Departure From Oblivion!

[just-me]

LOL!!!! Laughter is the best medicine.

AHHHH! Thanks! I was swallowing hard before your last post.. LOL

 

[atwhatcost]

Are you a Schmoe? Is that the way you see yourself? I certainly didn't call you one, nor did anyone direct any comment toward anyone derisively.

Let me break this down for you:
Part A -- dismissing the Law

Yes, it is more than just Jesus never sinned. That is only the way he fulfilled the law. Jesus also paid the price for breaking the law, but since he never broke it himself, that price is for all who will accept it.

No. The law is not to be looked at as evil nor in any way to be despised. Paul even says that it is good and just and holy. The law is wonderful in what it was designed to do, which is reveal sin. The law was never given by God as a means for man to become righteous through keeping it. It was given to reveal the sinfulness of their sins, so they would see the need for sacrifice, which in turn would lead them to accept the only perfect sacrifice of Jesus.

The problem with law comes when someone uses it to either examine themselves, or to justify themselves. When this happens they have turned away from faith in the savior and the sacrifice, and they are only looking to themselves for salvation.

Part B - dismissing all others unlike you.

A born again person need not be concerned with the letter of the law, for they have the very spirit of God which wrote the law living inside them. That Spirit will not lead them astray if they only follow him. We would be much better Christians if we spent more time teaching how to hear, recognize, and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, then we teach following the law.

I cannot follow if I don't see the full Way.

I did not know inward mutterings or outward mutterings against my parents, even though I did what they said at the time, was missing the way, until I read the law.

I did not know thinking my brother is a fool was murder, until I read the law. I thought as long as I didn't murder him, I was cool.

I did not know it was my duty to feed he poor. I thought that's what the government was for. Until I read the law.

I did not know telling a friend that THAT person was pretty much a ____ (insert disparaging noun in there) was gossiping. I thought it was discernment. Until I learned the law.

There are many, many more examples I did not know. Thank God he included the Law in his word. Much needed, because it doesn't magically go onto our hearts. He works us in it after we understand what he was saying all the way since before he first said, "Let there be."

So, yeah, I'm sticking by how I see it, knowing, even now, I still don't know it all. God is perfectly capable of getting all his law/his way into me, but he does that showing it to me in his law.

 

[Shoshanah]

It would be nice. Looking forward to your posts.

The 2nd century heretic, Marcion, was the first, or nearly so, to loudly proclaim there was a discontinuity problem between the Old and New Testaments, between Israel and the Church, the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New. Unfortunately, those heretical ideas did not die with him but have continued to exist and develop a few new wrinkles in this Nicolaitan type philosophy over the centuries. Revelation 2:6 and 15.

The reasons usually given by professing Christians for considering the Torah no longer relevant are:
1. boring rituals made obsolete by Christ's sacrifice on the cross
2. outdated and totally out of step with modern times
3. excessively harsh laws that are grossly inferior to the "law of love" taught by Jesus
These are misconceptions about the Law and interpretive traditions that lead preachers to avoid the Old Testament and say that the Law is irrelevant and they give these main excuses…well, they would say “reasons” for saying that:
1. the atoning work of Jesus Christ liberated us from the "curse of the law" (Rom. 3:21; 6:14; 7:4; 10:4; Gal. 2:19-21; 3:23-26; 4:21-31; Heb. 7:12)
2. Christians pick and choose the laws they feel they should keep by differentiating between ceremonial, civil, and moral laws

Jesus declared the permanent validity of the Law in Matthew 5:17-20 where He said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (It is perfectly clear that “abolish” and “fulfill” are NOT the same, contrary to much modern teaching.) "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Furthermore, how is it that He says love for Him is manifested by us? It is demonstrated first and foremost by keeping His commands (John 14:15 -"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” and John 15:10 – "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love”). There is a very large contingent of professing Christians who claim that Paul says the Law is void but in reality he asserts that it's the doers of the law who will be justified – “for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.” (Romans 2:13)

Long posts are generally not good so I will stop at this point and continue with another post.

 

[Shoshanah]

Oh good grief. Before this is over you will be keeping Passover and all of the Jewish feasts. Paul spent all of his Christian days divorcing the New Covenant from the Old Covenant they are not compatible. This is just another tangent that causes division in the Church.

Paul had the same problem in his day. He was constantly at war with the Judiazers who wanted to drag the New Covenant people back into the confines of the Old Covenant. These two mixed together create a hybrid Gospel alien to the teachings of the Disciples.

I am saddened to have to tell you that you are misled. I would like to suggest that you read the rest of the posts I make (because I have just gotten started on this) and pray sincerely for Almighty God's guidance to cause you to understand correctly. After all, it is His Word we are talking about. Paul clearly said, "But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect [heresy] I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets;" in Acts 24:14. He certainly would not debunk his own way of worshiping.

 

[FreeNChrist]

What is departing from it then? Didn't Israel regress? It cannot save, but it sure can be beneficial before and after salvation. Doesn't the Torah show us the character (name) of God? and are we not instructed to not take His name in vain. Of course if we get rid of it we won't need to know it. And then that might have the repercussions of Him not knowing us. Think about that for a time.

I've thought about it for a time and I still see a return to the Law as a regression, not a revival. It would be to return to the inadequacy of the old Mosaic covenant of law and a rejection of the complete sufficiency of the New Covenant of grace.

One may question then; "Who actually gave the law to Israel via Moses?"

The covenant of God with Israel was a temporary covenant of Law. It was, by divine design, planned for obsolescence. It was provisional, preliminary, to prepare man for what God was to do through His Son...the "better covenant" (Heb. 7:22, 8:6) that is personified in the Person of Jesus Christ.

 

[just-us-2]

Let me break this down for you:
Part A -- dismissing the Law


Part B - dismissing all others unlike you.


I cannot follow if I don't see the full Way.

I did not know inward mutterings or outward mutterings against my parents, even though I did what they said at the time, was missing the way, until I read the law.

I did not know thinking my brother is a fool was murder, until I read the law. I thought as long as I didn't murder him, I was cool.

I did not know it was my duty to feed he poor. I thought that's what the government was for. Until I read the law.

I did not know telling a friend that THAT person was pretty much a ____ (insert disparaging noun in there) was gossiping. I thought it was discernment. Until I learned the law.

There are many, many more examples I did not know. Thank God he included the Law in his word. Much needed, because it doesn't magically go onto our hearts. He works us in it after we understand what he was saying all the way since before he first said, "Let there be."

So, yeah, I'm sticking by how I see it, knowing, even now, I still don't know it all. God is perfectly capable of getting all his law/his way into me, but he does that showing it to me in his law.

Amen, sister!

 

[just-me]

I've thought about it for a time and I still see a return to the Law as a regression, not a revival. It would be to return to the inadequacy of the old Mosaic covenant of law and a rejection of the complete sufficiency of the New Covenant of grace.

The covenant of God with Israel was a temporary covenant of Law. It was, by divine design, planned for obsolescence. It was provisional, preliminary, to prepare man for what God was to do through His Son...the "better covenant" (Heb. 7:22, 8:6) that is personified in the Person of Jesus Christ.

There really isn't such a thing as returning to the law, scripture wise anyway. If a person says that the law is God's word, how can a person call it inadequate if it hasn't been made that way because of the flesh? So let's look at the beggarly elements as Paul describes, and see if they are God's law or actually something else.

"Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" (Galatians 4:8-9)

So what was the Galatians regression?
1. they started serving other gods which by nature are no gods.
2. they also observed rituals minus faith. (Galatians 3:2-10)

Never once did Paul say that the law of God, in its pure form was corrupt.
Now let's address the covenant with Israel. Did God say that this covenant was temporary? No
[SUP]
"[/SUP]Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an "everlasting covenant", Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance;When ye were but few, even a few, and strangers in it." (1 Chronicles 16:15-19)

These are God's words, not man's.
Now let's look at the grafting in, and the sequence of events that bring Gentiles into this same covenant.

"For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" (Romans 11:24)

"Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:" (Romans 2:9-10)

So we clearly see that the Jew is not grafted into the Gentile covenant (which doesn't exist by the way) but the believing Gentile is grafted into the Jewish/Israel covenant in Christ, who, by the way, was a Jew, and so was Paul being of the tribe of Benjamin. In fact all the disciples were Israelites.

So now let us look at Hebrews 7:22. "By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament."
It is clear that the writer of Hebrews is addressing the changing of the priesthood from the physical Aaron to the Spiritual after the order of Melchisedec (Judah/Jewish) verse 15 of the same chapter. The better covenant is a "changing of the Administrator/Mediator" by an everlasting priesthood. That's why Moses was present at the "Mount of Transfiguration."

Lastly, let's look at Hebrews 8:6, but then in context along with verses 1 thru 5 plus verse 7 including 9:1, and let's see what the writer of Hebrews is actually addressing. I'll add verse 8:13 also.

"Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (9:1) Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

The word covenant (highlighted in green) are not in the original text. Is this not the administration/Mediator of the priesthood from the old to the new? It isn't addressing what was to be administered, but who the New Administrator would be, and He is our Savior, and our High-Priest.

So what does our High-Priest say about all of His own Father's instructions since the beginning of time knowing God doesn't change and neither does Jesus? Malachi 3:6 Hebrews 13:8

"Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." (John 8:28)

Did God's words change, or have some of God's words been deleted in Christ? I think not.
Was the "changing of the priesthood" in the plan from the beginning? I think so.

 

[FreeNChrist]

There really isn't such a thing as returning to the law, scripture wise anyway. If a person says that the law is God's word, how can a person call it inadequate if it hasn't been made that way because of the flesh? So let's look at the beggarly elements as Paul describes, and see if they are God's law or actually something else.

If your belief is truly premised in there being no such thing as returning to the Law, scripturally speaking, then of course we will find little to agree on.

 

[just-me]

If your belief is truly premised in there being no such thing as returning to the Law, scripturally speaking, then of course we will find little to agree on.

Do you have any scripture that talks about "returning to the law?" I cannot find anything real close to that in my Bible. The closest thing I can find in respect to returning, concerning God's spoken word (obviously including His law, not man's) is in Hosea 14:1, Isaiah 55:11, Jeremiah 4:1, Malachi 3:7, and Acts 13:34.

Jesus said the legalistic Pharisees "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Matthew 23:23)

Would you agree on returning (after salvation) to what is good, holy, just, and spiritual, but not of self works in order to grow in the grace of Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior? (Romans 7:12-14)

 

[just-us-2]

The entire Bible is the Word of God and, according to His own Words, important for all of us to live by. (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4) There is serious departure from God’s instructions today and very lame excuses given by people for that departure, such as it's a bunch of boring rituals made obsolete by Christ's sacrifice on the cross and way too negative with all of the “thou shalt nots” in it. It is obvious by such a foolish statement that they do not even know the law.

For a long time I have wished that someone that Christians consider reputable would teach the importance of the entire Bible rather than the separation of the Old Testament from the New Testament, as being all that matters now. A scholar would be listened to much more so than an ordinary person, theoretically anyway, and because of that, could do so much to help 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century Christians understand more fully how the Bible is one big story, all parts intertwined with all of the other parts. (See 2 Peter 1:20). And now it is happening! A very reputable professor at Wheaton College is doing just that and I am so excited about it.

Could this be the “revival” I have heard so many say will happen just before the Lion of Judah returns?

Orthodox Messianic Judaism: Stop the Press! Mainline Christian Scholars Beginning to Promote the Torah of Moses
Daniel Block | Theopedia

I cannot understand how real Christians can read these scriptures and still say the Old Testament is obsolete. “But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.' "Matthew 4:4 (NAS) and “And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.' " Luke 4:4 (NAS). It should be no surprise that they don’t consider “…that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.” Deuteronomy 8:3(NAS) to be valid since it is Old Testament.

 

[tourist]

I cannot understand how real Christians can read these scriptures and still say the Old Testament is obsolete. “But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.' "Matthew 4:4 (NAS) and “And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.' " Luke 4:4 (NAS). It should be no surprise that they don’t consider “…that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.” Deuteronomy 8:3(NAS) to be valid since it is Old Testament.

The Old Testament is the Word of God. It is not obsolete and will always be relevant to the spiritual growth of the believer.

 

[FreeNChrist]

Do you have any scripture that talks about "returning to the law?" I cannot find anything real close to that in my Bible. The closest thing I can find in respect to returning, concerning God's spoken word (obviously including His law, not man's) is in Hosea 14:1, Isaiah 55:11, Jeremiah 4:1, Malachi 3:7, and Acts 13:34.

Jesus said the legalistic Pharisees "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Matthew 23:23)

Would you agree on returning (after salvation) to what is good, holy, just, and spiritual, but not of self works in order to grow in the grace of Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior? (Romans 7:12-14)

Are you being coy? Have you not already discounted in your post the very passages that speak to that?

 

[FreeNChrist]

I cannot understand how real Christians can read these scriptures and still say the Old Testament is obsolete. “But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.' "Matthew 4:4 (NAS) and “And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.' " Luke 4:4 (NAS). It should be no surprise that they don’t consider “…that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.” Deuteronomy 8:3(NAS) to be valid since it is Old Testament.

The OT is not obsolete, just the Old Covenant of which the OT is the literature of.

 

[just-me]

Are you being coy? Have you not already discounted in your post the very passages that speak to that?

I don't exactly know what you mean, and I'm not being coy, I'm attempting to be honest and forthright. What have I discounted?

 

[just-us-2]

The OT is not obsolete, just the Old Covenant of which the OT is the literature of.

The Old Covenant is NOT obsolete.You are new to CC so I am going to refer you to a thread from over a year ago that explains the Covenants by type (not by name of the person such as Abrahamic Covenant) and how they are built one upon the previous and the responsibilities of being in covenant with God. It is: http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/85795-new-covenant-wine-all-goda-s-word.html

 

[shotgunner]

Hebrews 8:6-13King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP]But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
[SUP]9 [/SUP]Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
[SUP]11 [/SUP]And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

These scriptures should be plenty for anyone to realize that we are now under a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. God himself living inside leading and guiding us.

 

[Shoshanah]

The Old Covenant is NOT obsolete.You are new to CC so I am going to refer you to a thread from over a year ago that explains the Covenants by type (not by name of the person such as Abrahamic Covenant) and how they are built one upon the previous and the responsibilities of being in covenant with God. It is: http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/85795-new-covenant-wine-all-goda-s-word.html

I'm going to read this - thank you for sharing it!

 

[just-me]

Hebrews 8:6-13King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP]But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
[SUP]9 [/SUP]Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
[SUP]11 [/SUP]And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

These scriptures should be plenty for anyone to realize that we are now under a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. God himself living inside leading and guiding us.

This has been previously addressed. this post Focus on the changing of the Administrator of the New Covenant, not the Covenant alone without the Mediator. This scripture you quote is focusing on the difference of the Priest that administrates the Word of God within the Covenant.

So now let us look at Hebrews 7:22. "By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament."
It is clear that the writer of Hebrews is addressing the changing of the priesthood from the physical Aaron to the Spiritual after the order of Melchisedec (Judah/Jewish) verse 15 of the same chapter. The better covenant is a "changing of the Administrator/Mediator" by an everlasting priesthood. That's why Moses was present at the "Mount of Transfiguration."

Lastly, let's look at Hebrews 8:6, but then in context along with verses 1 thru 5 plus verse 7 including 9:1, and let's see what the writer of Hebrews is actually addressing. I'll add verse 8:13 also.

"Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (9:1) Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

The word covenant (highlighted in green) are not in the original text. Is this not the administration/Mediator of the priesthood from the old to the new? It isn't addressing what was to be administered, but who the New Administrator would be, and He is our Savior, and our High-Priest.

So what does our High-Priest say about all of His own Father's instructions since the beginning of time knowing God doesn't change and neither does Jesus? Malachi 3:6 Hebrews 13:8

"Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." (John 8:28)

Did God's words change, or have some of God's words been deleted in Christ? I think not.
Was the "changing of the priesthood" in the plan from the beginning? I think so.

 

[FreeNChrist]

The Old Covenant is NOT obsolete.You are new to CC so I am going to refer you to a thread from over a year ago that explains the Covenants by type (not by name of the person such as Abrahamic Covenant) and how they are built one upon the previous and the responsibilities of being in covenant with God. It is: http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/85795-new-covenant-wine-all-goda-s-word.html

I may be new to CC, but I am not new to Christianity. We are not going to agree on this.

 

[just-us-2]

I may be new to CC, but I am not new to Christianity. We are not going to agree on this.

That is sad to hear because it means at least one of us is wrong. The Bible does not contradict itself so if two parties have different views on what it means, they should be able to discuss the scripture and come to agreement. I can see by your attitude in this last comment that there is no point in trying to discuss anything with you because you are convinced you are right. "Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before stumbling." Proverbs 16:18 (NAS)