• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured The Law of Moses Has Not Been Abolished

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by cgaviria, Apr 30, 2017.

  1. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    The key issue here is that we need to correctly understand which law Paul was talking about. In Acts 15:1, they were discussing a law that contains the requirement for all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved. If the Mosaic Law contains this requirement, then we should be able to find it, but I can assure you that it is not there, and if it wasn't required by God, then it was a man-made requirement. While God's Law does require circumcision as a sign of the Abrahamic covenant, it does not even require Jews to become circumcised for the purpose of becoming saved. In fact, God did not require obedience to any of the Mosaic Law for the purpose of becoming saved or in order to establish our own righteousness, but rather one and only way that there has ever been to become saved is by faith, and by the same faith we are required to be careful to live in obedience to all of God's Laws. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faith are weightier matters of the Law, and obedience to it is straightforwardly about faith in God that his commands are for our own good, to prosper us, and to guide us in how to rightly live in accordance with God's attributes, to reflect to the world His justice, mercy, faithfulness, holiness, righteousness, goodness, and other fruits of the Spirit. Paul also said that our faith upholds God's Law (Romans 3:31) and that he delighted in obeying it, which accordance with the extremely high praise for God's Law found throughout the Psalms, yet in Galatians Paul spoke of works of another law that were not of faith in God, primarily because they were the laws and traditions of men.

    In Matthew 15:2-3, Jesus was asked why his disciples broke the traditions of the elders and he responded by asking them why they broke the command of God for the sake of their tradition. He also said that for the sake of their tradition they made void the Word of God (Matthew 15:6), that they worshiped God in vain because they taught as doctrines the commands of men (Matthew 15:8-9), and that they were hypocrites because they set aside the commands of God for the sake of their tradition (Mark 7:6-9). In Matthew 23:2-4, Jesus was not criticizing the Pharisees for teach the people to do what God had commanded them to do, but rather he was referring to their many oral laws and traditions as placing a heavy burden on the people, so the oral laws and traditions were a major source of conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, and this conflict continued between the followers of Jesus and the Pharisees, which came to a head in Acts 15 and Galatians.

    This verses describe what our salvation looks like and what Jesus gave himself to accomplish:

    For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

    The Mosaic Law was given to instruct us how to do the same things that these verses list, so in other words, our salvation involves being trained by grace to obey God's Law, and indeed according to Psalms 119:29, David wanted to put false aways far from him asked God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His Law. Christ gave himself to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are zealous for doing the good works that God's Law instructs (Acts 21:20), so to undo what God accomplished would be to teach against obeying God's Law and say that we can return to the Lawlessness that we were redeemed from.

    Again, Paul continued to make offerings in Acts 18:18 and Acts 21:20-24, so those offerings did not count the blood of God's only Son as unholy, but just the opposite.

    Indeed, we are to be a house of prayer for all nations, but that is quoted from a conditional statement:

    Isaiah 56:6-7 And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant— 7 these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.”

    We can not join ourselves to the Lord, minister to Him, love the name of the Lord, and be His servants by rejecting His ways, but by walking in them. God bringing us to His holy mountain and making us joyful in His house of prayer is based on theses conditions and that we keep the Sabbath and do not profane it.
  2. Strong in Him

    Strong in Him I can do all things through Christ Supporter

    United Kingdom
    Abstaining from certain foods, wearing clothes of only one fibre, not marrying foreigners etc was nothing to do with God's righteousness. It was to show that the Hebrew people were holy - which means "set apart", different - and dedicated to a Holy God.

    God's character doesn't change; his nature cannot be affected, or changed, by food that we eat.

    Paul says that the only reason we can become righteous and have God's righteousness is because Jesus, the spotless Lamb of God, was made sin for us.
    We are made righteous in God's eyes by accepting Jesus, living in him. Our deeds do not make us righteous - Scripture says that our good deeds are like filthy rags. But if they could, if the things that we did affected our righteousness before God; Jesus, who was God, came to show us what he is like, and I'd look to him as my example, and for teaching in how to live, and not the Jewish law.

    Jesus is the light of the world.


    I am following Jesus.

    He did not teach me that I have to abstain from pork, however; he said that nothing that goes into a person's mouth makes them unclean.
    He has said nothing at all about what my clothes should be made from.
    He has never said that I am unclean at certain times of the month.
    He summed up the 10 commandments into 2 - love God and love your neighbour, which I try to do - to live, and love, as he did. but he did not say "you have to obey the other 600+ laws given to the Jews."

    I know. I realise that and agree. Jesus did not sin at all.
    My only reason for saying that is that people here have said that the law = everything in the Torah. Leviticus teaches that certain hygiene laws have to be observed; there is no evidence that Jesus followed all of these to the letter, in fact sometimes, he didn't. Because his love, concern and compassion for people was far greater

    So you would say, for example, that God's teaching about stoning to death someone who does not keep the Sabbath, is still his word?
    God also taught that if a woman committed adultery, she should be put to death, Leviticus 20:10. On one occasion, this is what the leaders tried to do, John 8; yet Jesus stopped them. My feeling is that Jesus was absolutely right to stop them, to show compassion and forgiveness and tell her not to sin again - but that's not what the law said.

    I know.
    But some people have said that following Jesus means we should seek to follow everything that he did, which is the justification for keeping the law. I was just questioning how far that take that view.

    It wouldn't be possible for me to literally copy everything Jesus did and the way he lived; he was a circumcised, Jewish man and I am a Christian, western woman. But that doesn't mean that I can't follow him.

    "Fulfil" means to carry out, or complete"

    verb (used with object)
    1. to carry out, or bring to realization, as a prophecy or promise.
    2. to perform or do, as duty; obey or follow, as commands.
    3. to satisfy (requirements, obligations, etc.):
    a book that fulfills a long-felt need.
    4. to bring to an end; finish or complete, as a period of time:
    He felt that life was over when one had fulfilled his threescore yearsand ten.
    5. to develop the full potential of (usually used reflexively):

    The law said that sacrifices should be offered for sin - usually a male that was spotless and without defect. Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, John 1:29; the spotless lamb chosen from the beginning of the world, 1 Peter 1:19-20, and one who offered his life as a ransom for many, Mark 10:45.
    So Jesus fulfilled that law.
    The law - 10 commandments - said that we should honour God, put him first and show this by not doing certain things, (like worshipping idols). It also said that we should love our neighbour and treat them in certain ways and with respect. Jesus said that there are 2 commandments; love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, (which is seen in the first 4 commandments), and secondly, love your neighbour as yourself, (which is seen in the last 6.)
    So Jesus fulfilled that law.

    God didn't say, nor dd Jesus teach, that he would write the Mosaic law on our hearts.

    Jesus is not the same as the Mosaic law;
    a) because "the Mosaic law" includes teachings such as "put to death a woman who commits adultery", "stone to death anyone who does not keep the Sabbath." Jesus did not teach, and certainly did not practice, that.
    b) Hebrews says that Jesus is greater than Moses
    c) Hebrews says that the law was only a shadow of the things that were to come.
    d) Jesus said that he had come to fulfill the law - why would he have said that if he is the same as the law?

    Jesus is the Word of God; his final word.
    As the writer of Hebrews says, in the past God spoke through the prophets; in recent days he has spoken through his Son, Hebrews 1:1.

    1. I have not said that Jesus came to free us from the law.
    2. Exactly. As I have said, the position of some is "the law has not been abolished/is not dead" with the implication - so why don't you keep it then?
    My position is that the law is not abolished because that's not what Jesus came to do. He has fulfilled their law for the Jews, and Gentiles were never under it in the first place.

    Bottom line; Jewish law has been fulfilled, but that doesn't affect me as I am not Jewish.

    No, Jesus came to save us from the effects of sin, which was around long before the Mosaic law was given. The wages of sin is death, Romans 3:23, which is spiritual death; separation from God. When Adam and Eve sinned, they DID die - spiritually. Their relationship with God was broken, they ran away and hid, they were ashamed because they were naked, they were punished by God and driven out of the Garden - paradise.
    Because Jesus died, we can receive God's forgiveness and reconciliation with him. So when WE die, we will continue to be with him and in his presence.

    He didn't say that; he didn't say "teach others to obey everything that I have said, which includes everything Moses commanded."
    As I have said, Jesus did not teach that it was permissible to kill someone who had been caught committing adultery; Moses did.
  3. Davena

    Davena New Member


    None of the law is abolished. Parts of the law have been suspended, parts transferred to another people (the apostles and their offspring who keep the commandments), parts can’t be kept because we aren’t in the Land, or temple removed, parts are still enforce – and none of these law include the Rabbinic, man-made, Pharasitical laws.

    However, regarding your question which you keep repeating hasn’t been answered (Your question: Where does it say that Christ said gentiles had to keep Jewish law?). It has been answered – multiple times. You just refuse to see. You have been given the answer from Soyeong and B-man and Sparrow, the OP and others. I have listed enough verses where Christ (Yahshua) has Himself answered this question.

    1. Christ said that He only did what the Heavenly Father did and taught what His Father taught Him. And what did the Father give/teach? – His Law. Yahshua is certainly not teaching in opposition to His Father’s Law who said on the mountain, “This is My beloved Son, listen to Him.” Or at His baptism, “This is My beloved Son in whom I Am well Pleased.” What pleased the Father? Obedience rather than sacrifice. Obedience to what? His own Law, God’s Law. The Father’s law is Christ’s law; Christ’s law if the Heavenly Father’s law. If Christ was teaching Galilean men how to keep His Father’s laws (as all the below verses say), then what were they going to teach the gentiles to whom they were sent in the Great Commission? – God’s laws, the same ones Christ explained fully to them.

    a. John 5:30 As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

    b. Joh 8:28 Jesus therefore said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [He,] and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me. 29 "And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him."

    c. Joh 12:48 "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. 49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me commandment, what to say, and what to speak. 50 "And I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me."

    d. Joh 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11 "Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; otherwise believe on account of the works themselves.

    e. Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him. 24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.

    f. Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

    2. You said in an earlier post that Paul cast down the ‘food sacrificed to idols’ ruling, mentioned in Acts 15. You have said repeatedly that gentiles don’t have to keep the law. If this is true then why does Christ Himself in Revelation convict a gentile Church (Pergamum) who is guilty of this same Old Testament sin (Ex 34: 13-15), threatening to take away their candlestick because of this violation? Since I doubt Paul is wrong, you must be misunderstanding what Paul is saying.

    a. Re 2:14 'But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit [acts of] immorality.

    b. 1 Corinthians 10:19-21 What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

    c. On top of that Paul wrote in 2Ti 3:14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned [them]; 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. In his childhood, Timothy would have learned the OT (as the sacred writings). Notice that Paul says the sacred writings lead to salvation through faith in Christ.

    Also, Timothy’s non-circumcision is evidence that his father and mother followed non-believing gentile customs, which his grandmother opposed with her OT scriptural teachings. This made Timothy basically a gentile, if you follow lineage through the father as most of the scriptures do.

    d. 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. What is the scripture that Paul is talking about? The only scripture they had at this time was the OT, which is the very thing Paul references in 2Ti 3:14 (sacred writings). The law and the prophets are the very thing that leads to salvation by pointing to Christ.

    e. If your interpretation is true then why do the Apostles, including Paul agree that the gentiles should go to the Synagogue from Sabbath to Sabbath to learn the law of Moses? Why do they place on them Old Testament laws, which they are required to abide by, in order to eat with Peter, Barnabas? Ac 15:19 "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."

    3. Many times, I have listed multiple verses where Paul uses God’s law to judge (they are not exhaustive, but there are enough, that along with the above, you should question your interpretation). If you were arrested and the judge began using Sharia law to list your charges and then your sentence, you would know that the law he was using was Muslim. By the same logic, if you see Paul using God’s law to charge or judge, He must be using God’s law – which makes it clear it isn’t abolished. (and not just the 10 commandments.)

    a. Paul judged using OT incest laws (1 Cor 5:1; Lev 18

    b. Muzzle the ox laws (1 Cor 9:9; De 25:4)

    c. Homosexuality laws (Rom 1:26; Lev 18)

    d. Divorce laws (1 Cor 7:11; Mt 19:9; De 24:1)

    e. Paul judged himself regarding submission to ecclesiastical authority (Act 23:5; Ex 22:28)

    f. Paul defended not eating food sacrificed to idols. (1 Cor 10:19-21; Ex 34: 13-15)

    4. Finally, you have stated that there was no law before Moses. A list of many laws from Genesis was posted, but not replied to, some of which were sacrificial laws.

    a. The first sacrificial offerings – Abel’s righteous offering is the firstling of the flock; Cain’s offering that gets no regard is him not giving the first fruits of the ground (Ex. 34:22-24) If there were no laws, why did God have no regard for Cain’s offering? How could Cain have known what to offer that was righteous?

    Ge 4:3 So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. 4 And Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; 5 but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard.

    b. Sacrificial laws – Clean animals for sacrifice (Lev. 11:46-47). How in the world did Noah know what a clean animal was?

    Ge 7:2 "You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3 also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth.

    c. Sacrificial laws – Clean animals for sacrifice (Lev. 11:46:47). Even if he guessed what a clean animal was, how did he know that this was the animal he was supposed to sacrifice? He could have sacrificed a dog or a pig.

    Ge 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

    d. Blood law – Do not eat the blood (Lev. 17:10-11). This is an important law for God. He mentions it several times, sometimes out of the blue.

    Ge 9:4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, [that is,] its blood.

    e. The first tithes – Abram gives portion of war booty and Jacob promises a tithe. (De. 14:22)

    Ge 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High. 19 And he blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; 20 And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand." And he (Abram) gave him a tenth of all.

    Ge 28:20 Then Jacob made a vow, saying, "If God will be with me and will keep me on this journey that I take, and will give me food to eat and garments to wear, 21 and I return to my father's house in safety, then the LORD will be my God. 22 "And this stone, which I have set up as a pillar, will be God's house; and of all that Thou dost give me I will surely give a tenth to Thee."

    f. Commandments, Statutes and Laws – Before they were given to Moses. What commandments, statutes and laws did Abraham have and keep that cause his descendants to be blessed?

    Ge 26:4 "And I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws."

    g. You shall have One God; Ex. 20:2 – And purification from uncleanness; Num 19:20. How exactly do they go about purifying themselves without instruction from the God they are trying to please?

    Ge 35:2 So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, "Put away the foreign gods which are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments; 3 and let us arise and go up to Bethel; and I will make an altar there to God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and has been with me wherever I have gone." 4 So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods which they had, and the rings which were in their ears

    h. Levirate laws – Keeping a man’s family name alive (De 25:5-6). How does Tamar know that this is the righteous thing to do? If the levirate law did not exist how did Judah declare Tamar's actions righteous?

    Ge 38:6 Now Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name [was] Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah's first-born, was evil in the sight of the LORD, so the LORD took his life. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." 9 And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came about that when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother. 10 But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also. 11 Then Judah said to his daughter-in-law Tamar, "Remain a widow in your father's house until my son Shelah grows up"; for he thought, "[I am afraid] that he too may die like his brothers." So Tamar went and lived in her father's house.

    Ge 38:24 Now it was about three months later that Judah was informed, "Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot, and behold, she is also with child by harlotry." Then Judah said, "Bring her out and let her be burned!" 25 It was while she was being brought out that she sent to her father-in-law, saying, "I am with child by the man to whom these things belong." And she said, "Please examine and see, whose signet ring and cords and staff are these?" 26 And Judah recognized [them,] and said, "She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah." And he did not have relations with her again.

    Between this post and the dozens of others on this issue, this subject matter has been thoroughly explained. Christ’s law is God’s law. Christ’s law has been in existence since Adam. Christ taught what His Father taught Him – God’s law. Christ taught, lived, and was an example to those who wish to be His disciples to follow His example and walk as He walked. This includes gentiles who hope to attach themselves to the rich olive root (Rom 11:17). Therefore, gentiles live by the rules of the olive tree; gentiles aren’t a new tree. Gentiles are just grafted-in branches that have been given the awesome responsibility of carrying the message of Christ’s good news (repent, put away sin, join His team that defeats the ways of the Devil [1John 3:8]) and to maintain the oracles of God (God’s law explained by Christ).
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  4. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter


    According to my position the words you say are not wrong but the context you use is wrong which results in a wrong meaning.

    Mat. 26:28, has a glass of wine representing the blood of Christ; Moses used the blood of a cow to represent Christ blood. Jesus is the lamb of God since the foundation; all the Lambs killed were substitutes or surrogates for Christ. So the new covenant was sealed with a glass of wine.

    The new covenant was made primarily with the Lost sheep of Israel, (lost in the sense that they had estranged themselves from God) later extended to Gentiles.

    The earthly Temple was replica of the Temple in heaven I believe and Gentiles tread the sanctuary under foot after it is destroyed (during the time of the new covenant.

    Jeremiah 31:31-34; at the time Jeremiah wrote that, Israel and Judah were in the doghouse, out of covenant with God; The Jews were given 490 years to:

    Daniel 9:24 (NKJV)

    24 "Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.

    Had the Jews succeeded they would not need a new covenant; in the beginning the new covenant was made with the Jews and then the lost sheep of Israel but not the Gentiles.
  5. Strong in Him

    Strong in Him I can do all things through Christ Supporter

    United Kingdom
    I know; I never said it had been.
    The law is still here. But for Jews, it has been fulfilled in Jesus, and Gentiles were never required to keep it anyway.

    No, it hasn't been answered, and I have explained why not.
    Clearly you think that the verses you have posted answer my question, but they don't.

    I've been given a number of random verses which I am told answer my question, but they don't. And I disagree with the interpretation given.
    I have already explained this, but will do so again.

    I am assuming here that by "law" we are talking about everything in the Torah - including all the food and hygiene laws - since I have already said that I fully accept the 10 commandments.

    In Mark 7 when the Pharisees complained to Jesus that his disciples were eating food with unclean hands, did Jesus say "thank you for telling me", rebuke his disciples, quote Leviticus to them and tell them to be sure to teach, and obey this law always? No. He called the Pharisees hypocrites, told the whole crowd that nothing that goes into a man's mouth can make him unclean and explained it to the disciples later. Mark adds the comment that in saying this, Jesus declared all foods to be clean.
    Declaring that food cannot make a person unclean, is NOT teaching, or upholding, the OT law, in Leviticus, which lists a lot of "unclean" animals. So Jesus DIDN'T teach that certain food is unclean.

    When Jesus was approached by a man with leprosy, did he say, "go away; you are unclean, should not be near me and I cannot touch you"? No; he touched him and healed him, Luke 5:13.
    When he was approached by the woman with the issue of blood, did he say, "go away; you are unclean and you are making other people unclean", quote the relevant verses from Leviticus and explain the law to her? No; he healed her and called her daughter, Luke 8:48. So Jesus did NOT teach the law that a woman is unclean when she is bleeding.

    When the Pharisees brought a woman before Jesus and said, "we caught her in the act of committing adultery, Moses commanded that we stone her"; did Jesus say, "you are quite right, the law must be upheld - go ahead"? No; he said "let the one who is without sin cast the first stone", John 8:7, and then snet her on her way. Jesus told her to sin no more, but he did not condemn her or allow her to be punished according to the law. So Jesus DIDN'T teach the law that says a woman should be put to death for committing adultery.

    What laws, then? Because I have just given 3 examples of OT laws written in the Torah which Jesus did not keep himself, never mind instruct others to teach.

    God said, "this is my Son, in whom I am well pleased". Of course he was pleased with Jesus, he was his SON who had been obedient to him, taken on flesh and been born as a human being and was about to go to Jerusalem and fulfil his Father's will - which was that he should die for the sins of the world. Jesus said, in John 10, that he had received a command from his Father to lay down his life for the sheep. The words "I desire obedience rather than sacrifice" were written to a rebellious nation of Israel who were breaking God's laws, and apparently believed it was ok to do so, as long as they kept offering the appropriate sacrifice. They were not written about Jesus - God had planned all along that Jesus lay down, or sacrifice, his life for the sheep. Jesus obeyed God by making that sacrifice.

    Yes, I know what these verses say.
    But you have not demonstrated that what the Father told Jesus to say was all the words of the Mosaic law. How many times did Jesus say, "you have heard it said ............. , but I say to you ..............?"
    Why would he say that if he was - essentially - teaching them to obey he Mosaic law, as written?

    As I have already said, this verse does not say "teach them to obey everything that Moses taught, and all the commands in the law".
    You have made a connection that's not there and concluded that this was what Jesus meant - but he didn't say it. And actually, why would he?
    Why would he have called disciples, taught them about the Kingdom of God, allowed them to drive out demons, showed them miracles, taught many things, like the sermon on the Mount, and that he was the Lamb of God, the Way to God, the light of the world etc etc, died on the cross and been raised again, and then said "Go into all nations and teach them everything Moses commanded you"?
    Why would he have told them to be HIS witnesses?
    Why would Peter have said, "we need to appoint someone who was a witness to Jesus", if what he really meant was "we need someone who thinks it important to obey the law"?
    Why was Paul persecuted by the Jews? He was a Pharisee, a "Hebrew of Hebrews", and in legalistic righteousness; faultless, Philippians 3:5-6. If anyone knew the law and knew how to keep it; it was Paul. Why didn't he just say, "there was someone who kept the law perfectly, and has taught us how to keep it all perfectly and be good little Jews; his name is Jesus"?

    No I haven't.

    I've said, repeatedly, that the 10 commandments were repeated, taught and upheld by Jesus in the NT, and that we need to obey them. Of course we do; Jesus told us to love God with ALL our heart, mind and so on, and love our neighbour as ourselves. If we blaspheme, worship idols (and Jesus said "you cannot serve God and money") and cheat and steal from our neighbours - how are we showing love to them and God?

    What I have said is that all the food and hygiene laws given at Sinai; laws about sacrifices, stoning people to death, not wearing clothes of certain fabrics etc etc were given specifically to the group of people that were rescued from Egypt by God. They were for THEM to show THEM how to live as God's holy people.
    I was not brought up a a Jew; Jesus is my Lord, tells and shows me how to live and makes me holy.

    How do you know you're not? It doesn't follow that if we disagree on a doctrine it must be me who has misunderstood.
    Revelation was the revelation given to John, not Paul.

    In 1 Corinthians 8:4 Paul has already said, "we know that an idol is nothing", and says that if they eat food sacrificed to one, it is permissible, UNLESS it hurts someone's faith. He also says that food does not bring us near to God and we are no worse, whether we eat or not, 1 Corinthians 8:8.
    If a person does not believe this, then they may be sacrificing to what they believe is another god. But there is no other God but the Lord - what they think is a god, therefore, may be a demon. And a Christian cannot serve two masters; we cannot walk in the light and still cling onto darkness.

    Of course the sacred writings - the OT, which was all they had - point to Jesus. The law and the prophets pointed to him and spoke of his coming, so Jews would recognise him when he came. So yes, the "sacred writings" gave Timothy, and others, the wisdom to see this and lead to their salvation.

    Timothy had a Greek father and Jewish mother. The Gospels trace genealogies through the male, but it was apparently in fact the woman who gave a person their Jewish identity. Timothy may not have been circumcised because his father was head of the household and didn't practice it.
    What does this prove?

    Yes, they do.
    But not all the intricate food and hygiene laws written in Leviticus. The instruction not to trim your beard, does not produce holiness nor point to Christ. Nor the command to stone people for breaking the Sabbath. Both of these, + others, are included in the "all Scripture" which you have heavily emphasised.

    No I haven't.
    Some posts have said that sin is lawlessness, and that without the law, there would be no sin.
    I said that people were sinning before the Mosaic law was given. See post #487 - Cain, the people of Noah's day etc did not have the Mosaic law; we aren't told they had any law - yet they still sinned.
    Sin was in the world before the Mosaic law was.

    No it hasn't. Certain verses have been put forward to "prove" certain points, but they don't.

    Just to make it absolutely clear, my position is;
    I am not Jewish and was never taken to Synagogue. I went to Sunday school at the age of 4 where I heard about OT stories, people who had great faith in God and Jesus, who was God. I heard about the things that Jesus taught, and did, why he came and who he was. I learned how to become a Christian - believe that he IS the only way to the Father and giver of eternal life; that, as he said, he came to give his life as a ransom for many and lay down his life for the sheep. At some point I said "yes", received the Lord and the Holy Spirit, read his word, pray and ask him to help me grow in faith.

    At no point has he, Christian clergy or any books I've read, said, "now that you believe, have eternal life and are a child of God, go and read the book of Leviticus, because there you will find instruction on how to live.
    Am I "under the law?" No. The Mosaic law, at Sinai, was given to the Hebrews who had been rescued from Egypt. THEY were told to teach the commands to their children, write them on their foreheads etc.
    The exception to that is the 10 commandments, which Jesus taught in the NT. These commandments tell us to love God and our neighbour and, as John says, these commandments are not burdensome because I have been born again - born of God - and have no desire to deliberately and wilfully break them and live in lawlessness. Jesus also taught many other things, but "go into the world and teach the law of Moses and food laws to all nations", was NOT one of them.

    As another poster has already pointed out, Gentiles were not under the law and under no obligation to keep it.
    So no; there is NO passage where Jesus says, "now that you have received eternal life, go and keep all the intricate food/hygiene/clothing laws". I suppose you could argue that being a perfect Jew means believing in Jesus the Messiah AND doing all these things. But Jesus didn't say so, and I'm nt a Jew.

    And if you're saying that if, after nearly 40 years as a Christian, knowing, loving, serving and walking with Jesus, being born again by, and filled with, his Spirit, and being a child of God, I need to abstain from pork in order to have fulness of life - I don't believe you and it's not going to happen.
  6. Strong in Him

    Strong in Him I can do all things through Christ Supporter

    United Kingdom
    No, it's sealed with the blood of Christ; the blood of the Messiah.

    In the OT, which is not wrong nor obsolete, it was the blood which was offered, and which atoned, for sins. Hebrews says, "the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness", Hebrews 9:22.
    Before the exodus. Moses was told that it was the blood of a lamb that would protect the Hebrews from the angel of death. If someone had said, "no, I'm not doing that" and not put the blood on their doorposts, they would have died; even if they were Hebrew.

    The NT says many times that it is through the blood of Christ that we have forgiveness, reconciliation with God and eternal life. If Jesus, the perfect, spotless Lamb of God, John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:19, had not laid down his life for his sheep, we would have none of those things and would be dead in our sins.

    Yes. Christianity has Jewish roots, and there is a verse which says "salvation is from the Jews." It is, because the Jews were chosen to be God's people and be ancestors to the Messiah.
    But even in the OT, the Jews are told to be a light to the Gentiles and other nations. And when Jesus came, he taught, and healed, Gentiles as well as Jews. In Romans Paul talks of branches that have been grafted onto the vine. Jesus is the vine, John 15, but in the OT, the nation of Israel were depicted as a vine.
  7. B_Man

    B_Man A Simple Man Moving Through Life

    United States
    I do not believe in apologetics, in any fashion. Yahshua taught that His sheep hear His voice (Joh 10:26-17) and follow Him. As believers, our task is to spread the word, and see who hears it with joy. In regard to changing your mind, there is little incentive to perpetuate in-depth scriptural explanations when the response is little more than finger pointing claims. However, in the interest of those who may begin reading this thread on page 27, I feel compelled to point out your flippant arguments for the dismissive comments they are. Read a few of your own quotes, listed below.

    Really? That's your response to Revelation 2:14? John is taken into Heaven in a vision, and given a message from Yahshua...for the CHURCH. I don't have a problem with you blowing off proof that the future church is going to be held accountable to 'Old Testament' law. That's your choice. But, I hope any future reader of this comment see the flimsiness of this comment.

    This conclusive analysis was in response to Yahshua teaching that the Pharisees were to keep EVERY portion of the law, everything from tithing mint and cumin, to the weightier provisions (Mt 23:23). And saying that the world will be convicted of sin (Joh 16:8).

    The very next verse provided to you by me was where Yahshua commanded His disciples to go and teach the NATIONS all that He commanded (Mt 28:19).

    To which your response is...

    Normally, I would take your hyper-specific reference to "teach OT law" as an example. Meaning, you want an example of when Yahshua taught His disciples laws in the Old Testament. However, seeing how literal you are when blowing off John in Revelation, and Yahshua in (Mt 28:19), I'm gonna have to assume you're being literal here as well. You will reject any verse demonstrating how Yahshua kept and taught the Law of YHVH, unless Yahshua starts with "Go and learn the Old Testament Law."

    If you're not being literal, then please, take your pick of verses demonstrating how Yahshua, John, James, Peter and Paul taught Old Testament law. This thread is drowning in examples from Davena, Soyeong, Sparrow, myself and others I don't recall.

    But, your response is always a variation of this...


    Your challenge is for us to prove that Yahshua commanded obedience to Old Testament law.

    [DEEDS] Yahshua was perfect and sinless (Heb 4:15).
    [WORDS] Yahshua only spoke the words of His Father (Joh 14:10).
    [COMMAND] Yahshua taught the Old Testament law (Mt 5:18 + Dozens more listed previously).
    [NATIONS] Yahshua commanded His disciples to teach ALL that He commanded them to the NATIONS (Mt 28:19).

    For added gravy, several people (Davena, Soyeong, Sparrow...) have exhaustively demonstrated where the apostles continued teaching this same message of Old Testament law. Paul is included in those many, many examples of teaching Old Testament law. Paul...darling of the frozen chosen movement!

    As for responding to your latest message concerning Yahshua being lawless, I suspect you'll be receiving a scriptural response entirely disproportionate to the amount of effort you put into your 'rebuttals'. But, for the sake of showing any future reader that there is a response, below is a brief number of 'random' (The word you used) verses that will hopefully answer the question for them.

    1. Adulterous Woman (Joh 8:7) - You claim Yahshua broke the law by not stoning her. It's best to read the law before declaring the Son of God broke it. The law states both parties must die. How is it justice for only the woman to die? Second, civil authority to execute an adulterer did not reside with Yahshua. In the same way that sacrifices cannot be offered without a temple, neither can the death penalty be applied without civil authority. When Yahshua's disciples attempted to seize the throne for Him (Civil authority), he refused (Joh 6:15). That was not His purpose in coming.

    Le 20:10
    'If [there is] a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 'If [there is] a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
    2. Leprous Man (Lu 5:12-13) - You claim that touching a leprous man is sin. Leprosy is not just a skin disease, like chicken pox...it is a sign of God's judgment on a person(Nu 12:10). Priests are the agents responsible for determining leprosy and the course of action to be taken. Priests are not made unclean. In the same way priests didn't break the law when sacrificing animals on the Sabbath (Mt 12:5). In Le 14:36, the priests empties out the house so that the articles may not be unclean, but then he himself enters the house, and renders his judgment. HE does not become unclean. In fact, the house itself does not become unclean until a priest declares it to be so.

    Le 14:36
    "The priest shall then order that they empty the house before the priest goes in to look at the mark, so that everything in the house need not become unclean; and afterward the priest shall go in to look at the house. 37 "So he shall look at the mark, and if the mark on the walls of the house has greenish or reddish depressions, and appears deeper than the surface; 38 then the priest shall come out of the house, to the doorway, and quarantine the house for seven days.

    Le 14:2 "This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing. Now he shall be brought to the priest, 3 and the priest shall go out to the outside of the camp. Thus the priest shall look, and if the infection of leprosy has been healed in the leper,​

    Le 13:50 "Then the priest shall look at the mark, and shall quarantine the article with the mark for seven days.​

    3. Bleeding Woman (Lu 8:48) - You claim the woman would have made Yahshua unclean, proving he didn't keep the law. However, just like the leprous man, priests are immune from uncleanness in such instances. You can see in Le 12:5 where the woman engages with the priest while still unclean. After the priest makes the offering, she is declared clean. A priest would be unable to function if he were to become unclean every time someone unclean came into contact with him, especially considering they were primarily dealing with unclean people.​

    Le 12:5 'But if she bears a female [child,] then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of [her] purification for sixty-six days. 6 'And when the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting, a one year old lamb for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. 7 'Then he shall offer it before YHVH and make atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears [a child, whether] a male or a female.​


    Your declaration is why this message is not being written to you. You made your choice, long before entering into this discussion, and I respect that God has given you the authority to make that choice. The children of Israel were given the same choice, oh so many years ago...

    Jos 24:15 "And if it is disagreeable in your sight to serve YHVH, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve YHVH."​
    Last edited: May 14, 2017
  8. B_Man

    B_Man A Simple Man Moving Through Life

    United States
  9. Strong in Him

    Strong in Him I can do all things through Christ Supporter

    United Kingdom
    Apologetics is about defending the faith; what would you say you are doing?

    I didn't enter this debate to change anyone's mind. I would hope that debate is about understanding someone else's beliefs/point of view, and not entered into with the attitude of needing to convert someone and make them share your beliefs.

    In your previous post you said that I was "choosing to ignore", now you are saying that I am "finger pointing" and being "flippant and dismissive". All of these are judgements. Again, I apologise if I haven't been clear in my responses, but to imply that people are writing the truth and that I am deliberately ignoring, or dismissing, it in favour of my own interpretations - is wrong. You do yourself no favours when you use such inflammatory words.

    No, that's my response to someone who quoted from Revelation and then said "as PAUL can't be wrong; you must be."I found it ironic that they were claiming that I must be wrong, when they themselves had made a mistake.

    If you want a serious debate with me on Revelation, I'm afraid you'll be waiting a long time. I have only read this whole book once and not studied it. So I try to avoid discussion on it and all the various eschatological views.

    Yes, the Pharisees who were under the law and were rejecting, or had rejected, Christ as the fulfiller of the law.
    He does not say "all those who believe in me and receive eternal life must also obey the law". So how does this apply to me as a Gentile woman?

    Yes, sin - NOT "the world will be convinced of the importance of keeping OT law.

    And this verse was spoken to his disciples on another occasion.

    My response was that Jesus said "go and teach all nations what I have commanded you,"; not "what the law of Moses says."
    For the nth time; where does Jesus say;
    "Gentiles who believe in me MUST obey the Mosaic law"?
    or "no one comes to the Father except by me - AND obeying OT law"?
    or "I have come that you may have life - but you won't, unless you obey the whole of the law."

    No, I don't want that at all.
    Christianity has Jewish roots. Jesus was a Jew; the disciples and Paul were Jews, and when they quoted from Scripture, it was the OT they quoted from. And Jesus said that the OT law and prophets pointed to him.
    I know this. I'm not disputing it; I like, and read, the OT.

    What I want is someone to show that Jesus intended his Gentile followers; those who believed in him and had received eternal life and salvation, to obey all the demands of the Mosaic law in their Christian life.
    I have made it clear that I have not ditched the 10 commandments, but am referring to everything ELSE written in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Jesus said, for example, "nothing that goes into a person's mouth makes them unclean". That is very different from the verses in Leviticus that certain foods are unclean and should not be consumed. Why should I, as a Gentile, obey Leviticus rather than Jesus?

    My request is that you show me where Jesus - the Messiah and fulfiller of the law, our Lord and Saviour, the only Way to God and giver of eternal life - said to those who followed and believed in him, "follow me BUT learn and obey Jewish law too."

    I did not, and am not, saying that Jesus broke the law.
    Jesus was perfect; sinless, did not disobey God - end of. Full stop.

    I have said, many time, that when I say "law" I am referring to the food and hygiene laws in Leviticus, and others.
    I was asking the question; the law says that someone caught committing adultery should be put to death. The Jews were attempting to do this, and pointed out to Jesus that that was what their law demanded. If Jesus came to keep the law, why did he not go along with them?
    If your answer to that is "actually the leaders were not keeping the law themselves since they should have tried to put the man to death too, so they had no right to put Jesus in that position" - great. You have answered my question and given me further insight into the passage too. Thank you.

    This was not your response, however; you just stated that I was accusing Jesus of breaking the law.

    Again, no I didn't.
    I said that if Jesus had come to demonstrate perfect obedience to the law - and don't forget that I am defining "law" as including all the food and hygiene laws" - the law says that a woman who is bleeding is UNCLEAN, so by touching her, Jesus would have been, according to the law, ritually unclean. This is not the same as saying that Jesus sinned.

    I am not sure I feel inclined to answer the rest of your post.
    Both you, and the person before you, have said to me "you say .........", and then proceeded to misquote my post or misunderstand what I have said. And in your case, I am in the wrong for choosing to ignore something.
    This suggests to me that either you have not taken the time to read, and understand, my posts, or that you understand only too well what I am asking, but you have no answer.

    But stating that I am saying something, when I am not, or that I mean something, or believe something, when I don't, and firing off a reply based on that misinformation; is not good, or even logical.
  10. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter


    I really have difficulty expressing myself; "is the Law of Moses abolished?' This seems to be a Pandora's box.

    Was Moses the author of the Law of Moses or was it God; if Moses was the author of it then it has nothing to do with us; if God was the author of the Law of Moses then it has everything to do with us.

    Central to common Christianity is the abrogation of the Law of God. My understanding is that the abrogation of the Law is the fulfilment of the prophesy, "He will presume to change Laws and times"; what most people call the new covenant has not come from God but is the whims of men; it is the changed Laws of the antichrist.

    As a matter of opinion and semantics I don't think sealed is what the blood does. Blood enacts the covenant, it is a signature to a contract; the contract is open. The Blood defines the covenant as a Blood covenant; a blood covenant requires the death of the one who breaks the covenant; God's covenant allows a substitute to die; Jesus's blood was the legal tender with which Jesus Christ redeemed the world and placed Himself as judge of the world.

    Hebrews 9:22 is a made in the heat of debate; a debate that we have only one side of. I cannot imagine Blood would make anything clean; except as a price paid.

    During the Passover did the blood save or was it God; the Blood on the door jamb was an act of obedience and faith; the blood was a sign that God had remembered the covenant.

    The umbrella of Christ's blood which some call grace, allows for some to be forgiven, for some to be reconciled and for some to receive eternal life, but not all; the road to life is narrow and few find it.

    ""In Romans Paul talks of branches that have been grafted onto the vine. Jesus is the vine, John 15, but in the OT, the nation of Israel were depicted as a vine."" This distinction is what the Dispensationalists call literalism; Jesus and His body are Israel, Paul even said, "Yea are Israel".
  11. B_Man

    B_Man A Simple Man Moving Through Life

    United States
    I used the word apologetics in the wrong way, having only heard used in that context before. I meant to say that I don't believe someone can be argued into a set of beliefs.

    If you ask someone for examples of Yahshua teaching OT law, and then blow off any scriptural response with a variation of, 'He was talking to Pharisees, Jews or *someone*,' how is that not dismissive? He always seems to be talking to *someone*, which invalidates His teaching as not being applicable. Who would Yahshua need to be talking to, in order for you to consider it valid teaching for the church?

    Yahshua is the Holy son of God, through whom both Jews and Christians are saved. His words stand as a double witness (His, and God's). How is every word from the mouth of God not considered applicable to the church?

    When you blow someone off, saying they 'haven't shown,' after they just provided scriptural support, is flippant and dismissive.

    How can Davena be wrong? She didn't make any statement. She simply provided the verse in Revelation, which was given from Yahshua himself, to John, and said that it was in contradiction to your interpretation of Paul's claims concerning food sacrificed to idols. You tried to turn that into a you vs. Davena, when really it's a you vs. John.

    No, thank you. The passage in Revelation is a simple reference to show that Yahshua will use OT law to judge the seven churches. No in-depth analysis necessary.

    He taught Mosaic law.

    I just went back two pages and saw where YOU explained what's going on here...that Yahshua is talking about unclean hands. Yet, here, you turn it into eating all foods, thus promoting lawlessness.

    Which is your final answer? Is Yahshua declaring the food laws unnecessary, as you said on page 27, or is he talking about washing hands, on page 25?

    Here you say Yahshua was a Jew, and taught from the Old Testament law.

    Here you say He is perfect, and yet he did not practice the law. After saying he is a Jew, living under the law. That's called...lawlessness.

    Explained. Ignored by you.

    Read above, and see yet again how you twist your own words.

    The latest is a variation of: 'You're wrong to say I said Jesus sinned...you're twisting my words.' That was right after you said that "Jesus" is a Jew who quotes and teaches from the OT. If he's a Jew, how would that not be sinning for him? See how I made the connection?


    Your words are there, in black and white.
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
  12. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    This is not what apologetics means. It means defending the faith.
  13. B_Man

    B_Man A Simple Man Moving Through Life

    United States
    Understood. I had only ever heard it used in the context of 'converting' people via arguments.

    I shall go back and revise my statement.
  14. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    So you think the entire New Covenant is not valid?

    Have you read Jeremiah where God Himself talks about the NEW COVENANT He will make that is not like the covenant He made with their fathers?

    If the Old Covenant is still valid, then why did Christ bother coming to die? What did Christ accomplish or did He accomplish anything?
  15. sparow

    sparow Well-Known Member Supporter


    I explain these thing and you do not understand what I'm saying, so I'll try again. There are two new covenants, a valid one and an invalid one; the invalid one claims to be true. The valid one is made with Christ, the invalid on is made with men.

    Jeremiah was telling the Jews who were in trouble with God that there was light at the end of the tunnel. Even with out Jeremiah Christ would still have fulfilled all of the prophesies concerning Him; all amounting to confirming "THE COVENANT" which includes shedding His blood for the remission of sin. Christ was to confirm "THE COVENANT" for seven years but was cut off after three and a half years, as prophesised, and has three and a half years to go in the future; there are still outstanding prophesies for the Messiah to fulfil. "THE COVENANT" is the Law; it would have been equally valid had Daniel said, " He will confirm the Law for one week". There is "THE COVENANT" old and "THE COVENANT" new; now Christ did not confirm "old" or "new" instead He confirmed "THE COVENANT".

    Christ did not confirm the covenant by keeping the Ten Commandments, but by fulfilling God's responsibilities under THE COVENANT which include shedding His blood. People who abrogate the Law nullify every thing God has done to make the covenant a reality before our eyes.
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
  16. Strong in Him

    Strong in Him I can do all things through Christ Supporter

    United Kingdom
    No problem.
    Neither do I. :)

    It's not being dismissive; it's reading/looking at it in context, which is something we should always do.
    If you take passages/verses out of context, you can make the Bible say anything you want.

    Jesus talking to Pharisees -people who kept the law - about how, or the way in which, they kept the law, is not at all the same as saying to Gentile believers "you must start keeping the law."

    It's like, if you were talking to a friend about the colour to paint their house/which charity they should support/whether to become a vegetarian, and one of your children overheard you; you wouldn't expect them to conclude, "dad wants us to have a blue house/support Christian Aid/give up eating meat". Or if you were talking to a Muslim about going to Mosque/keeping Friday as the Sabbath and your friends overheard you; it would not be right for them to conclude that because you were talking to someone about these things, that must mean that you expected them, non Muslims, to obey them all too.
    He would need to be talking to the apostles, telling them what to say and preach; for example, to Peter, "feed my sheep by telling them to be sure to obey all the OT law." Or saying this himself, eg, "it is my father's will that everyone who looks to the Son, believes in him AND keeps the law, shall have eternal life", or "I am the Way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me AND keeping the law." Or quite simply, all Gentiles who believe in, and follow, me must also keep the OT law.

    Saying that he talked to a group of Pharisees about their law so therefore we can assume that this is a teaching for the whole church; is incorrect.

    The question is why would you assume that what God tells one group of people is always applicable to others?
    If God was leading your church in a certain direction, you knew it for a fact, and had clear guidance and peace about it; would it be right to conclude that God wanted this for the church in another county/state/country?
    So if God says to a group of people that the way for them to show they are holy is to do x, y and z; is it right to conclude that a completely different group of people, living 2000 years later must behave in the same way? If God's will for, and word to, one group of people is one thing, it is quite dangerous to assume that he must want this for you too. That's not seeking God's guidance; that's making an assumption.

    The statement was;

    I read that as "Paul says ...... in Revelation", and I was just pointing out that Revelation was by, and given to, John, not Paul.

    If I misunderstood, then all Davena had to do was to say "Yes I know; you've misunderstood, I meant ....."

    No; Jesus quoted from the OT, and told people to go to the priests to validate healing etc, according to the law. That is not the same as saying that all Jewish, and Gentile, believers should believe and practice law, as well as believing in me.

    To be continued; have to go out.
  17. Strong in Him

    Strong in Him I can do all things through Christ Supporter

    United Kingdom

    The incident, recorded in Mark 7, was that the Pharisees saw the disciples eating food with hands that were unclean, verse 2, and asked Jesus why they were doing this. That's what started it - a complaint about having unclean hands. Jesus replied that they were hypocrites because they neglected God's commands and instead observed their own traditions. They may even have claimed that their own traditions were God's commands.
    When he had said this, he called the crowd to him and said that nothing that goes into a person from the outside can make a person unclean; it is what comes out of someone that makes them unclean. The disciples clearly didn't get this, so when they went into the house, they asked him to explain. And Jesus said that when something goes into a person it goes into the stomach and then passes out of the body - so how can it make someone unclean? At this point, Mark added the comment that by saying this, Jesus was declaring all food to be clean, Mark 7:19.
    Jesus then said that it is what comes out of someone - i.e evil thoughts, malice, deceit etc - that makes them unclean.

    So it's not an either ..... or.
    There was an incident where the disciples ate with unclean hands; from that, Jesus went on to teach about the things that really make someone unclean.

    No; as a Jewish boy he would have been taught the law, had a bar Mitzvah and obeyed the law.
    I am saying that if by the phrase "God's law" you include ALL the hygiene laws in Leviticus - eg women being unclean at certain times, not touching people with skin conditions etc - then there were times when Jesus did not observe those to the letter; showing God's love, compassion, power to heal and so on were far more important.
    Jesus said that he had come to fulfil the law and it could be that he knew that those outward things did not make someone holy; that true holiness would ultimately be found only in him.
    According to the Pharisees and teachers of the law, who observed the law to the letter; he was no doubt considered to be a law breaker.

    You wrote to me; "you claim that touching a leprous man is sin". I don't, and didn't, so that is wrong.

    I said that there is a hygiene law which says that touching a person with a sin condition makes them unclean. Someone else has defined sin as breaking the law. What I am saying is that IF you include this hygiene law as being part of God's holy law which cannot be disobeyed or broken, then you would conclude - as the Pharisees no doubt did - that Jesus had broken the law.

    The fact that Jesus touched the leprous man suggests to me that he did not consider this to be part of God's holy law - or no way would he have done it. He did not come to disobey his Father, and if he had done so and sinned, he could not have died for OUR sins.

    Yes they are. But that hasn't stopped people saying "you said ......" when I didn't, or "that means you think ......" when I don't.
    It's not the words that are the issue; it's interpretation and understanding.
  18. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    Ok, well I am just going to walk away from this because I only know of one New Covenant and this sounds very confusing.

    Thanks for talking, it's been interesting.
  19. ToBeLoved

    ToBeLoved Well-Known Member Supporter

    My understanding of that vow is a short term vow that some had taken that was not the Old Covenant, but a temporary vow that would be completed in a period of time.
  20. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    Indeed, the person making the vow would set its length and it was completely voluntary, but it nevertheless did involve making offerings.