Attack of the Judaizers

[john832]

It is absolutely clear, the Old is READY TO VANISH, not vanished.

Thanks Mrs. Schmidle for teaching me English.

 

[chubbena]

And Judah, whose mother was Tamar. . .all in the ancestry of the Messiah, showing that in his kingdom

there would no longer be Jew or Greek. . .

Showing it wasn't an offense in the so called OT.

 

[john832]

Romans 2:12, "For as many as have sinned without the Law, will also perish without the Law, and as many as have sinned in the Law, will be judged by the Law."

Some here seem to think that ignorance of the Law is an excuse. Others seem to think they have a choice, if they choose not, then the Law has no effect. God thinks much differently.

 

[Hizikyah]

____________________________

OP










So do you think it was part of God’s perfect plan to have His Words downgraded by His own son?

Do you realize Sabbath and rest mean the same and are referring to cease from ones own works? And you are labeling those who observe the Sabbath as being legalizers by their own works? That is a clear 180-degree contradiction. You speak oxymoron stuff.

Hebrews 4:10 (KJV)
[SUP]10 [/SUP]For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

What did God do on the first Sabbath made for us? The Sabbath was made for man to cease from their own works and you are saying they are keeping the Sabbath and that is their own works. WOW! Evidently you feel justified by your works of denying the Sabbath and saying it’s wrong, and are justified by teaching others not to cease from their own works same as yourself.

Matthew 5:19 (KJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.






I didn’t see you address these verses as I searched through your thread twice to see if I missed something. Maybe you can point out to me the post that you are referring to?
You said previously that Jesus was not referring to the Mosaic Law when I quoted
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?

Are you saying now that Moses is not equated with the law?
Strong’s 3551 Law means “food for grazing” all the way through the NT, and there are exceptions such as “father in law, and daughter in law, mother in law, lawlessness etc.

Strong’s 460 in Romans 2:12 (KJV) means those who are lawless will die without the “food for grazing”.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]For as many as have sinned without law (460) shall also perish without law (3551) and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

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

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

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.
These three verses, that you said you addressed, all are Strong’s 3551 as inGalatians 2:16
[SUP]16 [/SUP]Knowing that a man is not justified by the *works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Self justifying *“works” (2041, an obligated effort by means of self justification) is what to focus on, not the ones who observe this food for grazing. To observe the law through faith is right. As long as I have been in CC, I have never seen anyone say that they are justified by the observance of the law and say that’s right to do minus faith. All the people that are observers of the Mosaic Law advocate a sincere faith.

So we see the original intent of our Father in Heaven was to give us food for grazing such as the spiritual meaning of the manna given the desert of Sinai. We should never say that this food is corrupt because of the completion of God’s purpose through Christ Jesus. It is another oxymoron that you would want people to be lawless. I’m sure that isn’t your intention, but that’s exactly what you are teaching.

 

[Hizikyah]

Some here seem to think that ignorance of the Law is an excuse. Others seem to think they have a choice, if they choose not, then the Law has no effect. God thinks much differently.

I literally had some one study with me in person say, "stop telling me this I believe I am not held responsible for what I dont know."

Word for word they said this, I said, OK but I have to say one more thing, and read this verse:

Hosheyah 4:6, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you, that you will be no priest to Me. Because you have forgotten the Law of Yahweh, I will also forget your children."

On this site I have had people tell me they will not subject themselves to Yahweh's Law at all because if they try to follow one Law they must follow it all.

SO I said, so you have to kill people to be saved?

Mattithyah 7:23, "But then I will declare to them; I never knew you. Get away from Me, you who practice iniquity."

iniquity is:#0458 ἀνομία anomia {an-om-ee'-ah} from G0459

Greek Word Study (Transliteration-Pronunciation Etymology & Grammar)
1) the condition of without law
1a) because ignorant of it
1b) because of violating it
2) contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness

 

[Elin]

None of that alters the text stating the New Covenant has made the Old (Sinaitic) Covenant obsolete (Heb 8:13).

One either believes the plain unequivocal NT word of God, or one does not.

Or one misunderstands it, and takes writing on the topic of the abolishment of the Levitical priesthood and transfer the Yahshua after the order of the Malak-Zadique and thinks that means no more Law of Yahweh

Non-responsive.

Heb 8:13 is about the Covenant, not about the Law.

And speaking of which, let me anticipate the lame argument that Heb 7:11-19 refers
to "the law" establishing the Levitical priesthood, rather than the law of Moses.

Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Heb 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Heb 7:11-19 does not refer to disannulling of the Commandment that only Levites,
specifically the sons of Aaron, could be Priests, for three reasons:

1) That's not what the text states in the following verses:

Heb 7:11 - The Mosaic law was based on the Aaronic priesthood, which was required for the law's administration.

Heb 7:12 - With a change in the priesthood, the law no longer had a basis and was necessarily changed.

Heb 7:13-17 - Explains the existing system was to give way to the perfection of Melchizedek's priesthood.

Heb 7:18 - The law was set aside (disannulled) because it was "weak and useless (unprofitable)"

Heb 7:19 - to make perfect (righteous), and a better hope is introduced which did.

The above is not a description of the Aaronic priesthood law.

That is the NT description of the Mosaic law (Ro 8:3; Heb 10:1-4), on which the Mosaic (old) covenant was based (Heb 7:11).

2) Furthermore, "a better hope is introduced (which did make perfect), by which we draw near to God." (Heb 7:19)

That "better hope" (which did make perfect) is the new covenant (Lk 22:20), which assures us of complete redemption (Heb 10:4) and brings us into the presence of God.

3) The Old (Sinaitic) Covenant was made obsolete (Heb 8:13), not by changing the law for the priesthood, but by changing and setting aside the Mosaic law.

Heb 7:12 does not refer to a change of the Aaronic priesthood law,
but to a change and setting aside of the Mosaic Law (Heb 7:18-19).

 

[Elin]

I blieve your standard reply here is "non-responsive".

Read it again.

 

[Elin]

The "it's now 2,000 years later" part I don't understand regarding Heb 8:13.

And I guess you are also a preterist?

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John,

And the book of Revelation is fulfilled also?

How did we get from Heb 8:13 to Rev?

 

[chubbena]

For accuracy's sake, the part in blue doesn't look similar to anything at Mk 12:29-30 in my Bible.

You mean He's merely pulling it out of context? He's a different Word of God from the "obsolete" OT?

 

[Elin]

"You" here was spoken to the group that was present...

Luk 17:20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation;

Who is the antecedant of them? The Pharisees.

Luk 17:21 nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."

Who is He still speaking to? The Pharisees.

You are twisting scripture here and it is obvious.

In your limited view oft he passage, because you have conveniently failed to deal with the beginning of the passage in v. 20.

 

[chubbena]

I literally had some one study with me in person say, "stop telling me this I believe I am not held responsible for what I dont know."

Word for word they said this, I said, OK but I have to say one more thing, and read this verse:

Hosheyah 4:6, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you, that you will be no priest to Me. Because you have forgotten the Law of Yahweh, I will also forget your children."

On this site I have had people tell me they will not subject themselves to Yahweh's Law at all because if they try to follow one Law they must follow it all.

SO I said, so you have to kill people to be saved?

Mattithyah 7:23, "But then I will declare to them; I never knew you. Get away from Me, you who practice iniquity."

iniquity is:#0458 ἀνομία anomia {an-om-ee'-ah} from G0459

Greek Word Study (Transliteration-Pronunciation Etymology & Grammar)
1) the condition of without law
1a) because ignorant of it
1b) because of violating it
2) contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness

He also spoke through Hosea this: I wrote for them the many things of my law, but they regarded them as something alien. cf Hosea 8:12

 

[Elin]

Yahchanan (John) 5:28-30, “Do not be astonished at this-for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice, and will come forth. Those who have practiced righteousness will be resurrected in order to live; and those who have practiced wickedness will be resurrected in order to be damned."

Do you have a point to make?

 

[chubbena]

The "it's now 2,000 years later" part.

Yes times changed. We in the 21st century. We don't have to believe the same way as the 1st century NT Christians, not even the 18th century ones. Right!

 

[Elin]

I am not talking about lying or adultery. I am asking about pork

Uh, which Commandment is that?

So the Jews got it wrong?

Now where do we find meats set apart (sanctified) in God's Word?

Lev 11:1 Now the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them,
Lev 11:2 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying, 'These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth:

Deu 14:3 "You shall not eat any detestable thing.

Do you suppose that you know more about what fuel you should put into the human body than the Designer and Creator?

Poor God, he is so confused.

Only veges til Ge 9:3.

Then piggies at 9:3.

Then no piggies at Lev 11:3, 7.

Then bacon and ham at Mk 7:19.

How's a fella' to know what fuel is to be put in the human body?

 

[Josh321]

So the Jews got it wrong?


Poor God, he is so confused.

Only veges til Ge 9:3.

Then piggies at 9:3.

Then no piggies at Lev 11:3, 7.

Then bacon and ham at Mk 7:19.

How's a fella' to know what fuel is to be put in the human body?

this is what i see, their bible starts at genesis and ends at exodus... we still living in the old testament...did you know that this was prophecied to happen in the last days? in the laodicea age it is the only age where the church ( denominational churches not the bride) kicks Jesus out of the church and followshipping without him, and the sad part is... instead of knocking on the hearts of sinners to come in he is knocking on the hearts of these people.. but it's going to be too late like the foolish versions they recognise the power of the holy spirit too late and when they try to get it.. everyone was gone, same pattern keeps happening all the time

 

[Elin]

So either:

1) God lied when He said to do those things forever, but changed His mind when He came in the flesh as Jesus.
2) Jesus supercedes God by getting things right in the NT, thereby implying 2 different Gods, where 1 is more correct than the other.

So that rules out 3).

#4) God gave the Torah and said to follow it forever. Jesus is God and told His people to follow it forever. The Epistles agree with it.

That is not in agreement with your 1) and 2).

 

[just-me]

WOW! going on 200 posts since this morning. Has there been any agreement so that we can say.......

Matthew 18:19-20 (KJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
[SUP]20 [/SUP]For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Maybe it would be good to PM each other who are having conflict. Ya think???

Matthew 18:15-18 (KJV)
[SUP]15 [/SUP]Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

For months this subject is deadlocked. More than likely it is in heaven also. Or looking at it in a different way, all is fair game, and it has been let loose in heaven also. What's your take?

 

[Elin]

Well, let's say the Ten hang on the Two, explain how that does away with the Ten please.

Pay attention. . .it fulfills the Ten (Gal 5:6; Ro 13:10).

 

[Elin]

It is absolutely clear, the Old is READY TO VANISH, not vanished.

Thanks Mrs. Schmidle for teaching me English.

Now if she had only taught you Greek.

 

[Yahshua]

What exactly is the new covenant?

Isn't it this:

Jeremiah 31:31-32

31"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.…​

...So the question we must ask is "what law?" This is an ancient prophecy long before the physical manifestation of Christ; a prophecy given AFTER God's law was already given to the people. So God's talking about the same law he already gave. Not a new law. Not a different law. But the same law he gave (on the outside) as Tablets, he will put on the inside as Spirit. It will be in the heart...in other words, it will be on one's heart to willingly do. The law will be a compulsion in one's hearts to obey it. The heart represents "love". The people will love God's law and love God so much to want to do it willingly, without fear of punishment or condemnation, or need of any other coercion. This is why the last line says, "and I will be their God, and they shall be My people". It's expressing "true love" in marriage.

Also, the above passage shows that the old covenant is not the law, but is the old marriage agreement (related to obeying God's law) that the Bride broke in (spiritual) adultery. The new covenant is the new marriage agreement (also related to obeying God's law) where God's same law is written on the heart of the Bride so she won't want to commit adultery but will want to remain obedient to him.

However, some of the posts here would instead suggest (though not intentionally, I don't think...) that "true love" between the Husband and the Wife is defined as one where the wife is allowed to do whatever she pleases [knowing her husband loves her unconditionally and will never leave her]...and any rules established for her obedience to the husband is seen by her as "bondage" or "oppression" or a "lack of love" from the husband, and so they are tossed away. And this is the same dynamic/definition of love that's prevalent in most marriages today...with divorce so rampant in the church and primarily initiated by the wife (excluding valid reasons of abuse and such crimes)?

There's a spirit of lawlessness/rebellion in the bride that rejects obedience to her husband. She'd rather love him "in her own way" instead of submitting to what he asks her to do. And any friends of the bride who tells her she should obey her husband are told "no" since she believes to do so would reject the "unconditional love" her husband has for her, because obeying him would put a "condition" on his love. While her friends argue that if she obeyed him she wouldn't be doing it because of his love for her at all...but solely because of her true love for him, as true love is a "two-way" street.

I think many of us would agree that her form of love is one-sided; selfish and unbiblical.