Which laws are and are not valid?
- Thread starter Matthew4Jesus
- Start date
-
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.
O
FIRST -
==================================================
Elin,
we do understand that Paul wrote to Timothy -
yes, 1TIMOTHY is a direct reference to the writing in 1 Cor.9, that is directly to Deut.
he is originally pulling from the OLD, like he says, 'it is written in the Law of Moses.'
again, it is written,
'you shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'
and again, it is clearly written, 'I will take Levites from among then, (Kingdom Prophecy).
and again, 'from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all flesh shall come
and worship before Me.'
and again, (Kingdom Prophecy),
and again, the nation that does not come up and keep the Feast of Tabernacles, I will with hold rain from it.'
like it is written,
'For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth shall pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass
from the Law till all is fulfilled.'
the sacrifice of Christ is NOT the total fulfillment, it is clear from the Law and the Prophets, that heaven and earth
have not passed, and there are a MULTITUDE of Prophecies that have NOT been fulfilled.
the two that we have quoted, the Sabbaths and the Tabernacles are but two of a very long list that HAVE NOT been
FULLFILLED.
Elin,
we do understand that Paul wrote to Timothy -
yes, 1TIMOTHY is a direct reference to the writing in 1 Cor.9, that is directly to Deut.
he is originally pulling from the OLD, like he says, 'it is written in the Law of Moses.'
again, it is written,
'you shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'
and again, it is clearly written, 'I will take Levites from among then, (Kingdom Prophecy).
and again, 'from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all flesh shall come
and worship before Me.'
and again, (Kingdom Prophecy),
and again, the nation that does not come up and keep the Feast of Tabernacles, I will with hold rain from it.'
like it is written,
'For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth shall pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass
from the Law till all is fulfilled.'
the sacrifice of Christ is NOT the total fulfillment, it is clear from the Law and the Prophets, that heaven and earth
have not passed, and there are a MULTITUDE of Prophecies that have NOT been fulfilled.
the two that we have quoted, the Sabbaths and the Tabernacles are but two of a very long list that HAVE NOT been
FULLFILLED.
I "endorse" the whole word of God.
"Endorsed"? Are you kidding.
Read Heb 7 again.
You don't have a clue. . .read Heb 7-8 again.
That's not what Heb 7:8 says.
Good grief, guy. . .have you even read Mt 22:37-40?
And you don't have a clue what is the meaning of the grammar in Heb 7:11-12.
Where do you get all this ridiculous mish-mash?
"Endorsed"? Are you kidding.
Read Heb 7 again.
You don't have a clue. . .read Heb 7-8 again.
That's not what Heb 7:8 says.
Good grief, guy. . .have you even read Mt 22:37-40?
And you don't have a clue what is the meaning of the grammar in Heb 7:11-12.
Where do you get all this ridiculous mish-mash?
Last edited:
I had this same question. It started about middle last year. Well, just to give some background, my newly wed husband is a youth pastor, so I am surrounded and bombarded with many doctrines in the church surroundings. I was truly called by God at 16 to go into full-time ministry. I was never in a specific church, but involved in several ministries until I got married. Well, things started to get blurry in the church surroundings, sometimes religion can be so powerful that it completely counterfeits and overrides true relationship... it completely killed me to the point where I wanted to leave Christianity altogether, though my love for Christ kept me going in this chaos, and thats where my struggle started. Who's right, those into Hebrew roots (the ones believing in the law and the feasts etc.) or those fully believing in grace or those who believe in righteous living and repentance... Well, I was sort of involved in all since I have built relationships with people in church with either one of these as their fundamental teaching. I tried to make sense of everything, but God to me to the point where I hated everything about religion, meaning those prescribed ways of relationship with Him, like how you should or shouldn't worship to 'look' holy, how many times and how long I should pray a day, how many chapters must I read daily to be fresh in scripture knowledge and afterall experience the 'anointing'. Well this all faded drastically in one encounter with Him. He showed me that people kill relationship through rules and regulations, THATS why Jesus came, so that we don't have to worry about that anymore but can focus merely on loving Him and being in relationship with Him. No I am not talking about, having knowledge about him and then believing, that falls a little short of what He had in mind. He wants your heart, ALL of it ultimately. I got to know Him in ways I cannot even describe, I totally feel fulfilled for the first time in my life, and FREE, just like He said, if the SON sets you free you are free indeed. THATS sooo true. I love Him more than ever, but I terminated ALL my taught knowledge and just went to Him empty minded, so that I do not have preconceived thoughts about Him. Those stuff blocks your spirit from truly knowing Him. And religion is the worst. He made you unique!! Be unique for Him, He loves that about you!! He made you the way you are because He wanter you that way... He enjoys your uniqueness and personality. So don't follow the flow, just give Him who you are, and trust the fact that thats enough for Him, because He simply just loves you for WHO YOU ARE.
Matthew 13:13-15
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
[SUP]15 [/SUP]For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Isaiah 6:9-10
[SUP]9 [/SUP]And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
Last edited:
Actually. . .
1) in 1Tim 5:18, Paul does not say "it is written in the Law of Moses,"
2) rather he quotes the gospel of Luke (Lk 10:7) as "the Scripture says," and
3) what he quotes from Lk 10:7 is not found anywhere in the OT.
Gads, it sure would be easier if you knew the NT word of God written.
1) in 1Tim 5:18, Paul does not say "it is written in the Law of Moses,"
2) rather he quotes the gospel of Luke (Lk 10:7) as "the Scripture says," and
3) what he quotes from Lk 10:7 is not found anywhere in the OT.
Gads, it sure would be easier if you knew the NT word of God written.
Last edited:
B
Y'all argue a lot. Obviously there's different sides, one of those sides obviously looks at it as Yeshua and the apostles made everything new and didn't reference what was scripture back then. And the other side looks at the whole of scripture, not just the NT. The NT cannot be understood without the OT. Obviously the first side chooses to ignore this, and will always ignore this. So why don't y'all just end the debate.
B
The gospel of Luke did not exist back then. Even though it was written around that time, it was not considered scripture because the set scripture back then was the Torah and the Tanakh (prophets). The book of look didn't become scripture until the bible was actually put together a few hundred years later.
I have one question for you. Does abolishing the law also abolish our carnal nature bringing us to trust in the fact that we need a Savior from the very nonexistent substance that shows that we need salvation? I certainly believe Hebrews 7:11-12
If, therefore, perfection had been by means of the priesthood of the Levites in which Torah was imposed upon the people, why was another priest required who should stand up after the likeness of Melchizedek? For it should have said, He shall be after the likeness of Aaron. But as there is a change in the priesthood, so also is there a change in the instruction (to the Levitial priests,)
The instructions relating to the Aaronic priesthood have been changed because that has now been completed in the priesthood of Christ. This does not include the instructions given to the people who were never affiliated with the Levites. Now the same Torah (God's holy word) is issued to us through Christ, being the same as what was given to Israel.
In both cases the priesthood administers Gods law. The instructions for the priesthood to carry out their duties have been totally fulfilled by Christ. The instructions for God's children haven't changed. We are still responsible for our own actions according to God's instructions. There are 2 parts in the law. One is for God's children, and the other is for the priesthood.
If, therefore, perfection had been by means of the priesthood of the Levites in which Torah was imposed upon the people, why was another priest required who should stand up after the likeness of Melchizedek? For it should have said, He shall be after the likeness of Aaron. But as there is a change in the priesthood, so also is there a change in the instruction (to the Levitial priests,)
The instructions relating to the Aaronic priesthood have been changed because that has now been completed in the priesthood of Christ. This does not include the instructions given to the people who were never affiliated with the Levites. Now the same Torah (God's holy word) is issued to us through Christ, being the same as what was given to Israel.
In both cases the priesthood administers Gods law. The instructions for the priesthood to carry out their duties have been totally fulfilled by Christ. The instructions for God's children haven't changed. We are still responsible for our own actions according to God's instructions. There are 2 parts in the law. One is for God's children, and the other is for the priesthood.
What is "the nonexistent substance that shows that we need salvation"?
Perfection (completeness in salvation) could not be obtained by the Levitical priesthood's administration of the Law, because the blood of bulls and goats offered by that priesthood could never remit (forgive) sin, giving salvation (Lk 1:77), it could only cover sin (Ro 4:7).
A High Priest who could offer the perfect sacrifice which would give complete remission (forgiveness) of sin through faith was needed, and could not be obtained through the Levitical priesthood.
Stop futzing with the text. . .
Heb 7:12 does not say "change of instruction," it says "change of law."
There has to be a change of law because it was given on the basis of/under the Levitical
priesthood (Heb 7:11), which was not able to make them perfect, it could only show them the way.
Another priesthood was required, by whom and by his law of faith, not the Mosaic law of works,
perfection (salvation) could come to all who believe in him.
STOP futzing with the text. . .
The law has been changed,
not the instructions "relating" to the Aaronic priesthood,
but the law--given to the people on the basis of the Aaronic priesthood (Heb 7:11),
of which neither (the law nor the priesthood) could make them perfect.
S-T-O-P futzing with the text. . .no wonder you don't understand Heb 7.
The law was given to the people (Heb 7:11).
And the law was not just "instructions," it was the contract of the Mosaic covenant.
Christ has issued the law of Christ to us (Mt 22:37-39; 1Co 9:21; Gal 6:2; Jas 2:8)) which completes all of God's law (Mt 22:40).
S-T-O-P confounding "the law" of Heb 7:11 with your "instructions" mish-mash.
You can't begin to understand Heb until you get the language correct.
The Mosaic law was not "instructions," it was the commands which formed the contract of the Mosaic covenant.
Now STOP IT! . . .or am I going to have to go over there and yank you bald?
Perfection (completeness in salvation) could not be obtained by the Levitical priesthood's administration of the Law, because the blood of bulls and goats offered by that priesthood could never remit (forgive) sin, giving salvation (Lk 1:77), it could only cover sin (Ro 4:7).
A High Priest who could offer the perfect sacrifice which would give complete remission (forgiveness) of sin through faith was needed, and could not be obtained through the Levitical priesthood.
Stop futzing with the text. . .
Heb 7:12 does not say "change of instruction," it says "change of law."
There has to be a change of law because it was given on the basis of/under the Levitical
priesthood (Heb 7:11), which was not able to make them perfect, it could only show them the way.
Another priesthood was required, by whom and by his law of faith, not the Mosaic law of works,
perfection (salvation) could come to all who believe in him.
STOP futzing with the text. . .
The law has been changed,
not the instructions "relating" to the Aaronic priesthood,
but the law--given to the people on the basis of the Aaronic priesthood (Heb 7:11),
of which neither (the law nor the priesthood) could make them perfect.
S-T-O-P futzing with the text. . .no wonder you don't understand Heb 7.
The law was given to the people (Heb 7:11).
And the law was not just "instructions," it was the contract of the Mosaic covenant.
Christ has issued the law of Christ to us (Mt 22:37-39; 1Co 9:21; Gal 6:2; Jas 2:8)) which completes all of God's law (Mt 22:40).
S-T-O-P confounding "the law" of Heb 7:11 with your "instructions" mish-mash.
You can't begin to understand Heb until you get the language correct.
The Mosaic law was not "instructions," it was the commands which formed the contract of the Mosaic covenant.
Now STOP IT! . . .or am I going to have to go over there and yank you bald?
Last edited:
(1) I think you will find, if yahweh permits, that the carnal nature is not changed by the law (well, maybe provoked by it!) .... no difference if the law is or is not abolished (not pertinent here).
(2) so ?
(3) this is toward clarification, if it is even possible on this forum. (might have to go to a Hebrew forum to find the Truth).
A doctrine that claims that God's instructions are now abolished to any extent, and has changed the order, (from the beginning of time), of His step by step plan, is a false doctrine. If we are to focus on what has changed or what has been abolished, we should be focusing on what happed to the born-again believer, saved from death unto life. To focus on a change or abolishment of God's instructions labels a God that is reconnoitering according to the original plan from the beginning.
Granted, God has always desired to have His only begotten Son to be our High Priest, but in order for us to know all of our Savior's glory and might, we needed a physical forerunner as a parable so that we could believe He was able to fulfill that promise for the reemission of our sins and not God's supposed error of burdensome laws.
If this doctrine is purposeful, then it stands to reason why deceptive dialog demands us to believe that Jesus came to somehow change His own Father's omniscience. That is clearly taking the Lord's name in vain. (Exodus 20:7) We should be focusing on our change, not His change. That is the good news. If we focus on God changing through Christ so we can escape the punishment of sin without any accountability, that is not good news, it's actually bad news.
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:22-23
Granted, God has always desired to have His only begotten Son to be our High Priest, but in order for us to know all of our Savior's glory and might, we needed a physical forerunner as a parable so that we could believe He was able to fulfill that promise for the reemission of our sins and not God's supposed error of burdensome laws.
If this doctrine is purposeful, then it stands to reason why deceptive dialog demands us to believe that Jesus came to somehow change His own Father's omniscience. That is clearly taking the Lord's name in vain. (Exodus 20:7) We should be focusing on our change, not His change. That is the good news. If we focus on God changing through Christ so we can escape the punishment of sin without any accountability, that is not good news, it's actually bad news.
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:22-23
"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." Deuteronomy 25:4
It was the law Paul was quoting to Timothy. Parables can be understood by some and not by others.
"For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." 1 Timothy 5:18
That isn't hard to understand.
"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." Matthew 13:13
It was the law Paul was quoting to Timothy. Parables can be understood by some and not by others.
"For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." 1 Timothy 5:18
That isn't hard to understand.
"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." Matthew 13:13
Last edited: