Some things about the law that need explaining.

  • 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.

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
The new covenant is not made with the bride of Christ, unless you have scripture that state otherwise
That makes absolutely no sense. The new covenant, according to how scripture writes it, was given to Israel and Judah and was made effective for all of mankind through Christ. I have given scripture that tells us this, read my post, and read and go by scripture. It makes sense, yours doesn't.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
61,137
30,282
113
I think this advise you gave me is advice you need to apply to yourself. Your idea of the Lord telling you He took back some of His laws is in error. God is eternal, God's creation is good, all of what God created. That is a fact and no scripture you come up with is in disagreement with this fact. If you think so, you better take it up with your Lord. I don't seem to be able to get through to you.
Another of your false accusations. Why should I listen to you? You are in error so often it is disturbing.
 

soberxp

Senior Member
May 3, 2018
2,511
482
83
Pls be nice bro and sis:D(y)
1 Timothy4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,951
13,615
113
I think this advise you gave me is advice you need to apply to yourself. Your idea of the Lord telling you He took back some of His laws is in error. God is eternal, God's creation is good, all of what God created. That is a fact and no scripture you come up with is in disagreement with this fact. If you think so, you better take it up with your Lord. I don't seem to be able to get through to you.
Circumcision was given to Abraham, and then hundreds of years later in the law to Israel.

Why does Paul warn against it in his letter to Galatia, telling the believers there that they are making Christ's sacrifice of no effect and fallen from grace if they become circumcised?
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
Another of your false accusations. Why should I listen to you? You are in error so often it is disturbing.
I think you really do believe in the Lord, and I have given my very life to the Lord, yet there are these posts you make. This current fuss is because I objected to your idea of what the schoolmaster is that the Lord speaks of, and you are throwing in that I am in complete error! I do often find you shallow in your responses, and that is not accepting you as we are told to do. I get caught up in listening to what the Lord tells us. I so wish you could discuss scripture. I will put you on ignore, if you will please do the same with me. Our relationship is not pleasing to the Lord.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
61,137
30,282
113
I think you really do believe in the Lord, and I have given my very life to the Lord, yet there are these posts you make. This current fuss is because I objected to your idea of what the schoolmaster is that the Lord speaks of, and you are throwing in that I am in complete error! I do often find you shallow in your responses, and that is not accepting you as we are told to do. I get caught up in listening to what the Lord tells us. I so wish you could discuss scripture. I will put you on ignore, if you will please do the same with me. Our relationship is not pleasing to the Lord.
You can ignore me all you like, while I shall continue to expose your errors.

I bolded another of your false accusations above. True: such false accusations are not pleasing to the Lord.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
Circumcision was given to Abraham, and then hundreds of years later in the law to Israel.

Why does Paul warn against it in his letter to Galatia, telling the believers there that they are making Christ's sacrifice of no effect and fallen from grace if they become circumcised?
Paul took it up because of the new covenant. It was fleshly circumcision that Paul objected to because it was only given to lead Israelites to obey that God told them they belonged to Him, it was only a sign of that law. It is explained as being a schoolmaster, a training tool. We are to listen to Christ, and not need a fleshly sign, now. We label the circumcision we are to now have as a spiritual circumcision. We are to keep ourselves separate, and know we belong to Christ, we do that without a fleshly sign of it but through Christ.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
You can ignore me all you like, while I shall continue to expose your errors.

I bolded another of your false accusations. True: such false accusations are not pleasing to the Lord.
So you continue to ignore the Lord, I was sure that you would.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
61,137
30,282
113
So you continue to ignore the Lord, I was sure that you would.
Another of your false accusations. I can see why you think your relationship with others is not pleasing to Him.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
61,137
30,282
113
I hope you're showing these in a gallery some where.
I design them to share here with my brothers and sisters in Christ, and any who are seeking Truth :)

I do have my own thread created for displaying them. The link is in my siggy ;):D
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,951
13,615
113
Paul took it up because of the new covenant. It was fleshly circumcision that Paul objected to because it was only given to lead Israelites to obey that God told them they belonged to Him, it was only a sign of that law. It is explained as being a schoolmaster, a training tool. We are to listen to Christ, and not need a fleshly sign, now. We label the circumcision we are to now have as a spiritual circumcision. We are to keep ourselves separate, and know we belong to Christ, we do that without a fleshly sign of it but through Christ.
Should sabbath be the same way, not through fleshly observance but spiritual stillness, letting God sanctify our hearts as we cease from following our own desires in order to take up his?
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
61,137
30,282
113
This current fuss is because I objected to your idea of what the schoolmaster is that the Lord speaks of
I quoted Scripture, and you complain, criticize, and falsely accuse. My goodness, Blik. Get a grip.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
  1. The Law was only given to Israel. It forms the conditions of a Covenant. But the Nations surrounding Israel would have seen and heard of its Giver and of the blessings and curses attached.
  2. Jehovah never intended men to accept Him because of Law. He is to be accepted by looking at the creation (Rom.1:18-20; Rev.11:6-7)
  3. Our Lord Jesus did not change the Law when He came. But because of the gospel of reconciliation, He asked His disciples to forego their rights. After Israel rejected Him and the New Man was revealed, the Law FOR THE NEW MAN (not Israel) was abolished in Christ's crucifixion
  4. The Law requires just recompense. That is its basis. The Offerings extended God's forgiveness for SOME Laws. Other Laws were broken unto death. The injured Party, whether God or man, could extend forgiveness if he wanted to.
  5. There is no such thing as a Symbolic Christ
  6. Grace cannot be believed in. It is either extended or not.
  7. The New Covenant is for Israel (Jer.31.31-33). Its conditions are the same Laws as the first Covenant. The difference is that the Israelite is given a new spirit and a new heart. He will intrinsically tend to keep the Law and thus fulfill the Covenant
  8. The Church has no part of the Law. For the Ex-Gentile he was never under it, and for the Ex-Jew it is nailed to the cross with Jesus
I agree, except that the law simply outlines sin for us, and what it requires is the saving grace of the Lord. Christ brought the new covenant to all of us,. It was originally given to Israel, but through Christ every person is given grace of the new covenant.

The church has many purposes, including learning all about God. Learning God's law is a part of learning about God. I see no sense in your statement "the Church has no part of the Law". Being under the law is to have the false idea that you can use the law to be righteous. It is a false idea, false for all people at all times, the "Jews" and "gentile" doesn't apply. I agree with "through Christ every person is given grace".
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
Should sabbath be the same way, not through fleshly observance but spiritual stillness, letting God sanctify our hearts as we cease from following our own desires in order to take up his?
This is the way it seems to me that Paul speaks of the Sabbath. I have a hard time with that idea because God gave a special blessing to Saturday, and no one can take away what the Lord puts together.

God is spirit, and now He speaks to us through the spirit. However, the Gnostics took this idea to such extremes they were in error. In Colossians they are labeled as false prophets. However, it is tradition and history that designates the false prophets spoken of there as Gnostics, not scripture.

I struggle with this. When I could get to church, I went on Sunday because that is when my church meets. Now I am housebound, I treat Saturday as the day the Lord blessed for me.

What scripture is clear about this is that either way is acceptable, for either way can be accepting Christ. We are not to judge others.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
That makes absolutely no sense. The new covenant, according to how scripture writes it, was given to Israel and Judah and was made effective for all of mankind through Christ. I have given scripture that tells us this, read my post, and read and go by scripture. It makes sense, yours doesn't.
There is a reason why I quoted Exodus 24.

Show me where, in any of those passages that you have used from Hebrews, that the nation of Israel actually accepted the New covenant with Christ, who was offering it to them.

You can offer something to Israel but if they don't accept it, it will not be "given to Israel".

As an analogy, you offer someone a gift and he refuse to accept it and walk away, and even killed the gift giver.

Do you really think he is now enjoying the gift?
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
There is a reason why I quoted Exodus 24.

Show me where, in any of those passages that you have used from Hebrews, that the nation of Israel actually accepted the New covenant with Christ, who was offering it to them.

You can offer something to Israel but if they don't accept it, it will not be "given to Israel".

As an analogy, you offer someone a gift and he refuse to accept it and walk away, and even killed the gift giver.

Do you really think he is now enjoying the gift?
I believe that when Christ came He was the Savior for any person who believed in Him, and there were no more Israel only, Jews, gentiles, women, men, but children of God and those who were not His children.

I also believe that God will not desert the Jews, God promised them he wouldn't. I believe we are not to judge their relationship with the Lord, and that our fleshly minds are incapable of this understanding, and a careful study of Romans, I believe, backs these beliefs up.

Even if my understanding of this is all wrong, one thing is for sure. It is not up to us to judge the relationship of God and Jews, that is the business of the Lord.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
I believe that when Christ came He was the Savior for any person who believed in Him, and there were no more Israel only, Jews, gentiles, women, men, but children of God and those who were not His children.

I also believe that God will not desert the Jews, God promised them he wouldn't. I believe we are not to judge their relationship with the Lord, and that our fleshly minds are incapable of this understanding, and a careful study of Romans, I believe, backs these beliefs up.

Even if my understanding of this is all wrong, one thing is for sure. It is not up to us to judge the relationship of God and Jews, that is the business of the Lord.
The way I understand your post, you believe in either/or/and both points:
  1. Universalism: Even though Israel the nation rejected Christ and stoned Stephen in Acts 7, somehow the New Covenant is still "given" to them, without them giving their consent and receiving it.
  2. The Body of Christ has accepted the New Covenant on behalf of Israel. Hence your view of "no more Israel only, Jews, gentiles, women, men, but children of God and those who were not His children."