The Law Debacle Resolved

[eternally-gratefull]

The point is we have the writings of the Apostles now, so imagining one back at 33AD is silly.

Mankind had enough knowledge to be saved before the law and prophets were ever written. that is not arguable.

You would think, if the law and prophets were all we needed to know how to live, There would be no need of the NT other than maybe the gospels. Everything else would be just redundant information.

 

[DP]

Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, had two flocks, the original comprised of teh Children of Israel, and another flock, gentiles, whom He was to gather with the original flock.

He was born a Jew, lived as a Jew, and died the King of the Jews. He is our King.

He is teh Gate of the enemies of the Children of Israel, that being gentiles.

It seems tome if we have entered the Gate promised to Abrahams's descendants we are joining those inside. If we are subjects of teh King of the Jews, we are all Jews, and if we are to follow after Him in our lives we are to live as did He.

Keep in mind when Leah named Judah, she di so because she said, I will now praise YIah (Yahweh). This last phrase is more or the definition of the name, Judah, from which we have the shortened version Jew.

So if Jesus Christ is not your Example, if He is not you rKing, you do not praise God etc., then perhaps you are not Jewish.

Actually, Jesus Christ is not just 'king of the Jews', but King over all Israel. The title of Jew began with the small remnant of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, and strangers that also took that title, that returned from the 70 years Babylon captivity back to Jerusalem. The majority of the "house of Israel" (i.e., ten tribes) were still scattered abroad and were not part of that Babylon captivity, nor return. (This per the Jewish historian Josephus who lived around 100 A.D.).

Just because our Heavenly Father did not cause the "house of Judah" to lose their heritage as part of Israel does not mean to omit the larger part of Israel ("house of Israel") that God scattered first, especially since He gave us plenty of Scripture to show the ten tribes will be gathered back with the "house of Judah" in final.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

There would be much more agreement and polite discussion if people would refrain from accusing others of being "wrong" when they don't know what they are talking about. In order for someone to legitmately find fault with another's beliefs, thinking, train of thought, etc. they have to know what the facts are. The declarations that "the law is..." are so foolish because they expose the writer's ineptness at rightly discerning the Word of God. If one is going to belittle someone else for trying to share the truth of ALL of God's Word, the only thing that would be a legitimate point for discussion is something that is factual.
Think of it like a court case - only FACTS are considered.

The Law "torah" actually happens to be the first 5 books, and everything contained it it.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

The God of the bible is never changing.
It's stated that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
So that concluision would be invalid, unles you're saying that God is a changing God.
Which if He is, that is actually a very very scary thing.

GOD doesn't change, but the way he deals with men changes. I don't see how someone with an honest heart can read the bible and say differently.

Are men under obligation to be physically circumcised these days to be saved? Before Abraham they weren't. After him they were. Now they aren't. Something has changed.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The God of the bible is never changing.
It's stated that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
So that concluision would be invalid, unles you're saying that God is a changing God.
Which if He is, that is actually a very very scary thing.

Sacrifice any animals lately? Where is the inner sanctum of the temple while we are at it, we are 2000 years behind the day of atonement sacrifices. Oh and when are we going to start stoning prostitutes and other people who have broken Gods law?

 

[JaumeJ]

Thank you. My post is in terms of the cross, and the title inscribed over our Lord's Head. He is King of kings. Also, please bear in mind I almost always use the words Israel, Judah, and just about any other Hebrew name in regards to how they translate.

Yes, Jesus Christ also was betrayed by His own tribe for Judah was also of the tribe of Juda. When I thin or use the word Jew, from Judah, I think of a praiser of Yah, but if I always bring this up, disputes come out of the woodwork. As for Israel, I think, Prince with El (Elohim or God.). This makes almost every prophecy utilizing these titles very clear for me.

I know the eleven tribes and Joseph's half tribes named for his sons are the former Israel. Thank yoou for pointing this out to me. When we are able to translate the names and other proper nouns fully from the Hebrew, they come alive as underscoring the context in which they ae used so many times. Do not take this as I believe it is necessary for any believer to read the Word in Hebrew, for I found in so doing the min-revelations only verified what I had learned by the Holy Spirit. I believe everyone who believes knows this is true.

God bless you...

Actually, Jesus Christ is not just 'king of the Jews', but King over all Israel. The title of Jew began with the small remnant of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, and strangers that also took that title, that returned from the 70 years Babylon captivity back to Jerusalem. The majority of the "house of Israel" (i.e., ten tribes) were still scattered abroad and were not part of that Babylon captivity, nor return. (This per the Jewish historian Josephus who lived around 100 A.D.).

Just because our Heavenly Father did not cause the "house of Judah" to lose their heritage as part of Israel does not mean to omit the larger part of Israel ("house of Israel") that God scattered first, especially since He gave us plenty of Scripture to show the ten tribes will be gathered back with the "house of Judah" in final.

 

[Biblelogic01]

GOD doesn't change, but the way he deals with men changes. I don't see how someone with an honest heart can read the bible and say differently.

Are men under obligation to be physically circumcised these days to be saved? Before Abraham they weren't. After him they were. Now they aren't. Something has changed.

Read the Torah again.
Not once does it say circumcission is required "to be saved", it's a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham.
Plus did you know someone is 80% less likely to have an STD if they're circumsised?
So presonally, I believe in and serve the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
A sign of His covenant is circumcission.
And then scientifically circumcission is healthy, so I'm going to have it done if I have boys.
Along with that, my basis for Torah observance is on the observance for salvation, as I've stated multiple times.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Read the Torah again.
Not once does it say circumcission is required "to be saved", it's a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham.
Plus did you know someone is 80% less likely to have an STD if they're circumsised?
So presonally, I believe in and serve the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
A sign of His covenant is circumcission.
And then scientifically circumcission is healthy, so I'm going to have it done if I have boys.
Along with that, my basis for Torah observance is on the observance for salvation, as I've stated multiple times.

If a man wasn't circumcised he was cut off from Israel. GOD's promises were to Israel, and to Israel alone. The promise GOD made to Abraham in the circumcision covenant was that GOD would be GOD to his descendents who were circumcised. Those who weren't were cut off from GOD; he was not their god. Hard to be saved when GOD disowns you.

 

[ember]

Grace, Law? What about it? How do we resolve it.

KennethC gave me and all a reminder in Just-Me's wonderful thread on PHARISEES.

Here is the solution.

Do what Jesus teaches and did.

If you feel a need to argue this, you need His help right away.

Thank you Just-Me and KennethC..........

I think saying that we have a need to look into scripture to resolve what you think is a conflict, is what most of us would find appropriate

The Bible does not teach a double dictonomy for salvation

There is only one way to be saved and it does not include our own efforts, no matter how well meaning

I appreciate Ken's posts but I am not in agreement with all of his thoughts

 

[Biblelogic01]

Sacrifice any animals lately? Where is the inner sanctum of the temple while we are at it, we are 2000 years behind the day of atonement sacrifices. Oh and when are we going to start stoning prostitutes and other people who have broken Gods law?

I've already explained my position on this in other posts.
In a short resummary.
Sacrifices, and anything to do with that fall under ceremonial law, which only pertains to Levites/priests and the tabernacle/temple.
Since there are none of these around there is no way for any of these to happen.

Now I haven't done any studying on it, but Ezekiel mentions a new temple being built that lines up with the temple talked about in Revelation. I have done much study on these except outside of that. I will do more studying and ask the Holy Spirit in guidance in my studies, and then I'll get back to you.

Now along with that, believe it or not after Paul came to Christ and was starting his teaching. Paul took a Nazerite vow, and paid for a couple gentiles to do it with him. . . . . There are offerings in a Nazerite vow.
Now again I've not fully studied this and it's something I'm planning on studying more, but why would Paul take a nazerite vow, knowing that there are sacrifices/offerings involved?

As for stoning a prostitute, it comes down to the same thing.
Only a Levite/priest can carry out that judgement.
You didn't have any whoha Israelite running around throwing stones.
There was a judicial system set up, very similar to what we have today.
So again, there's no Levites/priest temple or yadiya around.
Plus also a part of Torah it states if you're captured, you're to follow the laws of the land unless it were to be against God (such as bowing down to an idol).

Now along with this there was a whole process leading up to someone being stoned.
They had to be accused, and brought before a judge.
When the prostitute was brought to Jesus, they were actually going based off of the judicial system.
They caught her in the act, accused her, and brought her to see what Jesus would do.
Jesus said let who is without sin cast the first stone, because Jesus knew what they were trying to do.
So in a sense you could say that Jesus was agreeing that she could be stoned, but only by one who is sinless.
Only one without sin could cary out the judgement
After that Jesus who is ultimately our final judge tells the prostitue to she is forgiven and to TURN AWAY (repent) from her sin, because Jesus is without sin and can carry out the judgement however He sees fit.

So in a long story short, bringing up stoning is irrelevant same as bringing up sacrifices/offerings in this case.

 

[ember]

Originally Posted by just-us-2

There would be much more agreement and polite discussion if people would refrain from accusing others of being "wrong" when they don't know what they are talking about. In order for someone to legitmately find fault with another's beliefs, thinking, train of thought, etc. they have to know what the facts are. The declarations that "the law is..." are so foolish because they expose the writer's ineptness at rightly discerning the Word of God. If one is going to belittle someone else for trying to share the truth of ALL of God's Word, the only thing that would be a legitimate point for discussion is something that is factual.
Think of it like a court case - only FACTS are considered.

Right.

Who is deciding who is right or wrong?

The rather large flaw in your presentation, is that you are actually requesting we must believe what you teach in order to be not only right, but also saved

That, is a egregious definition of right and wrong IMO

I have to wonder if there is room at the judgment seat of Christ for some to ask Him to push over so they can contribute

No, I am not being sacrilegious. I am being serious and I wonder how it is that judging another believer to fall short of salvation because they don't agree with or question the op, is commendable?

Is it commendable?

 

[DP]

The Law "torah" actually happens to be the first 5 books, and everything contained it it.

That's what many say, but is everything written in the first five Books of God's Word all about His law? No, of course not.

For example, Genesis 49 is a prophecy given through Jacob to his twelve sons, for the "last days". Not his son's last days, but the last days of this present world.

God didn't give Israel His law until the time of Moses. But there references to His law before that which go all the way back to Abel.

So if some brethren have been wrongly told that we in Christ have no need to study the first five Books of The Bible, then those ignorant teachers are misleading you.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I've already explained my position on this in other posts.
In a short resummary.
Sacrifices, and anything to do with that fall under ceremonial law, which only pertains to Levites/priests and the tabernacle/temple.
Since there are none of these around there is no way for any of these to happen.

Now I haven't done any studying on it, but Ezekiel mentions a new temple being built that lines up with the temple talked about in Revelation. I have done much study on these except outside of that. I will do more studying and ask the Holy Spirit in guidance in my studies, and then I'll get back to you.

Now along with that, believe it or not after Paul came to Christ and was starting his teaching. Paul took a Nazerite vow, and paid for a couple gentiles to do it with him. . . . . There are offerings in a Nazerite vow.
Now again I've not fully studied this and it's something I'm planning on studying more, but why would Paul take a nazerite vow, knowing that there are sacrifices/offerings involved?

As for stoning a prostitute, it comes down to the same thing.
Only a Levite/priest can carry out that judgement.
You didn't have any whoha Israelite running around throwing stones.
There was a judicial system set up, very similar to what we have today.
So again, there's no Levites/priest temple or yadiya around.
Plus also a part of Torah it states if you're captured, you're to follow the laws of the land unless it were to be against God (such as bowing down to an idol).

Now along with this there was a whole process leading up to someone being stoned.
They had to be accused, and brought before a judge.
When the prostitute was brought to Jesus, they were actually going based off of the judicial system.
They caught her in the act, accused her, and brought her to see what Jesus would do.
Jesus said let who is without sin cast the first stone, because Jesus knew what they were trying to do.
So in a sense you could say that Jesus was agreeing that she could be stoned, but only by one who is sinless.
Only one without sin could cary out the judgement
After that Jesus who is ultimately our final judge tells the prostitue to she is forgiven and to TURN AWAY (repent) from her sin, because Jesus is without sin and can carry out the judgement however He sees fit.

So in a long story short, bringing up stoning is irrelevant same as bringing up sacrifices/offerings in this case.

thanks, You just proved God does change the way he does things.

There is not a priesthood for a reason. things have changed.

 

[ember]

I believe all who have been received by Jesus Christ are very well aware by the Holy Spirit that they are regarded as righteous before God and the law. God no longer imputes against us the guilt of our iniquity. This is just the beginning of how to understand the mystery of the law and how it is in effect to this day.

I believe all are aware we are to confess our sins one to another. Are these actions necessary if the law is no longer of any value? When we confess our sins, we confess breaking the law, though we keep the law in the spirit in our hearts.

No child of obedience will ever teach against the law. Yes, when we know we believe we are counted righteous, and repeating tht we know we are is not a sin, it is faith in Jesus Christ.

Please advise as to which person is teaching against the law

I can't find that post

it is statements such as this one, that lead to further misunderstanding

no one will agree that they said something they did not, in fact, say, so it hardly represents a fair statement

we know that the children of disobedience are without salvation, so am I to assume that by stating children of obedience do not teach against the law, you are subtly trying to state those who disagree with what you teach, are not saved?

it would be interesting to know what you think about that so perhaps you could tell us

 

[DP]

Thank you. My post is in terms of the cross, and the title inscribed over our Lord's Head. He is King of kings. Also, please bear in mind I almost always use the words Israel, Judah, and just about any other Hebrew name in regards to how they translate.

Yes, Jesus Christ also was betrayed by His own tribe for Judah was also of the tribe of Juda. When I thin or use the word Jew, from Judah, I think of a praiser of Yah, but if I always bring this up, disputes come out of the woodwork. As for Israel, I think, Prince with El (Elohim or God.). This makes almost every prophecy utilizing these titles very clear for me.

I know the eleven tribes and Joseph's half tribes named for his sons are the former Israel. Thank yoou for pointing this out to me. When we are able to translate the names and other proper nouns fully from the Hebrew, they come alive as underscoring the context in which they ae used so many times. Do not take this as I believe it is necessary for any believer to read the Word in Hebrew, for I found in so doing the min-revelations only verified what I had learned by the Holy Spirit. I believe everyone who believes knows this is true.

God bless you...

Very much agree. May God bless!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

That's what many say, but is everything written in the first five Books of God's Word all about His law? No, of course not.

For example, Genesis 49 is a prophecy given through Jacob to his twelve sons, for the "last days". Not his son's last days, but the last days of this present world.

God didn't give Israel His law until the time of Moses. But there references to His law before that which go all the way back to Abel.

So if some brethren have been wrongly told that we in Christ have no need to study the first five Books of The Bible, then those ignorant teachers are misleading you.

Again, Torah (law) is the name of the first 5 books of the bible.

The Jews called the OT the "law and prophets" the law was the first books.

 

[atwhatcost]

But it doesn't bother you that ember and her comrades are far nastier than saying "snotty" to several people in here? Wow.
"Then Kefa addressed them: "I now understand that God does not play favorites," Acts 10:34

It bothers me that this keeps coming down to Us vs. Them and BOTH sides believe they have self-righteousness.

Until I was ten, there were three kids in my family. If anyone one of us dared to say, "He/she started it," Mom's answer was "I'll finish it."

Honestly? I wish Mom was here to finish it.

 

[atwhatcost]

The Word teaches in no uncertain terms that the nations will serve Israel (the Israel of New Jerusalem.)

In my post on Jesus being a Jew, I had started it twice, omitting by accident the part where I said because I am sensitive on this subject I will depart from my own OP. Forgive me for this, but I do believe all who believe Jesus Christ are Jewish by translation, and also, I do not care for anything that smacks of being anti-Semite.

This should be another thread.

How will the nations serve? (Honest question, since I see most serving themselves.)

 

[Galahad]

Right.

Who is deciding who is right or wrong?

The rather large flaw in your presentation, is that you are actually requesting we must believe what you teach in order to be not only right, but also saved

That, is a egregious definition of right and wrong IMO

I have to wonder if there is room at the judgment seat of Christ for some to ask Him to push over so they can contribute

Now that's a twist. Here's what you said today. Same day as what you said above.

Originally Posted by ember

Jesus would not have to burn a flag that supports the gay lifestyle

His Father already gave His opinion on homosexuality

I don't think He has changed His mind

My opinion on burning flags would be that it is not very helpful for either side."

So whose opinion? Whose should we follow? Or which post are you sticking with?

 

[atwhatcost]

What is sin? An action that God defines as wrong.
You can try to get general ideas but it does come back to the creator.

But sin is part of the picture, it is the thoughts and handling within a person that leads to the acts and sin, which can be changed. We often impute the thoughts etc as sin itself, when they are not, and so set a higher standard of righteousness than God demands or indicates.

Our thoughts and tendencies indicate issues and problems, but they do not cause us to be condemned. It is our lack of communion with God and walking in love that causes us to have the thoughts, to dwell on the wrong things and finally to sin. So the core problem is our relationships and focus, which we can work on, which if continued in walking in the Spirit, shows itself by righteousness as its fruit with good works.

Now this is the core message of the gospel. Get the heart right and things of the Kingdom will flow.
I suspect this model is not accepted, so the idea of righteousness is rejected, just a hoped for dream for sinners who must use other means, hope in faith for it to work out by doing things by rote or just anything that might seem to work.
Some now think it is mystical changed hearts through open heaven portals, call out and you are zapped.
I thought this was a joke until I heard a "prophet" describing it and calling their audience to pray for its reality.

Jesus said the commandments can be summed up in loving God fully and loving others as ourselves. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is sin is loving self first. Isn't that pretty much what we do? "Me first."