Did Jesus ever tell us that we no longer need to keep the law of Moses?
- Thread starter Marcelo
- 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.
E
We may walk in the peace and rest of our King, but when we leave the company of the lawless to return to our places of rest the lawless remain in their empty struggle to pull whomever they can into the mud with them.
Whats dangerous is people who THINK they are righteous. But in fact, “according to the law” are lawless.
Remember, it only takes 1 sin to be considered lawless according to James.
-
3
- Show all
E
Exactly?
You can not fulfill the law my friend..
Unless you think your sinless?
Now you can obey parts of the law (actually not break the law) because you are loving others instead of self. But you can not fulfill the law. Only Christ did that.
Of course, You can not love UNTIL GOD LOVES YOU FIRST
1 John 4: 19
We love Him because He first loved us.
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
2 Corinthians 5:14
For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;
1 John 3:1
[ The Command to Love ] Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.
1 John 4:9
In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.
1 John 4:10
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Its not us who loves, It is GOD who loves, and empowers us to love others..
You can not fulfill the law my friend..
Unless you think your sinless?
Now you can obey parts of the law (actually not break the law) because you are loving others instead of self. But you can not fulfill the law. Only Christ did that.
Of course, You can not love UNTIL GOD LOVES YOU FIRST
1 John 4: 19
We love Him because He first loved us.
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
2 Corinthians 5:14
For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;
1 John 3:1
[ The Command to Love ] Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.
1 John 4:9
In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.
1 John 4:10
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Its not us who loves, It is GOD who loves, and empowers us to love others..
-
1
- Show all
Here is a logical jump. If you commit one sin, you are lawless..
A sinner is a law breaker, not lawless. To be lawless is to deny there is a law to which we are accountable.
A sinner needs to repent, confess and accept Christs forgiveness in faith.
11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom,
13 because judgement without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgement!
James 2
It is amazing how anyone can jump from being a lawbreaker to being lawless.
We are to speak and act as those going to be judged by the law.
Sounds remarkably like in love we are law keepers and obedient to the law.
A sinner who wants to point out the lostness of others who follow Jesus, while condemning
them as sinners because they do not hold with the unbelief not being able to walk in Jesus's way.
It is so odd, to hear in one sentence, you hypocrite no one can walk like Jesus, and then we are
empowered to walk like Jesus. Such a pointless discussion like this is absurd.
But we need to shine the light, because these guys sound so persuasive in their conviction, even
when it does not add up, but it does keep evolving.
A sinner is a law breaker, not lawless. To be lawless is to deny there is a law to which we are accountable.
A sinner needs to repent, confess and accept Christs forgiveness in faith.
11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom,
13 because judgement without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgement!
James 2
It is amazing how anyone can jump from being a lawbreaker to being lawless.
We are to speak and act as those going to be judged by the law.
Sounds remarkably like in love we are law keepers and obedient to the law.
A sinner who wants to point out the lostness of others who follow Jesus, while condemning
them as sinners because they do not hold with the unbelief not being able to walk in Jesus's way.
It is so odd, to hear in one sentence, you hypocrite no one can walk like Jesus, and then we are
empowered to walk like Jesus. Such a pointless discussion like this is absurd.
But we need to shine the light, because these guys sound so persuasive in their conviction, even
when it does not add up, but it does keep evolving.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
I didn't ask you what the Father said to Paul!
Anyone, can cop out to that. Aye! Many people do that! As they "confine" the Father "to a box", in limited understandings of His Word!
And, in so doing? Have done this:
Ezekiel 13
22 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life:
1 Corinthians 12
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
But, many people in this forum, not to mention "churches of stone", say this:
1 Corinthians 12
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
Yet they do! Time after time, after time!
So, "the voice of God" said the same thing to you, as He said to Paul?
Interesting.
Anyone, can cop out to that. Aye! Many people do that! As they "confine" the Father "to a box", in limited understandings of His Word!
And, in so doing? Have done this:
Ezekiel 13
22 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life:
1 Corinthians 12
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
But, many people in this forum, not to mention "churches of stone", say this:
1 Corinthians 12
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
Yet they do! Time after time, after time!
So, "the voice of God" said the same thing to you, as He said to Paul?
Interesting.
Yesterday I was thinking "Man these legalists and judaizers are dumb. How come they can't understand SIMPLE scripture".
But now I'm not thinking legalists are dumb. I think this is what happens to everyone who relies on their own understanding of the scripture and doesn't come to Christ for Help with things they don't/can't understand.
They try to twist all scriptures to fit into their carnal, works based mindset.
The most dangerous thing, aside from contradicting Paul and Peter, is that these legalists and judaizers take the Word of Christ and water it down to a point where they think the carnal mind and carnal strength are in obedience to a Spiritual Law.
Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Galatians 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
That's Pauls words. Here's the way Peter says it;
2 Peter 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
By comparing those two scriptures in the similarity of what they are telling believers, we can see that the error of the wicked is going back to the law. Here's the solution for all you legalists;
2 Peter 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
But now I'm not thinking legalists are dumb. I think this is what happens to everyone who relies on their own understanding of the scripture and doesn't come to Christ for Help with things they don't/can't understand.
They try to twist all scriptures to fit into their carnal, works based mindset.
The most dangerous thing, aside from contradicting Paul and Peter, is that these legalists and judaizers take the Word of Christ and water it down to a point where they think the carnal mind and carnal strength are in obedience to a Spiritual Law.
Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Galatians 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
That's Pauls words. Here's the way Peter says it;
2 Peter 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
By comparing those two scriptures in the similarity of what they are telling believers, we can see that the error of the wicked is going back to the law. Here's the solution for all you legalists;
2 Peter 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Been reading the exchanges between you and EG.
He understands the "physical" aspect/s of "being forgiven." But, not the "spiritual sacrifice/s" required for "overcoming."
IOW? He doesn't understand, and doesn't understand why he doesn't understand. (God/Jesus, in a box)
Nor, is he willing that anyone should help him in understanding.
So, he badgers everyone to his limited understanding.
As any with understanding can see?
"That dog WON'T hunt!"
Being FOREKNOWN? Only occurred, in the O.T.! Con'traire! Con'traire!
Romans 8
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? "It is God that justifieth." (NOT Jesus! His Father!)
Yet? THIS (verse 33), is WHAT EG does! (and others as well)
He understands the "physical" aspect/s of "being forgiven." But, not the "spiritual sacrifice/s" required for "overcoming."
IOW? He doesn't understand, and doesn't understand why he doesn't understand. (God/Jesus, in a box)
Nor, is he willing that anyone should help him in understanding.
So, he badgers everyone to his limited understanding.
As any with understanding can see?
"That dog WON'T hunt!"
Being FOREKNOWN? Only occurred, in the O.T.! Con'traire! Con'traire!
Romans 8
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? "It is God that justifieth." (NOT Jesus! His Father!)
Yet? THIS (verse 33), is WHAT EG does! (and others as well)
-
1
- Show all
Romans 9:30-32
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Isn't it the weirdest thing that the wicked following his wicked way is People who work at the Law in their own understanding and their own strength??
Not one Carnal Mind would EVER think that in a million years.
Why do you think Paul says that to this Day there remains a vail over the mind of people while reading the OT?
But that vail comes off in Christ....
Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Isn't it the weirdest thing that the wicked following his wicked way is People who work at the Law in their own understanding and their own strength??
Not one Carnal Mind would EVER think that in a million years.
Why do you think Paul says that to this Day there remains a vail over the mind of people while reading the OT?
But that vail comes off in Christ....
Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
-
1
- Show all
Normally, when a new legal system is created a number of old laws are preserved and this is what happened with the advent of the New Covenant. If the five books of Moses got lost forever this wouldn't affect our salvation because all laws of Moses that apply to Christians are in the New Testament.
-
1
- Show all
The issue is that you are ignoring Romans 4. Part of Paul's argument is that justification has ALWAYS been by grace through faith alone. Both Abraham and David are portrayed as being saved by grace through faith alone. There are not two ways of salvation.
How were they justified by faith before Jesus? They were justified by faith before Jesus because they depended on God's gracious provision so that their sins would not be accounted to them. Again, read Romans 4.
By the way you might check out a view called 1689 Federalism which teaches that the Mosaic Covenant was typological of the New Covenant, and never promised eternal life, but promised long life in the land. I believe this view is more coherent than either normal covenant theology or dispensationalism (which I consider to be absurd too
).I encourage anyone to read Tim Keller's two-volume commentary called Romans for You. Understanding Romans is very helpful in regards to this matter.
However, some of the commandments in the Mosaic Law reflect God's image as reflected in human beings. Therefore, those who are being transformed into the image of God/Christ are reflecting this nature, and would not want to be involved in immorality.
Sorry if I misunderstood your assertion. I have a great deal of suspicion toward "lawkeepers" due to personal experience with this theology. Often they are obsessed with issues of days, diet, and the condition of one's sexual organs.
-
3
- Show all
been away for a few days, no internet access, I see nothing has changed. mr. gardener is still pushing the Law / Sabbath for salvation lie. ( which when he first came here he denied he was doing, guess being deceptive is o.k under his version of law keeping).
mr bear is continuing his non-sensical ramblings , maybe he should go back to pushing 1st Enoch, at least that was easier to follow.
and peter is still peter. has no clue.
mr bear is continuing his non-sensical ramblings , maybe he should go back to pushing 1st Enoch, at least that was easier to follow.
and peter is still peter. has no clue.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
The issue is that you are ignoring Romans 4. Part of Paul's argument is that justification has ALWAYS been by grace through faith alone. Both Abraham and David are portrayed as being saved by grace through faith alone. There are not two ways of salvation.
How were they justified by faith before Jesus? They were justified by faith before Jesus because they depended on God's gracious provision so that their sins would not be accounted to them. Again, read Romans 4.
By the way you might check out a view called 1689 Federalism which teaches that the Mosaic Covenant was typological of the New Covenant, and never promised eternal life, but promised long life in the land. I believe this view is more coherent than either normal covenant theology or dispensationalism (which I consider to be absurd too ).
I encourage anyone to read Tim Keller's two-volume commentary called Romans for You. Understanding Romans is very helpful in regards to this matter.
However, some of the commandments in the Mosaic Law reflect God's image as reflected in human beings. Therefore, those who are being transformed into the image of God/Christ are reflecting this nature, and would not want to be involved in immorality.
Sorry if I misunderstood your assertion. I have a great deal of suspicion toward "lawkeepers" due to personal experience with this theology. Often they are obsessed with issues of days, diet, and the condition of one's sexual organs.
How were they justified by faith before Jesus? They were justified by faith before Jesus because they depended on God's gracious provision so that their sins would not be accounted to them. Again, read Romans 4.
By the way you might check out a view called 1689 Federalism which teaches that the Mosaic Covenant was typological of the New Covenant, and never promised eternal life, but promised long life in the land. I believe this view is more coherent than either normal covenant theology or dispensationalism (which I consider to be absurd too
).I encourage anyone to read Tim Keller's two-volume commentary called Romans for You. Understanding Romans is very helpful in regards to this matter.
However, some of the commandments in the Mosaic Law reflect God's image as reflected in human beings. Therefore, those who are being transformed into the image of God/Christ are reflecting this nature, and would not want to be involved in immorality.
Sorry if I misunderstood your assertion. I have a great deal of suspicion toward "lawkeepers" due to personal experience with this theology. Often they are obsessed with issues of days, diet, and the condition of one's sexual organs.
Welcome to cc,and Blessings!
-
1
- Show all
I'm not sure what you mean in this regard.
I apologized to the man in regards to my mistaken assumption that he might be a Judaizer.
I have a certain level of aggression on certain heretical beliefs, because if you don't answer a heretic with confidence, then those who are observing and the individual themselves may think that they are correct in their assertions, and that believers cannot respond to their assertions. Judaizers are definitely heretics. I have dealt with those sorts of people all through my adult life.
However, in his case, it seems like he is proposing a level of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a tricky topic because almost everyone believes in some kind of dispensations, especially between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant. However, it is pretty radical dispensationalism to claim that there were two separate ways of salvation between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant.
It's an interesting topic, though, and I wouldn't attack someone for bringing it up.
I apologized to the man in regards to my mistaken assumption that he might be a Judaizer.
I have a certain level of aggression on certain heretical beliefs, because if you don't answer a heretic with confidence, then those who are observing and the individual themselves may think that they are correct in their assertions, and that believers cannot respond to their assertions. Judaizers are definitely heretics. I have dealt with those sorts of people all through my adult life.
However, in his case, it seems like he is proposing a level of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a tricky topic because almost everyone believes in some kind of dispensations, especially between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant. However, it is pretty radical dispensationalism to claim that there were two separate ways of salvation between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant.
It's an interesting topic, though, and I wouldn't attack someone for bringing it up.
-
1
- Show all
The issue is that you are ignoring Romans 4. Part of Paul's argument is that justification has ALWAYS been by grace through faith alone. Both Abraham and David are portrayed as being saved by grace through faith alone. There are not two ways of salvation.
How were they justified by faith before Jesus? They were justified by faith before Jesus because they depended on God's gracious provision so that their sins would not be accounted to them. Again, read Romans 4.
By the way you might check out a view called 1689 Federalism which teaches that the Mosaic Covenant was typological of the New Covenant, and never promised eternal life, but promised long life in the land. I believe this view is more coherent than either normal covenant theology or dispensationalism (which I consider to be absurd too ).
I encourage anyone to read Tim Keller's two-volume commentary called Romans for You. Understanding Romans is very helpful in regards to this matter.
However, some of the commandments in the Mosaic Law reflect God's image as reflected in human beings. Therefore, those who are being transformed into the image of God/Christ are reflecting this nature, and would not want to be involved in immorality.
Sorry if I misunderstood your assertion. I have a great deal of suspicion toward "lawkeepers" due to personal experience with this theology. Often they are obsessed with issues of days, diet, and the condition of one's sexual organs.
How were they justified by faith before Jesus? They were justified by faith before Jesus because they depended on God's gracious provision so that their sins would not be accounted to them. Again, read Romans 4.
By the way you might check out a view called 1689 Federalism which teaches that the Mosaic Covenant was typological of the New Covenant, and never promised eternal life, but promised long life in the land. I believe this view is more coherent than either normal covenant theology or dispensationalism (which I consider to be absurd too
).I encourage anyone to read Tim Keller's two-volume commentary called Romans for You. Understanding Romans is very helpful in regards to this matter.
However, some of the commandments in the Mosaic Law reflect God's image as reflected in human beings. Therefore, those who are being transformed into the image of God/Christ are reflecting this nature, and would not want to be involved in immorality.
Sorry if I misunderstood your assertion. I have a great deal of suspicion toward "lawkeepers" due to personal experience with this theology. Often they are obsessed with issues of days, diet, and the condition of one's sexual organs.
Greetings and Welcome,
I am going to check out the 1689 Federalism thanks.
I am one of those they call "LawKeepers" but only because I say the law is:
1. The Law is beautiful in that is shows us our need for our Savior!
2. The Law is beautiful in that is serves to maintain Civil Order so we may live in peace!
3. The Law is beautiful in that it is a lamp unto the feet of those who have been saved by Grace!
For this men attack and slander. This is reasonable, but to them any mention of Do not murder is heretical. Interesting how vile they are when it comes to even the slightest mention of what is reasonable! Careful!
SG
Greetings KJV,
I see what you are saying regarding Hebrews 10:26.
But there is an action verb in there regarding "Knowledge of the Truth", and that is the word that precedes the phrase. That word is:
G2983
λαμβάνω
lambanō
Thayer Definition:
1) to take
1a) to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing in order to use it
1a1) to take up a thing to be carried
1a2) to take upon one’s self
1b) to take in order to carry away
1b1) without the notion of violence, i,e to remove, take away
1c) to take what is one’s own, to take to one’s self, to make one’s own
1c1) to claim, procure, for one’s self
1c1a) to associate with one’s self as companion, attendant
1c2) of that which when taken is not let go, to seize, to lay hold of, apprehend
1c3) to take by craft (our catch, used of hunters, fisherman, etc.), to circumvent one by fraud
1c4) to take to one’s self, lay hold upon, take possession of, i.e. to appropriate to one’s self
1c5) catch at, reach after, strive to obtain
1c6) to take a thing due, to collect, gather (tribute)
1d) to take
1d1) to admit, receive
1d2) to receive what is offered
1d3) not to refuse or reject
1d4) to receive a person, give him access to one’s self
1d4a) to regard any one’s power, rank, external circumstances, and on that account to do some injustice or neglect something
1e) to take, to choose, select
1f) to take beginning, to prove anything, to make a trial of, to experience
2) to receive (what is given), to gain, get, obtain, to get back
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a prolonged form of a primary verb, which is use only as an alternate in certain tenses
Citing in TDNT: 4:5, 495
Total KJV Occurrences: 261
While having a knowledge of and looking it over and considering it, like the "builder that, considers the cost" is one thing, the point of verse 26 is to speak of the one who did all that then laid hold, appropriated, received, etc that Knowledge and hence entered into contract with it.
SG
I see what you are saying regarding Hebrews 10:26.
But there is an action verb in there regarding "Knowledge of the Truth", and that is the word that precedes the phrase. That word is:
G2983
λαμβάνω
lambanō
Thayer Definition:
1) to take
1a) to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing in order to use it
1a1) to take up a thing to be carried
1a2) to take upon one’s self
1b) to take in order to carry away
1b1) without the notion of violence, i,e to remove, take away
1c) to take what is one’s own, to take to one’s self, to make one’s own
1c1) to claim, procure, for one’s self
1c1a) to associate with one’s self as companion, attendant
1c2) of that which when taken is not let go, to seize, to lay hold of, apprehend
1c3) to take by craft (our catch, used of hunters, fisherman, etc.), to circumvent one by fraud
1c4) to take to one’s self, lay hold upon, take possession of, i.e. to appropriate to one’s self
1c5) catch at, reach after, strive to obtain
1c6) to take a thing due, to collect, gather (tribute)
1d) to take
1d1) to admit, receive
1d2) to receive what is offered
1d3) not to refuse or reject
1d4) to receive a person, give him access to one’s self
1d4a) to regard any one’s power, rank, external circumstances, and on that account to do some injustice or neglect something
1e) to take, to choose, select
1f) to take beginning, to prove anything, to make a trial of, to experience
2) to receive (what is given), to gain, get, obtain, to get back
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a prolonged form of a primary verb, which is use only as an alternate in certain tenses
Citing in TDNT: 4:5, 495
Total KJV Occurrences: 261
While having a knowledge of and looking it over and considering it, like the "builder that, considers the cost" is one thing, the point of verse 26 is to speak of the one who did all that then laid hold, appropriated, received, etc that Knowledge and hence entered into contract with it.
SG
Agreed, received has multiple meanings as you have shown but the question is which meaning did God intend. I believe it's received as in they heard the word and rejected. I do see your point though, although I disagree.
I will tell you from experience that I have willfully sinned since becoming a Christian and I can tell that I never have considered the blood of the covenant an unholy thing.
Let's take a look at the last two verses of that chapter. Who do you think the "we" in Hebrews 10:39 is talking about? Who is the other group, those who draw back unto perdition?
Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
Heb 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
-
1
- Show all
E
Since I saw simplegardners response to this and opened it I will respond
There is a reason I have this use also on ignore (like peter) they are liars. They can not comprehend what people believe, So instead of trying to converse with them to try to understand, they have to do things like this.. And use all kinds of strawmen argument (or whatever you want to call them) to I guess prove to themselves they are right? (if this is all you have, you are in trouble)
So lets get our facts straight
As you can see here. Alot of fluff. I mean does anyone really understand what he is saying? Does he have a point?
And also the strawman, can you see it. He claims I am not willing to understand or to get help to understand, When the exact same argument can be said to him and his group.
Personally I understand quite well. Whenever someone questions me, I answer it (unlike them) And when someone tried to actually help me instead of attack me, I am open, If I have any questions, I ask (and usually as people can see, Get no answer.. or get an answer which is not even related to my question) so who is it that is not willing?
yeah, I think the whole room sees (except those who think they do nothing wrong)
And the second strawman.
Since we disagree with them, we bring a charge, Yet they continually bring charges against us, and it is perfectly ok.
And what is this nonsense about being foreknown only occuring in the OT? I mean really? Is this another lie about my belief? Or is this you saying this is what you believe? WHich if true, you must reject half the NT which says we (meaning all who are gods children) are foreknown before time began.
You and peter may think you get away with stuff. But you don;t your lies and strawman always find you out.
There is a reason I have this use also on ignore (like peter) they are liars. They can not comprehend what people believe, So instead of trying to converse with them to try to understand, they have to do things like this.. And use all kinds of strawmen argument (or whatever you want to call them) to I guess prove to themselves they are right? (if this is all you have, you are in trouble)
So lets get our facts straight
As you can see here. Alot of fluff. I mean does anyone really understand what he is saying? Does he have a point?
And also the strawman, can you see it. He claims I am not willing to understand or to get help to understand, When the exact same argument can be said to him and his group.
Personally I understand quite well. Whenever someone questions me, I answer it (unlike them) And when someone tried to actually help me instead of attack me, I am open, If I have any questions, I ask (and usually as people can see, Get no answer.. or get an answer which is not even related to my question) so who is it that is not willing?
yeah, I think the whole room sees (except those who think they do nothing wrong)
And the second strawman.
Since we disagree with them, we bring a charge, Yet they continually bring charges against us, and it is perfectly ok.
And what is this nonsense about being foreknown only occuring in the OT? I mean really? Is this another lie about my belief? Or is this you saying this is what you believe? WHich if true, you must reject half the NT which says we (meaning all who are gods children) are foreknown before time began.
You and peter may think you get away with stuff. But you don;t your lies and strawman always find you out.
Good Morning KJV,
Heb 10:38-39 KJV+ NowG1161 theG3588 justG1342 shall liveG2198 byG1537 faith:G4102 butG2532 ifG1437 any man draw back,G5288 myG3450 soulG5590 shall have no pleasureG2106 G3756 inG1722 him.G846 (39) ButG1161 weG2249 areG2070 notG3756 of them who draw backG5289 untoG1519 perdition;G684 butG235 of them that believeG4102 to the savingG1519 G4047 of the soul.G5590
I have no problem identifying the "we" as "The Just". Just being G1342
G1342
δίκαιος
dikaios
Thayer Definition:
1) righteous, observing divine laws
It stands to reason too. When you recall the call to repentance, when we were "drawn in" to repent is was directly related to the divine laws. Yes? Yes, and this path which began with our condemnation "under the Law" is now one of a new heart, the promise of having His Laws written upon our hearts. When we do not let dogmas or incorrect doctrine stand in the way of receiving the long awaited renewing, we can find a New Creation which sees the Divine Laws as something new and beautiful. But, until then the Law is dark and condemning. But this is not the plan for us. As Christians saved by grace we are set aright with God and put on the path to establish the law by faith. Hope this helps.
SG