Do We Have To Keep The Law?

[Studyman]

That law refers to appearing in Jerusalem where the temple was, and thus where GOD was.

I thought today the temple is our mind, isn't that the spiritual intent of the "Temple" from the beginning?

1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Didn't the Apostles show themselves to the Priest 3 times a year in keeping God's Holy Days?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I thought today the temple is our mind, isn't that the spiritual intent of the "Temple" from the beginning?

1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Didn't the Apostles show themselves to the Priest 3 times a year in keeping God's Holy Days?

You're confusing covenants. GOD was to be served in Jerusalem under the old covenant. Christ changed that.

Of course the apostles appeared in Jerusalem 3x every year: before Christ's death as a matter of law, and after as custom.

 

[Ralph-]

no james agrees, he said you brak even the least, your builty of all

That's what I'm saying. You can't say you are keeping the law 'love your neighbor as yourself' if you are not keeping the other laws in the law of Moses (the ones that remain to be literally fulfilled by us).

But that is exactly what the church is doing. They excuse themselves from the law of Moses using the argument 'all I have to do is love my neighbor as myself', not knowing that if they were doing that they would be keeping the rest of the law of Moses, not disobeying it. That is what James is explaining to them.

It is the exact message that the church needs to hear today. So many people in the church excuse their disobedience in the name of 'all I have to do is love my neighbor as myself'.

 

[Studyman]

=HeRoseFromTheDead;3568527]

You didn't provide the full context of that verse. Jesus told the crowds to do as their rulers said (law of Moses), but not as they did because they told others to do the law, but didn't do it themselves. In addition they put heavy burdens on the people with their own traditions. Just like today. You teach to keep the law, but don't keep it yourself and lead people astray with your own concocted doctrines of men.

wow, must have stung you a little. Jesus said they "SAY" but "they did not do". That is why they were called liars and Hypocrites.

1 Tim. 1:5 Now the end (INTENT) of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

Actually I don't teach "keep the Law", I post scriptures and show what God and His Son says about His Law and His Word as opposed to what "man" preaches.

You teach to keep the law, but don't keep it yourself and lead people astray with your own concocted doctrines of men.

It is only natural to strike out against the messenger. But it is you who preaches that God's Laws are the Yoke mentioned in Acts 15. It is you who makes the claim that the Pharisees were following the "Law of Moses". I have never made such claims and neither did Jesus or Paul or Isaiah or Jeremiah.

So it would be great if you could show me where my "concocted doctrines of men" are, please show me where my posts are furthering man made doctrines and traditions as you have accused.

I certainly don't want to be doing such a thing.

 

[Ralph-]

The law doesn't say every sinful male. It says every male. Christ was a male under the law, so he was subject to that commandment.

The law was given BECAUSE OF TRANSGRESSIONS-Galatians 3:19. Christ has no transgressions that would require him to be under a law given because of transgressions. He was 'under' the law in a different meaning, and for our sake, not his.

That is what it means for the law to be for the unrighteous, not the righteous. It mediates between sinner and the Father. Jesus needs no such mediation. Never did. Because he has no sin. He did not need the ceremonial law because of sin any more than we now need it and have to keep it because of sin. That sin has been done away with for us. Christ never had it to begin with.


If you're still not getting it, think of Christ's baptism. He did not 'need' to be water baptized for repentance and the remission of sin. He had no sin, never did. That's why he did not HAVE To do that, but he did it for righteousness sake. Not his, OURS. He lived the righteous life required of mankind on our behalf to fulfill our need for the justification of a righteous life, not his. He already has that.

 

[Studyman]

You're confusing covenants. GOD was to be served in Jerusalem under the old covenant. Christ changed that.

Of course the apostles appeared in Jerusalem 3x every year: before Christ's death as a matter of law, and after as custom.

So then our mind isn't the Temple of God in your religion.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

That's what I'm saying. You can't say you are keeping the law 'love your neighbor as yourself' if you are not keeping the other laws in the law of Moses (the ones that remain to be literally fulfilled by us).

But that is exactly what the church is doing. They excuse themselves from the law of Moses using the argument 'all I have to do is love my neighbor as myself', not knowing that if they were doing that they would be keeping the rest of the law of Moses, not disobeying it. That is what James is explaining to them.

It is the exact message that the church needs to hear today. So many people in the church excuse their disobedience in the name of 'all I have to do is love my neighbor as myself'.

You cant keep them all, period. So your argument is mute

you do not love god 24/7,and you do not love every person you come in contact with 24/7

so you can not keep the ten, let alone the hundreds of other commands.

so my point is spot on,

stop focusing on doing, and focus on loving

 

[Ralph-]

You seem to think that Christ would not have sinned if he hadn't appeared in Jerusalem 3x every year, even though that is what the law required every male to do. Can you explain that rationale to me?

Just so it's clear.......for the same reason it's not a sin for YOU to not appear 3x a year before the Lord at Jerusalem. (And it's not because the Temple does not exist there now.)

 

[Ralph-]

You cant keep them all, period. So your argument is mute

you do not love god 24/7,and you do not love every person you come in contact with 24/7

so you can not keep the ten, let alone the hundreds of other commands.

so my point is spot on,

stop focusing on doing, and focus on loving

How are you able to judge my law keeping as a focus on 'doing' and not a focus on concern for others? By the fact that I can actually do that, perhaps? (Not perfectly, of course, but as a matter of lifestyle.)

I say that because it seems the anti-law people are excusing their disobedience as being them not focusing on law but rather on loving others. But it doesn't occur to them that if they were really focused on love for others they'd be keeping the law and wouldn't need to be excusing their lack of obedience.

 

[Ralph-]

So your argument is mute

Oh, and by the way, it's 'moot', not 'mute'.

That's been driving me crazy for months now, lol.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

The law was given BECAUSE OF TRANSGRESSIONS-Galatians 3:19. Christ has no transgressions that would require him to be under a law given because of transgressions. He was 'under' the law in a different meaning, and for our sake, not his.

That is what it means for the law to be for the unrighteous, not the righteous. It mediates between sinner and the Father. Jesus needs no such mediation. Never did. Because he has no sin. He did not need the ceremonial law because of sin any more than we now need it and have to keep it because of sin. That sin has been done away with for us. Christ never had it to begin with.


If you're still not getting it, think of Christ's baptism. He did not 'need' to be water baptized for repentance and the remission of sin. He had no sin, never did. That's why he did not HAVE To do that, but he did it for righteousness sake. Not his, OURS. He lived the righteous life required of mankind on our behalf to fulfill our need for the justification of a righteous life, not his. He already has that.

So Christ could have broken the ceremonial law of not attending festivals in Jerusalem and not sinned - is that what you're saying?

All circumcised males in Israel were under the law of Moses. If Christ had broken that law he would have sinned. Do you disagree?

Christ was baptized in water, not into repentance, but to have the priesthood transferred to him by John. John was a Levite and washed Christ with water as the high priests were washed with water by the door of the tabernacle before entering service. IT was fulfilling the righteousness of sanctifying priests required by the law.

 

[JaumeJ]

If a person is under the law, he must not break one of them.

If aperson is graced by the Blood of Jesus, he is allowed to do his best while Jesus christ is his advocate
at all times.

God knows who loves Him. I have a dog, she knows there are certain things she should not do,
yet, on occasion she makes a mess in the house. I raise my voice to her, whe runs to her indoor cabin.
Two minutes later she is on my lap......I( love her, and I would never raise a hand to her, my voice maybe, my hand, never....she loves me.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Just so it's clear.......for the same reason it's not a sin for YOU to not appear 3x a year before the Lord at Jerusalem. (And it's not because the Temple does not exist there now.)

I have never been under the old covenant and law that required that, so it would be impossible for that to be sin to me. Christ was under that covenant and law.

 

[Ralph-]

If a person is under the law, he must not break one of them.

If aperson is graced by the Blood of Jesus, he is allowed to do his best while Jesus christ is his advocate
at all times.

God knows who loves Him. I have a dog, she knows there are certain things she should not do,
yet, on occasion she makes a mess in the house. I raise my voice to her, whe runs to her indoor cabin.
Two minutes later she is on my lap......I( love her, and I would never raise a hand to her, my voice maybe, my hand, never....she loves me.

Yes, if she had to earn your acceptance and a place in the house, that is when she would have to be lawfully perfect and not be allowed to make mistakes.

But the church thinks that just to have any requirement of 'law' on them means they have to be perfect, therefore they are not under any obligation of law. That's some very misguided thinking. And we can thank the church for teaching us that. We are victims of misguided leadership.

 

[Ralph-]

So Christ could have broken the ceremonial law of not attending festivals in Jerusalem and not sinned - is that what you're saying?

In regard to his own personal righteousness, yes, that is what I'm saying. He had no sin to begin with that would require a law dictating how and when sinners are to approach God.

All circumcised males in Israel were under the law of Moses. If Christ had broken that law he would have sinned. Do you disagree?

He would only be sinning in that he would not be fulfilling his mission in life to keep the law FOR US. He would not be sinning by not going up to Jerusalem any more than you and I are sinning for not going up. The reason being, we have already been brought near to God in worship 24/7/365 through Christ. There is no reason to do something to come near to God in salvation for the person who is already near to God in salvation in Christ. That's why you, and I, and Christ are not sinning when we don't go up to Jerusalem 3x a year.

Christ was baptized in water, not into repentance, but to have the priesthood transferred to him by John. John was a Levite and washed Christ with water as the high priests were washed with water by the door of the tabernacle before entering service. IT was fulfilling the righteousness of sanctifying priests required by the law.

Good observation. I'll explore that. Thanks.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

How are you able to judge my law keeping as a focus on 'doing' and not a focus on concern for others? By the fact that I can actually do that, perhaps? (Not perfectly, of course, but as a matter of lifestyle.)

now your getting it, i can’t judge you by how well or not well you keep the law, its a false determining factor, because as i already showed, even gentiles livd in a way that they could obey commands.

I say that because it seems the anti-law people are excusing their disobedience as being them not focusing on law but rather on loving others. But it doesn't occur to them that if they were really focused on love for others they'd be keeping the law and wouldn't need to be excusing their lack of obedience.

1. I am not anti law, i am anti taking the law out of context and pushing the law on people outiide its purpose
2. who is excusing their disobedience? I am not excusing anything, wheni do not love others, i sin, i will never excuse my sin, its not an excuse, its a failure, a failure t do what god said.
3. again, i. Have said that love is how we keep the oaw, and now you say i need to focus on love for others... thanks for proving you do not listen to a word people say.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Oh, and by the way, it's 'moot', not 'mute'.

That's been driving me crazy for months now, lol.

Your legalism and slander been driving me crazy, call it even?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

In regard to his own personal righteousness, yes, that is what I'm saying. He had no sin to begin with that would require a law dictating how and when sinners are to approach God.

Extraordinary. IT's almost like you're getting off into some form of gnosticism. Because of his sinless nature he could not sin if he broke the law. That's basically what gnosticism is.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

If a person is under the law, he must not break one of them.

If aperson is graced by the Blood of Jesus, he is allowed to do his best while Jesus christ is his advocate
at all times.

God knows who loves Him. I have a dog, she knows there are certain things she should not do,
yet, on occasion she makes a mess in the house. I raise my voice to her, whe runs to her indoor cabin.
Two minutes later she is on my lap......I( love her, and I would never raise a hand to her, my voice maybe, my hand, never....she loves me.

So why are you trying to put people under law?

And yes, you must be perfect. Thats why the law can not help us ONLY condemn us (its intended purpose)

 

[I_am_Canadian]

Uh dude, I think you missunderstand the law, See the law is in place to keep the peace,
like don't steal don't murder, etc.. The law is there to show us we are all sinners.
Even if you are under grace, if you kill someone you are going to prison, if you steal your going to jail probably getting an order to make restitution. Grace frees us from the law in the sence that we live according to the Fruit of the Spirit, Love joy peace, long suffering, etc.. It's through grace we no longer have need of the law in our lives, how ever it does not make the law void.

Under the law we are required to pay for our sins, thats why the whole world will stand guilty before God on Judgement day.
It's under grace that God forgives us, and the only thing that can cleanse us of our sins is a blood sacrifice.

That is why Jesus had to die for us, if he hadn't been the sinless sacrifice, we would still be sacrificing goats and sheeps blood for our sins. Since Jesus Christ did die for our sins by shedding his blood, that is where our grace comes from, accepting his sacrifice grants our pardon before God. With out Christ their is no hope of Salvation, simply because he is the only way to get saved, He is the only begotten Son of God. Their is no other way to heaven, except through Christ.

What does the New Testament say about it?

If we are under the Law, we are not led by the Spirit. (Galatians 5:18)

Christ is the end of the Law (Romans 10:4)

No one is justified by the works of the Law (Galatians 2:16)

It has been abolished (Ephesians 2:15)

The Law is not for the Righteous. (1 Timothy 1:8, Galatians 2:21, Romans 3:20)

We can't keep it (James 2:10)

Not even the Jews could (Galatians 6:13)

The Law and faith do not mix (Romans 3:27-28)

If we rely on observing the Law we place ourselves under a curse (Galatians 3:10-11)

The Law is a curse that Jesus redeemed us from (Galatians 3:13)

If we continue in the Law we are fools (Galatians 3:2-3)

We are to live by faith, which the Law is not based on (Galatians 3:11-12)

The Law is lifeless (Galatians 3:21)

The Law only makes us prisoners (Galatians 3:23-25)

We become alienated from Christ (Galatians 5:4)

The Law is weak and makes nothing perfect (Hebrews 7:18-19)

It can never take away sins (Hebrews 10:4)

Paul said he himself was not under the Law (1 Corinthians 9:20)

We have been released from the Law (Romans 7:6)

The Law has been canceled and nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14)

We are dead to the Law (Romans 7:4)

It is obsolete, outdated, and will disappear (Hebrews 8:13)

We have been justified apart from the Law (Romans 3:21-22, 27-28)

We are under grace, not the Law (Romans 6:14)


Clear enough?