YOKE OF BONDAGE

[Studyman]

="posthuman, post: 3658000, member: 170505"]

All this is completely immaterial.
Physical circumcision is indisputably part if the Law. In fact it is the sign given to Abraham of the covenant Gid made with him on the basis of faith.

Physical circumcision can now in fact be antichrist.

It was never part of anything having to do with Levitical Priesthood.

I know this is a big problem for your mainstream works doctrine, because it doesn't fit the way your want to break the Law into pieces. That's why when I've brought it up dozens of times in the past all you only talk about non physical circumcision, as though physical circumcision never existed.
Have you considered it further or are we still at the place where you turn a blind eye to these facts? The scripture makes it ((physical circumcision)) out to be a really big deal, not something to ignore or gloss over, both under the old covenant and in the case under Christ with whatever was going on in the churches of Galatian area.

It's not a problem at all Post. You are desperately, as do most religious man, looking to justify your religious traditions and doctrines, many of which are not supported by scripture as has been shown. And you are trying to use Circumcision to do it.

I have pointed out over and over, as does Paul, that Abel, Noah, Abraham were all "Faithful" before physical Circumcision, just like Abraham, Noah and Abel had their sins atoned for "Apart" from the Levitical Priesthood "Deeds of the Law". And as the Priesthood was prophesied to "change" in the Law and Prophets, so also were those who are not under Physical Circumcision prophesied to be folded into His Kingdom.

If a man is just looking to justify a religion, they only look for words that can promote their agenda. But if a person is seeking His Kingdom and HIS Righteousness, then they drink in all of God's Word.

Remember, the serpent used parts of God's Word to deceive Eve into believing the lie that God's instructions were not in her best interest.

satan also used parts of God's Word's to temp Jesus into serving His Flesh, and not the Word's of His Father.

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

When you look at the whole "Law and Prophets", as Paul did, you may see, if allowed, that both Physical Circumcision, which was an outward sign of obedience, and animal sacrifice, which was an outward sign of God's mercy, were Spiritual in nature. God, in His Merciful wisdom, gave us the whole Law and Prophets which explained the intent of God's instructions more clearly. And the entire Law and Prophets were written as "Examples" for our admonition. I don't believe "Circumcision" was written to give a person cover for creating their own religious traditions and doctrines, or rejecting instructions which are contrary to worldly religious traditions.

The Mainstream Preachers of Christ's did the same thing that you do Post. They chose "parts" of the Law and Prophets to justify or create their religion, but omitted very important parts, like mercy, judgment and Faith. When Jesus and Paul spoke to the Mainstream Preachers of their time, they quoted the Law and Prophets every time.

Why? Because they are irrelevant or immaterial as you suggest? I don't believe this is true.

 

[Studyman]

This He said to Israel under the Sinai covenant. Not to those under the covenant of His blood. We're not under curse of the Law and we're not standing to inherit land in the Levant.


Context

I don't believe the Spiritual intent was to give those who Love God a piece of dirt. But you are free to believe as you wish.

Context!!!!

 

[posthuman]

I don't believe the Spiritual intent was to give those who Love God a piece of dirt. But you are free to believe as you wish.

Context!!!!

It's sure not replacement theology we're reading here, either!

 

[posthuman]

looking to justify your religious traditions and doctrines, many of which are not supported by scripture as has been shown

I don't know about that, in fact, you've yet to actually identify a single one of these so-called-traditions you're always making slanderous accusations about. They're always unspecified and never backed up with anything more than your tongue.

 

[Dan_473]

="

I responded.


What then?

All have sinned, and once we have sinned it's over. We have sin on us and nothing we do can change that. But God has called us out of sin. (Egypt ) And we have another chance to honor Him with the reverence and respect that He deserves. Abraham was one such example. Caleb, Noah, Zechariahs are others.

These had sin on them, they were guilty, filthy. But God instructed them as He does to us all. "Pick up your cross (sinful flesh) deny our self (repent, change) and Follow Him. (Turn to God)

So has anyone but Jesus ever lived without sin in them? No. But there are few, on a narrow Path, that have trusted God enough to forget their "past" and to move forward in a "Renewed mind" towards the goal of a perfect man who walks in the "works" He created beforehand for us to walk in. So although no man is sin free, there are those who trust God enough to "change" and turn to Him with all their might. This is the Soul He will help as He promised in John 14.

So we are all in the place Abraham was when God called him out of sin. Did Abraham have a Law for the cleansing of sins? Did Abraham have Levites to atone for His sins? No Dan, He had God's Laws, just not the Law "ADDED" until 430 years later. So He was justified by something "apart" from the Law given by Moses for justification. He was justified by Faith.

Had Abraham done as Eve did, and rejected the instructions God had given him, would he still be considered "Faithful"? Of course not. He would not have been in the Faith Chapter and would not have been the father of all true Christians. He obeyed God BECAUSE He trusted God, or had Faith in God. I can't find any example where Faith and obedience are or even can be separated. I can't help it you refuse to accept the existence of atonement Laws given by Moses that Abraham didn't have. But I can promise you one thing, had their been a Levitical Priesthood in Abraham's time, He would have followed them.

Please fix the quote.

 

[Dan_473]

I didn't alter it Dan.

You wrote it, I wanted to highlight what you wrote. Changing the color of your quotes don't change the meaning of your quotes.

Adding emphasis such as colors, boldface, or italics is an alteration. Please do not do it.
Thank you

 

[Dan_473]

most of the religions of the world teach exactly what you do- one has to earn their way to Heaven / paradise / nirvana.

Jesus said he was the way, the only way. he said take the narrow path. what is that path? don't drink, smoke or cuss?

no, total trust in Him. most ( including you ) do NOT teach this. they ( you ) teach a man-made version of earn your salvation religion.

looks good on paper, but will not look good at the jugdement.

That's the amazing thing about Christianity, isn't it?

The Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.

All the other religions are the Lambs of men trying to reach God.

 

[Dan_473]

="Dan_473, post: 3657024, member: 190874"]

I want to highlight this quote of yours for those reading along.



Num. 4:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
2 Take the sum of the sons of Kohath from among the sons of Levi, after their families, by the house of their fathers,
3 From thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host, to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation.

So God gave specific duties to a specific Tribe for a specific Priesthood which symbolically foreshadowed the perfect sacrifice of the Messiah, duties that you are not now, nor were you ever to partake of, in fact, had you been there and attempted to perform these "Burdensome Laws" you would have been killed.

And may I remind you that Aaron, the Levite, and his son's are no longer in charge of the Sanctuary, and have not been in charge since Jesus changed the Priesthood and became our High Priest. (Though the Jews couldn't accept this truth and continued to preach justification by these Priesthood duties, or as Paul calls them "Works or Deeds of the Law")

So even if you were of the tribe of Levi, you would no longer be held "under the law" that was Added until the "SEED" should come.

This is the scripture you use to promote your religious doctrine of "God's Law is a burden"? This is the verse you use to erase or make void so many other scriptures pertaining to God's instructions?

What if it is your religious tradition and understanding which came from man Dan? What if Jesus was right?

16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

Remember the first example of deception. The serpent used "parts" of God's Word to deceive Eve in believing God didn't have her best interest at heart when He gave her instruction.

Please fix the quote.

 

[Dan_473]

="Dan_473, post: 3657028, member: 190874"]




All have sinned, and once we have sinned it's over. We have sin on us and nothing we do can change that. But God has called us out of sin. (Egypt ) And we have another chance to honor Him with the reverence and respect that He deserves. Abraham was one such example. Caleb, Noah, Zechariahs are others.

These had sin on them, they were guilty, filthy. But God instructed them as He does to us all. "Pick up your cross (sinful flesh) deny our self (repent, change) and Follow Him. (Turn to God)

So has anyone but Jesus ever lived without sin in them? No. But there are few, on a narrow Path, that have trusted God enough to forget their "past" and to move forward in a "Renewed mind" towards the goal of a perfect man who walks in the "works" He created beforehand for us to walk in. So although no man is sin free, there are those who trust God enough to "change" and turn to Him with all their might. This is the Soul He will help as He promised in John 14.

So we are all in the place Abraham was when God called him out of sin. Did Abraham have a Law for the cleansing of sins? Did Abraham have Levites to atone for His sins? No Dan, He had God's Laws, just not the Law "ADDED" until 430 years later. So He was justified by something "apart" from the Law given by Moses for justification. He was justified by Faith.

Had Abraham done as Eve did, and rejected the instructions God had given him, would he still be considered "Faithful"? Of course not. He would not have been in the Faith Chapter and would not have been the father of all true Christians. He obeyed God BECAUSE He trusted God, or had Faith in God. I can't find any example where Faith and obedience are or even can be separated. I can't help it you refuse to accept the existence of atonement Laws given by Moses that Abraham didn't have. But I can promise you one thing, had their been a Levitical Priesthood in Abraham's time, He would have followed them.

Please fix the quote.

 

[Dan_473]

="Dan_473, post: 3657393, member: 190874"]

There is no common bread in my control, but there is holy bread. If the young men have kept themselves from women, they may eat of it

12 And Saul said, Hear now, thou son of Ahitub. And he answered, Here I am, my lord.
13 And Saul said unto him, Why have ye conspired against me, thou and the son of Jesse, in that thou hast given him bread, and a sword, and hast enquired of God for him, that he should rise against me, to lie in wait, as at this day?

14 Then Ahimelech answered the king, and said, And who is so faithful among all thy servants as David, which is the king's son in law, and goeth at thy bidding, and is honourable in thine house?

15 Did I then begin to enquire of God for him? be it far from me: let not the king impute any thing unto his servant, nor to all the house of my father: for thy servant knew nothing of all this, less or more.

16 And the king said, Thou shalt surely die, Ahimelech, thou, and all thy father's house.

So if you believe in the Pharisees, and King Saul, which had the same spirit, you would declare as you do, that David and the Priest sinned.

If that's what the spirit on you teaches these scriptures are about, then so be it.

I don't believe the Word which became Flesh created this "Example" for my admonition, to teach me to reject God's Commandments, or create my own religious traditions, or to use it to make Void all His other Words, before and after, regarding His Holy Sabbath.

1 Sam. 15:
22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

So you answer a question. In your understanding of the God of Abraham, did He create the Priesthood and the Priesthood duties to help His People, or to hurt them?

I find it absolutely fascinating how far men go to preserve their own religion. Saul tried to kill David, The Pharisees killed their own Messiah, all to preserve their own religious traditions.

In your zeal to do the same thing, you have missed the most important lesson Jesus created for us in these examples. And it wasn't to teach us it's OK to transgress His Commandments. IMO.

Please fix the quote.

 

[Dan_473]

="Dan_473, post: 3657663, member: 190874"]





Yes, He was a man same as you and I. But He was born under a law that Abraham nor you and I were born under. It's called the "Levitical Priesthood". The Mainstream Preachers of that time had created a religion around it. But they had omitted the Weightier parts of God's Law like Judgment, Mercy and Faith. Jesus "fulfilled" this Priesthood and became our High Priest as He foretold in the Law and Prophets.



So yes, as Jesus and His Prophets foretold, we are no longer under the Law of the Old Covenant which required the "blood of goats" for the remission of sins. As He said "For I will forgive their sins".

Does this verse, in your mind, erase the scriptures of my post? Does it make the Law and Prophets Void?





But now wait a minute, you just posted that "EVERYTHING was "Lawful" for Paul. But now you are posting rules, mostly parts of Leviticus 19 and Ex. 20.

Is there some kind of point you are trying to make? Or are they just random posts.

Please fix the quote.

 

[Dan_473]

You know, Studyman, the quoting system here on cc is a wonderful tool for other users to be able to track the conversations.

When used properly, for example, user A can quote user B. Then other users can click on the link for user B and read user B's original post that's being responded to.

But when the quoting system isn't used properly, that then requires other users to try to track down the original post by other means if they wish to read it.

So, in my opinion, it's really kind of an impolite thing to do to the other users.

 

[Studyman]

I don't know about that, in fact, you've yet to actually identify a single one of these so-called-traditions you're always making slanderous accusations about. They're always unspecified and never backed up with anything more than your tongue.

I'm sorry,

I thought the very reason you use circumcision is in support of your belief that the Sabbath is no longer to be honored. That is the impression I gathered from your posts.

And I also thought, from your posts, that you believe Jesus taught differently as a man, than as the Word. You have said this and I know it is accepted doctrine in the worlds religions, but the scriptures don't support it, in my view.

And you also teach that the New Covenant re-defines sin, and makes the Law and the Prophets immaterial. At least that is what your posts indicate to me.

You have also taught that "works of the Law" for justification of sin is not the "Priesthood duties" given by Moses for atonement, but represent "ALL" God's Law, even God Laws that Abraham followed.

And I also thought, from your posts, that you believe many of God's Commandments are "Rudiments of the World" and that Col. 2 relegates much of the Bible as irrelevant.

And you have also argued your belief that the Pharisees were trying to earn salvation by following God's Commandments, even after I have showed that Jesus says the opposite in every quote He made about them.

And you also teach God's Commandments are the "Yoke" mentioned in Acts 15, which scripture don't support, in my view.

So all these are widely accepted doctrines and traditions that are practiced and taught by "many" who come in Christ's name, but when all the Word's of God are considered, they are brought into question.

I thought the very reason you made such a big deal about Circumcision was in defense of many of these religious doctrines and traditions which Jesus didn't share.

Now, it seems you are saying it is a sin, according to the Bible, if I don't get Circumcised, yet Paul is telling me to commit this sin.

In fact you even suggested that in your religious doctrines and traditions, to obey God in some cases is "Anti-Christ.

I can see if one doesn't consider "ALL" God's Words, where these different doctrines and traditions can take hold. But what I have shown, or at least tried to show, that if a person follows the instructions of Jesus, and lives by EVERY Word of God, and not just those ones that can be used to promote this tradition or that religious doctrine, a different understanding is arrived at. At least that has been my experience.

I thought I had been clear about the traditions and doctrines you espoused. And that I have written about them extensively.

Apparently not.

 

[Studyman]

Please fix the quote.

Did the best I could in #195

If you are not physically capable of reading and responding to #195, I don't know what to say.

 

[Studyman]

Please fix the quote.

Did the best I could in #197. If you are physically incapable of reading and responding to 197, I do9n't know what to say.

 

[Studyman]

Please fix the quote.

Already did the best I can do in #198.

If you can't physical read or respond to #198, I don't know what to say.

 

[Studyman]

Please fix the quote.

Already tried twice to get this reply acceptable for you. #190 is the best I can do. If you are not physically capable of reading and responding to #190, I don't know what to say.

It is true I am having some trouble with this new format, but I am getting it figured out. When I highlight Scriptures, it is to emphasize Word's that are key to the verse in my opinion. Now that I know you don't want me to highlight your statement in order to emphasize your words, I will refrain from doing so, though it is a common practice on this forum.

However, much of the scripture you use to promote whatever doctrine you are promoting, contain lessons and words which, in themselves, counter the point I think you are making, in my view.

So if you quote God's Word, I reserve the right to Highlight the Word's of God, since they are not yours, which I think are relevant to the conversation.

 

[gb9]

Already tried twice to get this reply acceptable for you. #190 is the best I can do. If you are not physically capable of reading and responding to #190, I don't know what to say.

It is true I am having some trouble with this new format, but I am getting it figured out. When I highlight Scriptures, it is to emphasize Word's that are key to the verse in my opinion. Now that I know you don't want me to highlight your statement in order to emphasize your words, I will refrain from doing so, though it is a common practice on this forum.

However, much of the scripture you use to promote whatever doctrine you are promoting, contain lessons and words which, in themselves, counter the point I think you are making, in my view.

So if you quote God's Word, I reserve the right to Highlight the Word's of God, since they are not yours, which I think are relevant to the conversation.

they are not yours either. you have no authority over them, no authority to add or subtract meaning , as you freely do.

oh, you can do it, but it just makes what you say invalid if you do it.

 

[Studyman]

So as I said my recent posts were all actually part of one post, they should all be put together to make one long post. here's the end of it

18. So then, give ear, you nations, and ... 19. Give ear, O earth: see, I will make evil come on this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not given attention to my words, and they would have nothing to do with my law. 20. To what purpose does sweet perfume come to me from Sheba, and spices from a far country? your burned offerings give me no pleasure, your offerings of beasts are not pleasing to me. 21. For this reason the Lord has said, See, I will put stones in the way of this people: and the fathers and the sons together will go falling over them; the neighbour and his friend will come to destruction. 22. The Lord has said, See, a people is coming from the north country, a great nation will be put in motion from the inmost parts of the earth. 23. Bows and spears are in their hands; they are cruel and have no mercy; their voice is like the thunder of the sea, and they go on horses; everyone in his place like men going to the fight, against you, O daughter of Zion. 24. The news of it has come to our ears; our hands have become feeble: trouble has come on us and pain, like the pain of a woman in childbirth. 25. Go not out into the field or by the way; for there is the sword of the attacker, and fear on every side.

God set of rules, or I think a better way to put it God's lifestyle is clear in the scriptures. and that's the law faith.

I altered your post by separating your words from the Word's of God. I hope this is acceptable to you.

WE read scriptures differently. It took me months to gain even some of the understanding of all that is written about in Jeremiah 6. The entire Bible is there, every Word of the Christ is there.

8 Be thou instructed, O Jerusalem, lest my soul depart from thee; lest I make thee desolate, a land not inhabited.

"I don't know you, depart from me, you who practice iniquity"

10 To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it.

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

You are apparently using Jer. 6 to disagree with my post. I don't know exactly what point you are making, or how you believe Jeremiah corrects or exposes the Post I made.

I am in agreement that the Law of faith trumps the Law of Work for remission of sins.

I hope I have this quote thing figured out.

 

[Studyman]

they are not yours either. you have no authority over them, no authority to add or subtract meaning , as you freely do.

oh, you can do it, but it just makes what you say invalid if you do it.

So in your church I can't Highlight scriptures?