What commandments is Jesus talking about?

[ace of hearts]

On the one hand you say the NC is a higher standard (I agree) but on the other hand you say Sinai is bondage and gone. ALL of those you say are now stricter are based on Sinai...you imply they are mutually exclusive which makes no sense at all...

For rule followers (carnal people), yes. It is even more impossible to follow the (carnal) rules. The Christian is lead by the Spirit - Gal 5:18. Religious people and religious Christians try to follow carnal rules and fail. This makes them very manipulable by religious leaders who control them with condemnation.

 

[ace of hearts]

I know what it says...do you? You seem to keep needing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You want to separate what is the same and put together that which is separate! Physical vs spiritual.

"But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now."

The New Covenant isn't the Old Covenant. Heb 8:6, 9:15, 10:9, LK 22:20

 

[ace of hearts]

Was that your only take-away from what I posted?

I'm saying that Paul is addressing something specific that was happening at that time. It wasn't just circumcision - look back at v 8-10. Circumcision, on its own, isn't bondage (I'm willing to guess that you are circumcised and most likely don't feel oppressed because of it). It was the teaching that it was necessary to follow all these physical and symbolic outward practices that was oppressive (and demeaning to the work Jesus had accomplished).

These (festivals) are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. —Colossians 2:17

Also - the text in Galatians states that the Judaizers were trying to isolate the Gentiles. That's what abusers do - they isolate their victims from the supportive community. That, to me, seems to be the greater issue that Paul is writing about (who they can trust/not trust). The Judaizers were undermining all that had been revealed to the Gentile Galatians. They were pulling them back (or attempting to) into a ritualistic outward religion as mentioned in Galatians 4:3:

Galatians 4:3 ~So also, when we were children, we were enslaved under the basic principles of the world.​

This is a first for me to see someone suggesting another is circumcised as a basis to support an argument.

 

[ace of hearts]

Maybe you should learn more about Anglicans as well, then, if my posts surprise you (coupled with my identity as an Anglican).

Here's a great place to do that, if ever you're interested: About Us | Official Site for N.T. Wright Courses Online

Or by reading this book:

Interesting that you would refer one to a SDA professor concerning your faith Anglicanism.

 

[ace of hearts]

I did not see you explaining why Paul compared the Sinai Covenant to "bondage" in the post.

I did not see where you acknowledged the fact that Paul said there are "two covenants", in Galatians 4:24-31.

Did I miss it?

.

Makes two of us.

 

[ace of hearts]

I'm just keeping these two quotes together - because that's an excellent point and I want to carry it forward.

So explain to us specifically HOW the Sinai covenant brings bondage and oppression - because aren't we to be "enslaved to Christ" so we won't be "enslaved to sin" (Eph 6:6; 1 Peter 2:16; Col 3:24)?

Ask the Apostles.

Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

 

[Dkh587]

Okay - I WAS misunderstanding you, then.

@klutedavid is NOT teaching disobedience to God. He's correct. No one is under those rules any longer. All of this has passed away (along with the Temple/Levitical priesthood):

I am not bound by the health laws of Moses.
I am not bound by the civil law of Moses.
I am not bound by the priesthood of Aaron.
I do not recognize the authority of the seat of Moses in my Christian life.
I am not bound by any holy days, or festivals.
I do not make offerings.
I do not sacrifice.
I disregard the new moon celebration.
I do not build altars.
I will never attend the temple or partake of a temple service.

Telling people we don’t need to obey God is teaching disobedience. It’s really quite simple.

 

[ace of hearts]

Agreed. However, murder is against the law... ;-)

That doesn't mean one is keeping the law because they don't murder.

 

[ace of hearts]

Teaching people to disobey any of God’s commandments is promoting lawlessness.

There are plenty of people living lawless lives that don’t promote murder.

Teaching people they're not obligated to the law isn't teaching lawlessness or wickedness.

 

[ace of hearts]

Lawnessness =/= breaking the civil law.

It's been inferred in this thread that the entire Old Testament - along with the ten commandments - are NOT necessary, that they've been tossed out along with the Old Covenant as "null and void" (I believe is the accusation that's being made) as part of the covenant made at Sinai.

How do you read and understand Jer 31:31-33?

 

[klutedavid]

Agreed. However, murder is against the law... ;-)

So is sorcery, afflicting orphans, taking bribes, e.t.c. Do you teach people to disobey those laws?

That blade has a double edge, if you accuse someone of not teaching a law, then you will also fail yourself in not teaching the whole law.

Israel had a national Sabbath law and the Gentile nations did not have that law. Gentiles could never obey the Sabbath day because they did not get Saturday off to have a rest.

People need to read Exodus and Leviticus carefully to understand that Israel had a national law system. The entire nation was under the law and personal choice did not enter into it. Break the Sabbath and die, steal and die, getting caught in adultery was a death sentence. The law was absolute bondage, slavery, one mistake and your life is finished.

 

[ace of hearts]

No one - especially me - is suggesting that it's love to say yes and hate to say no. What's the IC? And what are you talking about when you say that you "can't accept what's going on and being taught"? This is such a cryptic post.

No it's not cryptic at all. Yes you think I'm only here tio argue and cause trouble with your response of "Clearly." You're requiring me to agree with you to avoid trouble (not rock your boat). So yes you're saying one must say yes to love.

The IC is the institutional church. I also call it organized religion. I see a difference between the IC and a relationship with God. Is there value in the IC? Yes, but very little. I feel it is doing much damage to the cause of Jesus Christ and Christianity. A well known non Christian said about Christianity I like your God, I don't like your christians. (loose quote) Well I'd have to say one needs to define Christian. It's these christians that make it very hard to reach the lost for Jesus. I'm starting to explore the home church movement. I like the concept. I've no interest in cell groups which is entirely different.

 

[ace of hearts]

I'm well familiar with those passages - now, in your own words - please explain to me what's changed about the instruction. What was burdensome and oppressive about the commandments given at Mt Sinai? What's "the ministry of death"? In your words - not just quoting me Scripture. What brings freedom in the New Covenant? That seems to be where we're hung up.

You don't understand the law. Even the Jews themselves said it was a curse in Nehemiah.

 

[ace of hearts]

Yes or no:

Do you teach people to keep the Sabbath, as commanded by God in Exodus 20:8-10?

No! This isn't a commandment required in the NT. Matter of fact the NT shows the covenant given to Israel has been set aside and replaced with a new unprecedented covenant base on promises. This new covenant is a unilateral covenant opposes to a by-lateral covenant.

 

[ace of hearts]

So the answer is NO, you do not teach obedience to God’s commandment to keep the Sabbath holy.

This means you teach people to disobey God. Teaching disobedience to God = teaching lawlessness. The Apostles did not teach disobedience/lawlessness, and Acts 15:21 witnesses that the grafted-in Gentiles kept the Sabbath.

No because that covenant has no jurisdiction.

 

[mkgal1]

Interesting that you would refer one to a SDA professor concerning your faith Anglicanism.

I didn't.

About N.T. Wright (I have NO idea where you got the info that he's affiliated with the SDA):

Nicholas Thomas Wright FRSE is an English New Testament scholar, Pauline theologian, and retired Anglican bishop. Between 2003 and 2010, he was the Bishop of Durham. He then became Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St Mary's College in the University of St Andrews in Scotland.

 

[mkgal1]

You don't understand the law. Even the Jews themselves said it was a curse in Nehemiah.

King David and Solomon said otherwise.

 

[ace of hearts]

I didn't.

About N.T. Wright (I have NO idea where you got the info that he's affiliated with the SDA):

Nicholas Thomas Wright FRSE is an English New Testament scholar, Pauline theologian, and retired Anglican bishop. Between 2003 and 2010, he was the Bishop of Durham. He then became Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St Mary's College in the University of St Andrews in Scotland.

OK I took a closer look. The site did say Scotland. My mistake I'm more familiar with Andrews in connection with the SDA church. Totally forgot Scotland. My apologies.

 

[BABerean2]

I'm well familiar with those passages - now, in your own words - please explain to me what's changed about the instruction. What was burdensome and oppressive about the commandments given at Mt Sinai? What's "the ministry of death"? In your words - not just quoting me Scripture. What brings freedom in the New Covenant? That seems to be where we're hung up.

Paul said the Old Covenant is "the ministry of death", "engraved on stones", not me.

Have you ever picked up a stick on the Sabbath?

Have you ever traveled more than a mile on the Sabbath?

Have you ever kindled a fire, by starting the engine of an automobile, on the Sabbath?

Have you ever cooked on the Sabbath?

If you have done any of the above, do you think the Sinai Covenant is "burdensome and oppressive"?

.

 

[mkgal1]

You're requiring me to agree with you to avoid trouble (not rock your boat)

Absolutely not! Why would I spend time here, if I expected to only be agreed with? This is probably the LAST place to achieve that.

What I would appreciate is for you to clearly state your arguments and then attempt to support them. That's all.