comment

Ozark, MO

#63 May 9, 2014
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you distort the words of Albert Schweitzer to suit your beliefs just as you do the words of Jesus.
"Albert Schweitzer argued against those who denied the historicity of Jesus, but he also had a few things to say about the way in which the debate between mythicists and historicists was conducted in his day." - Neil Godfrey
Schweitzer was referring to the "mythical Jesus" not the "historical Jesus".
"The historical investigation of the life of Jesus did not take its rise from a purely historical interest; it turned to the Jesus of history as an ally in the struggle against the tyranny of dogma." - Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus
Then you give me the Jekyll and Hyde theory of the teaching of Jesus. The flesh an blood Jesus saw things completely differently than spirit Jesus? I think it a much more rational conclusion that Paul, having never heard the teachings of Jesus, went off on his own tangent.
1
Al, I really don't know or care about Schweitzer. Honest.

And frankly, I don't need the sanctimonious comments either. You want to discuss this
fine. Provide a comment or citation and I'll discuss it, take any one of the citations I've provided and refute it, change the biblical direction and I'll attempt to respond. If you've got nothing left but secular nonbelievers, I'm not interested.
Flygerian

Fort Worth, TX

#64 May 9, 2014
comment wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying incarnate Jesus came to fulfil the Law, by his
fulfilling the Law he invalidated it, made it of no effect for
either himself or the new covenant believers.
Again, where did Jesus say or even INSINUATE what you have just stated?
comment wrote:
The law was established by God, commanded by Jesus, recorded
by John.
John 13:34
A new commandment I give to you, That you love one another;
as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this
shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love
one to another.
Luke recorded that Paul was Jesus' prophet. Perhaps you dont
know what the biblical definition of prophet is? It is
spokesman. See Acts 9:15 where Jesus selects Paul.
It doesnt matter what men say about Paul. And Im not denigrating or diminishing Paul's faith or belief in God. What Im saying is his words do not supersede Jesus' words and ESPECIALLY God's words. Im sure you would agree but on the same token, quote Paul or someone else about the law being null in void. I just wonder where you place your faith in? God or the words of men?

And if Jesus told you that the ALL the law and the prophets hang on 2 commandments (loving your neighbor as yourself and loving God) why are you acting as if its a new commandment to love? It was there in the beginning. But as you later state, it had to be reiterated.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#65 May 10, 2014
comment wrote:
<quoted text>
Al, I really don't know or care about Schweitzer. Honest.
And frankly, I don't need the sanctimonious comments either. You want to discuss this
fine. Provide a comment or citation and I'll discuss it, take any one of the citations I've provided and refute it, change the biblical direction and I'll attempt to respond. If you've got nothing left but secular nonbelievers, I'm not interested.
I don't think I am saying anything sactimonious. I'm simply trying to be rational.

The fact that there seems to be a difference between the things that Jesus said and what Paul said is not in dispute. You explain the discrepencies in two different ways. First you say that Paul received a different teaching in some sort of mystical fashion after Jesus' crucifixion. Then you say that the seeming contradiction between Jesus' words (I came not to abolish but to fulfill) is not really a contradiction by claiming that fulfill means to abolish which makes no sense.

Quoting Paul simply verfies the fact that there are discrepencies it does not explain why you have come to the conclusion that Jesus, for some strange reason, wanted Paul to teach something different than he did. I think the more reasonable explantion is that Paul was not entirely familiar with the words of Jesus and that in order to overcome the problems associated with preaching to Gentiles rather than Jews went off on his own tangent as a purely practical matter.
comment

Ozark, MO

#66 May 10, 2014
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, where did Jesus say or even INSINUATE what you have just stated?
<quoted text>
It doesnt matter what men say about Paul. And Im not denigrating or diminishing Paul's faith or belief in God. What Im saying is his words do not supersede Jesus' words and ESPECIALLY God's words. Im sure you would agree but on the same token, quote Paul or someone else about the law being null in void. I just wonder where you place your faith in? God or the words of men?
And if Jesus told you that the ALL the law and the prophets hang on 2 commandments (loving your neighbor as yourself and loving God) why are you acting as if its a new commandment to love? It was there in the beginning. But as you later state, it had to be reiterated.
If you mean where did Jesus, during his advent, say that he was here to fulfill the law, it's in
Matthew. If you're saying where did he invalidate the old law, he didn't. His prophet did. Read Galatians.
If you're asking me why Jesus called it a new commandment, it was because the old
covenant was being invalidated by him as he spoke. Jeremiah 31, Heb. 8. I call it a new commandment, because Jesus said it was new. John 13. If you're asking me why it is important, that is explained in Romans 13:8

See, I believe scripture is all God's word, not just specific parts, and there is no option that we can pick and choose what we want to believe. God doesn't change, but God has changed his message to men over time. If that were not true, there would have been no covenant after the Adamic.
God's word to Abraham was different than to Moses God didn't instruct Abraham to build
a nation of Priests. God used men all throughout history to carry his message, and has, through the Spirit, maintained the integrity of his message throughout all that time. Paul's message differs because the effective covenant is different. God has moved on.

I don't care if you find what I'm saying credible, if you disagree, dispute the verses. However,
citing scripture related to the old covenant to disparage the new, isn't going to convince me
(assuming you have any intent to do so). Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul,(Apollos?) all spoke consistently regarding the new covenant, Even Peter directs believers to Paul later in his life.
I appreciate that views differ on the matter, it is not an issue that relies upon a majority opinion. If that were so, the Christian church would only be a historical footnote.
Yah Fearing Scientist

Santa Ana, CA

#67 May 10, 2014
comment wrote:
<quoted text>
If you mean where did Jesus, during his advent, say that he was here to fulfill the law, it's in
Matthew. If you're saying where did he invalidate the old law, he didn't. His prophet did. Read Galatians.
Galatians 5:4-6 (NKJV)(4) You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.(5) For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.(6) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

Paul makes another contrast. What avails a person is faith working through love. These three verses are important because they introduce "Spirit" and that "faith works through love." Faith works. It works through - meaning "by means of" - love. In other words, if a person really has faith in the right things and the right Person, he will produce what? Love!

What is the Bible definition of love? "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments" (I John 5:3). That is beautiful! Similarly, Paul is saying that, if we really believe in the right things and the right Person (that is, have faith), then it will produce the keeping of the commandments.

The evidence of our faith, then, is in whether or not we keep His commandments. John tells us that the basis of love is commandment-keeping. It is not the whole picture, because emotion, feeling, is also tied to it, but we have to begin somewhere, and the bottom line is keeping the commandments.

Another statement that proves that Paul was not doing away with law keeping comes right from this context. The word "Spirit" reflects on a subject he dealt with earlier. The enemy - Judaistic Gnostics - believed that their calling and election by God came because they had the law and kept it. But Paul is saying, "No. We are drawn to God by His Spirit," which is what Jesus says in John 6:44.

Also, truth is revealed by God's Spirit (I Corinthians 2:10-16; John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13), so our calling has nothing to do with our works. Romans 9:16 tells us that it is not of him who wills or of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. Thus, we are in this position because God, by His Spirit, has drawn us. He, by His Spirit, has revealed Himself, His Word, and the purpose of life to us. Our calling and election are completely a work of grace. At the point of our calling, law-keeping has nothing to do with it, but comes into play later when our faith works through love.

— John W. Ritenbaugh
Flygerian

Fort Worth, TX

#68 May 10, 2014
comment wrote:
<quoted text>
If you mean where did Jesus, during his advent, say that he was here to fulfill the law, it's in
Matthew. If you're saying where did he invalidate the old law, he didn't. His prophet did. Read Galatians.
So what you're saying is that Jesus somehow sent his disciples off teach others in Matthew 28:18-20 (if that wasnt a false addition as some say) and yet people had to wait till Paul to understand that the law was abolished?
comment wrote:
See, I believe scripture is all God's word, not just specific parts, and there is no option that we can pick and choose what we want to believe. God doesn't change, but God has changed his message to men over time. If that were not true, there would have been no covenant after the Adamic.
Thats the problem. When Paul said "all scripture is inspired by God" he wasnt referring to the NT that wasnt even in circulation at that time. What was he referring to then?
comment wrote:
God's word to Abraham was different than to Moses God didn't instruct Abraham to build
a nation of Priests. God used men all throughout history to carry his message, and has, through the Spirit, maintained the integrity of his message throughout all that time. Paul's message differs because the effective covenant is different. God has moved on.
I don't care if you find what I'm saying credible, if you disagree, dispute the verses. However,
citing scripture related to the old covenant to disparage the new, isn't going to convince me
(assuming you have any intent to do so). Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul,(Apollos?) all spoke consistently regarding the new covenant, Even Peter directs believers to Paul later in his life.
I appreciate that views differ on the matter, it is not an issue that relies upon a majority opinion. If that were so, the Christian church would only be a historical footnote.
Well obviously if I believe in God Almighty the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and do not believe that the words of men equate with the words of God, I will not think that what you're saying is credible. Moses and Abraham were similar in the sense in that they followed what their God asked of them. They didnt (from what is written) allow the words of men to eliminate the commandments they had received from God.

And you say "if you disagree dispute the verses." but I already did. With the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:18-20 where he says that those that do not follow the law and teach others to do similarly will be called the least in heaven. But you say that hes referring to some random law that wasnt even mentioned (Reading what you want into the text) Theres also Matthew 22:37-40 where he says that all of the law and prophets hangs on two commandments. Loving God with all your heart mind and soul, and loving your neighbor as yourself. James also says things of being a "doer" of the word. Surely he was not talking about Paul's letters but the word that the lost tribes already had at that time. And theres more. But if you just ignore what they say and bring up a verse from Paul that says different, well then that shows where your faith lies.

You get that the commandments of God are abolished and not to be followed from Paul, and Paul only from what I can see. And from what I've also seen, Paul was about the law as well in some occasions (Acts 24:14 for example) but again, if you just ignore what this verse and other verses say, well then you're reading into the text what you want to see.
Flygerian

Fort Worth, TX

#69 May 10, 2014
Flygerian wrote:
But again, if you just ignore what this verse and other verses say, well then you're reading into the text what you want to see.
And I mean "ignore" as in disregarding the verse (or blatantly misreading it) and pointing to another verse that (allegedly) says opposite
comment

Branson, MO

#70 May 10, 2014
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think I am saying anything sactimonious. I'm simply trying to be rational.
The fact that there seems to be a difference between the things that Jesus said and what Paul said is not in dispute. You explain the discrepencies in two different ways. First you say that Paul received a different teaching in some sort of mystical fashion after Jesus' crucifixion. Then you say that the seeming contradiction between Jesus' words (I came not to abolish but to fulfill) is not really a contradiction by claiming that fulfill means to abolish which makes no sense.
Quoting Paul simply verfies the fact that there are discrepencies it does not explain why you have come to the conclusion that Jesus, for some strange reason, wanted Paul to teach something different than he did. I think the more reasonable explantion is that Paul was not entirely familiar with the words of Jesus and that in order to overcome the problems associated with preaching to Gentiles rather than Jews went off on his own tangent as a purely practical matter.
Sorry Al, but I run a farm and there are things occurring that are taking all my time now.
I've given you all the pertinent scripture. If you can read Galatians and still think the law
is pertinent, I'll not bicker. Maybe I'll be able to pursue this later.
comment

Branson, MO

#71 May 10, 2014
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you're saying is that Jesus somehow sent his disciples off teach others in Matthew 28:18-20 (if that wasnt a false addition as some say) and yet people had to wait till Paul to understand that the law was abolished?
I've given you all the pertinent scripture, I don't have the time to pursue this ad infinitum.
You believe what you want to believe. I will be around but not posting for some period of
time. Life is getting hectic.
Flygerian

Fort Worth, TX

#72 May 10, 2014
comment wrote:
<quoted text>
I've given you all the pertinent scripture
You really havent. You ignored what I brought for what Paul stated which isnt taking in scripture in whole. I'll just leave this and hope that you take care my brother :)

Revelation 12:17
Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring--those who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

AND:

Revelation 14
12Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. 13And I heard a voice from heaven, saying, "Write,'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on!'" "Yes," says the Spirit, "so that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them."

Plain and simple.... Take care though
Tall Guy

Atlanta, GA

#73 May 11, 2014
Jesus is just repeating Lev 19:18 when he says to love one another

Leviticus 19:18
New King James Version (NKJV)
18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

They only thing new about what is said in John is to Love one another the same exact way Jesus loved us, flaws and all.

Just because we cant keep Gods laws perfectly doesnt mean we abolish them all together.
Tall Guy

Atlanta, GA

#74 May 11, 2014
I have never kept the speed limit perfectly, but that doesnt mean I will just do away with a road law and drive as I please 30 miles over the limit to put people lives in danger.
comment

Branson, MO

#75 May 11, 2014
Flygerian..

If you are of the opinion that the Mosaic law is still effacious, I doubt the
following will change your mind, but I took the liberty of combining all your previous posts, to assure I didn't neglect answering everything.
This is long, it will be In several segments.

Matthew 5:18 is the requirement of the mosaic covenant; that all the commandments be observed. t is also God's agreement with the Jews, not the gentiles. In fact it is specifically not for the gentiles. Galatians 5:3-4
The new covenant has no requirement to observe that law.(see Rom. 6:14; 7:1-14; Gal. 3:10-13, 24-25;
4:21; 5:1, 13; 2 Cor. 3:7-18
the gospel requirements are to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, and to believethat Christ's suffering on the cross and his burial and resurrection are man's hope for eternal life. 1Cor 15:2-4. This is what makes the new covenant better. Heb. 8:6
The commandments, either new or old covenants, were never a benchmark for whether or not a person was saved. Romans 8:3 It was faith. Eph 2:8 A person can comply with all the commandments and still not merit salvation. Rom 3:20

The law is not abolished, I have changed my opinion in that regard. Here's why:
The Jews were a disobedient people. The purpose of the law was to eliminate the behavioral abuse, for which the excuse was used, that the transgression was not defined. Galatians 3:19 The laws were a guideline for the lifestyle of a nation that was being transformed into
a nation of priests. Ex. 19:6 (to fulfill the kingdom gospel evangelicazation ).The conditional aspect of the covenant, is the blessing and curses are associated with compliance, not the existence of the covenant itself.

The law has a lingering beneficial effect, the same as the Noahide laws, Their value is in that they are God's word on morality. The issue is not the value, but rather the authority of those laws in the new covenant.

The law doesn't go away, but the benefits under the new covenant, are not acquired from adherence because of the law, but because of relationship with God. There is no remnant of believers in the new covenant, because 100% of the body of Christ are dedicated believers. They all are participants in the Law of Christ, because by definition it is written in their hearts. Jerimiah 31 Hebrews 8.
They follow God's wishes due to their belief, not because a law exists.
No one was ever saved by obeying the law. Gal. 2:16

This means that the old has become out-dated. Hebrews 8:13 The purpose of the old law was to prepare the Jewish nation for evangelism. Ex 19. But the Jewish nation was deemed corrupt Deut 31:19. and that eventuality was removed Lev 26:31 from the covenant blessings,(as were the sacrificial rituals) In fact, a number of modifications occured:
(1) Though previously a people above all the nations (Exod 19:5; Deut 26:18- 19), Israel was abhorred by Yahweh and treated as the tail of all the nations (Lev 26:30; Deut 28:43-44). Placing disobedient Israel under a curse made it appear as though they were no longer Yahweh’s treasured possession.

(2) The kingdom of priests (Exod 19:6) the nation, had become ceremonially unclean and their sacrifices unacceptable (Lev 26:31). They were unfit to serve as priests of God.

(3) The holy nation of Israel (Exod 19:6) was burdened with guilt (Lev 26:39) and characterized by an uncircumcised pagan heart (v. 41). They were unholy, no longer reflecting God’s holiness in their lives.

(4) Israel’s history of national deliverance (Exod 19:4) was converted into a history of national exile (Lev 26:33, 38). In a sense, they had returned to their previous Egyptian bondage. Their love for the things of the world had overcome their commitment to Yahweh.
comment

Branson, MO

#76 May 11, 2014
Flygerian

Moving on, I'm trintarian, and although I do not fully comprehend the relationship of the three personalities of God, I do believe that Jesus, during his advent, placed himself as a lesser entity by setting aside the privledges of his divinity. I do not know to what extent he reduced himself Phil 2:6-8, but I do believe that his obedience during his time as man, was glorified upon his ascension. Rom 8:34 I feel certain,(to the
extent that a person is able) that I will experience eternal life, not by my merit but through my belief. Greater or less is not of consequence to me, it all up to God, but commandment-keeping is not an essential under the Grace covenant. Rom 4:5

The verses you listed are instructions pertinent to keeping the mosaic law and per the verses cited above, don't apply to recipients of Grace. 2Cor 3:3-6

You asked if incarnate Jesus stated that the only law was the one in men's hearts. My answer is that he did not, nor was his ministry. Matt. 15:24 , but his prophet Paul did. Romans 2:14-15. In doing so he did not indicate that obeying a written law was a requiremnt for salvation, Paul, at times, also referenced the Mosaic and Noahic laws
because they were of value even if not authoritive. Per Luke, The risen Jesus chose Paul as his spokesman in such matters. Acts 9:15 It is correct that the command to love others, is mentioned in the OT, Lev 19:18,but Jesus elevated the command to superceed all other commands. Mk 12:30-31, Romans 13:8.

There was a reference to elevating Hebrews scripture over Jesus' words. I think all scripture is inspired and of value. 2Tim 3:16-17 I do not think that all scripture is written for all people, everywhere, or applicable at all times. There is a progressive revlation in the word, that is indicated in the progression of the covenants, and in the prophecy and mysteries.

Some scripture does carry an eternal message, some does not.

There is no "random, never established law" involved in our disucssion. I have beenspecific as to what the primary law of the new covenant is,(Love) and the scripture that identifies it.(see above) But the commandment, whether old or new, is not a salvation
requirement it is a directive that identifies how one pleases God. The desire to please God, being a result of salvation by Grace, and indicative of that very salvation.

Romans 13 is a passage that has been misinterpreted by translators in a number of bibles.We know Paul wrote this epistle from prison, and further that he had been flagrantly abused but both secular and religious authorities.

God indicates that there are authorities that are not godly. Hosea 8:4. and that there are authorities that he has set up. Daniel 2:21

Using the KJV, a reasonably accurate translation, it is plausible from that translation to determine that the authorities in Romans 13 are the religious leaders, the overseers, deacons, teachers etc. comprising the subject of the chapter. I grant you, it is not definitive that this is the case, but it makes logical sense as opposed to the concept of submission to ungodly forces.James 4:7

The apostles themselves permitted the breaking of the circumcision law in the case of gentiles.Acts 15, and Jesus himself, modified how the Sabbath was observed Matt 12:1-21. I think it's safe to assume that God knew and condoned these actions. New covenants modify
God's message. 2Cor 3:3-6. Call it progressive revelation, right division, dispensation,prophecy, or mystery, it is still God changing his message.

Matthew 15 is dealing with tradition vs God's word and this is not the topic at hand. I certainly dont ascribe tradition the same credibility as scripture. But, We are discussing two covenants, both of which are clearly identified in scripture.
comment

Branson, MO

#77 May 11, 2014
Flygerian

What I don't seem to be getting across, is that the new covenant is one which does not require formal law for salvation.
Example: Sabbath. If you observe the Sabbath because of the commandment, it is the commandment you serve, not God. If you go to church, which is not mandated by a law, you do so to honor God. It does not indicate that either the Sabbath or church going is bad. it is the motivation that is different. This is the situation that the Jews were in upon Jesus' incarnation. except for the remnant, they were performing the Law for the sake of the Law. The law was in competition with belief as the motivation for their worship.

It's true that Paul is the only biblical author (excepting the Hebrews author) that directly expands on the new covenant/Grace tenets. He is the only apostle who ministered the new covenant. He is the only apostle/prophet, that Jesus chose for the
task. This is exactly what Jesus declared was his mission. per Luke in Acts 9.
Paul's words do not superceed Jesus' words they ARE Jesus' words, via revelation, asall biblical words are also God's word, if you believe in biblical inspiration. 2Tim

Setting aside for the moment, the sovreignty of God (all knowing) Job 37:16, and the intent to delude Satan, 1Cor 2:8, The mission of incarnate Jesus was the kingdom gospel ministered to the Jewish nation. If Jesus would have been accepted as Messiah, God
would even have forgiven them the crucifixion of their Messiah. Acts 3:19-20.

matthew 28 is the pronouncement of the arrival of the Messiah. It is, once again a different covenant.

If you assume a positon that Paul's writings are not a part of inspired canon, then you assert that none of the new testament is inspired. That eliminates Christianity en toto. In doing so, not only do you disagree with the apostolic fathers,(2nd century church) but you remove the new covenant and the gospel by which all Christians are saved, and hold suspect all the experience of an incarnate Jesus. Also, you revert back to a works based religion, and you eliminate the evangelism effort that placed belief in Jesus as a prominent religious entity.
OR, optionally, you can pick those books that you prefer, and the passages in them that appeal to you. But I submit, you will not obtain God's message inthe result. Many have tried to do that, and I'm amazed that some 3rd century Catholic council didn't remove Paul's epistles from scripture, as it would really consolodate their theology. But,I believe it is the oversight of the Holy Spirit
that has kept all of the message of God intact for us.

Sorry for the length, but I had a few minutes and wanted to get this out before the week begins
Flygerian

Fort Worth, TX

#78 May 11, 2014
comment wrote:
Flygerian..
Matthew 5:18 is the requirement of the mosaic covenant; that all the commandments be observed. t is also God's agreement with the Jews, not the gentiles. In fact it is specifically not for the gentiles. Galatians 5:3-4
The new covenant has no requirement to observe that law.(see Rom. 6:14; 7:1-14; Gal. 3:10-13, 24-25;
4:21; 5:1, 13; 2 Cor. 3:7-18

The commandments, either new or old covenants, were never a benchmark for whether or not a person was saved. Romans 8:3 It was faith. Eph 2:8 A person can comply with all the commandments and still not merit salvation Rom 3:20
Every single verse from Paul. Jesus spoke too ya know? Why would he send out his disciples in Matthew 28:18-20 with them believing the law was to be followed then magically show up as a "light" (light transformed as satan as Paul later said?) and tell Paul different? It doesnt make much sense. But it says alot that theres only one person that says not to follow the law in the whole bible. And thats who you listen to over God Almighty and Jesus Christ who say differently. I guess thats your free will on that matter.
comment wrote:
The law is not abolished, I have changed my opinion in that regard. Here's why:
The Jews were a disobedient people. The purpose of the law was to eliminate the behavioral abuse, for which the excuse was used, that the transgression was not defined. Galatians 3:19 The laws were a guideline for the lifestyle of a nation that was being transformed into
a nation of priests. Ex. 19:6 (to fulfill the kingdom gospel evangelicazation ).The conditional aspect of the covenant, is the blessing and curses are associated with compliance, not the existence of the covenant itself.
The law has a lingering beneficial effect, the same as the Noahide laws, Their value is in that they are God's word on morality. The issue is not the value, but rather the authority of those laws in the new covenant.
They follow God's wishes due to their belief, not because a law exists.
No one was ever saved by obeying the law. Gal. 2:16
This means that the old has become out-dated. Hebrews 8:13 The purpose of the old law was to prepare the Jewish nation for evangelism. Ex 19. But the Jewish nation was deemed corrupt Deut 31:19. and that eventuality was removed Lev 26:31 from the covenant blessings,(as were the sacrificial rituals) In fact, a number of modifications occured
The simple fact that you thought the law was abolished in the first place (though Jesus said otherwise) shows that you are not taking into effect what Jesus Christ actually SAID and DID.

You like quoting Jeremiah why not quote Jeremiah 33:20-25 which says that only if YOU can break God's covenant with day and night, and ONLY if YOU can number the sand, will God forget His covenant with Jacob, the Levites, and descendants of Jacob? But that doesnt count right because of what Paul stated? I dont agree. But this is the logic you have been presenting
comment wrote:
(1) Though previously a people above all the nations (Exod 19:5; Deut 26:18- 19), Israel was abhorred by Yahweh and treated as the tail of all the nations (Lev 26:30; Deut 28:43-44). Placing disobedient Israel under a curse made it appear as though they were no longer Yahweh’s treasured possession.
(2) The kingdom of priests (Exod 19:6) the nation, had become ceremonially unclean and their sacrifices unacceptable (Lev 26:31). They were unfit to serve as priests of God.
(3) The holy nation of Israel (Exod 19:6) was burdened with guilt (Lev 26:39) and characterized by an uncircumcised pagan heart (v. 41).
(4) Israel’s history of national deliverance (Exod 19:4) was converted into a history of national exile (Lev 26:33, 38) In a sense, they had returned to their previous Egyptian bondage
(1,2,3,4)= Read Deut 32:36. Their disobedience doesnt mean that God forgot about them. Also read Isaiah 44:21 and 49:15. What you get, is that the God of Abraham has not forgotten Israel.
Flygerian

Fort Worth, TX

#79 May 11, 2014
comment wrote:
Flygerian
Moving on, I'm trintarian, and although I do not fully comprehend the relationship of the three personalities of God, I do believe that Jesus, during his advent, placed himself as a lesser entity by setting aside the privledges of his divinity. I do not know to what extent he reduced himself Phil 2:6-8, but I do believe that his obedience during his time as man, was glorified upon his ascension. Greater or less is not of consequence to me, it all up to God, but commandment-keeping is not an essential under the Grace covenant. Rom 4:5
.

More Paul. More Paul concerning if you are to follow God's commandments or not. More Paul when considering Jesus' divinity. Hopefully you are putting your faith in God Almighty and not Paul. When considering the "trinity" all one has to do is look at Jesus' words. If you do, you will see as you said, he was lesser than God. If he never made it clear to the people or his disciples, why would I believe different? Speaking of the law, what does it mean where Jesus said if you "love me you would keep my commandments"? And his commandment was from who? Read John 12:49
comment wrote:
You asked if incarnate Jesus stated that the only law was the one in men's hearts. My answer is that he did not, nor was his ministry. Matt. 15:24 , but his prophet Paul did. Romans 2:14-15. In doing so he did not indicate that obeying a written law was a requiremnt for salvation, Paul, at times, also referenced the Mosaic and Noahic laws
because they were of value even if not authoritive. Per Luke, The risen Jesus chose Paul as his spokesman in such matters. Acts 9:15 It is correct that the command to love others, is mentioned in the OT, Lev 19:18,but Jesus elevated the command to superceed all other commands. Mk 12:30-31, Romans 13:8.

There is no "random, never established law" involved in our disucssion. I have beenspecific as to what the primary law of the new covenant is,(Love) and the scripture that identifies it.(see above) But the commandment, whether old or new, is not a salvation
requirement it is a directive that identifies how one pleases God. The desire to please God, being a result of salvation by Grace, and indicative of that very salvation.

Using the KJV, a reasonably accurate translation, it is plausible from that translation to determine that the authorities in Romans 13 are the religious leaders, the overseers, deacons, teachers etc. comprising the subject of the chapter. I grant you, it is not definitive that this is the case, but it makes logical sense as opposed to the concept of submission to ungodly forces.James 4:7
The apostles themselves permitted the breaking of the circumcision law in the case of gentiles.Acts 15, and Jesus himself, modified how the Sabbath was observed Matt 12:1-21. I think it's safe to assume that God knew and condoned these actions. New covenants modify
God's message. 2Cor 3:3-6. Call it progressive revelation, right division, dispensation, prophecy, or mystery, it is still God changing his message.
It simply seems that you have placed your faith in the sand (Paul). Remember who is the Rock?(Deut 32:3-5)

Try placing your foundation in what God says (not even what I say) and then Jesus Christ. Then go compare that to the advice Paul says and to what I say. Anything that doesnt match up you understand to give it the boot. Again, there is no reason for Jesus to send his disciples out to teach and then wait till later to give Paul the command to teach AGAINST the commandments of God

Look, if you're saying that its by God's grace that one gets the will to follow God's commandments nowadays, we're not in disagreement. But you going out and teaching people that they are NOT supposed to, is you teaching LAWLESSNESS. Read what Jesus said about workers of lawlessness in Matthew 7:221-23
Flygerian

Fort Worth, TX

#80 May 11, 2014
comment wrote:
Flygerian
Example: Sabbath. If you observe the Sabbath because of the commandment, it is the commandment you serve, not God. If you go to church, which is not mandated by a law, you do so to honor God. It does not indicate that either the Sabbath or church going is bad. it is the motivation that is different. This is the situation that the Jews were in upon Jesus' incarnation. except for the remnant, they were performing the Law for the sake of the Law. The law was in competition with belief as the motivation for their worship.
Wait let me get this straight. If one FOLLOWS a commandment that God Almighty actually gave then its the commandment one is serving? But if one follows something that God Almighty NEVER commanded they're serving God? Hopefully me pointing this out will cause you to reflect on what you just said. Jesus said if you loved him you would follow his commandments. Thus, you cannot "love him" without following the commandments of Jesus. And what did Jesus want of you? To follow the will of God (Matthew 12:50).
comment wrote:
It's true that Paul is the only biblical author (excepting the Hebrews author) that directly expands on the new covenant/Grace tenets. He is the only apostle who ministered the new covenant. He is the only apostle/prophet, that Jesus chose for the
task. This is exactly what Jesus declared was his mission. per Luke in Acts 9.
Paul's words do not superceed Jesus' words they ARE Jesus' words, via revelation, asall biblical words are also God's word, if you believe in biblical inspiration. 2Tim
Setting aside for the moment, the sovreignty of God (all knowing) Job 37:16, and the intent to delude Satan, 1Cor 2:8, The mission of incarnate Jesus was the kingdom gospel ministered to the Jewish nation. If Jesus would have been accepted as Messiah, God
would even have forgiven them the crucifixion of their Messiah..
So in your opinion Jesus sent his disciples to MAKE disciples of ALL nations in Matthew 28:18-20 but waited till Paul to institute something new? Wouldnt this confuse Jesus' followers? Who does your foundation say is NOT the author of confusion in 1 Corinthians 14:33?

It seems the more we go along, the more you exemplify that Paul was the false apostle mentioned in Revelation. You do this by admitting out of both Johns, Matthew, Luke, Peter, James, Jude, and Paul,( who all came into contact with Jesus allegedly) that only Paul says not to follow the commandments. That should make it clear.
comment wrote:
If you assume a positon that Paul's writings are not a part of inspired canon, then you assert that none of the new testament is inspired. That eliminates Christianity en toto. In doing so, not only do you disagree with the apostolic fathers,(2nd century church) but you remove the new covenant and the gospel by which all Christians are saved, and hold suspect all the experience of an incarnate Jesus. Also, you revert back to a works based religion, and you eliminate the evangelism effort that placed belief in Jesus as a prominent religious entity.
OR, optionally, you can pick those books that you prefer, and the passages in them that appeal to you. But I submit, you will not obtain God's message inthe result.
For one, I think this took more than a few minutes but thats neither here nor there. Two, I think that if I believe Paul saying we are not to follow God's commandments, that we are not to listen to that. Thats clear from reading Deut 13 and 18.

Remember James. "Faith without works is dead" If you have "faith" but do not have "works" then you do not have faith at all. Faith is believing in God and His message. WORKS is doing the commandments of God Almighty. You cant have faith without works friend. Hopefully you see that and do not continue to place your foundation on Paul and Paul alone. Btw, Jesus didnt tell you to do HIS will but to do the WILL OF GOD. Take that or leave it its on you....
Flygerian

Fort Worth, TX

#81 May 11, 2014
comment wrote:
You can pick those books that you prefer, and the passages in them that appeal to you. But I submit, you will not obtain God's message inthe result. Many have tried to do that, and I'm amazed that some 3rd century Catholic council didn't remove Paul's epistles from scripture, as it would really consolodate their theology. But,I believe it is the oversight of the Holy Spirit
that has kept all of the message of God intact for us.
Sorry for the length, but I had a few minutes and wanted to get this out before the week begins
Btw, its not about me picking and choosing. Its about one reading the bible front to back, and not ACCEPTING the latter half as authoritative over the first just because it came later. Theres a reason verse after verse came from Paul but you had nothing to support your position from Jesus Christ or especially God Almighty. This would be the rock that the wise man built his house on by hearing and doing the word of Jesus. But if you're more inclined to follow Paul and his doctrine, I guess I should let your free will ensue over my personal want for you and everyone to abide by God's commandments to the best of their ability.(As well as me)
comment

Branson, MO

#82 May 13, 2014
flygerian,
This will be my last entry on this issue. But I wanted to respond to the points of your last post. I think we understand one another's positions.

As regards the "great commision"
I would assume the incarnate Jesus would have instructed his disciples to preach the tenets of his ministry, when he instructed them toward evangelism. Wouldn't you?
That ministry was to the Jews. Matt. 10:5. a ministry of justification via works and baptism. Mark 1. That ministry was the kingdom gospel Matt. 4:23 presenting Jesus as the old testament fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, not the new testament revelation of the risen Jesus.

That isn't the gospel of the risen savior. At least not per scripture.1Cor15 Jesus, speaking through Paul, also indicated the new gospel should be preached. Romans 10:14. That is,the new covenant gospel, about the death, burial, resurrection, right? 1Cor 15.

If you'll look back in my posts you'll find two things: 1, my statement that the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are eternal. and 2, my statement that I have changed my opinion about the conditionality of the Mosaic covenant. So I concur that the covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 33 is eternal.
But, as a point, The covenant being referred to in Jer 33:20-25 is referring to the Davidic covenant. We don't have a disagreement about the scripture in any case.

Where did the idea come from that "God forgot about the Israelites? I don't tie the fate of Israel to the Law. I think the salvation of the Jews is via the new covenant. not the old. So does Paul, in Romans 11. "All Israel will be saved"

It's difficult to talk about Jesus' plan for mankind under the new covenant (of which he is the mediator), without quoting Jesus' minister of that covenant. Since the subject of discussion is the difference between covenants, you present an impossible restriction if I can't quote Paul when appropriate to illustrate new covenant principles. So I decline to either take offense or change my behavior in that regard.

Since I'm trinitarian, I dont see how (Deut 32:3-5) is indicative of anything other than Moses stating that God is Holy and that the Israelis are guilty of the exact behavior that I have been indicating caused the intituting of the law in the first place. As Paul indicated. Gal 3:19.

I can't place my foundation on God first and Jesus second, because there is only One God. The scripture doesn't conflict, given that it is rightly divided. In my opinion, and not accusing, If You're having trouble reconciling all of scripture, it is because of your misinterpretation, not in the deficiency of scripture.

The issue is not, and never has been, regarding the motivation to follow God's wishes. The issue is that when you say "follow God's commandments" you mean follow the written law. and that is the law that was corrupted and didn't provide salvation for the Jews, let
alone for the gentiles.
There is a different in Lawlessness, as in not following the Mosaic laws, and lawlessness, not following God's wishes. This is the crux of our
disagreement as I see it. And what is it Jesus (or by your rules, Matthew) says in 7:21?
"He who does not do God's will", not he who does not follow the law.

If one follows the Mosaic laws because they are the Law, you behave as the Israelis did. That behavior is not of belief, and it does not please God. If you follow the law from your heart, because of your faith in God, then God is pleased. Romans 2:14 The will of God is not to follow a law just because the Law exists, but because you wish to please God. Matthew 12:50 addresses that will of God.

Thanks for your time. I enjoyed the discussion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Debunking young earth theory 10 min th1bill 6
+++ THE WISDOM of A SUPREME BEING +++ 14 min seenthisside 3
Before The Big Bang 16 min seenthisside 1,237
If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 43 min WasteWater 976
Is Paul a false Apostle? (Sep '13) 1 hr username 2,355
For Atheist, Agnostics, Whoever... 1 hr seenthisside 489
The Heathen's Home Page (Jun '13) 1 hr seenthisside 4,510
Christians encouraged to 'sow seeds of a new po... 7 hr True Christian wi... 48
The post count of Dollarsbill 7 hr ChristineM 1,178
More from around the web