Christ kept the Law of Moses, so....

I already have.

Are you a "King James version only" advocate?

When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. (1 Cor 11:20,21)... ["not to eat the Lord's supper" meant not to observe it properly and reverently]

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks [eucharisteo], he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. (1 Cor 11:23-26)

The Lord's Supper is clearly NOT the Passover meal. The word Eucharist comes from the giving of thanks. The Jews celebrated the Passover by eating a roasted lamb with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Exod 12:8; Num 9:11). There is no mention of any cup (as in the Lord's Supper) and no mention of showing the Lord's death either. So obviously you are trying to contradict the Bible.

Yes, I do understand circumcision.

Yes, I know that it predates the Mosaic Covenant.

No, it does not predate God's Law.

Abraham's Blessedness (reckoning of righteousness) was obtained without circumcision (Rom 4:10) and yet he received fleshly circumcision anyway. But why bother with fleshly circumcision if he had obtained righteousness already? He received fleshly circumcision as an outward sign of the inward righteousness which was by Faith (Rom 4:11). Therefore if fleshly circumcision is only a sign of the inward righteousness then it is the inward state that matters. Similarly, water baptism is nothing but a sign of an inward state of being dead to the flesh and raised to eternal life spiritually.

Moses understood that circumcision was merely a sign of an inward state of righteousness by Faith (Deu 10:16, 30:6) and preached that it pointed to the circumcision of the heart and not merely the flesh. Paul was, as always, in agreement with Moses -

"... circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. " (Rom 2:29)

Rather than dismiss circumcision as having been abolished Paul stated that circumcision IS that of the heart and that if your heart is circumcised then it is the case that you have been circumcised. This is why Paul said that if a gentile observes the righteousness of the Law he is counted as circumcised -

"Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?"
(Rom 2:26)

Circumcision is not abolished under the New Covenant but rather given it's full meaning.





One follows the Law by the Grace of God. Sin is the transgression of the Law and under the New Covenant we may come to the Father at any time to confess our sins -

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1st John 1:9)

Get up. Clean up. Try again, with the help of the Holy Spirit.

No. You haven't even tried. But since I'm not here to re-enact a Monty Python sketch, I'm done with this banter.

Your reasoning is impertinent and childish. I will no longer be engaging with you in discussion in this thread.

It’s good to repeat what Jesus said.

It’s not good to repeat part of what Jesus said, and leave out the context of what Jesus said, and therefore miss His point.



“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Matthew 5:17-18

• one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Since Jesus fulfilled the law, as you claim, then the lawmaker has the right to abolish it… having been fulfilled.

Nothing would be able to pass from the law of Moses, UNTIL it had been fulfilled.

It has been fulfilled and therefore has been abolished.


Paul says it this way —


What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Galatians 3:19

• It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come…

The Seed has indeed come, so that which was added, is no longer needed.


Why was the law needed, you ask?


Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Galatians 3:24



For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, Ephesians 2:13-14



The law of Moses was the dividing wall of separation between Jew and Gentile.

The law was always temporary and needed to be abolished to tear down the dividing wall that separated Jew from Gentile, therefore creating one new man, in Himself where there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

• What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come

By saying “until” the Holy Spirit was indicating the law was always temporary.




JPT

I appreciate you sharing. And as you point out, the law is a schoolmaster to bring one to Christ. So if everyone who will be saved is already saved, I would agree with you. But people are saved daily.
Also, if the law is abolished, why is it written on our hearts?
I recognize we are no longer under the law of sin and death. But that isn't because the law is gone but because it is now a source of blessing to us. Before it only brought curses because the flesh was weak.
We have passed from death to life and the law no longer has the power to condemn us, it remains of great value to the believer and unbeliever alike.

1 Corinthians 11:23b-26
Thank you for the inspiration .

So paul contradicted himself?

But not all are universal.

Sodomy/homosexuality had always been sin, long before Moses wrote this down. See Sodom and Gomorrha.

The law of Moses is abolished.


The law of Christ is written in our heart.



Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. Galatians 6:2



JPT

I appreciate you making the distinction. Most don't understand the difference. The law of Christ is the flip side of the coin of the law of Moses. Rather than thou shalt not, it is merely thou shalt. It is keeping the righteousness of the law.
In salvation, not only are our sins laid upon Jesus, but His righteousness is imputed to us. Both are necessary. Not only is it necessary for a payment be made for our sins, but the righteousness due God from our lack of obedience need be given.
The law of Moses still possesses great value in our society. Just as it served to remind Israelites of proper behavior before God, it continues to do the same for those who are still educated in them.

Bold emphasis above added by me
I'm saying God allowed it (Gen 49:10) and I'm saying it is still the case today.

History testifies to the fulfilment of prophecy.

Ethanol (the toxic excrement of certain bacteria) is a poison. Just look up the Safety Data Sheet for Ethanol. It's a cell mutagen, among other things. On the other hand raw grape juice contains polyphenols which are highly effective modbiotics and have demonstrated benefits to gut health. The bactericidal effect of ethanol is real enough, but it is indiscriminate, killing both good and bad bacteria, thus on balance it has a detrimental gut biome effect. The unfermented wine is much more beneficial than the fermented kind.

I understand what you're saying but I don't agree because I believe that when read in context it becomes clear that the signs of those that believe apply to the Body of Christ as a whole and not entirely to each specific believer. In other words these Spiritual Gifts would be supplied to the Church severally as God desires for the edification of the Saints, as expounded upon further by Paul (1st Cor 12-13). The instructions in Acts 15 are for every individual believer and are a minimum requirement for fellowship and this is as current today as it was then.

Thank you Brother/Sister. The respect is mutual.

So much for Sola Scriptura, eih?

And therein lies the problem. Many "Christian" churches are embracing the LGBTQ practices precisely BECAUSE new-law Christians can not point to a written printed authority that anyone can get their hands on which explicitly prohibits these behaviors.

The Uniting Church of Australia is one such church, with 670,000 adherents, and it teaches "love" not Mosaic Law, EXACTLY as do many new-law Christians in this thread. They've got "the law" written on their hearts too. You can't tell them they're wrong because you're using the same authority as they are using - "My heart says it's ok."

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isa 8:20)

Thank you for sharing your rather unique point of view. You know what question I'm going to ask next though, right?
Chapter and verse please sir?

In all the years I've been engaging in this subject this is the very first time that anybody I've talked to (and there's been hundreds) has suggested that Christ came to renew His Covenant with Abraham.

I find it difficult to conceive of how an unbreakable Covenant (The Abrahamic Covenant) should require renewal. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Things that are different are not the same.

Simple logic.

When you're ready to have a real conversation, you'll leave off with the asinine rhetoric.

I was examining the meaning of this recently, looking up the Greek which was translated "schoolmaster" and the significance of that which purposes to 'bring to Christ," and a picture of a teacher taking a student by the ear to the principal's office came to mind. In this case, the principal offers the student two options, mercy and justice (packaged deal) or expulsion.

Perhaps. I always thought it presented us with truth. Because it is impossible to garner salvation through the law, we begin to look for another option and find Christ.

Jesus is the solution.
But that does not make the Law of Liberty void.
Because Jesus died we can be freed from the debt, penalty, handwriting, of the law, but the law is still a guide to help us not sin.

If the law that holds us guilty is void, Jesus did not need to die.

Hebrews explains that Jesus is the better sacrifice (only sacrifice), the high priest, etc. So these laws that deal with sacrifice and sanctuary attonment are made void by Christ filling the roles in a better way.

God does not change and the laws that define sin are still in place today.