Attack of the Judaizers

[KohenMatt]

That is not in agreement with your 1) and 2).

Ding Ding Ding. Exactly.

If you look back at my original post, #250, you'll see I was referencing those who believe that the commands of the OT, particularly those that say "forever", are no longer applicable, have only 2 choices.

As I originally said in that post:

I think this is really the crux of the issue. Either God lied, or we have 2 different gods. God told His people that He chose, to do certain things forever, for eternity. And that by them doing them, He would be pleased.

Then Jesus comes along, and we assume that He is doing away with all of the these things (even though He never said so).

So either:
1) God lied when He said to do those things forever, but changed His mind when He came in the flesh as Jesus.
2) Jesus supercedes God by getting things right in the NT, thereby implying 2 different Gods, where 1 is more correct than the other.

I don't believe either of those 2. I believe God's message and commands are the same from the OT, to the NT, through the Epistles.

He doesn't change.

 

[chubbena]

....and eating unhealthy is her own business

 

[chubbena]

So the Jews got it wrong?


Poor God, he is so confused.

Only veges til Ge 9:3.

Then piggies at 9:3.

Then no piggies at Lev 11:3, 7.

Then bacon and ham at Mk 7:19.

How's a fella' to know what fuel is to be put in the human body?

Let's see if replacing piggies, bacon and ham with rats, dogs and cats, feces (pigs eat feces) in your statement would still make sense.
Health conscious ones would not eat those He says unclean and detestable and has NEVER classified as food but to each his own.

 

[jag1977]

And I don't believe God changes from gen 1:1 to gen 1:2. All the same right

 

[jag1977]

Same with abraham and Moses God stays same in his teachings as well as with Noah

 

[KohenMatt]

So the Jews got it wrong?


Poor God, he is so confused.

Only veges til Ge 9:3.

Then piggies at 9:3.

Then no piggies at Lev 11:3, 7.

Then bacon and ham at Mk 7:19.

How's a fella' to know what fuel is to be put in the human body?

So what's the answer about God then? If He said repeatedly in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 that pigs are unclean and detestable, and that eating them makes you unclean, When did He change His mind? Did He decide that pigs were no longer physically and biologically unclean, and they were actually good to eat? Was He wrong before?

In all sincerity, how do you justify this "change"?


(Again, if you choose to eat pork or lobster, or work on Saturday, I don't think it affects your salvation at all).

 

[jag1977]

God is at rest. God hasn't spoke to anyone.

*And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

 

[just-me]

So what's the answer about God then? If He said repeatedly in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 that pigs are unclean and detestable, and that eating them makes you unclean, When did He change His mind? Did He decide that pigs were no longer physically and biologically unclean, and they were actually good to eat? Was He wrong before?

In all sincerity, how do you justify this "change"?


(Again, if you choose to eat pork or lobster, or work on Saturday, I don't think it affects your salvation at all).

Today, eating pigs is a metaphor. They have a spit hoof, but they don't chew the cud. Granted, they are not good food like a steer, or a lamb, but that's only physical. Spiritually, anything that is acceptable to God must have the capability to fully digest His truth line by line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little, like being lead out to pasture. That only comes from a split hoof that regurgitates and then swallows again, and again for complete digestion. The spit hoof is also necessary, for it spiritually depicts two directions or paths, and the battle we all have with the carnal nature as Paul did in Romans 7. This clearly means that this is acceptable when we choose to follow in the master’s footsteps, and hear His voice in our minds even though we battle the inward flesh continuously. If we walk in His ways, it is proof that we want this camaraderie with Yeshua Messiah. Split hoof is depicting choice, and cud is depicting the proof of the truth, all within the circumcised heart. Good bless brother. Look at the spiritual ya’ll rather than argue about the carnal. Cease from your own works representing the Sabbath, made for us, with a contrite heart.

 

[danschance]

So if God says do it forever, and Jesus says do it until heaven and earth pass away, God didn't really mean to do it because He said "fullfill"?

Matt, it is forever, but not the same forever. Let me explain this to you with circumcision and then apply it to sabbath.
1) Circumcision is called an everlasting covenant
Gen 17:13 ...both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.

2) Paul claims circumcision of the flesh is of no profit.
Gal 5:2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
1Cor 7:19For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision..
1Cor 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything..

So in section 1 we have the declaration that Circumcision is forever but in section 2 we see in the NT it as being of no effect at all.
Q: What changed?
A: Christ fulfilled the law of circumcision. Circumcision is still forever in that it is now about our hearts instead of some useless skin.


It is the same for sabbath.
1) Again we see in the OT that same sort of language for sabbath.
Ex. 31:13 "But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations,
(Keep in mind sabbath was only observed by Jews and never Gentiles)

2) As it was with Circumcision in the NT, so it is with sabbath in the NT.
Col 2:16-17 16Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17things which are a mere shadow of what is to come

3) This means we are not under any obligation to be circumcised, burn incense, ceremonial washings/purifications, animal sacrifice, etc ---because Christ fullfilled the law.Gal 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
Conclusion
We are not under any obligation to any jewish law. So are we now lawless? Of course not. We are under the Law of Christ.

Romans 7:4-7 4Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which werearoused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter

1Cor. 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.


I hope that helps.

 

[danschance]

Please show me where the fourth Commandment is removed from the Ten. Show me some scripture for it being ceremonial.

by the way...

Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

rest here being Sabbatismos, the keeping of the Sabbath...

Heb 4:9 Therefore remains a keeping of a sabbath for the people of the God. - Diaglott.

There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; - NIV

Heb 4:9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, - ESV

Heb 4:9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. - NASB

and the list goes on and on.

Now show me a statement in the NT that says the Sabbath is done away.

Read my last post to Matt. I think that will answer you questions.

 

[KohenMatt]

Matt, it is forever, but not the same forever. Let me explain this to you with circumcision and then apply it to sabbath.
1) Circumcision is called an everlasting covenant
Gen 17:13 ...both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.

2) Paul claims circumcision of the flesh is of no profit.
Gal 5:2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
1Cor 7:19For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision..
1Cor 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything..

So in section 1 we have the declaration that Circumcision is forever but in section 2 we see in the NT it as being of no effect at all.
Q: What changed?
A: Christ fulfilled the law of circumcision. Circumcision is still forever in that it is now about our hearts instead of some useless skin.


It is the same for sabbath.
1) Again we see in the OT that same sort of language for sabbath.
Ex. 31:13 "But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations,
(Keep in mind sabbath was only observed by Jews and never Gentiles)

2) As it was with Circumcision in the NT, so it is with sabbath in the NT.
Col 2:16-17 16Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17things which are a mere shadow of what is to come

3) This means we are not under any obligation to be circumcised, burn incense, ceremonial washings/purifications, animal sacrifice, etc ---because Christ fullfilled the law.Gal 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
Conclusion
We are not under any obligation to any jewish law. So are we now lawless? Of course not. We are under the Law of Christ.

Romans 7:4-7 4Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which werearoused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter

1Cor. 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.


I hope that helps.

Then the difference is that you think God only meant the spiritual circumcision and the spiritual sabbath was eternal, not the physical command.

I don't see where God makes that distinction in the OT. I don't see where Jesus makes that distinction. Obviously, there is a spiritual depth and application to those things in light of our relationship with God. But God never eliminated the physical obedience. But some people think Paul did.

 

[Elin]

Ding Ding Ding. Exactly.

If you look back at my original post, #250, you'll see I was referencing those who believe that the commands of the OT, particularly those that say "forever", are no longer applicable, have only 2 choices.

As I originally said in that post:



I don't believe either of those 2. I believe God's message and commands are the same from the OT, to the NT, through the Epistles.

He doesn't change.

Then we should be sacrificing animals, sprinkling things with blood, etc.?

 

[Elin]

Poor God, he is so confused.

Only veges til Ge 9:3.

Then piggies at 9:3.

Then no piggies at Lev 11:3, 7.

Then bacon and ham at Mk 7:19.

Let's see if replacing piggies, bacon and ham with rats, dogs and cats, feces (pigs eat feces) in your statement would still make sense.
Health conscious ones would not eat those He says unclean and detestable and
has NEVER classified as food but to each his own.

Are you sure about that?

"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you." (Ge 9:3)

 

[mcubed]

I can understand how things can get confused. The ritual laws are done away with; they are fulfilled in Y-shua. However the moral Laws of Torah have not passed away. Murder is still not OK with G-d neither is coveting, having a false god before Him…. Actually, Y-shua laid down some real hard moral laws, like, no such thing as a divorce because of irreconcilable differences. And I’m sorry if the Torah speaks out against sexual sin and a person watches porn and says the law is dead, I’m not hurting anyone… how many times did you pray for the salvation of that person(s) you are mentally enjoying yourself with. But, maybe G-d is not so into being G-d today and it is ok to share His glory with a false god. And maybe it is ok to not love someone more than yourself and actually think they are for your pleasure and who cares if they get freed from bondage and get saved…. I mean Torah is DEAD and G-d CHANGED!!!! RIGHT?!?

 

[just-me]

Danschance. would you care to read my post # 266 that I posted this morning?

 

[danschance]

OP

So do you think it was part of God’s perfect plan to have His Words downgraded by His own son?
Sorry, but I dont understand the question.

Do you realize Sabbath and rest mean the same and are referring to cease from ones own works? Yes, I think it is safe to say that nearly all on the forum know this. And you are labeling those who observe the Sabbath as being legalizers by their own works? That is a clear 180-degree contradiction. You speak oxymoron stuff.

No, I am labeling those who claim to be Christians who add the mosaic law to their form of Christianity as being modern day Judaizers. Legalism is not the same. Legalism is the strict, excessive use of rules with in Christianity. Here is a link that expalins that better than I have. What is legalism? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry


Hebrews 4:10 (KJV)
[SUP]10 [/SUP]For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

What did God do on the first Sabbath made for us? The Sabbath was made for man to cease from their own works and you are saying they are keeping the Sabbath and that is their own works. WOW! No, I have not said that in any of my posts. This seems to be another example of people claiming I said something but never did. Evidently you feel justified by your works of denying the Sabbath and saying it’s wrong, and are justified by teaching others not to cease from their own works same as yourself.
Again I have not said I have any works in any of my posts. This is another case of people putting words into my mouth so they can "Knock down the straw man and declare a win.

Matthew 5:19 (KJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I didn’t see you address these verses as I searched through your thread twice to see if I missed something. Maybe you can point out to me the post that you are referring to? Yes, I did respond to this verse and it was directed to you. Here is a link that explains how I feel on this verse and the other similar veses you posted earlier. Matthew 5:17-19; Too Slender of a Reed to Support Seventh-Day Sabbatarianism
You said previously that Jesus was not referring to the Mosaic Law when I quoted
John 5:46-47 (KJV)
[SUP]46 [/SUP]For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
[SUP]47 [/SUP]But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
I don't recall everything I posted. The Mosaic laws were never given to gentiles. I am a gentile and do not observe any of the ritual laws of the Mosaic covenant. Instead I follow the law of Christ.

Are you saying now that Moses is not equated with the law?
Strong’s 3551 Law means “food for grazing” all the way through the NT, and there are exceptions such as “father in law, and daughter in law, mother in law, lawlessness etc.

Strong’s 460 in Romans 2:12 (KJV) means those who are lawless will die without the “food for grazing”.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]For as many as have sinned without law (460) shall also perish without law (3551) and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

Romans 7:14 (KJV)
[SUP]14[/SUP] For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Romans 7:22 (KJV)
[SUP]22[/SUP] For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

Romans 8:7 (KJV)
[SUP]7[/SUP] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
These three verses, that you said you addressed, all are Strong’s 3551 as inGalatians 2:16
[SUP]16 [/SUP]Knowing that a man is not justified by the *works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Self justifying *“works” (2041, an obligated effort by means of self justification) is what to focus on, not the ones who observe this food for grazing. To observe the law through faith is right. As long as I have been in CC, I have never seen anyone say that they are justified by the observance of the law and say that’s right to do minus faith. All the people that are observers of the Mosaic Law advocate a sincere faith.

So we see the original intent of our Father in Heaven was to give us food for grazing such as the spiritual meaning of the manna given the desert of Sinai. We should never say that this food is corrupt because of the completion of God’s purpose through Christ Jesus. It is another oxymoron that you would want people to be lawless. I’m sure that isn’t your intention, but that’s exactly what you are teaching.

This is a lengthy and complicated post. I suggest that you try to limit the scope of a post to a manageable size as that is easier for others to grasp and to respond to.

 

[Elin]

So what's the answer about God then? If He said repeatedly in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 that pigs are unclean and detestable, and that eating them makes you unclean, When did He change His mind? Did He decide that pigs were no longer physically and biologically unclean, and they were actually good to eat? Was He wrong before?

In all sincerity, how do you justify this "change"?

(Again, if you choose to eat pork or lobster, or work on Saturday, I don't think it affects your salvation at all).

Could we make "in all sincerity" the standard operating procedure among Christians?

The ceremonial laws were shadows, patterns, copies (Heb 8:5, 10:1) of spiritual realities (Col 2:17).

The ceremonial defilement and cleansing laws regarding food, bodily discharges, etc., etc.
were to teach the meaning of sin, as spiritual defilement,

and sanctification as "set apart" - from defilement (sin), and to God (holiness).

They were not about the meaning of health, they were about the meaning of holiness.

Therefore, when righteousness (Ro 1:17), holiness and sanctification were given by God (Ro 3:21) to us as a gift (Ro 5:17)

through faith in Christ (Ro 3:22), the shadows, patterns, copies of it passed away with the reality in Christ (Col 2:17).

 

[just-me]

This is a lengthy and complicated post. I suggest that you try to limit the scope of a post to a manageable size as that is easier for others to grasp and to respond to.

That is not #266. It's a copy that was later added. 266 is to you personally. page 14 #266. It is to you personally

 

[RedTent]

Pay attention. . .it fulfills the Ten (Gal 5:6; Ro 13:10).

There is that word fulfill again!!! I think that people who will not listen to God says the definition of fulfill is to destroy.

Christ said he didn't destroy. Why not take His word for it? To fulfill might mean round out, explain thoroughly.

 

[danschance]

I can understand how things can get confused. The ritual laws are done away with; they are fulfilled in Y-shua. However the moral Laws of Torah have not passed away. Murder is still not OK with G-d neither is coveting, having a false god before Him…. Actually, Y-shua laid down some real hard moral laws, like, no such thing as a divorce because of irreconcilable differences. And I’m sorry if the Torah speaks out against sexual sin and a person watches porn and says the law is dead, I’m not hurting anyone… how many times did you pray for the salvation of that person(s) you are mentally enjoying yourself with. But, maybe G-d is not so into being G-d today and it is ok to share His glory with a false god. And maybe it is ok to not love someone more than yourself and actually think they are for your pleasure and who cares if they get freed from bondage and get saved…. I mean Torah is DEAD and G-d CHANGED!!!! RIGHT?!?

It is very difficult to respond to your post as you are not asking a question. You seem to only be mocking what others believe.

God doesn't change and I am wondering why you even bring that up?