Law and commandments. Reconciling a contradiction. Needing truthful input.

[sparkman]

Some good thoughts in there, but I disagree that Jesus says He IS the Sabbath to the point of negating a physical observance of the Sabbath. Yes, He is our ultimate rest, and no physical observance of it can come close to Him. But despite this, He doesn't say, "So go ahead, you don't have to keep the 7th day anymore."

He doesn't say it, at that time..he had not died on the Cross yet.

Colossians 2:16-17 does say it though. Sabbath and Holy days were mere shadows, and the Colossians were not to be judged for not keeping them.

The entire Torah was done away with at the Cross. Nothing at all applies anymore. I will be producing a thread on that.

There are some moral elements that were expressed in the Torah, and those obviously would still have impact as moral absolutes, but not because they were in the Torah. It is because they are moral absolutes.

 

[just-me]

The entire Torah was done away with at the Cross.

Why would God want the entire Torah to be done away with?
What was the purpose since we still have it in writing?
Did He want at least that part left over to create conflict in the New Testament church?

 

[sparkman]

It was a temporary covenant with Israel until Christ came to die as our sin offering. It was basically serving a ministry of condemnation, pointing to our need for a Savior. One is convicted of their sinfulness through it, if they are honest with themselves, and this leads them logically to realize their need for a Savior.

Moral and ethical principles from the Torah can be understood from it by a spirit-led person, however the specific applications to the nation of Israel do not apply to New Covenant Christians. The whole Old Testament is profitable in that manner, but insisting that the specifics that applied to Israel apply to a New Covenant Christian is an error. It is called another gospel by Paul in Galatians 1.

Hebrews 9:1-10 clearly describes the Old Covenant, and verse 10, in particular, says that the Old Covenant was imposed until the time of reformation. Verse 11 specifies that this time of reformation was when Christ came.

II Cor 3 clearly describes the Old Covenant as well, and verse 11 says it was being brought to an end at that time. Verse 7 calls it a "ministry of death, carved in letters on stone".

Galatians 3:19 says that the Law was added until "the offspring" came. Verse 16 specifies who the offspring was, Jesus Christ. Verse 14 says that it was a guardian until Christ came. Verse 25 says that after faith has come, we no longer need a guardian.

Galatians 5:1-6 calls the Law a "yoke of slavery". This clearly corresponds with Acts 15:1, 5, 10-11, 19-20. Gentiles were not required to observe it, other than 4 elements.

Romans 7:1, 6 says that it does not apply to Jews either, and that they are released from the law to serve in the new way of the Spirit, not in the old way of the written code.

Romans 8:2 calls it the "law of sin and death".

Ephesians 2:15-16 says that Christ abolished the law of commandments expressed in ordinances. These ordinances included things such as Sabbaths, festivals, clean and unclean meats and circumcision which were meant to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. These laws created a difference between them that did not need to be there.

Colossians 2:16-17 calls the Sabbath, festivals and new moons "shadows". The same language is used in regards to animal sacrifices in Hebrews 10:1-2.

The end result is this: born-again believers are supposed to walk by the Spirit. Their focus is on Jesus Christ, and not the law. Jesus is the fullest measure of God's holiness, not the law. The law is only a faint glimmer and Jesus is the full radiance.

Paul focuses on walking by the Spirit, and not the flesh in Galatians 5:16-25. The real Christian life is spirit-led, not law-directed. Jesus was constantly trying to get his followers to focus on Him, not the Old Covenant.

A good example of that is the Transfiguration vision thread that I created.

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...ation-mount-new-covenant-vs-old-covenant.html

He did the same thing in the Sermon on the Mount. His six "but I say to you" statements focused on his authority, not the Old Covenant law. He expanded and transformed the commands of the Old Covenant.

For a fuller treatment of this topic, I would suggest Dale Ratzlaff's book Sabbath in Christ.

Why would God want the entire Torah to be done away with?
What was the purpose since we still have it in writing?
Did He want at least that part left over to create conflict in the New Testament church?

 

[KohenMatt]

The entire Torah was done away with at the Cross. Nothing at all applies anymore. I will be producing a thread on that.

It was a temporary covenant with Israel until Christ came to die as our sin offering. It was basically serving a ministry of condemnation, pointing to our need for a Savior. One is convicted of their sinfulness through it, if they are honest with themselves, and this leads them logically to realize their need for a Savior.

Matthew 5:17-19
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[TheAristocat]

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Jesus said in John 7:22; “Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.”

Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathersnor we were able to bear?

Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Acts 15:28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

*Grievous in 1 John 5:3 = 926. barus bar-ooce' from the same as 922; weighty, i.e. (fig) burdensome, grave:--grievous, heavy, weightier.

**Burden Acts 15:28 = 922. baros bar'-os probably from the same as 939 (through the notion of going down; compare 899); weight; in the New Testament only, figuratively, a load, abundance, authority:--burden(-some), weight.

So in Acts 15:5 the Pharisees say that Gentiles should be circumcised according to the law of Moses. Then in John 7:22 Jesus says that circumcision is not of Moses.

Then in Acts 15:10 the disciples say neither they, nor their fathers were able to bear whatever the Pharisees demanded. (was this the law of Moses?) Then in Luke 11:46 Jesus accuses the lawyers of causing grievous burdens.

In Acts 15:19, and 28 the disciples agree that the Gentiles should not have to be troubled with things they themselves cannot even bear. Then John (the beloved) says that God's commandments are not *grievous, related to the **burden described in Acts 15.

My question is; what are the disciples describing in Acts chapter 15 when both Jesus and John are seemingly defining the same entity as they are, yet they seem totally contradictory if they are all defining the law of Moses? Instead of one thing being described, it appears to me the there are two things that should be identified. One is burdensome, and the other isn't. What are they?

A little background to the history leading up to this point for what it's worth:

After the Babylonian Exile, there was no temple to make sin sacrifices in. I remember hearing about how the Jews came up with a system of laws to remind them of God's laws in the Torah and help them to observe them. Because they could not make a sin sacrifice for their sins, it became more important to them to focus on the letter of the Law instead of the spirit, because even one transgression of the letter could not be forgiven without a sin offering in their thought.

So a new Judaism sprang up. It was known as Pharisaical Judaism and it slowly turned into Rabbinic Judaism over the years. It is this Pharisaical Judaism that is burdensome. If you've ever tried to observe the Torah, you'd discover that it is really not that burdensome. Certainly it takes time out of your week, but it's not like you're observing it to make yourself righteous. No one is righteous. So it's impossible to foot the burden of the Law for the purpose of making yourself righteous and saving yourself.

But this is what those Pharisees who believed in Jesus as the Messiah were doing. I believe they were so prone to the Pharisaical frame of mind that they started slipping back into it. And the only thing intrinsically bad about the Pharisaical life style is that it tends to get one's mind off of God's laws and on to man's laws, even if it was originally designed to make it harder to disobey God's laws. God warned us in the Old Testament not to add anything to his laws. But the Pharisees failed in this regard.

If you obey the Law because of what God has done for you instead of what you can do for yourself, then it is not burdensome. If you obey the Law for what you can do for yourself, then it becomes a big burden. You are trying to earn your own salvation. And that's an imposing feat to measure up to.

Just my opinion.

 

[sparkman]

I have addressed that set of Scriptures in a different thread.

As a former Sabbathkeeper, obviously I've been exposed to virtually all the arguments for keeping the Sabbath/festivals/unclean clean meat laws, and have had to reconcile them in order to move away from the position myself.

I know they are convincing on the surface level but when critically examined, they fall apart.

First, here's the link to my analysis of that section of Scripture:

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/115415-matthew-5-17-19-sabbathkeeping-claims.html

Again, we are talking about pre-resurrection remarks Christ made so they are irrelevant to whether the Sabbath, festivals, clean and unclean meat laws, and physical circumcision are applicable today. Things changed drastically after the Cross. You do not see him saying that animal sacrifices should not be offered, either, in fact he told a leper to perform the appropriate sacrifice after a healing. But no one would argue that animal sacrifices are in effect today.

Read my initial post in the thread and we can discuss.

However, I have two questions for you.

One, if you claim Sabbath-breaking is a sin, then how do you explain the fact that it's not mentioned in any of the sin-lists to the Gentiles? Why doesn't Paul provide teaching on it?

Two, if you claim that eating clean/unclean meats is a continuing obligation, how do you explain the parenthetical statement that Mark makes in verse 19 the teaching of Mark 7:14-23? The statement says clearly "..thus he declared all foods clean". In addition, how do you explain Paul's comments in Romans 14:14-17? Paul clearly said that nothing is unclean in itself, and the context is clearly food.

Matthew 5:17-19
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[sparkman]

One of the purposes of the Law was to draw a distinction between the nation of Israel and other nations. The Sabbath, annual festivals, clean and unclean laws, and physical circumcision did that very well.

This issue almost inevitably causes a separation between those who do these things and those who do not. The Torah observer will claim these ceremonial and ritualistic components of the law are requirements, conditions, or necessary fruits of salvation, or will consider one who doesn't think so as inferior spiritually to themselves. They view themselves as being the individuals who are truly obedient to God, and others as being lukewarm or in sin.

If someone wants to hold those convictions, fine..let them hold their convictions in private. If they want to start teaching them as requirements, conditions, or necessary fruits of salvation, or judge others as being less of a Christian than themselves for not observing, they enter into the very issue that Paul had to address over and over again during his ministry.

He constantly had to deal with Judaizing forces that were trying to inflict these obligations, conditions or requirements on other believers.

In Galatians 4:21-31 he mentions how those who are "children of the slave woman", which were those who wanted to be under the Old Covenant, persecute those who are "children of the free woman", particularly verse 29. This perfectly aligns with Colossians 2:16-17 and how the Colossians were being persecuted by those who wanted them to accept elements of the Old Covenant. In fact, the context of Colossians 2 involved their claims regarding the need to be circumcised as well.

It becomes clearer and clearer as one studies this issue that there is a force today that is working toward the same end. And their focus is not Jesus Christ and forgiveness of sins through placing one's faith in Him, like the teaching of the apostles. it is about the need to come under the requirements of the Old Covenant.

As far as judging, we have the same situation with regards to Sabbath and festival keeping groups. The teachings of the churches that sprang from Herbert Armstrong's false teaching declare others are unsaved. The Seventh Day Adventists think that Sabbathbreaking is a sin and they say it will be the Mark of the Beast in the end times. Many within the Hebrew Roots movement make similar judgments. If they don't explicitly state that non-Torah observers are living in sin, they infer that they are not being as obedient to God as they should be, and that they themselves are.

That is why Paul said don't let any person judge you in regards to these things in Colossians 2:16-17. The tendency is to judge other Christians for not observing these things. As a Sabbathkeeper, I judged others to be unsaved due to their failure to keep the Sabbath and all of the things that my church taught. That won't happen again, and I won't be associated with Sabbathkeepers either due to this attitude.

A little background to the history leading up to this point for what it's worth:

After the Babylonian Exile, there was no temple to make sin sacrifices in. I remember hearing about how the Jews came up with a system of laws to remind them of God's laws in the Torah and help them to observe them. Because they could not make a sin sacrifice for their sins, it became more important to them to focus on the letter of the Law instead of the spirit, because even one transgression of the letter could not be forgiven without a sin offering in their thought.

So a new Judaism sprang up. It was known as Pharisaical Judaism and it slowly turned into Rabbinic Judaism over the years. It is this Pharisaical Judaism that is burdensome. If you've ever tried to observe the Torah, you'd discover that it is really not that burdensome. Certainly it takes time out of your week, but it's not like you're observing it to make yourself righteous. No one is righteous. So it's impossible to foot the burden of the Law for the purpose of making yourself righteous and saving yourself.

But this is what those Pharisees who believed in Jesus as the Messiah were doing. I believe they were so prone to the Pharisaical frame of mind that they started slipping back into it. And the only thing intrinsically bad about the Pharisaical life style is that it tends to get one's mind off of God's laws and on to man's laws, even if it was originally designed to make it harder to disobey God's laws. God warned us in the Old Testament not to add anything to his laws. But the Pharisees failed in this regard.

If you obey the Law because of what God has done for you instead of what you can do for yourself, then it is not burdensome. If you obey the Law for what you can do for yourself, then it becomes a big burden. You are trying to earn your own salvation. And that's an imposing feat to measure up to.

Just my opinion.

 

[KohenMatt]

Again, we are talking about pre-resurrection remarks Christ made so they are irrelevant to whether the Sabbath, festivals, clean and unclean meat laws, and physical circumcision are applicable today. Things changed drastically after the Cross.

If you are willing to negate 1/2 of what Jesus said because it was before the cross, go right ahead.
I will not.

Jesus plainly says "Until heaven and earth pass away. He makes no distinction between pre-resurrection and post-resurrection.

I will not make that distinction either.

However, I have two questions for you.

One, if you claim Sabbath-breaking is a sin, then how do you explain the fact that it's not mentioned in any of the sin-lists to the Gentiles? Why doesn't Paul provide teaching on it?

What other OT "sins" does Paul not list to the Gentiles? Are you willing to throw those out as well?

Two, if you claim that eating clean/unclean meats is a continuing obligation, how do you explain the parenthetical statement that Mark makes in verse 19 the teaching of Mark 7:14-23? The statement says clearly "..thus he declared all foods clean". In addition, how do you explain Paul's comments in Romans 14:14-17? Paul clearly said that nothing is unclean in itself, and the context is clearly food.

I addressed this in your litany of questions a little bit ago, but pork was not considered "food" no more than human feces was considered "food." Pork had not been considered "food" by any of God's people for thousands of years. Are you willing to say that human feces are clean for us to eat as food? How about human body parts? Those things would fall in line with not "unclean in itself," and therefore we should be completely OK with it if people do choose to eat those things.

 

[just-me]

The carnal mind will fight against what I am going to present.

The end result is the same for those who are under the law and those who are without the law.

“For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;” (Romans 2:11-12)

If a person is under the law, they are making the law their authority without hearing the voice of the Giver. They are only hearing their own voice interpreting what the law means according to their carnal mindset of works without faith.

If a person has no law to observe, they also cannot hear the voice of the Giver, but are forced into hearing only what their voice is saying concerning right and wrong, claiming faith without works, which is a dead faith.

When the voice of God is heard, then God is the authority and not the law, even though the law still remains intact, and they are also under the grace of the Giver by faith.

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Matthew 5:17

According to the Aramaic language, (which was spoken at the time) this verse is better understood as follows.

“Think not that I am come to loosen, or release, (ashrea אשרא) the law, or the prophets: I am not come to unravel , but to complete (amala אמלא).

Being under the law is using the law as one's own authority with no grace obtained from the Giver. Throwing the law away also forces the individual to be one's own authority claiming grace from a Giver that they cannot hear. The end result is the same and both can be labeled as Pharisaical traditionalists.

When a man and woman are married via a marriage contract, and the woman goes to serve another man, as Israel went to serve other gods, then a divorce will occur. That doesn't negate the attributes of the husband, for his code of life remains the same. The Old Covenant can be completed, and incorporated into the New, but the Old Covenant cannot contain the New Testament in Christ in order to make the Old Covenant perfect.

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” Hebrews 8:7

The writer of Hebrews proves by the testimony of Jeremiah, that there is a second testament or covenant, and therefore that the first was not perfect, and can only be completed by Christ Jesus.

I also posted this on "http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/117647-dont-mix-law-grace.html" because I think it's edifying and also very important for all of us to comprehend.

 

[KohenMatt]

One of the purposes of the Law was to draw a distinction between the nation of Israel and other nations. The Sabbath, annual festivals, clean and unclean laws, and physical circumcision did that very well.

This issue almost inevitably causes a separation between those who do these things and those who do not. The Torah observer will claim these ceremonial and ritualistic components of the law are requirements, conditions, or necessary fruits of salvation, or will consider one who doesn't think so as inferior spiritually to themselves. They view themselves as being the individuals who are truly obedient to God, and others as being lukewarm or in sin.

If someone wants to hold those convictions, fine..let them hold their convictions in private. If they want to start teaching them as requirements, conditions, or necessary fruits of salvation, or judge others as being less of a Christian than themselves for not observing, they enter into the very issue that Paul had to address over and over again during his ministry.

He constantly had to deal with Judaizing forces that were trying to inflict these obligations, conditions or requirements on other believers.

In Galatians 4:21-31 he mentions how those who are "children of the slave woman", which were those who wanted to be under the Old Covenant, persecute those who are "children of the free woman", particularly verse 29. This perfectly aligns with Colossians 2:16-17 and how the Colossians were being persecuted by those who wanted them to accept elements of the Old Covenant. In fact, the context of Colossians 2 involved their claims regarding the need to be circumcised as well.

It becomes clearer and clearer as one studies this issue that there is a force today that is working toward the same end. And their focus is not Jesus Christ and forgiveness of sins through placing one's faith in Him, like the teaching of the apostles. it is about the need to come under the requirements of the Old Covenant.

As far as judging, we have the same situation with regards to Sabbath and festival keeping groups. The teachings of the churches that sprang from Herbert Armstrong's false teaching declare others are unsaved. The Seventh Day Adventists think that Sabbathbreaking is a sin and they say it will be the Mark of the Beast in the end times. Many within the Hebrew Roots movement make similar judgments. If they don't explicitly state that non-Torah observers are living in sin, they infer that they are not being as obedient to God as they should be, and that they themselves are.

That is why Paul said don't let any person judge you in regards to these things in Colossians 2:16-17. The tendency is to judge other Christians for not observing these things. As a Sabbathkeeper, I judged others to be unsaved due to their failure to keep the Sabbath and all of the things that my church taught. That won't happen again, and I won't be associated with Sabbathkeepers either due to this attitude.

In my opinion, you need to start making distinctions between those who keep the Torah for salvation's sake (your view of the WWCoG) and those who keep it out of response to God's gracious salvation.

I have been around here for 2 years and I can count on a couple of fingers those here who have promoted the Torah as means of salvation. There are none currently that I know of. If they exist here, they rarely, if ever contribute.

You had a bad experience in your previous Sabbath-keeping life. I understand that and lament it alongside you. But that was a portion of people who kept the Torah for salvation's sake. So when you speak against those who keep the Sabbath, or the Feasts or the Law, you need to make that distinction and not lump them all into your bad experience.

Just because you or your old church had the wrong perspective of the Law doesn't change God's purpose of the Law, and other people's observance of it.

 

[KohenMatt]

The carnal mind will fight against what I am going to present.

The end result is the same for those who are under the law and those who are without the law.

“For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;” (Romans 2:11-12)

If a person is under the law, they are making the law their authority without hearing the voice of the Giver. They are only hearing their own voice interpreting what the law means according to their carnal mindset of works without faith.

If a person has no law to observe, they also cannot hear the voice of the Giver, but are forced into hearing only what their voice is saying concerning right and wrong, claiming faith without works, which is a dead faith.

When the voice of God is heard, then God is the authority and not the law, even though the law still remains intact, and they are also under the grace of the Giver by faith.

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Matthew 5:17

According to the Aramaic language, (which was spoken at the time) this verse is better understood as follows.

“Think not that I am come to loosen, or release, (ashrea אשרא) the law, or the prophets: I am not come to unravel , but to complete (amala אמלא).

Being under the law is using the law as one's own authority with no grace obtained from the Giver. Throwing the law away also forces the individual to be one's own authority claiming grace from a Giver that they cannot hear. The end result is the same and both can be labeled as Pharisaical traditionalists.

When a man and woman are married via a marriage contract, and the woman goes to serve another man, as Israel went to serve other gods, then a divorce will occur. That doesn't negate the attributes of the husband, for his code of life remains the same. The Old Covenant can be completed, and incorporated into the New, but the Old Covenant cannot contain the New Testament in Christ in order to make the Old Covenant perfect.

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” Hebrews 8:7

The writer of Hebrews proves by the testimony of Jeremiah, that there is a second testament or covenant, and therefore that the first was not perfect, and can only be completed by Christ Jesus.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to just-me again.

 

[sparkman]

If you are willing to negate 1/2 of what Jesus said because it was before the cross, go right ahead.
I will not.

Jesus plainly says "Until heaven and earth pass away. He makes no distinction between pre-resurrection and post-resurrection.

I will not make that distinction either.



What other OT "sins" does Paul not list to the Gentiles? Are you willing to throw those out as well?



I addressed this in your litany of questions a little bit ago, but pork was not considered "food" no more than human feces was considered "food." Pork had not been considered "food" by any of God's people for thousands of years. Are you willing to say that human feces are clean for us to eat as food? How about human body parts? Those things would fall in line with not "unclean in itself," and therefore we should be completely OK with it if people do choose to eat those things.

That's bad reasoning. He apparently declared something that was previously unclean to be clean.

Regarding foods, wouldn't the vision of Peter in Acts 10 and 11 be deceitful, if in fact those foods were still unclean? I know the primary meaning is that the vision applied to Gentiles, but there was no indication that the foods still remained unclean either.

Give me examples of other sins in the Old Covenant which were not discussed in the apostolic writings in some manner. Besides that, a Spirit-led Christian knows when moral absolutes are being violated, and the Sabbath, holy days, clean and unclean meats, and physical circumcision are the topics of discussion and focus of those who press Old Covenant laws upon New Covenant Christians.

 

[sparkman]

In my opinion, you need to start making distinctions between those who keep the Torah for salvation's sake (your view of the WWCoG) and those who keep it out of response to God's gracious salvation.

I have been around here for 2 years and I can count on a couple of fingers those here who have promoted the Torah as means of salvation. There are none currently that I know of. If they exist here, they rarely, if ever contribute.

You had a bad experience in your previous Sabbath-keeping life. I understand that and lament it alongside you. But that was a portion of people who kept the Torah for salvation's sake. So when you speak against those who keep the Sabbath, or the Feasts or the Law, you need to make that distinction and not lump them all into your bad experience.

Just because you or your old church had the wrong perspective of the Law doesn't change God's purpose of the Law, and other people's observance of it.

If you are teaching that it is part of the obligation of a believer to keep ceremonial and ritualistic elements of the Old Covenant, such as the Sabbath, holy days, clean and unclean meats, and physical circumcision, you are embracing error and I will address it.

Do you believe that those who do not keep the Sabbath, holy days, clean and unclean meats, and physical circumcision are in disobedience to God? Do you think those individuals who do not do so are committing sin? Do you think they are part of the expectation that God has for New Covenant believers?

 

[sparkman]

Here's another question..if the Sabbath is such an important day to observe after the Cross, and Jesus expected his people to be gathered on this day, why were there no references to post-resurrection appearances of Jesus on the Sabbath, but at least 4 appearances on the first day of the week?

Morning of the resurrection (Matt 28:9-10, Mark 16:9, John 20:11-18)

Two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-33, Mark 16:12-13)

Simon Peter (Luke 24:31-35)

Eleven disciples on the evening of Resurrection Sunday (Mark 16:14-18, Luke 24:36-44, John 20:19-23)

If you are teaching that it is part of the obligation of a believer to keep ceremonial and ritualistic elements of the Old Covenant, such as the Sabbath, holy days, clean and unclean meats, and physical circumcision, you are embracing error and I will address it.

Do you believe that those who do not keep the Sabbath, holy days, clean and unclean meats, and physical circumcision are in disobedience to God? Do you think those individuals who do not do so are committing sin? Do you think they are part of the expectation that God has for New Covenant believers?

 

[sparkman]

Here's another question..why did John refer to the festivals as "feasts of the Jews" if they were applicable to everyone, and were required at the time John was writing? Certainly such wording would be deceptive if they were a binding requirement upon Gentile believers after the crucifixion.

He did so in these verses:

John 2:13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem

John 6:4 4Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near.

John 7:2 Now the Jews’ Feast of Booths was at hand.

John 11:55 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves.

No, like Colossians 2:16-17 teaches, they were shadows of Christ..not the Reality..which is what New Covenant Christians have. We have the reality, so we don't need to embrace shadows.

I have no issue with those who keep Sabbaths or Holy Days, but once they start to teach that other Christians should be observing them, it becomes exactly the situation Colossians 2 describes. Paul clearly told the Colossians that they were already complete in Christ and did not need to keep those days, which were shadows. Nor did they need to be physically circumcised. They were complete already. Read Colossians 2:9-11, particularly in the New International Version as this is clearer for this particular set of Scriptures..but read all the different versions to get a rounded view.

The issue in Galatians was the same thing. Judaizers came along afterwards and tried to convince Gentiles that they needed to observe those elements after salvation. They did not need to, as they are complete in Christ.

Judaizers followed Paul around like mongrels trying to inflict their Old Covenant practices on New Covenant believers. Philippians also talks about this (Philippians 3:1-3).

The fruits I've seen from this whole movement have been poor. You have disciples of 119ministries.com going out and trying to push this teaching off on people. In addition, many of them end up rejecting basic truths such as the Trinity, deity of Christ, Paul's writings, and embracing nonsense such as the Kabbalah. It's actually a very insidious movement.

My experience with Worldwide Church of God was bittersweet in a way. I was saved while attending there, despite the bad doctrine, but at least they held solid on the idea that Scripture cannot be negotiated in any way. And the later leaders were faithful to that commitment. I do not harbor harsh feelings toward them. But, I do wish I'd used that decade for more profitable studies such as Greek and Hebrew in a good, sound church like I'm attending now. However, I believe God is sovereign and uses even our bad experiences to accomplish something.

In my opinion, you need to start making distinctions between those who keep the Torah for salvation's sake (your view of the WWCoG) and those who keep it out of response to God's gracious salvation.

I have been around here for 2 years and I can count on a couple of fingers those here who have promoted the Torah as means of salvation. There are none currently that I know of. If they exist here, they rarely, if ever contribute.

You had a bad experience in your previous Sabbath-keeping life. I understand that and lament it alongside you. But that was a portion of people who kept the Torah for salvation's sake. So when you speak against those who keep the Sabbath, or the Feasts or the Law, you need to make that distinction and not lump them all into your bad experience.

Just because you or your old church had the wrong perspective of the Law doesn't change God's purpose of the Law, and other people's observance of it.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

My question is; what are the disciples describing in Acts chapter 15 when both Jesus and John are seemingly defining the same entity as they are, yet they seem totally contradictory if they are all defining the law of Moses? Instead of one thing being described, it appears to me the there are two things that should be identified. One is burdensome, and the other isn't. What are they?

Jesus' citing of the Law in criticizing the Pharisees was not to establish the Law as necessary for the Christian. It was to point out that the Pharisees clung to the letter of the Law without giving credence to its intent. That intent was to show the futility of being perfect, which is what the Law demands for salvation.

In other words, it demands Jesus Christ. Only He was able to keep the Law, and as such established Himself as the perfect sacrifice, once for all, for the sins of men. In showing the Pharisees how poorly they actually kept the Law, he exposed the arrogant temerity they exhibited in judging others according to a Law they couldn't themselves keep. He proved them to be hypocrites.

In doing so, He showed those the legalists judged that they were being judged by men no better and, in some cases, worse than themselves. That freed them to look past the guilt and shame of their sin and look to solutions for them, rather than what amounted to nothing more than condemnation because of them. They didn't need that from the legalists. They already had it from God, but only He lovingly provided the solution, who is Jesus Christ.

 

[royalscot]

Is not circumcision of the heart both in the law of the Old and New Covenants? The physical thing was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham's seed.

"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:29

Let's all think Spiritually for once, instead of seeing certain parts of scripture as spiritual and other parts only physical as the carnal fleshly mind operates.
Does not circumcision relate to the conception of a baby and the sowing of the sperm seed?
What about the phrase used "children of God?"
What about the marriage supper and the promise of betrothal?
What about being born of the Spirit?

The disagreements about this subject clearly show the ignorance that the carnal mind propagates. It's the same today as it was then. The carnal mind demanded circumcision back then in Acts 15, and the carnal mind today doesn't comprehend the spiritual truth concerning circumcision written in the law. All a carnal mind can do is describe the physical aspects of the law because it's impossible for that type of mind to be subject to the Spiritual reality of the matter. The carnal mind cannot comprehend the spirit of the law that was given to Moses for the nation of Israel same as a Pharisaical mind during Jesus' day. There's no difference, just a different wrinkle of deception.

Leviticus 12:1-3
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, [SUP]2 [/SUP]Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
[SUP]3[/SUP]And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

So let's get over it. Circumcision would still be on the table for conversation even if the law had never been administered, or even if Moses would never have existed. It was carried over to the next generation during and after the 40 years Israel wandered in the wilderness. "At that time the Lord said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time." Joshua 5:2

"Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man." John 7:22

These scripture references are not a contradiction to each other.

horse stool,

 

[royalscot]

with out a old there would not be a new.
keep following puff the magic drgon.

 

[royalscot]

that would be new or old covenant etc . with no temple of stone follow the full law of moses. with out jesus . numb nut . giving him extra point to think out side the box. not that them point will stop you going to hell. just to let you know. the truth dont need protecttion or an army. stay cool and be loved .

 

[royalscot]

Why would God want the entire Torah to be done away with?
What was the purpose since we still have it in writing?
Did He want at least that part left over to create conflict in the New Testament church?

then ask jesus , you numb nut . and i want your reply in toughies . ie paul was the only one that said more than ones siritual gift. pity the lie will remain a lie, because it has no power. so bula , back off. or i will pop your your cherry.