentant Gentiles? They would both be subject to the same Priesthood of God.

How is this not true?

If there was a difference in the old covenant then every time we read about this difference that means it’s the old covenant, and when we don’t see a difference between Jew and Gentile it’s new covenant. As I have been saying all along the old covenant didn’t vanish until 70AD while the new covenant arrived after Christ died.

That is what you teach. That isn't what the Holy scriptures teach. I am speaking to the Holy Scriptures. Jesus was God's Priest, forgiving men their sins, healing lepers etc, quite awhile before HE was murdered. How many times did HE sprinkle the Blood of a goat on the alter to forgive sins? Was HE not Peter's High Priest? I would say the Old Priesthood Covenant was on its way out the moment Jesus came up out of the water, being washed by a True Levite Priest.

Where do you get this "70 AD" preaching from? They tried to destroy the Temple of God in Christ's Life time.

John 2: 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

What I was referring to in regards to Isaiah 56 is that it matters what covenant is in view. I thought you were saying it’s the old covenant and that there is no difference in the old covenant between Jew and Gentile.

There isn't, Rahab was subject to the Same Priesthood that Joshua, the Ephraimite was subject to. This is simply Biblical Fact.

In Is. 56: 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Who was to accept these Sacrifices from these repentant, obedient Gentiles in the Old Covenant? Was it not the SAME Priesthood that was to accept the Sacrifices of the Repentant Jew? And who is to accept the Sacrifices of the repentant, obedient Gentile today? Is it not the Same Priesthood that accepts the Sacrifices of the Repentant, obedient Jew?

So as the Scriptures teach, God showed no difference between the repentant Jew and the repentant Gentiles ever. The Pharisees created the "Wall of Separation", not God. And it is the religions of this world that continue to promote the lie that God Judged men according to the DNA they were born with, even today. Jesus even exposes this, but "many" who come in Christ's Name, do not believe Him.

John 2: 25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;

26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. 27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.

I know we have been taught these things about God's New Covenant by this world's religions since our youth. But look at what is actually written, I think you might see a different truth.

I think Isaiah 56 is referring to the new covenant where there is no difference between Jew and Gentile.

I'm hoping you might consider what is actually written here, and learn what it means "A little leaven leavens the whole lump". God is not a respecter of persons, not now, and not then. Both repentant Jews and repentant Gentiles were under the same Priesthood then, and they are both under the same Priesthood now. Because God is no respecter of persons.

Rom. 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

As it is written : "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, (First) and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

I’m not sure where I gave the impression that Isaiah 56 is invalid, I did say or at least implied that Galatians 5:14 was invalid in its ability to fulfill the law under the old covenant and it couldn’t satisfy the demands of those in Moses seat in Matthew 23. I doesn’t make sense why anyone would bear heavy burdens, grievous to be borne if all they had to do is love thy neighbor as thy self.

The heavy burden, and Yoke the fathers couldn't bear, is Sin and deception. Deception by definition means in Scripture to "Believing things about God that are not true".

Your belief that all that is required for you to do to inherit eternal life is to share man's love with your neighbor is seductive no doubt, and certainly popular, but not true according to Scriptures. Some of which I posted, but you didn't acknowledge. You also have been convinced that God treated men differently according to the DNA they were born with in the Law and Prophets. This too, though popular, is a falsehood, according to the Christ of the Bible.

I'm hoping you might consider that man's love is carnal and means nothing. It is God's Love that HE gave to Israel, that was to be shared with the Stranger that sojourns among them.

Without God's Love, we are dead in trespasses and sins. Our love is filthy rag.

I appreciate that you are willing to have a discussion, and I think these are good for men to have. The powers and principalities of this world is a powerful source, and the religious traditions and philosophies are such that God Himself gave us armor to protect us from them. I hope you might think about what the Scriptures say here.

Thanks for the opportunity to share my understanding.

 

[grafted branch]

I appreciate that you are willing to have a discussion, and I think these are good for men to have. The powers and principalities of this world is a powerful source, and the religious traditions and philosophies are such that God Himself gave us armor to protect us from them. I hope you might think about what the Scriptures say here.

Thanks for the opportunity to share my understanding.

Ok, I can see we are coming to an end of a good conversation. We don’t agree on several things, and I’m ok with that. I did read through all of your posts, I started to write rebuttals on things I disagreed with one by one several posts back but when a post gets too lengthy I think it loses many viewers, so I cut it short.

To stay with this one point on the difference between Jew and Gentile, I agree that everyone was and will be saved through faith by the blood of the Lamb.

My conclusion is that you need the Acts 15 rules put on the Gentiles to be equal to the rules for the Jews in order for your view to work.

The bottom line for me is that I can’t see that, I’m not saying I’m 100% correct but it’s extremely tough for me to believe Acts 21:25 as touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded they observe no such thing, save only … = as touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded they observe all the same things…

 

[ozso]

BobRyan said:

1. Taking God's name in vain is just one of many forms of blasphemy as I already pointed out in the case of Christ's own accusers who never argue that Christ "Took God's name in vain" but did argue that He blasphemed. Jesus also accused his enemies of blasphemy in Matt 12 but did not say that they "took God's name in vain" as the way they did it.

that has not changed.

2. In addition we can see that "Do not take God's name in vain" is never quoted at all in the NT -- by contrast we see quotes from the Sabbath commandment Ex 20:8-11 in a number of different places in the NT and it can be proven in Rev 14:7 and also the book of Acts and the book of Hebrews..

No doubt but the point remains that it is a commandment never quoted in the NT. In fact it is the only one of the TEN from which nothing is quoted in the NT.

My argument is not FOR taking God's name in vain.. rather my argument is AGAINST making up ad hoc rules for deleting one of the Commandments of God because "it is not quoted in the NT". (for example).

You may have seen that done a time or two

Your rebuttal to the fact that Christians keeping the seven day sabbath is never covered in the NT, is that not taking God's name in vain isn't covered either. However not taking God name in vain is covered in Colossians 3:8 because in it Paul says to put off all blasphemy which covers not taking God's name in vain. You saying it's not quoted even though it's clearly covered, is grasping at straws.

False accusations like that are easy enough for any of us to post - but I am more interested in facts than name-calling or pejoratives.

False accusations like that are easy enough for any of us to post - but I am more interested in facts than name-calling or pejoratives.

Neither of those statements involved name calling. One was an observation, the other was an observable fact. Just because it stings, doesn't mean name calling was involved.

The fact that Methodists "are not Baptists" is not the same thing as the wild accusation that Methodists "reject Baptists". You need an actual Bible argument. Think sola scriptura... think "exegesis".. make an actual Bible point.

But it is a fact that both Baptists and Methodists along with practically all of Christianity rejects the doctrine of sabbatarianism ie Christians are commanded by God to keep the seventh day sabbath.

And try to do it without breaking CF forum rules.

You should wait for that to actually happen before bringing it up.

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19

You don't seem to be aware of the number of denominations that affirm the Westminster Confession of faith.

Baptists, Congregationalists, the Reformed and Presbyterians

you also don't seem to understand how many Baptist groups there are

like most Christian groups in the 1800's and early 1900's.

It doesn't matter because it's irrelevant to seventh day sabbath keeping. It makes no sense whatsoever to use first day sabbath keeping to back up SDA et al claims that Christians are commanded by God to keep the seventh day sabbath. Since SDA doctrine says that first day sabbath keeping is wilful disobedience to God, and keeping the traditions of man instead of keeping the commandments of God. It belays the whole point of being a Seventh Day Adventist. If you're going to include first day sabbath keepers then you end up with "Seventh And First Day Adventist".

You have drifted very far from your prior "just SDAs"

How does "SDA et al" mean "just SDAs"? The "et al" is an abbreviation of the Latin term “et alia,” which means “and others”.

They all affirm the TEN and they all affirm the Sabbath Commandment - only for a lot of them it is "edited" to point to week-day-1.

First day sabbath keeping is what Seventh Day Adventism is supposed to be against, so it's laughable to see the two lumped together.

 

[trophy33]

There is indeed figurative speech in prophecies throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. It doesn't logically follow that Isaiah 66:22-23 is therefore figurative.
There were indeed many Christ-centered prophecies in the New Testament, especially in Matthew. But it doesn't logically follow that Isaiah 66:22-23 is therefore figurative.

Why does it not logically follow? And why should we work with prophecies differently than apostles?

Yes, new moons and Sabbaths were shadows but Bible prophecy reveals they will be used during the Millennium. Why? I don't know because the scripture doesn't tell us why. Nevertheless, Isaiah 66:22-23 reveals they will once again be used.

No, you only interpret it in this way, its not something "Bible reveals". Isaiah says nothing about any millennium. He mentions only new heavens and earth (verse 22). New heavens and earth is a figurative speech of a profound shift - this happened in the first century (thats why we call it "the first century").

One of the top rules of interpreting the Bible is if a passage in context makes sense, then it is better to translate it literally.

What does translation has to do with it? There is no rule (not to say a "top rule") regarding literal interpretation of OT prophecies, though. The opposite is true, because thats what Jesus and apostles did.

 

[Aussie Pete]

What are the weightier matters of the Law written on our hearts today, that we are not doing?
There is a lot being done and even more can be done to help the needy, but if do all this and we do not help them to make the choice to humbly accept God's love as pure undeserved charity are we Loving them?

There are two laws, or perhaps more accurately, principles to follow. They are "love God" and "love your neighbour as yourself". Professor James Tour puts it this way (he's a Jew who follows Jesus). You can live by countless rules that constrict, restrict and govern every activity. Or you can set a boundary and live freely and securely within it. Rules based Christianity is a life of bondage. You are always in fear of breaking a rule and so little gets done. Doing nothing keeps us out of trouble, except it is offensive to God. If love rules us, we will not steal, we will not commit adultery, we will put God first and we will be a blessing to the brethren.

 

[Studyman]

Ok, I can see we are coming to an end of a good conversation.
We don’t agree on several things, and I’m ok with that.

I did read through all of your posts, I started to write rebuttals on things I disagreed with one by one several posts back but when a post gets too lengthy I think it loses many viewers, so I cut it short.

To stay with this one point on the difference between Jew and Gentile, I agree that everyone was and will be saved through faith by the blood of the Lamb.

My conclusion is that you need the Acts 15 rules put on the Gentiles to be equal to the rules for the Jews in order for your view to work.

If you mean that I am not willing to reject, ignore or otherwise "OMIT" all the Scriptures I posted, most of which you refused to even acknowledge much less discuss, just to prop up a religious philosophy that can't stand if they are believed?

Then yes, Acts 15 was not meant to be separated from the entire rest of the Bible, and used to demean God and accuse Him of placing a Yoke on the necks of Abraham's Children that they couldn't bear, in my view.

The bottom line for me is that I can’t see that, I’m not saying I’m 100% correct but it’s extremely tough for me to believe Acts 21:25 as touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded they observe no such thing, save only … = as touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded they observe all the same things…

Acts 21 is the same thing for you. Because you don't believe Jesus when HE told you about the mainstream religion of His Time;

Mark 7: 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

And again;

John 5: 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

And again;

Matt. 23: 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

And the Law and Prophets are full of the Same Truths about the Religious leadership of the Jews.

Jer. 23: 16 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD. 17 They say still unto them that despise me, The LORD hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, "No evil shall come upon you."

I could go on and on and on because this Truth is written over and over and over and over, because God wanted me to know that the Pharisees and Scribes in Jerusalem "WERE NOT PROMOTING HIS LAWS".

Now here you are I are, in a world God placed us in, filled with "many" religious sects and businesses who come in Christ's Name, who call the Christ Lord, Lord, but preach to the world that all the sudden, somehow between Acts 7 when these Same Pharisees stoned innocent Stephen to death and Acts 15, these Pharisees suddenly, contrary to all that was written about them in the entire Bible, started promoting God's Commandments onto others. It's absurd, and yet, it's the religious philosophy you have adopted and are not promoting to others.

Now why would a man reject everything Jesus said about the Pharisees religion, everything written in the Law and Prophets, just to support the religious philosophies of "Many" who come in Christ's name, that Jesus specifically said to take heed of in Matt. 24:4&5? That is a question you should truly ponder, in your closet, just you and God and His Word.

To be clear, I am advocating for belief in the Holy Scriptures. Even when it comes to Acts 15.

As for Acts 21, were there "believers" there in the temple that had made a vow to God? What did the Apostles tell Paul to do?

23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

Is this not God's Commandment?

Deut. 23: 21 When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee.

Did the Apostles command the Gentiles to take a Vow?

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Did God's Law require that everyone to take a Vow?

Duet 23:22 But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee.

Why would the Apostles command that the Gentiles to partake of this Vow? That would be a Sin for them to command the Gentiles to make a vow. Jesus even said it was better "NOT" to Vow.

So again, you are convinced to use Acts as justification for a religion that preaches the Apostles taught against God's Law. The Pharisees were telling others the same thing in Acts 21. So you and the Pharisees are accusing the Apostles of teaching against God's Laws. And what is Paul's answer to you and them?

Acts 24: 10 Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself:

11 Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship.

12 And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city:

13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.

14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.

Like you are, I was once snared by the religions of this world to do their bidding and promote their doctrines. There is a cost, but I advocate for repentance, and turning to the God of the Bible that Jesus said was Eternal Life to know.

Or not! It's a choice all men are required to make since before Abraham was asked to leave the religions of the world he was born into and follow God.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

Why does it not logically follow? And why should we work with prophecies differently than apostles?

Because there is no reason, grammatically or doctrinaly, to interpret it in a figurative manner. Of course if you need a figurative interpetation to protect some doctrine and belief you may have, then by all means interpret it figuratively. The apostles came centuries later and were not concerned with observing the new moons and the sabbaths in the Millennium. They never discussed Isaiah 66:22-23 in the entire New Testament. We should work with what we got, and just because the apostles interpreted things that were not connected to Isaiah 66 does not mean we should follow their interpretations when it comes to Isaiah 66 because they NEVER discussed it. Now, if they had interpreted Isaiah 66 in a certain manner I would be glad to follow suit.

No, you only interpret it in this way, its not something "Bible reveals". Isaiah says nothing about any millennium. He mentions only new heavens and earth (verse 22). New heavens and earth is a figurative speech of a profound shift - this happened in the first century (thats why we call it "the first century").

The incident mentioned in Isaiah 66 happens while God is on his throne in Jerusalem and all mankind comes to him on the new moons and sabbaths. Tell me, if this is not during the Millennium when does this happen? You can't prove it is figurative so you just claim it is not in the Millennium but where is your proof? When do you believe this takes place? You claim the new heavens and the new earth is figurative. Please provide some proof for that. The first century was not even called the first century five hundred years after Christ was born. And it was centered around the birth of Christ. That's why we call it the first century.

Now You Know: When Did People Start Saying That the Year Was ‘A.D.’?

The terms weren't introduced at the same time—A.D. came before B.C.—and each took hundreds of years to catch on

time.com

Please read the above article from Time magazine and search other articles on Google that explain how the first century CE came into being. Isaiah 66 has not happened yet. You want to interpret Isaiah 66 figuratively because if you interpreted it literally it would hurt your case that the new moons and the sabbaths have been abolished forever.

What does translation has to do with it? There is no rule (not to say a "top rule") regarding literal interpretation of OT prophecies, though. The opposite is true, because thats what Jesus and apostles did.

Not all prophecies are literal. I have already gone on record with that comment. But neither are ALL prophecies figurative. Matthew makes use of prophecies frequently throughout his gospel and some of them he interprets figuratively. That doesn't mean Isaiah 66 should be translated figuratively to avoid the conclusion that the new moons and the new earth will once again be observed in the Millennium. The observance of the new moons and the sabbaths in the Millennium no where contradicts the New Testament. It supplements it. Paul told Timothy that all Scripture is inspired of God and the only Scriptures extant at the time of Paul was the Hebrew Scriptures. Notice this comment from Paul:

16 All Scripture is [a]inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for [b]training in righteousness; (2 Timothy 3:16, NASB 1995 edition).

Paul seemed to have a high view of scripture. You don't translate a scripture figuratively just because you don't like what the implications are if you interpret it literally. Remember, one of the first view of interpreting ancient literature (hermeneutics) is if the passage makes sense in context, then translate it literally, and if doesn't, try to find some other translation that does not contradict scripture elsewhere. If that option can be sustained, then you will be well off. But, if the alternative translation contradicts the Bible elsewhere then you have a problem and the atheists and skeptics and critics will probably be quick to point it out to you.

 

[trophy33]

Because there is no reason, grammatically or doctrinaly, to interpret it in a figurative manner.

I gave you three, you gave none.

The incident mentioned in Isaiah 66 happens while God is on his throne in Jerusalem and all mankind comes to him on the new moons and sabbaths. Tell me, if this is not during the Millennium when does this happen? You can't prove it is figurative so you just claim it is not in the Millennium but where is your proof? When do you believe this takes place?

I already gave you a general interpretation what the prophecy is about and that it happened in the 1st century, so I am not sure why you ask about it again.