What did the Jew receive first?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Mem

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2014
7,318
2,234
113
We all benefit from the ritual sacrifice of the Lamb by faith. The Jews are in error if they think the benefit is exclusive to them as Christ blood is sufficient to cleanse all uncleanliness, not just the unclean 'elect'. The gentiles are in error if they believe the benefit is exclusive to them because grace does not replace law but is added.
 
C

chubbena

Guest
Nope. . .

The Greek text states "grace on top of grace,"

which the various versions translate as: Out of Christ's fullness we have all received
"grace on top of grace," "grace upon grace," "one grace after another', "one blessing after another," etc.

It's not about the law of Moses, it's about the grace of Christ.

"The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."(Jn 1:17)

Grace is not identified with the law, grace is distinguished from the law.


Nope. . .

"We" is the NT saints, not the OT saints.

So many verses misrepresented in your contra-NT theology. . .
Firstly, the Greek Word G473 was not translated as "on top of" in the bible.
Secondly, John 1:16 says grace in place of grace already given. That "grace already given" was prior to the grace out of Christ when He became flesh. That grace already given was recorded by Moses and understood by the Psalmist and the prophets. Examples in the OT are:

Exodus 34 The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.

Number 14 The Lord is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression.

Nehemiah 9 You are a gracious and merciful God.

Psalm 86 For you, O Lord, are good and forgiving, abounding in steadfast love to all who call upon you.....But you, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.

Joel 2 For he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love.
 
Oct 31, 2011
8,200
182
0
I think we are arguing because one side believes that Christ came to change everything, so we can not rely on what God of the Old Testament said, that the division into what was before Christ and what came after was so extreme we can even question the ten commandments, the way they used blood for forgiveness, everything.

The other side feels that there is no division in scripture, it is all of one God. Christ made it better, building on what God the Father said. They believe "Jew first then gentile", not because Jew was more important, but that God felt the way to teach man about Himself was to make a race feel separate. When God put the races together pointing out God wanted all to be united under Him, to save all mankind without mankind separating themselves from others, it was hard for man to comprehend and they are still having trouble.

Posts that are arguing with each other are really arguing about what Christ changed. It takes a lot of digging into OT scripture to track every change. So the one side feels they can figure it out by simply the epistles and they copy and paste endlessly. The other side reads the epistles as the finish work of all that came before so all these copy and paste become only how it was at the end of the story, and they feel you can't figure out the ending right without knowing the beginning so you know what the end if talking about.

As long as one side of the argument refuses to relate the end with the beginning, it is sort of beating a dead horse. They refuse, and that is that, and they say their copy and paste proves they are right.
 

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
I have understanding that many of your statements of the meaning that the Lord has for us in in error, but I do not understand why you are so sure of yourself that they are all right, what you are trying to prove.

I am clear, I am trying to prove to the world that the Lord is correct, and all His word is scripture. To me you are not clear about what you try to prove.

Take law and grace. You understand, it seems that God gives instructions about how for us to live most successfully. It also seems you understand that how successful we live is not what is the base for our salvation, but it is given to us through God's love and mercy for us. But you seem to be putting these two things together, making one truth affecting the other truth in a way that bewilder me.
The NT presents grace in two ways:

1) The power of God effecting, causing rebirth, faith, salvation in the spiritual paralytic who brings nothing to the table, who is totally acted upon,
as the babe in natural birth is totally acted upon and has nothing to do with any of it.

2) This unmerited action of the power of God alone then results in turning from sin, and obedience to the NT commands and exhortations.
This obedience of saving faith is likewise the grace of God operating in the believer,
giving him power to obey.

Also, you talk about Jew and gentile. It seems so simple, God created a Hebrew race to use for our benefit, and told them to separate themselves from those who did not believe in Him. He guided them in worship, and used lots of physical rituals to help guide. Teaching them had to do with Christ's blood (can't put this all in one sentence). Then Christ was crucified and God wanted all people free access to Him without any of the separating things any more. Your idea of all that gets confusing---with
no joining it seems of Jew and gentile. It seems to me you get what isn't required any more all mixed up.
Believing Jews and believing Gentiles are the one body of Christ in the NT church,
where they are joined both spiritually in Christ and physically in the assembly of themselves together.

Have I made these things any clearer for you?
 
Last edited:

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
and that word
"faith" has been diminished to mean "believe in your mind something to be true" when true faith is much more.
Faith=faithfulness.
You have faith in the laws of nature (also from our Creator) and you obey them because you must, there is no choice. If you stumble you fall according to the law of gravity. Obeying Torah is a choice, and we know our Messiah said if you love Him do His yoke, which is His teachings.
Saving faith = belief +obedience.

But only the first element saves.

However, where there is no second element, there is no true faith, per the definition.

It's not complicated.
 
Jan 27, 2013
4,769
18
0
Honestly, your English is hard to understand.

When the Romans destroyed the temple in 70AD, it really changed nothing because we are told the temple is in our hearts now. We still have a temple, just not the one destroyed by man.

"as in grace a gift"???? Huh? Who is a copy cat in your eyes?

There seems to be a misunderstanding about Acts 15. The Jews are having an argument, with some saying unless a gentile is physically circumcised and obeys all the rituals Moses taught them they couldn't even sit in the synagogue where they are taught about God every Sabbath, and God wouldn't accept them. It was decided that having their baby boys cut and changing their diet wasn't to be asked of them (Law of Moses). Do you think the argument was about what scripture tells us is Holy with God? Like giving guidance about not lying or killing? One of the top Jews there was the brother of Jesus, I don't think he would be part of an argument against such things. If that was it, then they wouldn't speak about going to the synagogue, because scripture of God was taught there. Christ spoke of Moses and the Father, they wouldn't be speaking differently than Christ spoke. But Christ spoke of obedience in spirit and truth, it would not be against Christ to say you could keep the spirit and truth of an instruction without the ritualistic reminder of it.

I hope this isn't too long, and you can follow my post.
all there for your bible study.
try and keep up if you can. moses was not at acts 15, the law ,god gave to him was.
destroyed the temple in 70AD,(your quote) now how can you follow the full law of moses that requires a temple made from stone.
through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." what commandments saved you,

then follow this.9 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."
when was a gentile ,welcome in a syngogue in 48 ad.
You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation,

( , ie pauls convertion.) the gentile just walked in off the street, even though the christain church was in hiding.

the question you asked was asked with v5 the forrmer tells you ,what was a gentile given give regarding rules.
5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."Acts 15


they could have said, keep the 10 commands or tell them to follow the full law,(but , they did not say this)

so why would paul be saying this in romans. 3
0 since God is one---who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith?




when was the law in your heart.






then why are you following law. or 10 comandment
there is no ,missunderstanding the old testament was stolen.
they stole the old testament and put next to the new. because when did a none christain jew


8 And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.29 So when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me."

paul is a christain jew, believing in grace a gift


10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
Acts 15

through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." what commandments saved you,
 
Last edited:

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Now I am not sure if you agreed with

Is not God's law spoken by the Word of God recorded by Moses?
Didn't Psychomom say "it's not God's Law that the NT says is obsolete"?
Yes, she is distinguishing between the Biblical statement about the law and
the Biblical statement about the old covenant.

The Biblical statement about the old covenant is that it is obsolete (Heb 8:13).
While the Biblical statements about the law are
we are no longer under the law of Moses but are under the law of Christ (1Co 9:20-21; Mt 22:37-39),
the law has been set aside in the NT (Heb 7:18-19; Gal 5:6) and is fulfilled
in the law of Christ (Mt 22:40; Ro 13:8-10).
 
Oct 31, 2011
8,200
182
0
The NT presents grace in two ways:

1) The power of God effecting, causing rebirth, faith, salvation in the spiritual paralytic who brings nothing to the table, who is totally acted upon,
as the babe in natural birth is totally acted upon and has nothing to do with any of it.

2) This unmerited action of the power of God alone then results in turning from sin, and obedience to the NT commands and exhortations.
This obedience of saving faith is likewise the grace of God operating in the believer,
giving him power to obey.

Believing Jews and believing Gentiles are the one body of Christ in the NT church,
where they are joined both spiritually in Christ and physically in the assembly of themselves together.

Have I made these things any clearer for you?
You have made your position clearer. We agree that Jew and gentile is one body, what isn't clear about that is why you are so negative about the Jew? Perhaps our difference is that you only believe in the condemnation brought on the Jew through the ones who do not accept Christ has God turning his back completely on them, and from studying all Romans has to say about that I think there is a possibility God is protecting them in some way, but I do believe we are not to judge them. We can judge turning from Christ as Savior, but not their hearts.

I think, frankly, you re losing it with your idea of grace. Grace isn't the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit and what it does is the Holy Spirit. Grace shows us the power of God over any other power, I agree to that. Man can't take on himself what the grace of the Lord does.

We seem to be closer than I thought, but it bewilders me that you truly seem to feel you have all the correct answers, you don't have to search or listen to the Lord any more. I don't think either of us are so finished we don't have to search any more, or all the world can come to us with absolute assurance that we understand all.
 

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Elin said:
chubbena said:
Elin said:
chubbena said:
Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given (or grace for grace in KJV) -

what is grace already given?
The law given through Moses
Not quite. . .nice try at deceptively slipping the law into grace.

You've been flim-flammed by your contra-NT theology.

"Out of his fullness (Jesus Christ, vv. 14-15) we have all received grace on top of grace," (KJVII)

It is of Christ's fullness that we have all received grace, and that's not "through the law of Moses."
It surely is addressed by deceptively separating the law of God speaking through Moses from the Word of God. It surely purposefully disregarded in the context "grace in place of grace already given".

Out of His fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given.
Nope. . .

The Greek text states "grace on top of grace,"

which the various versions translate as: Out of Christ's fullness we have all received
"grace on top of grace," "grace upon grace," "one grace after another', "one blessing after another," etc.

Jn 1:16 is not about the law of Moses, it's about the grace of Christ.

"The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."(Jn 1:17)

Grace is not identified with the law, grace is distinguished from
the law.
This "grace already given" was from the Word of God before He became flesh.
Nope. . .

"We" is the NT saints, not the OT saints.

So many verses misrepresented in your contra-NT theology. . .
Firstly, the Greek Word G473 was not translated as "on top of" in the bible.
Depends on which translation you use.

Secondly, John 1:16 says grace in place of grace already given.
Not in the original Greek of the NT.

That "grace already given" was prior to the grace out of Christ when He became flesh.
That grace already given was recorded by Moses.
Previously addressed. . .multiple times.

See the above.
 

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
I think we are arguing because one side believes that Christ came to change everything, so we can not rely on what God of the Old Testament said, that
the division into what was before Christ and what came after was so extreme we can even question the ten commandments, the way they used blood for forgiveness, everything was so extreme we can even question the ten commandments, the way they used blood for forgiveness, everything.

The other side feels that
there is no division in scripture, it is all of one God.
Christ made it better, building on what God the Father said.
Paul said he was not under the law, but was under the law of Christ, which is the law of God
(1Co 9:20-21).

They believe "Jew first then gentile", not because Jew was more important, but that God felt the way to teach man about Himself was to make a race feel separate. When
God put the races together pointing out God wanted all to be united under Him, to save all mankind without mankind separating themselves from others, it was hard for man to comprehend and they are still having trouble.
Keeping in mind there is no precedence of Jew over Gentile in the church.

Posts that are arguing with each other are really arguing about what Christ changed.
The NT makes clear what Christ changed in the words he spoke in these last days (Heb 1:1-2)
through the NT writers; i.e.,

the priesthood (Heb 7:11-12),
the law (Mt 22:37-39; Heb 7:12, 18-19; Ro 13:8-10),
the old covenant (Heb 8:13).

It's not complicated.

All it requires is belief of the NT revelation spoken by the Son in these last days (Heb 1:1-2)
throught the NT writers.

Unbelief is what makes it confusing.





 
Last edited:

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
You have made your position clearer. We agree that Jew and gentile is one body, what isn't clear about that is
why you are so negative about the Jew?
Don't know what you mean by that.

I think, frankly, you re losing it with your idea of grace. Grace isn't the Holy Spirit,
Grace is the power of God, acting in two ways:

1) alone and sovereignly, totally acting upon the individual with nothing required, as in rebirth, faith, salvation, and

2) in the obedience of the believer, giving him power to obey.

We seem to be closer than I thought, but it bewilders me that you truly seem to feel you have all the correct answers, you don't have to search or listen to the Lord any more.
You have me confused with someone else.
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2013
7,761
107
0
Don't know what you mean by that.


Grace is the power of God, acting in two ways:

1) alone and sovereignly, totally acting upon the individual with nothing required, as in rebirth, faith, salvation, and

2) in the obedience of the believer, giving him power to obey.



You have me confused with someone else.
You're confused and confusing to others.
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.1 Corinthians 14:33
 
Last edited:
Jan 27, 2013
4,769
18
0
You're confused and confusing to others.
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.1 Corinthians 14:33
Originally Posted by Elin

Don't know what you mean by that.


Grace is the power of God, acting in two ways:

1) alone and sovereignly, totally acting upon the individual with nothing required, as in rebirth, faith, salvation, and

2) in the obedience of the believer, giving him power to obey.



You have me confused with someone else.


just posted this on another topic
Grace is the power of God, acting in two ways:
when did law introduced you to god. or take away your sin.
29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!3John 1
and
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.7
John
and
16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.1
 
C

chubbena

Guest
...what isn't clear about that is why you are so negative about the Jew?
It's the negativity towards anything spoken by the Word of God recorded by Moses.
 
C

chubbena

Guest
Yes, she is distinguishing between the Biblical statement about the law and
the Biblical statement about the old covenant.

The Biblical statement about the old covenant is that it is obsolete (Heb 8:13).
It was not the old covenant in question. It was the law.
Elin said:
While the Biblical statements about the law are
we are no longer under the law of Moses but are under the law of Christ (1Co 9:20-21; Mt 22:37-39),
the law has been set aside in the NT (Heb 7:18-19; Gal 5:6) and is fulfilled
in the law of Christ (Mt 22:40; Ro 13:8-10).
But Psychomom said:
Psychomom said:
it's not God's Law that the NT says is obsolete
which contradicts to
Elin said:
the law has been set aside in the NT (Heb 7:18-19; Gal 5:6) and is fulfilled
in the law of Christ (Mt 22:40; Ro 13:8-10).
unless one agrees that God's law is not obsolete.

Question for Psychomom: Is God's law referring to the law of God spoken by the Word of God recorded by Moses and the prophets?
 

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Elin said:
Yes, she is distinguishing between the Biblical statement about the law and
the Biblical statement about the old covenant.

The Biblical statement about the old covenant is that it is obsolete (Heb 8:13).
While the Biblical statements about the law are
we are no longer under the law of Moses but are under the law of Christ (1Co 9:20-21; Mt 22:37-39),
the law has been set aside in the NT (Heb 7:18-19; Gal 5:6) and is
fulfilled in the law of Christ (Mt 22:40; Ro 13:8-10).
It was not the old covenant in question. It was the law.
Yes, and your statement was about the law being "obsolete."

She pointed out to you that what is "obsolete" is the old covenant. (Heb 8:13),

that the law has been "set aside" (Heb 7:18-19), etc.

But Psychomom said:
which contradicts to
unless one agrees that God's law is not obsolete.
The law has been "set aside" in the NT (Heb 7:18-19; Gal 5:6) and is fulfilled in the law of Christ (Mt 22:40; Ro 13:8-10),
we are no longer under the law of Moses but are under the law of Christ (1Co 9:20-21; Mt 22:37-39).

The old covenant has been made "obsolete."

Question for Psychomom: Is God's law referring to the law of God spoken by the Word of God recorded by Moses and the prophets?
The law spoken of in the verses given above is the law of Moses.
 

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Which?

That's how the word G473 is translated in NIV and is translated to "for" in KJV.

This response simply ignored the OT verses quoted.
All previously addressed here.

Read it instead of skimming it.