Attack of the Judaizers

[Elin]

What's your take on these four scripture references? Does the Mosaic Law cause one to disbelieve Jesus' words, and does the spiritual aspects of the law cause one to revert back to a carnal mind?

John 5:46-47 (KJV)
[SUP]46 [/SUP]For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
[SUP]47 [/SUP]But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Jesus was not referring to just laws here, but to all Moses' writings which predicted Messiah.

Romans 7:12 (KJV)
[SUP]12 [/SUP]Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Absolutely, and because it is holy, it condemns all who sin against it, which is every human being.

So the holy law sends all to hell.
We cannot be saved by law-keeping, because we can't do it.

That's why we need a Savior who frees us from law-keeping for our salvation.

Romans 7:14 (KJV)
[SUP]14 [/SUP]For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Yes, the law is of the Holy Spirit, but my unregenerate nature (flesh) is of sin.

Romans 7:22 (KJV)
[SUP]22 [/SUP]For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

There is a struggle between the inward man (regenerated spirit) which loves God's law, and the old man (fleshly nature) which loves self.

Romans 8:7 (KJV)
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Because the carnal mind is enmity against God:
for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Those not born again and have a regenerated spirit, are spiritually powerless
and cannot submit to the law of God.

There can be no salvation by law-keeping.

 

[Elin]

Technically speaking, I think we should avoid the use of Judaizer as a coverall word for folks who point us to trust in the shadows. Isn't Judaizer something more specific, related to circumcision? Or
does the scope of the term cover all things related to trusting in the shadows?

The term covers all things that would submit the NT to the OT.

Judaizers is the right word because that's what they wanted to do in Acts 15:5.

 

[IloveyouGod]

Exactly, thank you Midnite for quoting Matthew as the first gospel in the New Testament.

Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. Now in the New Testament we don't need to follow the law, but rather follow Christ's teachings. Which is by the way NOT easier. It's with a higher standards. In the New Testament we are given more knowledge and Christ expects more from us as well.

Written in Matthew 12
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?
6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here.
(where here? what could be greater than the temple and is now here?
7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent.
8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. (one of his most potent claims that he is Lord of all)

On the 7th day God rested so we would observe him, take rest in him.
Once Jesus came he made it clear he is our rest, Jesus is the Sabbath.
We observe and take rest in him... at all times.

 

[Elin]

Yeah it's just that I've heard the shadow trusters scoff at being called Judaizers, simply because they themselves aren't preaching circumcision. So if
the scope of Judaizer is confined to just circumcision, then possibly a better word needs to be used. *shrugs*

Nope, Judaizer is a good word.

See Acts 15:5.

 

[john832]

Like Uzzah when he stopped the ark from falling, and was struck dead because he as not authorized by God to touch it.

Uh, help me out here but didn't Uzza die for disobedience?

 

[Elin]

There is a proper way to look at circumcision, and I think we can all agree if it weren't written in the Mosaic Law.

Deuteronomy 10:16 (KJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP]Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Romans 2:29 (KJV)
[SUP]29 [/SUP]But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Deuteronomy then is not the letter then as Paul says. It all boils down to the spiritual aspects of the Mosaic Law. The Pharisees didn't have it right. Though Christ we can see God's original intentions from the beginning. Fulfilling is completing, and "ending" is placing final piece where it belongs to complete the project. Cool isn't it? I love all of the Word.

Yes, circumcision of the heart is not a NT concept, for we also find it in the OT (Lev 6:41; Jer 9:26), and this is what Paul refers to in Ro 2:29.

Abraham's descendants were commanded to circumcise both their foreskin (in the letter, or law) and their hearts (in the spirit).
Circumcision in the letter did not profit them spiritually if their hearts were not also circumcised in the spirit.

whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Judah, Jew meant "praise."

True praise (Jew) is of God.

 

[just-me]

Exactly, thank you Midnite for quoting Matthew as the first gospel in the New Testament.

Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. Now in the New Testament we don't need to follow the law, but rather follow Christ's teachings. Which is by the way NOT easier. It's with a higher standards. In the New Testament we are given more knowledge and Christ expects more from us as well.

I certainly don't disagree with you, but never forget that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant which includes the old ones in one package, (hin=four parts, Jesus being the final peace) for He taught Old Testament before His death. I have a book that I wrote not too long ago explaining this if you would like it. Just say so in a private message with email, and I'll send it in a word document.

Hebrews 9:16-17 (KJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP]For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

 

[Elin]

The Sabbath was made for convocation, and to converse, taking time out to edify, and a time to be instructed.

Yes, and the church must not forsake assembling together for such (Heb 10:25), which in the NT was on the Lord's Day, Sunday, but it can be on any day.

It is a time to enter into God's rest, from the hassles of the daily life and meditate. Sabbath is also related to the word Selah in the Psalms, giving us time to think about what David and the other Psalmists were singing. Observance of the Sabbath is *ceasing from self-works, and having faith that produces righteous works that are motivated by the gift of faith.

Actually, the NT Sabbath is not about resting from hassles, but resting from self-works to save.

We rest from self-works because Jesus has done the work and, therefore, Jesus is the NT Sabbath rather than it being a day of the week.

 

[Elin]

Please forgive me for what appears to be an obvious question but my Bible knowledge and understanding is basic though I am trying to improve my life since finding God.

So my question is this......I have not eaten meat for 25 years due to the way the food industry operated, from a health point of view and the mis-treatment of animals, this is way before I turned to God. Now that I know the truth I should start eating meat again to please God?
First time I have read this and I was shocked I must confess.

I only got my first Bible in November 2013 which is KJV...I am guessing a KJV is a KJV and there are no more accurate Bibles in English?
Also I have read Websters Bible is an accurate modern English translation, or am I being mis-lead?
I know to some they may seem like stupid questions but I like would a genuine answer to these.
Sorry for being so dumb!

You'll get answers alright!

You are free to eat, or not to eat, meat. There is no NT proscription of meat.

I would recommend a translation more easily understood than the KJV.

The NIV is true to the Greek, and is very understandable.

 

[Elin]

I have been judged a judaizer. . .

. . .immorality is preached,

Non observance of a Saturday Sabbath is not immoral.

I am ashamed of you as fellow Christians.

 

[john832]

Non observance of a Saturday Sabbath is not immoral.

Nope, it is just a breaking of the fourth Commandment and a sin.

 

[Elin]

Continuance of observance of Torah by Jews who have converted to Christianity

This behavior was particularly persecuted between 1300 and 1800 under the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions, using as a basis the many references in the Pauline epistles regarding the "Law as a curse" and the futility of relying on the Law for attaining salvation, known as legalism. Thus, in spite of
Paul's agreement at the Council of Jerusalem,

Both Jesus and Paul made clear that nothing edible is unclean (Mk 7:19; Ro 14:14, 17, 20).

The stipulations of Acts 15 were a temporary concession to the new Christian Jews in Antioch, who were particularly offended by some Gentile practices allowed in the NT (sexual immorality was not allowed), and was causing difficulty in their fellowship.

 

[Elin]

Do you love me?

Absolutely. . .but that doesn't mean you rightly divide the Word.

ElinLovesTX too!

 

[Elin]

But dans, you guys go so far as to say that it is sinful to perform a ritual law for any reason. I put a typed message on a sheet of paper, put it in a box, and post it by my front door. It is a physical support of my telling the Lord that in my house, I want nothing that isn't for your kingdom, I dedicate it for only God's ways to be in it. I can't always do that, but it is my aim. I got this idea from reading the OT. It is a ritual. I have been told it is sinful because God suggested it in the OT. For this I am labeled a Judaizer. I am told I am playing at being a Jew and that is wrong. Jewish people say I have no right to do this because it is only for them to do.

Are you assuming all Christianity is in agreement with their objections?

Look farther, my friend.

If I could, I would probably wear my Bible for outer clothing.

 

[Elin]

Red, I have told you this atleast once, I have a Mezuza on my front door. Once I even hosted a Seder for a Jewish friend. it is not wrong to engage in such things. However, it is wrong to say we are under obligation to them when in fact we are free from them.

You might want to rethink that.

It is "wrong" to use our own ideas of worship practices which we think are pleasing to, but are not authorized by, God in the NT,
just as it was wrong for Uzzah to do what he thought was pleasing to God, but what he was not authorized to do in trying to keep the ark from falling.

 

[Elin]

What in the world is wrong with you all!!!!??? You are clearly demonizing the mosaic law, do you know God spoke to Moses and gave that law! Read your Bibles for crying out loud!! Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, and much of the NT is quotations from the mosaic law, and Jesus was teaching from the mosaic law, but was fixing errors that were put in buy the Pharisees. LORD HAVE MERCY ON YOU!!

Alfa, read Hebrews and Paul.

 

[Elin]

Wow!! You sound like a mature Christian, listening to the Lord!

Then I don't see the purpose of this thread. From the time when Cain tried to attain atonement through his works and it was rejected, works without even the symbolism of Christ was not accepted. Even though the entire Hebrew language is based on doing to express an emotion, the spirit has been taught by the Lord as the most important. There have been sects such as the Pharisees during the time of Christ who distorted doing for salvation, but it is certainly not the problem in our churches, now. To the contrary, our problem is separating doing with our worship. The focus of the message Paul took to the gentiles was that first must come the spirit of the Lord, and it is still a focus of the church. Our need is not to learn the spirit, it is to learn the part that doing has in our worship, for it takes both.

Obedience to Christ in Mt 22:37-40 has never been in question.

 

[Elin]

How can you think that God separates what we do from faith? If you have faith in the Lord you will be able to act on it, it would be lack of faith if we could not follow God. If we truly have faith, we can rely on what God tells us.

Abraham is an example of faith. His faith in God led him to say "yes Sir" to anything he felt God asked. We can't truly have faith and at the same time tell the Lord that no, we won't do as you say, we haven't enough faith in you for that.

If you believe you are as powerful as the Lord, that it is what you do and not what God does that makes for salvation, that is different.

The Lord Jesus said Mt 22:37-40.

 

[john832]

Obedience to Christ in Mt 22:37-40 has never been in question.

obedience to this poses a problem for you though...Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

 

[Elin]

Bravo, good post. I could not of said it better.

< grammar police: "could have". . .not "could of."

"Could've" is the contraction for "could have". . .not "could of." >