No, you're the only one in this thread with a chip on his shoulder.
Yes,k if you could stop replying to my posts it would be greatly appreciated.
What if repentance is not about feeling guilty, regretful or ashamed? How do you define repentance?
- Thread starter biblestudent78
- 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.
No, you're the only one in this thread with a chip on his shoulder.
Yes,k if you could stop replying to my posts it would be greatly appreciated.
Jesus did heal on the Sabbath, which was not against the Mosaic Law
The Mosaic Law instructs both of the people accused of committing adultery to be brought before a judge to do a thorough investigation, that the witness are to throw the first stones, and that no one is to be put to death without at least two or three witnesses, so if Jesus had stoned her, then he would have been in violation of the Mosaic Law.
Everything in the Mosaic Law is either in regard to how to love God and our neighbor, which is why Jesus said that those are the greatest two commandments and that all of the other commandments hand on it, so it is the law of love.
The reason why Jesus went to the cross was not in order to free us to become doers of what the Law of Moses reveals to be sin but rather he gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works (Titus 2:14), so the way to believe in what he accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law (Acts 21:20). In Matthew 27:37, they nailed a handwritten ordinance to Christ's. cross that announced the charge that was against him, which fits perfectly with the concept of the handwritten ordinance that listed the charges that were against us being nailed to his cross and with him dying in our place in order to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to do with nailing any laws to the cross in order to free us to become doers of what they reveal to be sin.
According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has loved heir neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done and should continue to do in perpetuity, not to something unique that only Christ could do. If someone breaks any law, then that simply means that they need to repent and to return to obedience, which is what James was encouraging them to do, but it does not mean that we can't fulfill the law.
While it is possible for someone to interpret Acts 15:19-21 as ruling against followers of Christ following over 99% of what he taught, I don't think that it makes much sense to that. It would be contradictory for someone to treat Acts 15:19-21 as being an exhaustive list in order to limit which ways followers of Christ should follow Christ while also treating it as being a non-exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously other ways that followers of Christ should follow Christ.
No, the goal was to avoid overwhelming new believers, which they justified in Acts 15:21 with the expectation that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues, not to reject over 99% of what Christ taught.
Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law by teaching us how to fulfill it, so there is nothing about us fulfilling it that means that what he did wasn't enough. Jesus saves us from our sin (Matthew 1:21) and it is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so Jesus graciously teaching us to experience being a doer of it is intrinsically the way that he is giving us his gift of saving us from not being a doer of it. The reason why God taught His children how to walk in His ways was not in order for us to be our own Savior, but rather that is the way that He is saving us.
The Lord led the Apostles to the understanding that He is not calling New Covenant believers to follow the law of Moses.
Because New Covenant believers are to follow the Law of Christ. Jesus is our High Priest, not Moses.
1) It was considered "works" when Jesus healed on the Sabbath. 2) Jesus never said that stoning the woman was against Mosaic law, as a matter of fact, if one had been sinless it would have been legal. Instead of answering your oft convoluted answers, which I can, I'll just let you try, and fail, to fulfill a law that has already been fulfilled. " Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, EVEN THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS CONTAINED IN ORDINANCES;..." Eph. 2:15 " Blotting out the handwriting of ORDINANCES THAT WAS AGAINST US, WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO US, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross;" Colossians 2:14. If you want to attempt to fulfill what has been "abolished"," the enmity ", and what is" against "and" contrary "to you, have at it.
There are a number of God's laws that appear to conflict with each other. For example, while God commanded to rest on the Sabbath, He also commanded priests to make offerings on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10), however it was not the case that priests were forced to sin by breaking one of those two commands no matter that they chose to do, but rather there is a principle that a general prohibition is not intended to be understood as preventing us from obeying a specific command. This is why Jesus said in Matthew 125-7 that priests who did their duties on the Sabbath were held innocent, why David and his men were held innocent, and why Jesus defended his disciples as being innocent. This is also why it is lawful to circumcise a baby on the 8th day if it happens to fall on the Sabbath, why it is lawful to get an ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath, and so forth.
Some Pharisees had reasoned that it is unlawful to heal on the Sabbath and that healing is work, therefore it is unlawful to heal on the Sabbath, however, we are also commanded to love our neighbor, refusing to heal them would not be doing that, and no commandment was intended to be understood as preventing us from obeying the greatest two commandments, which is why it was lawful for Jesus to heal on the Sabbath. It is contradictory to take both he positions that the Pharisees were correct about it being unlawful to heal on the Sabbath a the position that Jesus was correct about it being lawful to heal on the Sabbath. Sin is the transgression of the Law of God (1 John 3:4), so the position that Jesus broke the Sabbath denies that he is our Savior.
Someone should be free from sin in the matter that they testify about so that they are not required to condemn themselves by their own testimony.
The Law of God is not something that we fulfill once and then no longer need to fulfill it as if someone loving their neighbor once has fulfilled their obligation to it and they no longer need to love their neighbor, but rather it is something that we need to continue to fulfill in perpetuity.
The Greek word "dogma" refers to something other than the Law of God every other time that it is used by the Bible outside of Ephesians 2:15 and Colossians 2:14, so you need to give justification for why those verses should be interpreted as referring to the Law of God, especially in light of the fact that that wound contradict the surrounding context as well as the broader context of verses like Matthew 5:17-19, where Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the Law of God and warned against relaxing the least part of it, like Romans 3:31, where Paul affirmed that our faith does not abolish the Law of God but rather our faith upholds it, and Psalm 119:160, where all of God's righteous laws are eternal. It doesn't even make sense to think that Jesus went to the cross in order to free us to become doers of what the Law of God reveals to be wickedness. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from the Law of God but in order to free us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what he accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of God (Acts 21:20) while the way to reject everything he accomplished would be by returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from.
I'm answering what was said, that Christians should follow the Mosaic Law. Not one writer of the New Testament scriptures, that I have read, states this. I never said that the Mosaic Law was abolished, but, as the Bible states, the enmity was. The law, or handwriting of ordinances, was fulfilled and nailed to the Cross of Christ. " Stand fast in the LIBERTY wherewith Christ hath made us FREE, and be not entangled AGAIN with the yoke of BONDAGE. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if you be circumcised (requirement of the law), Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor TO DO THE WHOLE LAW. Christ is become of NO EFFECT UNTO YOU, WHOSOEVER OF YOU ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW: YOU ARE FALLEN FROM GRACE." Galatians 5:1-4. Paul calls trying to be justified by the law is a yoke of bondage. To suggest that we, especially those who are young in the faith, should fulfill the Mosaic Law puts them under a yoke of bondage, when Christ has made us free. Not free to sin, as you have suggested, but free to fulfill the Law of Christ, love." Wherefore if you be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are you SUBJECT TO ORDINANCES,(touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments AND doctrines of men? Colossians 2:20-22. Man CAN'T fulfill the law, but THE Man, Christ Jesus, has and our faith in Him and what He has done justifies us. Now, should we, in this freedom Christ has provided for us, go back into sin? God forbid " Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Rom 6:16. Regarding your take on loving someone one time to fulfill the law, that's ridiculous, we are to love as God loves us, everlastingly, by decision. You should know that Jesus came and gave insight into the law when He said " you've heard it said, but I say unto you" Matt. 5:21-22. Jesus gave the true and deep intent of God's law rather than mans traditional interpretations and legalistic teachings. So the New Covenant teachings are better suited for followers of Christ, while still learning and being aware of the full counsel of Gods Word. What's hidden in the old is revealed in the new.
Jesus said it was abolished
Hebrews 10:9 - Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
God said He would make a New Covenant - see Jeremiah 31:31-34
You were not aware of this?
All the judaizers ignore the Book of Hebrews