Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances

[Ralph-]

You do not get it

If you show favoritism, you are seen as sinners, Why? You have broken the law. What did he say?

Whoever keeps the whole law. yet fails in ONE POINT is guilty of the WHOLE LAW

He is telling them they are guilty. Why would you tell people they are guilty of the law. Then tell them to follow it?

Thats crazy talk. He is exposing their sin, You know, the ones who are HEARERS, NOT DOERS. the ones who HAVE NEVER BEEN SAVED? or those who are babes still walking in the ways because they have not grown yet?

James taught the church to not show favoritism (James 2:1). That's Leviticus 19:15. But you insist James (and Jesus) did not teach the law.

And just so you don't forget, 'Love your neighbor as yourself' is also the law (Leviticus 19:18). James and Jesus both taught the church to love your neighbor as yourself. They taught the law. But you say they didn't.

Take the red pill, EG. Christians uphold the law of Moses.

 

[posthuman]

Abraham had God's Laws accept the Levitical Priesthood and its ceremonial, sacrificial "Works of the Law" for justification of sins. This is the "Law" that was "ADDED" to God's Commandments and Statutes, "Until the Seed should come".

This Priesthood was given to the Levites.

Heb. 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood.

Why can't you accept what is written in your own Bible?

Show me where the Bible says Abraham had all the Torah *except for priesthood*?

I can accept what's actually in scripture, but you seem to actually add a lot of presumptions that aren't actually there. You keep redefining the word Law in scripture from verse to verse, however it best suits your private human tradition in each case.

 

[dcontroversal]

Show me where the Bible says Abraham had all the Torah *except for priesthood*?

I can accept what's actually in scripture, but you seem to actually add a lot of presumptions that aren't actually there. You keep redefining the word Law in scripture from verse to verse, however it best suits your private human tradition in each case.

You won't find it.....

Abraham had Issac, Isaac had Jacob, Jacob had 12 sons, Joseph is sold into slavery in Egypt, Joseph rises to prominence in Egypt, Jacob and his family (70) comes to Egypt during famine and after finding out Joseph is alive and 2nd to Pharaoh, They are blessed and grow into a nation, A pharaoh rises that does not know or remember, Moses is born and raised in Egypt 40 years, Moses kills a man and goes into exile 40 years learning to shepherd, Moses is called of God to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, during their wanderings GOD gives the LAW......

The lawyers and Pharisees constantly push drivel that is not found anywhere in scripture........and the law which does nothing but condemn!

 

[posthuman]

James taught the church to not show favoritism (James 2:1). That's Leviticus 19:15. But you insist James (and Jesus) did not teach the law.

And just so you don't forget, 'Love your neighbor as yourself' is also the law (Leviticus 19:18). James and Jesus both taught the church to love your neighbor as yourself. They taught the law. But you say they didn't.

Take the red pill, EG. Christians uphold the law of Moses.

As I read it, James rebukes a certain audience with the specific example of showing partiality ((the 'one part' guilty)), makes a comparison of it with a few of the ten commandments, and then admonishes them that the solution is to keep what he calls 'the royal law' or more literally 'the law of our King,' to wit, love one another.

In doing so he proves that 'the law' is definitely not 'just the 10' - destroying the argument of all those people trying to break Torah into little pieces to judge and not judge others by, and he agrees perfectly with Paul who also says love - 'a more excellent way' - fulfills the whole law, following Christ who declared it to be the basis of Moses: love upholds all the law.

James isn't necessarily judging the reader on the basis of Moses, but the specific audience is assumed to know that law. it's the law of the King he persuades them to keep. If He meant 'keep the Sinai covenant' he wouldn't have appealed to royalty, but priesthood.

So happens, of course, that love coincides with those things - and why wouldn't it? God is one. good and evil haven't changed.

 

[Ralph-]

As I read it, James rebukes a certain audience with the specific example of showing partiality ((the 'one part' guilty)), makes a comparison of it with a few of the ten commandments, and then admonishes them that the solution is to keep what he calls 'the royal law' or more literally 'the law of our King,' to wit, love one another.

In doing so he proves that 'the law' is definitely not 'just the 10' - destroying the argument of all those people trying to break Torah into little pieces to judge and not judge others by, and he agrees perfectly with Paul who also says love - 'a more excellent way' - fulfills the whole law, following Christ who declared it to be the basis of Moses: love upholds all the law.

James isn't necessarily judging the reader on the basis of Moses, but the specific audience is assumed to know that law. it's the law of the King he persuades them to keep. If He meant 'keep the Sinai covenant' he wouldn't have appealed to royalty, but priesthood.

So happens, of course, that love coincides with those things - and why wouldn't it? God is one. good and evil haven't changed.

EG said Jesus and James did not teach the law.

I showed him where they did.



Surely, if you keep the law to 'love your neighbor as yourself' you will not be guilty of any other law. But James is making it clear that if you do not keep the law about favoritism you have not kept the law 'love your neighbor as yourself'.

This is an important point because the church thinks having the one command 'love your neighbor as yourself' means you have no other commands that you have to follow. That is not even remotely true. 'Love your neighbor as yourself' is the SUMMATION of the law, not a convenient escape for not having to do anything else in the law as the church thinks.

 

[Studyman]

"when the priesthood is changed there is of necessity a change also of the law"

why do you think this justifies breaking apart the Torah and selectively erasing jots and tittles?

The Word's you omit answer your question and expose your error at the same time.

Heb. 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe,of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; (Not Levi ) of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Not only does this chapter teach us what changed in the "New Covenant", it tells us why.
The Word which became Flesh inherited God's Priesthood as Jer. 31 tells us. But He was not a Levite and the Priesthood "LAW" God added to His Commandments through Moses allowed for only the Levite to perform and partake in the Priesthood.

So when the Priesthood changed, it was also necessary to change the Law in order for someone other than a Levite to be the High Priest.

Hebews 7-10 explains this in clear detail for those who are interested in knowing.

Hebrews 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;


2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

No listen please and understand.

3 For every high priest is ordained (This is talking about the Priests of God) to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man (Jesus) have somewhat also to offer.


4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are (already) priests that offer gifts (Sacrifices to God) according to the law:

Can you see this PH? According to the existing Priesthood of that time, that God created and gave Moses 430 years after Abraham, Jesus could not be a Priest. Why?? Because He was not a Levite, but from the "TRIBE" of Judah. This is why the Priesthood Law changed so as to eliminate the restriction which allowed only a certain bloodline into the Priesthood.


5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.


6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, (Priesthood) by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant (Priesthood) had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.(Priesthood)

8 For finding fault with them, (Levite Priests, or carnal man) he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant (Priesthood) with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Now Jesus is our High Priest,

He administers God's Laws, not Levite Priests. (writes them on our hearts)

He forgives our sins, not the sacrificial, ceremonial Levitical Priesthood "works of the Law", that the Jews "Bewitched" the Galatians with.

Jesus fulfilled this Priesthood and is still performing it's Spiritual duties in heaven to this day. Not one Jot or Tittle has passed from it.

But "Many" who come in Christ's Name, teach Jesus didn't change the Priesthood, but that He changed the entire Law structure of God. They preach that the Old Covenant is the Old Testament and not the Priesthood as the Bible clearly shows as you must surely see..

Are these scriptures to be rejected for some ancient religious traditions?

 

[Studyman]

So it's not just me. He is not fooling us for one second with his perverted gospel of salvation by "grace plus law, faith plus works." He reminds me a lot of LoveGodForever with his continuous longwinded nonsense, false accusations and obsession with the Roman Catholic church. It's also a real shame to see so much zeal wasted on UNBELIEF (2 Corinthians 4:3,4).

I can understand how many scriptures make you uncomfortable given your preaching. Your resentment is OK, perfectly normal for carnal man. Let's me know I'm on the right track.

 

[Studyman]

The Pope is a false teacher because their is no what scripture calls a "daysman", as pertaining to what the eyes see an infallible umpire to stand between God not seen, and man seen .Its why they preach another Christ, another gospel.

Even the Son of man Jesus denied being a daysman . When called good teacher(master) .He said only God not seen is good.
Christian walk by faith the unseen not by sight as that seen.

I can't disagree with your post. I would only add that much of todays Mainstream Christian Doctrines come from this "false teacher" as you called him. This angers many Christians but it is an unfortunate truth. Like it is written "A little leaven leavens the whole lump"

Thanks for your reply.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Well, actually he did:

"27“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[SUP]e[/SUP] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."-Matthew 5:27

Here it is in the law:

"You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife"-Exodus 20:17

Thanks you have just proved my point

1. He said you have heard it said (they knew the law Jesus did not have to teach it)
2. Then he said, BUT I TELL YOU.... (he showed them the law was not enough.)

Nice try,

Yes, Christ fulfilled the law. He made it so that when God looks at you He sees perfect righteousness as if you had kept the law.

The problem is, the church thinks 'Christ fulfilled the law for us' means you now don't have to do what it says to do. Yes, some things you don't HAVE to do, but you do in fact have to do what the law says. We are to keep the law forbidding favoritism. We are to keep the law to not lust after our neighbor's wife. That is what 'love your neighbor as yourself does'. It upholds the law of Moses. It does not release you from it's requirements as so many think.

I am also sick of this strawman. Who us teaching we do not have to do what God commands? You keep installing this strawman into your argument and it just destroys any sense of reliability you have,

Actually, it does teach those things...


mercy:

"12If the neighbor is poor, do not go to sleep with their pledge in your possession. 13Return their cloak by sunset so that your neighbor may sleep in it."-Deuteronomy 24:12


love:

"you shall love your neighbor as yourself"-Leviticus 19:18


forgiveness:

18‘You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people'-Leviticus 19:18


love and service for enemies:

4“If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to return it. 5If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help them with it."-Exodus 23:4-5

No, it does not completely show us how to do those things, If it did, Jesus would not have to tell us that the law says this, but I tell you that, Jesus would have just continued to say, you know the law. Now do it.

If may give you hints or verses which say show mercy in these areas, But God says to show mercy and love in ALL THINGS. The law does not say this.

Well, now that we can see Jesus and the Apostles did in fact use the law to show us what God wants from us we know that the law is for more than just condemning us as sinners and in need of redemption as the church teaches.

Welp, You failed miserably in your attempt to show this, So I wonder what you will try to draw up next?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

no.no, no studydude. you do not get to control this conversation. I have seen you specifically belittle the catholic church and the pope by name many times. you constantly accuse us of being deceived by. how come you can bad-mouth it, but when I do, you demand an explanation. you explain your reasoning.

Thats is why it is time to stop giving that dude an audience, I think he has proved he has no desire to discuss. But just wants to pick fights. Not worth it bro. I know you do not like to ignore. but this may be one you should do just that.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

So it's not just me. He is not fooling us for one second with his perverted gospel of salvation by "grace plus law, faith plus works." He reminds me a lot of LoveGodForever with his continuous longwinded nonsense, false accusations and obsession with the Roman Catholic church. It's also a real shame to see so much zeal wasted on UNBELIEF (2 Corinthians 4:3,4).

yeah, Imagine if they had truth, and that zeal.. God could work wonders.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

They are only guilty when the break the it.To violate even one the least of the law a person will be guilty of the whole wage (eternal separation)


If the person is a believer they are released from the guilt because another paid the full wage.

They were guilty the moment they FIRST BROKE IT! That's his point.. How can you say you beloeng to Christ when you CONTINUALLY live in sin?? "if you say you have faith BUT HAVE NO WORKS"

Did James say every time they broke it or did he make a proclamation.

When we stand in front of God, if we kept the WHOLE LAW. yet FAILED IN ONE POINT, we are FOUND GUILTY!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

James taught the church to not show favoritism (James 2:1). That's Leviticus 19:15. But you insist James (and Jesus) did not teach the law.

And just so you don't forget, 'Love your neighbor as yourself' is also the law (Leviticus 19:18). James and Jesus both taught the church to love your neighbor as yourself. They taught the law. But you say they didn't.

Take the red pill, EG. Christians uphold the law of Moses.

James made a point, IF YOU CLAIM TO HAVE FAITH, BUT HAVE NO WORKS, CAN YOUR FAITH SAVE YOU.

If you show favoritism, YOU PROVE YOUR GUILTY OF THE LAW

You want to push law as a means of righteousness, Feel free. Thats on your head not mine.

I will teach what Jesus taught, Love the Lord your God, and all men you come in contact Do this, YOU WILL NOT BREAK THE LAW.

I will take a chill pill when people like you stop promoting religion as the gospel of Christ and leading people astray.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

EG said Jesus and James did not teach the law.

I showed him where they did.



Surely, if you keep the law to 'love your neighbor as yourself' you will not be guilty of any other law. But James is making it clear that if you do not keep the law about favoritism you have not kept the law 'love your neighbor as yourself'.

This is an important point because the church thinks having the one command 'love your neighbor as yourself' means you have no other commands that you have to follow. That is not even remotely true. 'Love your neighbor as yourself' is the SUMMATION of the law, not a convenient escape for not having to do anything else in the law as the church thinks.

No, You showed me where they MENTIONED the law

Mentioning the law and teaching it are two different things.

Thats like saying 2+ 2 = 4 and 2 X 2 = 4. there I taught you addition and multiplication

I hope when you are taught things, it is more than just glancing over a few things, then someone saying, there I taught you this subject.

 

[posthuman]

The Word's you omit answer your question and expose your error at the same time.

Heb. 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe,of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; (Not Levi ) of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

what you say i'm "omitting" only substantiates the statement i zeroed in on, that the priesthood has changed, and with it the law: because Christ sprang out of Judah, not Levi.

none of the rest of what you put justifies breaking the Law of Moses into many little chunks, alternately erasing and boldfacing jots and tittles as you please, and neither does it justify changing what "the Law" means all over the new testament according to how your private interpretation's fancy happens to be tickled.

ex: "you are not under law but grace" -- which jots and tittles in particular do you wish to erase from that statement? and how in the world do you think you intellectually 'get away with it' when you do so?

 

[posthuman]

i've written a brief one-act play to illustrate a point.


[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]

setting: post has a certain green 3-piece suit ((let's say it's pretty dapper, just for sake of imagery)).

scene: one day post walks in wearing a brown suit. Dan and Studyman sit at a bar quaffing root beers.


[HR][/HR]


Studyman: it's the exact same suit, only the color has changed.

Dan: no it's not, it's obviously a completely different suit; it's brown.

Studyman: it has buttons and a lapel, therefore it's the same suit.

Dan: you're daft. just because a suit has a lapel and buttons doesn't mean it's the same one. many other details can be different, look, this one has three buttons instead of 5, and there's an extra pocket for a fob on the vest. the other one had a hole for a flower and the pants were pleated. totally different suit.

Studyman: changing the number of buttons is blasphemy (citation needed) - therefore you can't possibly be right about the number of buttons, and i refuse to count them.

post: i'll have a creme soda


[HR][/HR]

close curtains


[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]

 

[posthuman]

the Priesthood Law changed

. . .

Not one Jot or Tittle has passed from it.

surely i'm not the only one seeing the blatant contradiction here..

 

[posthuman]

i've written a brief one-act play to illustrate a point.

***

This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events, locales, and incidents are either the products of the author's imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.

***

 

[gb9]

***

This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events, locales, and incidents are either the products of the author's imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.

***

one thing that ( maybe?) one of the characters would have said the other was " corrupted by catholic traditions ".

excellent playwriting!

 

[Ralph-]

EG, one more time. Explain again how this is not James telling the church to keep the law, specifically, the law to not show favoritism:


"My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism."-James 2:1


Here it is in the law:


"do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great"-Leviticus 19:15


Pretty straight forward. He's plainly telling them to not show favoritism. Tell us again how is this James not telling the church to keep the law to not show favoritism?



Are you afraid that if you acknowledge that believers must keep the law to not show favoritism that it means believers must literally keep all of the law? If so, no, it doesn't mean that.

Just because we now have to approach God in worship in the new and better way of faith in Christ instead of the old way of Feasts and Sabbaths doesn't mean the entire law is now not to be kept by believers. We know this from the simple fact that James says "believers...must not show favoritism". That's Leviticus 19:15. That's keeping the law. You probably did not know this because the church does not know the law very well because they have been incorrectly taught that anything 'law' is evil and should be avoided because that would be you trying to earn your own salvation.