What exactly is a "judaizer" today

[RibI]

I am detecting a bit of cognative dissonance /Good. Admiting you have a problem is the first step.

Hmm so are you calling what Paul wrote "what man says love is?"/No.

The Gospel and the letters are quite clear on what love is ./That doesn't mean everyone understands.

Love overrides the commandments written for hardened hearts ./Not so.
Keeping God's commands is love.

.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

/Not so. Keeping God's commands is love.

The scripture clearly says that love fulfills the law .


Romans 13

7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

11And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.

And that love is the only debt outstanding . Love is the summation of the law .

1 Corinthians 13

1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

The words of the bible (prophecies) may become irrelevant culturally when taken at face value . the original language the bible is written in may now be an archaic language or tongue . but the essence of them all is trust, expectancy and agape love and the greatest of these is Love because God is love .

1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

1 John 4:16
And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.

 

[RibI]

Yep, and it all starts with God's commandments. They are the very foundation of love and you can't love without keeping them. Like you said love keeps the law.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yep, and it all starts with God's commandments. They are the very foundation of love and you can't love without keeping them. Like you said love keeps the law.

As James and Paul stated . by trying to keep the law . you are compelled to keep every point of it under threat of a curse .

nice try wise guy . not falling for it .

i'll stick with love .

love is patient .. love is kind .. there no greater love than this .. love love love .

bless .

 

[RibI]

Good luck with finding a way of loving someone while you're committing adultry with your buddies spouse and while you're stealing from the bank and murdering someone.
Yea, good luck with that.
Oh and thanks for noting my wisdom.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Good luck with finding a way of loving someone while you're committing adultry with your buddies spouse and while you're stealing from the bank and murdering someone.
Yea, good luck with that.
Oh and thanks for noting my wisdom.

1 Corinthians 3:18 No one himself let be deluding!
If any is presuming wise to be in ye in the Age, this, a fool/mwroV <3474> let him be becoming!
That he may be becoming wise.

1 Corin 4:10 We fools/mwroi <3474> because of Christ, ye yet prudent/fronimoi <5429> in Christ, we weak, ye strong, ye glorious we yet unhonored

Luke 12:20 Said yet to him the God "imprudent one!/afrwn <878>.
To this the night thy soul they are requiring from thee. Which things yet thou make ready, whose it shall be?"

 

[Tzaousios]

I understand . and with this "inerrant view" comes a form of pride that makes an excuse to think you're better than anyone else that doesn't hold that view . that's all .

Alright. So are you saying that pride cannot also come from a position that does not hold that the Bible is inerrant?

 

[Frogster]

Good luck with finding a way of loving someone while you're committing adultry with your buddies spouse and while you're stealing from the bank and murdering someone.
Yea, good luck with that.
Oh and thanks for noting my wisdom.

The pharisees had the law,while they wanted to kill the Lord..go figure.Was that love from the law?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The pharisees had the law,while they wanted to kill the Lord..go figure.Was that love from the law?

John 7:1 And was walking, the Jesus, after these in the Galilee, for not He willed in the Judea to be walking, that the Judeans sought Him to kill.

Acts 23:14 Who-any toward coming to the Chief-priests and to the Elders say "to-anathema we anathematize ourselves of no yet nothing to taste till of which we may be killing the Paul."

Reve 22:3 and every anathema not shall be still.
And the throne of the God/YHWH and of the Lamb-kin/Word in Her shall be, and His bond-servants shall be offering divine-service to Him.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

What Paul calls love is w/o law in the fruit of the Spirit

Gal 5


18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

That's not just in the act of not the things mentioned above, but in everything.

THEN, not just in the action but in thought as well.

Phil 4:8

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable&#8212;if anything is excellent or praiseworthy&#8212;think about such things.

 

[Frogster]

John 7:1 And was walking, the Jesus, after these in the Galilee, for not He willed in the Judea to be walking, that the Judeans sought Him to kill.

Acts 23:14 Who-any toward coming to the Chief-priests and to the Elders say "to-anathema we anathematize ourselves of no yet nothing to taste till of which we may be killing the Paul."

Reve 22:3 and every anathema not shall be still.
And the throne of the God/YHWH and of the Lamb-kin/Word in Her shall be, and His bond-servants shall be offering divine-service to Him.

yes,they were so sweet.Just the kind of people we would want to have to a pork roast!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

yes,they were so sweet.Just the kind of people we would want to have to a pork roast!

That greek word for "anathema" is interesting.
Here a thread on it, [almost tailor made for you ehehe]

Acts 23:14 Who-any toward coming to the Chief-priests and to the Elders say "to-anathema we anathematize ourselves of no yet nothing to taste till of which we may be killing the Paul."

http://www.christianforums.com/t5340106/
Anathema to Sabbath-keepers - Council of Laodicea

History of God's Holy Bible and the so-called Jews

*snip*

........The Hebrew word translated "utterly destroy" is 'cherem.' Both the people and the land of Canaan were 'cherem,' meaning FORCIBLY dedicated to God as withdrawn from His service and worship wherein He was not glorified, and by the hands of another, devoted to Him for destruction whereby He will be glorified. The equivalent Greek word is "anathema."

In the case of the Canaanites who were natural Serpent's seed, cherem is the consecration to God of His enemies (Hebrew "hated ones" - Isaiah 34:1-8; Malachi 1:2-3; Romans 9:13), and their belongings by means of fire and sword. ..................

2764 cherem khay'-rem or (Zecheriah 14:11) cherem {kheh'-rem}; from 2763; physical (as shutting in) a net (either literally or figuratively); usually a doomed object; abstr. extermination:--(ac-)curse(-d, -d thing), dedicated thing, things which should have been utterly destroyed, (appointed to) utter destruction, devoted (thing), net.

 

[Frogster]

That greek word for "anathema" is interesting.
Here a thread on it, [almost tailor made for you ehehe]

Acts 23:14 Who-any toward coming to the Chief-priests and to the Elders say "to-anathema we anathematize ourselves of no yet nothing to taste till of which we may be killing the Paul."

http://www.christianforums.com/t5340106/
Anathema to Sabbath-keepers - Council of Laodicea

History of God's Holy Bible and the so-called Jews

*snip*

........The Hebrew word translated "utterly destroy" is 'cherem.' Both the people and the land of Canaan were 'cherem,' meaning FORCIBLY dedicated to God as withdrawn from His service and worship wherein He was not glorified, and by the hands of another, devoted to Him for destruction whereby He will be glorified. The equivalent Greek word is "anathema."

In the case of the Canaanites who were natural Serpent's seed, cherem is the consecration to God of His enemies (Hebrew "hated ones" - Isaiah 34:1-8; Malachi 1:2-3; Romans 9:13), and their belongings by means of fire and sword. ..................

2764 cherem khay'-rem or (Zecheriah 14:11) cherem {kheh'-rem}; from 2763; physical (as shutting in) a net (either literally or figuratively); usually a doomed object; abstr. extermination:--(ac-)curse(-d, -d thing), dedicated thing, things which should have been utterly destroyed, (appointed to) utter destruction, devoted (thing), net.

I guess those wonderful first century jews got skinny and died,or they broke the vow..

Thanks for the links.

 

[bugkiller]

RibI,

You say we are keeping the law when we do not murder, committ adultry, steal, etc. ROFL!!!!

Scoffing, absolutely I have no need to hide it.

You obviously do not recognize the new covenant as new as suggested in Jere 31:31 -34 and quoted in Heb 8:8 -13. You need to inform God that there is no new covenant in existance. Jesus said For this is My blood of the new testament Mat 28:26. You need to explain away Heb 7:12 there is made of necessity a change of the law. The law is a single unit. If you violate any part of it you violate all of it. James 2:10 says For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

How about Heb 8:7 talking about a first and a second covenant. They are different. The first covenant is a historical document because it is replaced by a new(er) covenant. Thus the old (former, or 1st) has no jurisdiction (power). You are saying that the new (2nd) covenant is nothing but a warmed up left over of the first because some of the same words appear in the new contract (covenant) built on better promises. The old covenant is a suzerian covenant (conditional on performance of both parties) while the new is a royal covenant (grant with only acceptance on the part of the beneficiary being required on a non performance basis).

I have a neighbor who quotes John 14:15 and equates 'My commandments' with the 10 commandments as a basis to condemn me. Interestingly enough when asked about a verse on the next page, John 15:10 with the same words 'My commandments' he is speechless and has to deny the Trinity because Jesus ask us to keep His commandments while He keeps/ kept His 'Father's commandments.' We know that Jesus was totaly compliant with the law He was subject to as a Jew (Israelite). When asked to identify the commandments of Jesus my neighbor did not name a single law (one of the 10 commandments) of the Old covenant. How interesting.

bugkiller

 

[RibI]

The pharisees had the law,while they wanted to kill the Lord..go figure.Was that love from the law?

They weren't keeping it, were they?
They hated; they didn't love.

 

[RibI]

Quotes of bugkiller with commit.
You obviously do not recognize the new covenant (Actually I do, so it can’t be obvious that I don’t.) as new as suggested in Jere 31:31 -34 and quoted in Heb 8:8 -13. Right there in verse 33 of Jer. 31 it says God will write His Law in their hearts and put His Law in their minds. It doesn’t say anything about doing away with it. Quite the opposite.
Notice Heb 8 starting in verse 7-8 God does not say there was any fault with the OC or it’s laws, it says the fault was with the people.

You need to inform God that there is no new covenant in existance. I never said anything like that.
Jesus said For this is My blood of the new testament Mat 28:26. You need to explain away Heb 7:12 there is made of necessity a change of the law. I don’t need to explain it away. You just need to understand it. The change in the law was preordained in the OT and it was a change so Jesus could be the High Priest since He was of the tribe of Judah not Levi. It had nothing to do with keeping God’s Law.

The law is a single unit. If you violate any part of it you violate all of it. James 2:10 says For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. He is talking to Jews about their oral laws and traditions that are not part of God’s Law.

How about Heb 8:7 talking about a first and a second covenant. It is not a “second covenant” it is new in the sense that it is a refreshed covenant or newer version; NOT a completely different covenant. They are different. Yes they are. The OC only offered physical blessings. It did not offer the Holy Spirit and eternal life to the masses. The NC does both. The first covenant is a historical document because it is replaced by a new(er) covenant. Thus the old (former, or 1st) has no jurisdiction (power). You are saying that the new (2nd) covenant is nothing but a warmed up left over of the first because some of the same words appear in the new contract (covenant) built on better promises. It is a better Covenant, not a different Covenent as explained earlier. The old covenant is a suzerian covenant (conditional on performance of both parties) while the new is a royal covenant (grant with only acceptance on the part of the beneficiary being required on a non performance basis). All covenants have responsibilities and obligations for both parties involved.

I have a neighbor who quotes John 14:15 and equates 'My commandments' with the 10 commandments as a basis to condemn me. Interestingly enough when asked about a verse on the next page, John 15:10 with the same words 'My commandments' he is speechless and has to deny the Trinity because Jesus ask us to keep His commandments while He keeps/ kept His 'Father's commandments.' Jo. 15:10 doesn’t say anything about a trinity.We know that Jesus was totaly compliant with the law He was subject to as a Jew (Israelite). When asked to identify the commandments of Jesus my neighbor did not name a single law (one of the 10 commandments) of the Old covenant. How interesting. I would rather depend on God than you neighbor.

In Mat. 19:16 a man asked Jesus what he had to do to gain eternal life. In verse 17 Jesus said keep the commandments. In verse 18 the man asked which commandments and Jesus quoted 5 of the 10, to show which set of commandments He was talking about.

 

[Frogster]

They weren't keeping it, were they?
They hated; they didn't love.

Ok..I can settle the issue with 1 simple question.
Do you keep the law?

gal 6;13 For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.

John 7:19
Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?”

 

[bugkiller]

Quotes of bugkiller with commit.
You obviously do not recognize the new covenant (Actually I do, so it can’t be obvious that I don’t.) as new as suggested in Jere 31:31 -34 and quoted in Heb 8:8 -13. Right there in verse 33 of Jer. 31 it says God will write His Law in their hearts and put His Law in their minds. It doesn’t say anything about doing away with it. Quite the opposite.
Notice Heb 8 starting in verse 7-8 God does not say there was any fault with the OC or it’s laws, it says the fault was with the people.

Can you identify this law that will be put in our hearts? I thought the new covenant was not like the one made with their (COI's) fathers which would be the Pentateuch or the Torah. I also read the word new (khaw-dawsh). This word does not mean renew like the word pronounced khaw-dash. Both are spelled the same in their transliteration spelling. So is the covenant spoken of in v 33 different than v 31? If so how do you arrive at this understanding? If it is new how can it be the same? I agree the fault with the OC is the people of this suzerian covenant and not the covenant itself.

You need to inform God that there is no new covenant in existance. I never said anything like that.

Then explain how you get renewed, because the word is new. New is definitely different.

Jesus said For this is My blood of the new testament Mat 28:26. You need to explain away Heb 7:12 there is made of necessity a change of the law. I don’t need to explain it away. You just need to understand it. The change in the law was preordained in the OT and it was a change so Jesus could be the High Priest since He was of the tribe of Judah not Levi. It had nothing to do with keeping God’s Law.

I agree that it was preordained. This is a change in the law and according to Mat 5:18 not a single jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law and yet here we have testimony that the law - a single indivisible unit has changed. This means all the law is changed. We have a first and a second covenant spoken of in Heb 7:7. Yes it does have something to do with keeping God's law unless of course you are referring to something other than the Torah/Pentateuch.

The law is a single unit. If you violate any part of it you violate all of it. James 2:10 says For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. He is talking to Jews about their oral laws and traditions that are not part of God’s Law.

Would you care to substantiate this, please?

How about Heb 8:7 talking about a first and a second covenant. It is not a “second covenant” it is new in the sense that it is a refreshed covenant or newer version; NOT a completely different covenant. They are different. Yes they are. The OC only offered physical blessings. It did not offer the Holy Spirit and eternal life to the masses. The NC does both. The first covenant is a historical document because it is replaced by a new(er) covenant. Thus the old (former, or 1st) has no jurisdiction (power). You are saying that the new (2nd) covenant is nothing but a warmed up left over of the first because some of the same words appear in the new contract (covenant) built on better promises. It is a better Covenant, not a different Covenent as explained earlier. The old covenant is a suzerian covenant (conditional on performance of both parties) while the new is a royal covenant (grant with only acceptance on the part of the beneficiary being required on a non performance basis). All covenants have responsibilities and obligations for both parties involved.

The words 'new' translated in either the Jere 31:31 or Heb 8:8 don't mean refreshed. The Jere passage uses the word chadash pronounced khaw-dawsh and the Heb passage uses the word kainos and both mean specifically new as to age especially freshness. Neither mean renewed or refurbished. Further more if it is a better covenant, how can it be the same? This is called double speak or as the Indians say 'Injun, him say, You speak with forked tongue. The scripture says Doeth a fountian send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? (James 3:11) Yes as I explained earlier the new covenant is a royal grant covenant. A royal grant covenant requires no performance from the beneficiary.

Jo. 15:10 doesn’t say anything about a trinity.

How true it only mentions God the Son and God the Father and They are not the Same. To say that 'My commandments' and 'My Father's commandments' are the same is to deny the Trinity. This is done so that one can say the commandments spoken of in John 14:15 as 'My commandments' can be construed as the 'Ten Commandments.' This is necessary to prove that indeed we are obligated to observe the law.

We know that Jesus was totaly compliant with the law He was subject to as a Jew (Israelite). When asked to identify the commandments of Jesus my neighbor did not name a single law (one of the 10 commandments) of the Old covenant. How interesting. I would rather depend on God than you neighbor.

Me too!!! Amen!!!

In Mat. 19:16 a man asked Jesus what he had to do to gain eternal life. In verse 17 Jesus said keep the commandments. In verse 18 the man asked which commandments and Jesus quoted 5 of the 10, to show which set of commandments He was talking about.

And you failed to notice that the young man admitted that he kept them and still did not have assurance of eternal life (salvation) for he asked what lack I yet?

Can you identify this law that will be put in our hearts? I thought the new covenant was not like the one made with their (COI's) fathers which would be the Pentateuch or the Torah. I also read the word new (khaw-dawsh). This word does not mean renew like the word pronounced khaw-dash. Both are spelled the same in their transliteration spelling. So is the covenant spoken of in v 33 different than v 31? If so how do you arrive at this understanding?

I would really like you to answer my repeated questions highlighted in red.

bugkiller

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Good luck with finding a way of loving someone while you're committing adultry with your buddies spouse and while you're stealing from the bank and murdering someone.
Yea, good luck with that.
Oh and thanks for noting my wisdom.

But you're coming at it from the wrong end .

the diff between this covenant and the previous one . is God is paying special attention to the root . if the root is wrong . then the works are worthless .

so start with the root .

Alright. So are you saying that pride cannot also come from a position that does not hold that the Bible is inerrant?

Hmm i perceive your question to consist of a logical fallacy so i don't quite follow your question . please restate question .

 

[klutedavid]

i like galatians. I just disagree with the usual exposition of the book.



Steve

p.s. I read the word circumcision and understand it to mean 'ritual conversion to judaism'.

Same with me, the word, 'circumcision', describes those under the law, the Jews. Peter was an apostle to the CIRCUMCISED and Paul an apostle to the gentiles. That is what the text tells us.

Anyone who has studied the letter to the Galatians, must notice Paul scathing attack on the church in Jerusalem, surely?

You are correct cyberlizard, unfortunately most people do not see or understand this point.