House of Cornelius and the law

[simplifiedtruth]

cool! so, sounds like because the nt talks about us being the temple, and that's kind of related to going to Jerusalem, so we know that we don't have to be concerned about the travel commandment for now.

what's your take on building a fire on the sabbath? someone talked earlier about how if it didn't involve any work, then it was ok, because that was the reason behind the commandment, to not do any work.

Yes we are the temple and the church where God is now present. The temple in Jerusalem was completely destroyed! (Matt 24:2).

If you need to go out to prepare for a fire , say chopping wood, gathering sticks or kindle a fire from scratch then you are simply working on the sabbath and have broken the sabbath commandment and have not done your diligence of preparing for the sabbath on the preparation day (Numb 15:32 , Exodus 16:5). Obviously Israel always had lights, torches and fire burning for heat on the sabbath day. There are to be no fire for the work of baking and cooking food on the sabbath, but it is to be done on the 6th day and laid up for the 7th day. (Exodus 16:23). People need to use their brain and look into the text when it comes to this commandment. Some religious people are so blinded to themselves that they wont even flick a light-switch because of this commandment and that simply is not intelligent. The sabbath is made for man for a blessing to rest and thank God for He's creation and not the other way around (Mark 2:27).

 

[BibleGuy]

the beloved physician Luke quotes Jesus as saying, "The Spirit of the Lord (kurious) is upon me".

in your view, why does Luke do that instead of using "yhwh"?

Hi there Dan_473...

Wow! Quite a bit of activity here in this thread, eh?

Trying to catch up on everything...

Thanks for asking..

Funny you should ask....I just read that passage again earlier today!

Lots of things going on here...

Luke (and early NT manuscripts, generally) were written in Greek.

BUT, do you really think that the Jewish Hebrew-speaking and Aramaic-speaking Jesus would read a Hebrew Nevi'im scroll in Greek at a Sabbath synagogue service, even when claiming a Hebrew-written prophecy is literally fulfilled in Himself at that very moment? I TRULY doubt it!

Do you really think that the Jewish Hebrew-speaking and Aramaic-speaking Jesus would publicly argue with Jewish scribes about Hebrew Scripture using the Greek language? Again...I doubt it.

So unless you can prove that all of the Greek sayings of Jesus (in the NT) were actually spoken in Greek, then you haven't established that Jesus prefers "lord" or "kurious" in place of "YHVH".

Remember, it is important to YHVH that we know that His name is YHVH (Jer. 16:21).

Sure...Jesus does seem to use "Father" a lot, rather than "YHVH".

And, since maybe the time of Ezra, the Jewish tradition developed to the point where the name YHVH was considered so holy that it would generally be replaced with a substitute (say, "adonai"). This tradition continues strongly in Jewish circles today. And, this tradition was already in place when the LXX was translated (hence the widespread replacement of "YHVH" with "kurious" in the LXX).

And maybe Jesus DID used "adonai" as a common Hebrew substitute for YHVH, simply out of respect for the tradition that had developed as of that time.

BUT, we need not feel required to embrace this tradition. Why? Because Jesus upholds the Pentateuch as authoritative Scripture, so we should too.

And what do we find in the Pentateuch itself? We find that usage of YHVH is widespread AND acceptable, when used properly.

Joshua was NOT afraid to proclaim that he served YHVH (Jos. 24:15). So, we can publicly proclaim this too!

There may be times, however, to respect the traditions of those you seek to engage...so be wise in all things.

blessings...
BibleGuy

 

[BibleGuy]

View attachment 151274 View attachment 151275

Hi there simplifiedtruth...

Thanks for the image! Kind of a direct way to make a good point!

Let's support that from Scripture.

The Greek for "grace" is "charis". (e.g., Eph. 2:8).

And guess what Moses finds in Ex. 33:13? The SAME EXACT TERM "Charis"! (Ex. 33:13, LXX).

The SAME grace.

We have always been saved by grace.

BUT, what is Moses' response to YHVH's "charis"?

Answer: Moses seeks to know YHVH and to know His ways.

Where did the ways of YHVH come to be written? The written Torah of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3).

So, first we're saved by grace. Then we get to know Him and His ways, which includes OBEDIENCE to Torah.

First God graciously saves Israel out of Egypt...THEN God graciously grants His people the privilege of getting to know Him in obedience to His Torah.

First God graciously saves US out of our personal "Egypt"...THEN God graciously sets us on the path to know Him and His ways in obedience to His Torah.

And Paul goes on (after Eph. 2:8) to say we participate in the COVENANTS (Eph. 2:12) between YHVH and Israel.

And guess what these covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, New) ALL include? TORAH!

So let's thank God for His "charis" (grace) which saves us...

And let's get on with the project of getting to KNOW Him, even in obedience to the TORAH of the many Torah-laden covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, New) in which we participate.

blessings...
BibleGuy

 

[Grace777x70]

Let's not go back to the Old Covenant and law and commit spiritual adultery on our Lord. ( Romans 7:1-6 ) We have been made dead to the law so that we can be joined to another as in marriage. We are one with Christ now. We are in the New Covenant now. Let's fix our eyes on Jesus only as He is the author and finisher of our faith now.

 

[BibleGuy]

Deut 16
Three times in a year all of your males shall appear before the Lord your God in the place which he chooses

I don't know of any lawkeeping christians who do this.

I suggest a fifth option,
use torah for instruction in wisdom, but not required for obedience.







ok, and I mean this as politely as possible... I've spent lots of time thinking about this. why would you think I hadn't?



and also with you!

Hi again!

Not required for obedience PRESENTLY (during this present diaspora)....but 100% REQUIRED for obedience in the future, as Moses Guaranteed (Dt. 30:1-8).

Remember, the "moedim" are NOT observed during diaspora (e.g., Lam. 1:4). And this should be a source of GRIEF and SORROW to us. This is why we LONG for a functioning temple to be rebuilt...so that we may again return to the land in full obedience to all Torah, just as the prophets guarantee will occur.

That's why Moses points out that 100% of Torah is not again observed until diaspora ends (Dt. 30:1-8).

Nevertheless, Mosaic Torah is still in force...but just not 100% presently observable.

And is this an excuse to NOT observe presently observable Torah portions? Absolutely not.

And is this an excuse to suppose Mosaic Torah is permanently terminated/abolished? No.

So, your "not required for obedience" comment is a dangerous flirtation with the negative consequences of Mt. 5:19.

Let's rephrase your comment to this: "Not required (presently, during this diaspora) for obedience, but definitely required in the future after the diaspora ends".

This is what Scripture declares. That's why I believe it.

blessings...
BibleGuy

PS I'm glad you've been thinking about these things! Sorry if I offended you...but I was trying to broaden that comment to the broader collection of readers here...many of whom may well have NOT adequately thought through these issues.

 

[BibleGuy]

Your reasoning is self-contradictory. Scripture says that the Levitical priesthood would endure forever, but it ceased to exist in 70 AD. So trying to make something of its restoration is really meaningless because for any prophecies about the Levitical priesthood to be true, this would also have to be true. So obviously GOD was referring to the handing off of the Levitical priesthood to the Melchizedek priesthood, which endures forever, thus fulfilling prophecy. This change of priesthood happened at Jesus' baptism.

Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: And he shall have it, and his seed after him, [even] the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel. Numbers 25:11-13​

Hello HeRoseFromTheDead,

You have not taken the prophets I quoted for their word.

Instead, you have ignored their clear and plain GUARANTEE that Levitical Torah will be restored.

Here's your unjustified assumption (let's call it A1):

A1: If the Levitical priesthood is everlasting, then it will never be interspersed with periods of time during which it does not function.

Now, A1 appears to be your assumption.

We have good reason to reject A1.

Why? Because A1 is not even consistent with the Torah of Moses itself!

Look again at Dt. 30:1-8...where Moses GUARANTEES that Israel will banished throughout the earth...but will again return to obey 100% of all Torah!

Moses CLEARLY knew that even though the Levitical priesthood would not FUNCTION during diaspora, that the Levitical priesthood would again, nevertheless, be restored AFTER diaspora ends.

So, your interpretation of "everlasting" is not even consistent with the Torah itself.

If you maintain A1, then you maintain that the Torah is inconsistent, in error, and thus not even inspired as Scripture.

Yikes!

Better to simply acknowledge what Moses ALREADY TOLD US!

What did Moses tell us? That even though the priesthood outlined in Mosaic Torah is "everlasting", that the actual functioning of this priesthood would be interrupted by diaspora.

And this acknowledgement allows us to not IGNORE what the prophets guarantee: RESTORATION of Levitical Torah!

Remember:

Moses GUARANTEES restoration of ALL Torah (which includes Levitical Torah)...see Dt. 30:1-8

Ezekiel GUARANTEES restoration of Levitical ceremonial/sacrificial activity (Eze. 40-47).

Jeremiah GUARANTEES restoration of Levitical Torah in conjunction with the forthcoming fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant (Jer. 33:17-21).

Isaiah GUARANTEES restoration of Levitical Torah (Is. 66:21-23).

Zechariah GUARANTEES restoration of Levitical Torah (Zec. 14:16-21).

The Messiah comes to RESTORE Levitical sacrifices so as to be pleasing to YHVH as it was in former years (Mal. 3:1-4).

Why do you oppose the very thing the Messiah comes to RESTORE?

Be careful!

You just made an assumption that is not even consistent with the Torah itself.

blessings...
BibleGuy

 

[BibleGuy]

It looks to me like the truth you are being led to believe is not of the same Spirit as Christ in the gospel and Paul in the letters. You continue to quote the same scriptures over and over again out of context that have clearly been shown to be taken out of context. If the purpose of the law is to manifest what is sin in our lives and Jesus came to save us from living in our sins then how can you say we are not to obey the commandments. The gospel is all about repentance, like for example if you practice homosexuality(Lev 20:13) you need to repent of that and walk in the newness of life and sin no more(John 8:11).

Hi Simplifiedtruth...

Yes, he is simply functioning more like a propagandist...and not even bothering to respond to the many considerations we've brought forth.

Not even defending his (apparently Torah-less) hope in Christ, despite requests for defense against dozens of objections we've raised against the same old posts and reasoning he continues to re-post again and again and again...thereby apparently violating 1 Pe. 3:15.

Not sure what else to say...

Some seek truth...others seek to merely promote what they are not capable of defending...

Sigh...

I still WANT to think the best of him though...maybe he just needs more time?

It does take time, after all, and some pretty hard work too...to really do the work required to identify your worldview, test it against alternatives, and verify that an alternative worldview is (or is not) better.

It also takes a LOT of humility to admit your wrong...and then go through the process of humbly seeking truth wherever it leads...even if it leads you to embrace something you previously rejected.

Sadly, though, he's evidently not even making effort to test his views against our objections....

Instead, he claims our objections are a useless unfruitful dispute (despite the fact that they are Scripturally grounded!)....yet HE continues to fight for the minds of others to embrace his position in that very dispute!

Hmmm....that does appear inconsistent...

blessings...
BibleGuy

 

[BibleGuy]

in my view, the topic is the relationship between the old covenant and the new.

yhwh is the name God uses in the old covenant, it's not there in the new.

Hi again,

The Old Covenant is ready (Gr. "engoos", Heb. 8:13) to pass away. Thus, it had NOT yet passed away as of the New-Covenant-Era time of the writing of the book of Hebrews.

So, since Old Covenant is in force, and since YHVH is used in the Old Covenant, then it's OK to say YHVH!

blessings...
BibleGuy

 

[BibleGuy]

Sadly, what BibleGuy is suggesting will have the opposite affect, keeping him from eternal life. For our salvation is obtained by trusting in the Lord who alone provided salvation by the shedding of His blood. Any time anyone brings in other requirements along side of what Christ already fully provided, it is equivalent to saying Christ's sacrifice was insufficient. Salvation is not a reward for our good works, but is a free gift. Unfortunately, we still see many people trying to earn it.

"God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.

Hi Ahwatukee!

What did Jesus say is a sufficient condition of eternal life (Lk. 10:25-28)?

Torah!

The Shema (Dt. 6) is what JESUS says is a sufficient condition of eternal life!

And what does Dt. 6 (which Jesus applies to YOU! Mt. 22:37) say about HOW we should love God?

Answer: Love God through obedience to Torah (Dt. 6:25).

Sure, Jesus died for us, shedding His blood as a sufficient sacrifice.

Sure, salvation is NOT a reward for our good works, but is a free gift!

Sure, we are saved by grace through faith.

Sure, we do not EARN salvation through faithless law-keeping.

But we also grow in faithful obedience to Torah. This is a sufficient condition of eternal life, per Lk. 10:25-28.

========> NOW! Here is a dilemma for you!

Do you accept or reject Lk. 10:25-28?

If reject, then you oppose Jesus words!

If accept, then why would you NOT obey want to obey Torah (as commanded by the Father, Son, Spirit, Pentateuch, Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Apostles, Epistles, and even Revelation)?

blessings...
BibleGuy

 

[BibleGuy]

Amen....well said.

Jesus is perfect theology:

Jesus is the exact representation of the Father. Jesus said no one knows my Father.

Jesus came to reveal the Father and His true nature to us as truth in the OT was progressive and in pictures and in shadows, but it ends with the revelation of Jesus Christ and what He has already done in His finished work.

So, whatever understanding of God we get from the Old Covenant that doesn't line up with Jesus' manifestation of the Father will be inaccurate.

Hebrews 1:1-3 (NASB)
[SUP]1 [/SUP] God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways
,
[SUP]2 [/SUP] in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

[SUP]3 [/SUP] And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

You wrote: "So, whatever understanding of God we get from the Old Covenant that doesn't line up with Jesus' manifestation of the Father will be inaccurate."

My response: If Jesus opposed the Old Covenant, then he sinned by violating it...and thus Jesus would not be a sinless sacrifice...and thus you would not be saved...ouch!

That's another problem with your position...

blessings...
BibleGuy

 

[BibleGuy]

several great ideas in your post. I'd like to start with these two



'legalistic' wasn't my idea, I first heard it from lawkeeping christians who said they didn't want to be 'legalistic'.






this is true if we know the reason behind the commandment. do we know the reasons behind all the commandments? do we know the reason behind this commandment?



do you attempt to obey the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law?

The Spirit testifies that Torah is written upon our hearts (Heb. 10:15-16).

So, there need be no contradiction between "law" and "Spirit" when properly understood and obeyed.

Sure, "letter" without "Spirit" is bad (e.g., Rom. 7:6).

But, "Spirit" without "Torah" is also bad (because it's contrary to Heb. 10:15-16).

That's why we need BOTH!

Paul critiques FAITHLESS Torah-obedience...

Paul does NOT critique FAITHFUL Torah-obedience.

Failure to recognize this will quickly land you in a boat-load of contradictions.

And no...we do not always know the reasons for the commandments...but that's not an excuse to ignore the role that such possible (or probable) reasons could play in our evaluation of their meaning in the past (and application in the present).

Blessings...
BibleGuy

 

[simplifiedtruth]

Let's not go back to the Old Covenant and law and commit spiritual adultery on our Lord. ( Romans 7:1-6 ) We have been made dead to the law so that we can be joined to another as in marriage. We are one with Christ now. We are in the New Covenant now. Let's fix our eyes on Jesus only as He is the author and finisher of our faith now.

View attachment 151385

Hi Grace777x70. You need to watch the Pauline paradox series. This is an in debt series explaining Pauls position on the law in he's teachings and what they mean for the believer in the new covenant. There truly have been much confusion trying to understand Pauls letters since the time they were written all the way until today (2 Peter 3:14-18). Lets make an end to all the arguments once and for all.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLo5QtZ1bPyYbLdyw2AnVKX9tm-b2YJFhQ

 

[BibleGuy]

In actuality to keep a feast is sinful, I know I know but think about what the feast were for, were they not about the Cross? so to keep such a feast makes the Cross of no effect and therefore sinful. But we serve a merciful God that is slow to anger and he sometimes overlooks our inefficiencies if we truly love Him.

Hi there RobbyEarl!

Let's revise your position in light of 1 Cor. 5:8, where Paul COMMANDS Pesach.

blessings...
BibleGuy

 

[Dan_473]

Yes we are the temple and the church where God is now present. The temple in Jerusalem was completely destroyed! (Matt 24:2).

If you need to go out to prepare for a fire , say chopping wood, gathering sticks or kindle a fire from scratch then you are simply working on the sabbath and have broken the sabbath commandment and have not done your diligence of preparing for the sabbath on the preparation day (Numb 15:32 , Exodus 16:5). Obviously Israel always had lights, torches and fire burning for heat on the sabbath day. There were to be no fire for the work of baking and cooking food on the sabbath, but it was to be done on the 6th day and laid up for the 7th day. (Exodus 16:23). People need to use their brain and look into the text when it comes to this commandment. Some religious people are so blinded to themselves that they wont even flick a light-switch because of this commandment and that simply is not intelligent. The sabbath is made for man for a blessing to rest and thank God for He's creation and not the other way around (Mark 2:27).

cool again! so any law related to the sabbath must be re-interpreted in light of Jesus' teaching about how the sabbath should be a blessing and the sabbath was made for man etc.

so I can see that we don't need to be concerned about keeping any law related to the temple or the priesthood or cleanliness (since Jesus washes us) or food (since it doesn't matter what goes into our mouths).

what's your take on putting tassels on clothes?

 

[Grace777x70]

You wrote: "So, whatever understanding of God we get from the Old Covenant that doesn't line up with Jesus' manifestation of the Father will be inaccurate."

My response: If Jesus opposed the Old Covenant, then he sinned by violating it...and thus Jesus would not be a sinless sacrifice...and thus you would not be saved...ouch!

That's another problem with your position...

blessings...
BibleGuy

Jesus is not opposed to the Old Covenant as your straw-man erected in your mind. Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant and we are in the New Covenant now. The Old Covenant was a mere shadow of the real substance which is Jesus.

True believers in Christ are dead to the law...the law is not of faith...the law was not made for the righteous and we are the righteous in Christ.

Why do we want to commit spiritual adultery on our Lord as Romans 7:1-6 talks about. To go back to the law is what all the Judaizers were trying to get Christians to do and they followed Paul around perverting the gospel of the grace of Christ.

We have a new law of the spirit of life I Christ Jesus, the law of love, the law of liberty and it is really the law of Jesus in our new hearts.

If we fail to keep one law - we have broken it all. It's either law or Christ. Choose.

This picture shows exactly what people are doing when they go back to the law.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Look again at Dt. 30:1-8...where Moses GUARANTEES that Israel will banished throughout the earth...but will again return to obey 100% of all Torah!

Deut. 30 is about Israel's return to the land and restoration under the new covenant. That happened nearly 2000 years ago.

Having a discussion with you is like having a discussion with a radio commercial. I was wondering if you'd even touch the points I made about the Levitical priesthood changing, and you didn't, as I suspected. Just more canned commercial. Have a nice day.

 

[BibleGuy]

cool again! so any law related to the sabbath must be re-interpreted in light of Jesus' teaching about how the sabbath should be a blessing and the sabbath was made for man etc.

so I can see that we don't need to be concerned about keeping any law related to the temple or the priesthood or cleanliness (since Jesus washes us) or food (since it doesn't matter what goes into our mouths).

what's your take on putting tassels on clothes?

Hi Dan_473...

Why assume we need not keep any law pertaining to temple?

Temple laws WILL be observable (and required) again in the future.

Sure, Jesus says Sabbath is made for man (not the reverse). But that's a completely Torah-consistent statement by Jesus. So there's no abolition of Torah going on here. Rather, merely explanation of the true nature of ongoing Torah.

And sure, many laws are PRESENTLY unobservable...but that's only temporary (given Dt. 30:1-8 and other prophecies).

And sure...Jesus said all foods are clean...but he did NOT say that all things are food!

Thus, Lev. 11 is still observable (and is likewise applied to us in 1 Pe. 1:15-16).

Just wanted to add that....

best...
BibleGuy

 

[BibleGuy]

Jesus is not opposed to the Old Covenant as your straw-man erected in your mind. Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant and we are in the New Covenant now. The Old Covenant was a mere shadow of the real substance which is Jesus.

True believers in Christ are dead to the law...the law is not of faith...the law was not made for the righteous and we are the righteous in Christ.

Why do we want to commit spiritual adultery on our Lord as Romans 7:1-6 talks about. To go back to the law is what all the Judaizers were trying to get Christians to do and they followed Paul around perverting the gospel of the grace of Christ.

We have a new law of the spirit of life I Christ Jesus, the law of love, the law of liberty and it is really the law of Jesus in our new hearts.

If we fail to keep one law - we have broken it all. It's either law or Christ. Choose.

This picture shows exactly what people are doing when they go back to the law.

View attachment 151397

Now now! You just changed your position! Or maybe that's just a contradiction? Or maybe you're trying to say something but it didn't quite come out right?

First you said: "So, whatever understanding of God we get from the Old Covenant that doesn't line up with Jesus' manifestation of the Father will be inaccurate."

Then you said: "Jesus is not opposed to the Old Covenant as your straw-man erected in your mind."

My response: How are these two statements consistent?

I mean, if Jesus manifested the Father in a way that does NOT LINE UP with some portion of the Old Covenant, then Jesus would clearly be OPPOSED to that portion, right?


Maybe you need to revise (or rephrase) your words...

They appear quite contradictory.

blessings...
BibleGuy

 

[Grace777x70]

Galatians 3:10-12 (KJV)
[SUP]10 [/SUP] For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

[SUP]11 [/SUP] But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

[SUP]12 [/SUP] And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Galatians 3:24-26 (KJV)
[SUP]24 [/SUP] Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

[SUP]25 [/SUP] But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

[SUP]26 [/SUP] For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 4:21 (KJV)
[SUP]21 [/SUP] Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

Hebrews 7:12 (KJV)
[SUP]12 [/SUP] For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

James 2:10 (NASB)
[SUP]10 [/SUP] For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

 

[Grace777x70]

Now now! You just changed your position! Or maybe that's just a contradiction? Or maybe you're trying to say something but it didn't quite come out right?

First you said: "So, whatever understanding of God we get from the Old Covenant that doesn't line up with Jesus' manifestation of the Father will be inaccurate."

Then you said: "Jesus is not opposed to the Old Covenant as your straw-man erected in your mind."

My response: How are these two statements consistent?

I mean, if Jesus manifested the Father in a way that does NOT LINE UP with some portion of the Old Covenant, then Jesus would clearly be OPPOSED to that portion, right?


Maybe you need to revise (or rephrase) your words...

They appear quite contradictory.

blessings...
BibleGuy

I said that " So, whatever understanding of God we get from the Old Covenant that doesn't line up with Jesus' manifestation of the Father will be inaccurate."


"We get"..being the operative words....

Nice try to change what I was really saying though....it shows creativity...albeit completely mis-leading.

They appear contradictory to you because Jesus came to fulfill the law and the law is a mere shadow of the real thing - which is Christ. To go back to the law is committing spiritual adultery on our Lord. Romans 7:1-6