Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances

[PS]

I think it is a mistake to disregard the Examples Paul said were written for our admonition. (1 Cor.10) Paul also said why the Pharisees were blinded.

Rom. 1:21 Because that, when they knew God (The Word which became Flesh), they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And again;

Rom. 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.(Belief in God enough to follow His instructions as Abraham did) Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

And again;

2 cor. 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.


16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

Jesus said the same thing.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Your belief that the letters of Paul and Peter were already "recorded" when Jesus was walking and talking to the people as the Word which became Flesh is untrue I believe.

I see you make nice, smooth, good sounding sermons which man would certainly "SEE" looked wise. I'm sure you mean well. But I believe there is sufficient evidence and many warnings about following any word's or any god that is not from the bible no matter how "good" they might sound to us.

It is my sincerest hope that it is the Word which became Flesh that has written His Laws on your heart, and not the prince of this world who deceives.

Jesus inspired this test for us to be sure.

1 John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

I feel when we read Paul, we need to keep in mind he was writing either to the legalisers, newly converted Jews, or Gentiles. The emphasis of his message may differ slightly depending on the audience. What may be applicable to the Jews regarding the law for example, may not apply to the Gentiles?

 

[PS]

I don't have time to read all of this thread, let alone participate, so I'll cut right to where I'm at on this.


The handwriting is the man made ordinances of the Rabbi's. The law itself was not written down. It was handed down in an oral tradition out of respect for God's word. Rabbinical law was written down.

When Christ was crucified and raised to life, the law of God itself could no longer condemn us and the worship requirements of the law were made obsolete (we now draw near to God in covenant through faith in Christ now, not through the ceremonies and procedures of the law anymore). So when the law was nailed to the cross with Christ in regard to those things, the added on Rabbinical law lost it's power and could no longer be enforced.

That's why you can say,"talk to the hand" to the Rabbi you once were required to obey no matter what he said to do in regard to Sabbaths and Holy Days. If the law of God itself does not HAVE to be obeyed in regard to Sabbaths and Feasts, etc. how much more the rulings of the Rabbi's do not now HAVE to be obeyed. That's why no one can judge you in regard to those things.

If the law of Sabbath, for example no longer HAS to be obeyed to be in covenant with God, how much LESS does any rabbinical law that drew it's power from the law of Sabbath have to be obeyed. Not at all, of course. Talk to the hand, Rabbi Ben-so-and-so.

Doesn't Rabbinical law originate after the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem in AD 70 and so only came into existence after the death of Christ and could not therefore have been "nailed to the cross."

 

[Studyman]

I feel when we read Paul, we need to keep in mind he was writing either to the legalisers, newly converted Jews, or Gentiles. The emphasis of his message may differ slightly depending on the audience. What may be applicable to the Jews regarding the law for example, may not apply to the Gentiles?

I agree.

The Jews were still pushing the Levitical Priesthood sacrificial, ceremonial "works of the Law" for remission of sins. So when he spoke to them, it was to explain how the Priesthood had changed.

Rom. 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,(Not the Blood of Goats) to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Not carnal priests and their ceremonial, sacrificial, "Works of the Law".

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Not the Levitical Priesthood Law of works with it's ceremonies and sacrificial duties. But the Law of Faith.

Duet 10:12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD (The Word which became Flesh) thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,
13 To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

This is the First and Greatest Commandment, the Law of Faith.

Rom. 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by (the Law of) faith without the deeds of the law. (Of Works)

But of the Law of faith Paul declares;

Rom. 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Exact same message as the Word which became Flesh.

 

[Studyman]

Doesn't Rabbinical law originate after the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem in AD 70 and so only came into existence after the death of Christ and could not therefore have been "nailed to the cross."

Not according to the Word which became Flesh;

Matt. 23:4 For they (Pharisees, Not God) bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders(Necks) but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

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!

Acts 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

Matt. 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

These "handwritten Laws" may not have been called the Talmud until later, but they sure did preach them for centuries.

It is their Law that were against Jesus, Paul and the Gentiles, not the Laws of God. IMO.

 

[Ralph-]

Doesn't Rabbinical law originate after the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem in AD 70 and so only came into existence after the death of Christ and could not therefore have been "nailed to the cross."

Good point, but Jesus makes reference to Rabbinical law when he speaks of the 'traditions' of the Pharisees. These are the 'add on' rulings of the Rabbi's, like only being allowed to walk a certain distance on the Sabbath.


Whatever a Rabbi said you must do, you did in fact have to do (reference escapes me at the moment). But those Rabbinical rulings of the powers that be, as ridiculous but binding as they were, lost all power of Judgment over the people of God when the law itself regarding Holy Days and Feasts and Sabbaths was no longer the required way in which one must draw near to God in covenant.

Written rabbinical law told you how to keep the requirements of the ceremonial law. But with the requirements of the ceremonial law themselves no longer having to be kept the rabbinical rules added on how to keep the ceremonial laws lost their power to rule over and judge the people of God. Thus we are to no longer let any man judge us with man made ordinances in regard to a holy day, or a feast, or a sabbath.

 

[valiant]

Paul said, 'when you were dead in your transgressions' - and 'having forgiven us all our transgressions' (Col 2.13), Thus he was speaking to those who had 'transgressed' against God and had been forgiven. This suggests that the handwriting of ordinances were the written laws of God against which they had transgressed which now no longer counted against them, including the ten commandments.

Because they had been forgiven the laws of God no longer counted against them...

 

[PS]

Paul said, 'when you were dead in your transgressions' - and 'having forgiven us all our transgressions' (Col 2.13), Thus he was speaking to those who had 'transgressed' against God and had been forgiven. This suggests that the handwriting of ordinances were the written laws of God against which they had transgressed which now no longer counted against them, including the ten commandments.

Because they had been forgiven the laws of God no longer counted against them...

Yes, God forgives our sins, including the breaking of the Ten Commandments, but as the Ten Commandments are for all time, then it cannot be the Ten Commandments that were nailed to the cross. Indeed Jesus added another 40 commandments to the original 10. Here is a small sample:

6. Honor God’s law—Matthew 5:17-19
8. Do not commit adultery—Matthew 5:27-30
10. Go the second mile—Matthew 5:38-42
11. Love your enemies—Matthew 5:44

 

[PS]

Good point, but Jesus makes reference to Rabbinical law when he speaks of the 'traditions' of the Pharisees. These are the 'add on' rulings of the Rabbi's, like only being allowed to walk a certain distance on the Sabbath.


Whatever a Rabbi said you must do, you did in fact have to do (reference escapes me at the moment). But those Rabbinical rulings of the powers that be, as ridiculous but binding as they were, lost all power of Judgment over the people of God when the law itself regarding Holy Days and Feasts and Sabbaths was no longer the required way in which one must draw near to God in covenant.

Written rabbinical law told you how to keep the requirements of the ceremonial law. But with the requirements of the ceremonial law themselves no longer having to be kept the rabbinical rules added on how to keep the ceremonial laws lost their power to rule over and judge the people of God. Thus we are to no longer let any man judge us with man made ordinances in regard to a holy day, or a feast, or a sabbath.

Yes, Jesus had many a dispute with the Rabbis of his day. It was the scribes who obviously transcribed the laws under the direction of Priestly class who presumably included the Rabbis from whom the 613 Mitzvot Laws originated....

 

[PS]

Not according to the Word which became Flesh;

Matt. 23:4 For they (Pharisees, Not God) bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders(Necks) but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

These "handwritten Laws" may not have been called the Talmud until later, but they sure did preach them for centuries.

It is their Law that were against Jesus, Paul and the Gentiles, not the Laws of God. IMO.

And as God's law is eternal it would be the laws of man that were nailed to the cross.

 

[seed_time_harvest]

I am in total agreement with this truth, but never if it makes out our Lord, Jesus Christ, to b e a liar when He teaches on the Law, and this all must learn.....what Jesus teaches, not a some kind of vote by flesh.

Hello JaumeJ
Some believe that since there Is only one GOD and HE spoke In the old and new testament and since HIS WORD doesn’t change,we should try to keep the law and also be under grace at the same time.

The only thing about keeping the law Is when the law was given the way Into the Most Holy place was not yet,I mean CHRIST had not yet fulfilled the law and died on the cross satisfying the demand of the law on OUR behalf so then those trying to fulfill the law before grace was made available would have to be perfect In their own strength and would come short and those today trying to keep the law have fallen from grace and Into the merit system.

 

[posthuman]

And as God's law is eternal it would be the laws of man that were nailed to the cross.

is it sinful to wear poly-cotton blend t-shirt?

 

[PS]

is it sinful to wear poly-cotton blend t-shirt?

There were very good reasons for not mixing fibres, try mending a hole in a woollen jumper with cotton and the cotton will cut through the wool. Not putting new wine into old bottles is another, and there are lots more examples. If scripture implies the people who did these things were sinners, then there is something wrong with the use of language.

 

[posthuman]

The law itself was not written down. It was handed down in an oral tradition out of respect for God's word. Rabbinical law was written down.

what is it Hilkiah the priest found in the days of Josiah in 2 Kings 22-23 if
the Law was "not written down" ?

what is the following referring to?

And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.
(Deuteronomy 31:9)​

 

[posthuman]

There were very good reasons for not mixing fibres, try mending a hole in a woollen jumper with cotton and the cotton will cut through the wool. Not putting new wine into old bottles is another, and there are lots more examples. If scripture implies the people who did these things were sinners, then there is something wrong with the use of language.

ok but can you answer the question?

i have several pairs of socks which are wool/cotton/poly/spandex and they are the nicer socks that i have.

i have thanked God for them -- did i blaspheme in doing so?

 

[PS]

ok but can you answer the question?

i have several pairs of socks which are wool/cotton/poly/spandex and they are the nicer socks that i have.

i have thanked God for them -- did i blaspheme in doing so?

Now, now, you are just having fun and no, you are not speaking irreverently about God (blaspheming). I presume you thank God for the food you eat and other blessings. Stop being silly. I'm going to bed. Night.

 

[posthuman]

The handwritten ordinances that are against us were the writings of such philosophers as Plato, who were against Christianity.

Plato wrote a dialogue called "laws" but Plato was not a legislator; he did not enact any actual laws. his dialogue was a philosophical discussion about the origin of the authority to give and define law -- which he concludes comes from God, not man, by the way.

but regardless of the fact that Plato did not write actual legislation, he was Greek, about 4-500 years before Christ. when Christ came to earth in the flesh, Israel was under Roman rule.

how is a Greek philosopher who never wrote any actual laws the subject of scripture written under Roman occupation that allowed Jews to live under Torah law?

 

[posthuman]

Now, now, you are just having fun and no, you are not speaking irreverently about God (blaspheming). I presume you thank God for the food you eat and other blessings. Stop being silly. I'm going to bed. Night.

i'm not being silly at all.

if we are all judged by Torah, then Deuteronomy & Leviticus are absolutely binding on us -- how would it not be?

and i seriously have several pairs of socks that i seriously thank God that i have, and they happen to be a mix of wool, cotton, and other fabrics.

it is quite pragmatic and natural question that if what you say is true, should be easily answered in straightforward manner.

if you are not able to answer, then an enormous hole just appeared in your argument, and it is very important to know whether what you are saying turns out to be based on very poor interpretation & lies.

 

[PS]

Plato wrote a dialogue called "laws" but Plato was not a legislator; he did not enact any actual laws. his dialogue was a philosophical discussion about the origin of the authority to give and define law -- which he concludes comes from God, not man, by the way.

but regardless of the fact that Plato did not write actual legislation, he was Greek, about 4-500 years before Christ. when Christ came to earth in the flesh, Israel was under Roman rule.

how is a Greek philosopher who never wrote any actual laws the subject of scripture written under Roman occupation that allowed Jews to live under Torah law?

That was just a warning to Christians and Jews not to get entangled with philosophers and other false teachers. Christians were already quoting Plato who said, "Everything is permissible for me—but not everything is beneficial" 1 Corinthians 6:12

 

[posthuman]

That was just a warning to Christians and Jews not to get entangled with philosophers and other false teachers. Christians were already quoting Plato who said, "Everything is permissible for me—but not everything is beneficial" 1 Corinthians 6:12

yeah that's the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul who said this. and he did not countermand it but said it as though it were true.

if it were "philosophies" nailed to the cross the word would be philosophies. the word "Law" is written all over in Paul's epistles and when he writes it he means law. almost every single time he even more specifically means "The Law" -- the Sinai marriage covenant Law given through Moses to the Hebrews taken out of Egypt, directly from the mouth of God.

so:

either the Holy Spirit meant to say "philosophers from other countries who never had any binding power over you in the first place and by whom you were never judged at all have been nailed to the cross" but God somehow failed to get the right words in His book...

or you are wrong.

 

[PS]

i'm not being silly at all.

if we are all judged by Torah, then Deuteronomy & Leviticus are absolutely binding on us -- how would it not be?

and i seriously have several pairs of socks that i seriously thank God that i have, and they happen to be a mix of wool, cotton, and other fabrics.

it is quite pragmatic and natural question that if what you say is true, should be easily answered in straightforward manner.

if you are not able to answer, then an enormous hole just appeared in your argument, and it is very important to know whether what you are saying turns out to be based on very poor interpretation & lies.

The Old Covenant is no more, God made a New Covenant with his people, disobey that and you are in trouble.

Bang goes all the 613 Mitzvot Laws, nailed to the cross, ended.

Not, however God's Ten Commandments.