bible-truths.com/forums
=> General Discussions => Topic started by: Origen II on May 25, 2006, 05:10:26 AM
-
I've been debating with a Messianic Jew for a little bit and he insist that we must keep the Law.
The thing is, I know scripture states otherwise.
Here's my confusion, though:
If the Mosiac Law (including 10 Commandments) have truly been abolished...then why must we still follow such rules as no homosexuality (since this is part of the Mosaic Law), and other such things?
While I understand that many of the Laws are types and shadows of Christ, there are those that seem connected to the 10 Commandments, and if we still follow these precepts...aren't we still following the Law?
Just wondering. And I read Mikes paper on the Law, but it still didn't answer these questions.
How can we truly say we are no longer under the Law if we still think it bad to commit things that were considered the Mosaic Law? Do you see what I'm saying?
-
Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
HANG, v.i. To be suspended; to be sustained by something above, so as to swing or be movable below.
4. To be supported by something raised above the ground; as a hanging garden on the top of a house.
5. To depend; to rest on something for support. This question hangs on a single point.
(Websters 1828 Dictionary)
-
I've been debating with a Messianic Jew for a little bit and he insist that we must keep the Law.
The thing is, I know scripture states otherwise.
Here's my confusion, though:
If the Mosiac Law (including 10 Commandments) have truly been abolished...then why must we still follow such rules as no homosexuality (since this is part of the Mosaic Law), and other such things?
While I understand that many of the Laws are types and shadows of Christ, there are those that seem connected to the 10 Commandments, and if we still follow these precepts...aren't we still following the Law?
Just wondering. And I read Mikes paper on the Law, but it still didn't answer these questions.
How can we truly say we are no longer under the Law if we still think it bad to commit things that were considered the Mosaic Law? Do you see what I'm saying?
the law has not been abolished, it will remain for it is for to bring people to Christ.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
after which you are not "under" the law.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
2nd witness
Rom 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
once the commandment of LOVE comes it takes care of the physical laws.
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
if you walk in LOVE the physical law really are a moot point.
i spent 15 yrs as a beleiver trying to obey physicall law and i was miserable, tortured in the presence of the lamb if you would.
once the commandment of LOVE came and i was given truth(CHRIST)
thats is truley when deliverance came and i walk in newness of life
CHRIST produceing the fruits of the spirit inj and through me, hence
i cannot boast in me but HIM.
obeying the physical law in the flesh always produces self boasting and pride :wink:
hope this helps, didnt want to qoute bunches of scripture
just give you mine.
1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
love
euty/chuck
-
Okay...I understand.
But still, if we are no longer to obey the Law of the flesh, why do we stop eating certain foods and viewing special Holy Days, but we still keep other parts of the physical law like homosexuality?
I'm just saying that I can't find anywhere where the ENTIRE Law is destroyed...nor can I find anywhere where the Food Laws are seperate from the sex Laws.
-
You have asked good questions, Origen. We do know that the law is for the lawless and if you are a sinner then you need the law.
When you are teaching your little children right from wrong, the law comes into force. Children should be taught not to steal, lie, tattle tale, or to be selfish. Honoring their mother and father teaches them to have respect for authority. But, little children are lawless. They are not capable of doing right or wrong without someone to guide them, The 10 commandments can be thought of as a protection for society. We know sexual relationships outside of marriage can cause unwanted babies and dideases. There are other consequences for sex sins, but those are 2 that come to mind.
If we all had the love of God in our heart the other commandments wouldn't be necessary. We wouldn't think of doing anything to hurt god or our fellow man.
the problem is with churches that try to force the 10 commands on thir congregation. They are usually the most lawless of all people, because you can't keep the law in the flesh. That is the whole purpose of law; iit shows us how weak we really are.
-
Okay...I understand.
But still, if we are no longer to obey the Law of the flesh, why do we stop eating certain foods and viewing special Holy Days, but we still keep other parts of the physical law like homosexuality?
I'm just saying that I can't find anywhere where the ENTIRE Law is destroyed...nor can I find anywhere where the Food Laws are seperate from the sex Laws.
huh?
AGAIN:
1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers
the desires of the flesh just arnt sexual sins and eating of foods.
do you know that some desire to obey the whole law???
can two gay people live and love each other but yet refrain from
sexual acts??
homosexuality is no different than any othere sexual perversion.
sex was created for man and women and the marriage bed undefield.
how is the command of LOVE fullfilled while commiting sexual perversion and causing another one to sin???????
i love shrimp every now and then, how would the law of love be fullfilled if
i invited someone who i knew didnt eat shrimp or meat and i served it to them????
chuck
-
Let me explain further:
The Messianic Jew I'm debating with states that we are obviously still abiding to certain laws if we find homosexuality as a sin, though we rid ourselves of other things like food laws, etc.
He basically is saying that not going with the food laws and holy days is just as much a sin as performing homosexual acts, because all the Law goes against sin (even the food laws).
So how can Christians say that the Law is "abolished" when we still abide to certain parts of the Law and not others. That was his point.
My problem is that I cannot find where homosexuality is different from the food laws within the OT. I also cannot understand how the "law" is only the 10 Commandments and not the other 603 Laws, if this is the case. While I understand that Paul made example about the 10 Commandments when he spoke of the "law", where is there a difference between the Law of Moses and the 10 Commandments expressed in the OT?
It just seems funny to me because we still do actually follow some of the written code still (like no homosexuality), yet we disregard everything else. So if homosexuality is still a sin that falls under "adultrey", then what seperates that from the food laws etc.? There is no distinction made within the New or Old Testaments (as I have read).
This is the problem.
P.S.: I am not advocating homosexuality, just making an example.
-
Please re-read the posts made because you obviously are over-looking what has already been stated.
The "bar" has been raised, NOT ABOLISHED. It has been fulfilled.
Commiting physical adultery is SIN as well as SPIRITUAL adultery. Both are SIN. However, if you are following spiritual law then are also following physical law. Physical homosexuality is a SIN under the Mosaic Law. Physical homosexuality is SIN under the spiritual law.
It is SIN, period. If it is a "spiritual law", it is ALSO a Mosaic Law but redefined to include the spiritual....which is MORE REAL, and NOT THE SHADOW. If physical adultery is SIN under the Mosaic Law, then spiritual adultery is SIN under God's Law.
It is not abolished, it is raised to a spiritual truth. Thinking IT is DOING IT.
Under the Mosaic Law you can think about it all you want, but acting on it was a crime. Now, thinking it is THE crime, and acting on it is simply just the end result. Either way, you are still guilty ....even WITHOUT the physical act.
When Eve lusted after the apple according to her flesh and eyes, and she also hadthe pride of life knowing it would give her the knowledge of good and even, SHE HAD ALREADY DONE THE DEED and WAS GUILTY. She has already spiritually eaten the apple.
Basically, this all has already been stated, but if you are conversating with someone who has not been given eyes and ears to see this, then you are battling against our Father himself..
I am sorry if none of this post helps you...
-
Please re-read the posts made because you obviously are over-looking what has already been stated.
The "bar" has been raised, NOT ABOLISHED. It has been fulfilled.
Commiting physical adultery is SIN as well as SPIRITUAL adultery. Both are SIN. However, if you are following spiritual law then are also following physical law. Physical homosexuality is a SIN under the Mosaic Law. Physical homosexuality is SIN under the spiritual law.
It is SIN, period. If it is a "spiritual law", it is ALSO a Mosaic Law but redefined to include the spiritual....which is MORE REAL, and NOT THE SHADOW. If physical adultery is SIN under the Mosaic Law, then spiritual adultery is SIN under God's Law.
It is not abolished, it is raised to a spiritual truth. Thinking IT is DOING IT.
Under the Mosaic Law you can think about it all you want, but acting on it was a crime. Now, thinking it is THE crime, and acting on it is simply just the end result. Either way, you are still guilty ....even WITHOUT the physical act.
When Eve lusted after the apple according to her flesh and eyes, and she also hadthe pride of life knowing it would give her the knowledge of good and even, SHE HAD ALREADY DONE THE DEED and WAS GUILTY. She has already spiritually eaten the apple.
Basically, this all has already been stated, but if you are conversating with someone who has not been given eyes and ears to see this, then you are battling against our Father himself..
I am sorry if none of this post helps you...
The thing is that these post are helping me understand the nature of sex as a sin, but no one has yet pointed out why it isn't a sin to eat certain foods.
My real dilema is the food laws etc. What makes not eating certain foods any less a sin than homosexuality?
-
The food laws represented a separation of the Elect, itself represented by the physical Jews. Remember Peter's vision of the sheet and the animals that he could eat? That represented the cleansing of the forbidden meats (representing Gentiles) who would enter into the royal priesthood according to spirit. So the food laws are a type and shadow. The righteousness of the Law represented the righteousness in spirit that we would be given so that we could fulfill Christ's higher law. That is why those who walk by Spirit respect their mothers and fathers, and love God with all their might, and do not take his name in vain. This is not because Moses says so, but because Jesus Christ is within us.
-
Please re-read the posts made because you obviously are over-looking what has already been stated.
The "bar" has been raised, NOT ABOLISHED. It has been fulfilled.
Commiting physical adultery is SIN as well as SPIRITUAL adultery. Both are SIN. However, if you are following spiritual law then are also following physical law. Physical homosexuality is a SIN under the Mosaic Law. Physical homosexuality is SIN under the spiritual law.
It is SIN, period. If it is a "spiritual law", it is ALSO a Mosaic Law but redefined to include the spiritual....which is MORE REAL, and NOT THE SHADOW. If physical adultery is SIN under the Mosaic Law, then spiritual adultery is SIN under God's Law.
It is not abolished, it is raised to a spiritual truth. Thinking IT is DOING IT.
Under the Mosaic Law you can think about it all you want, but acting on it was a crime. Now, thinking it is THE crime, and acting on it is simply just the end result. Either way, you are still guilty ....even WITHOUT the physical act.
When Eve lusted after the apple according to her flesh and eyes, and she also hadthe pride of life knowing it would give her the knowledge of good and even, SHE HAD ALREADY DONE THE DEED and WAS GUILTY. She has already spiritually eaten the apple.
Basically, this all has already been stated, but if you are conversating with someone who has not been given eyes and ears to see this, then you are battling against our Father himself..
I am sorry if none of this post helps you...
The thing is that these post are helping me understand the nature of sex as a sin, but no one has yet pointed out why it isn't a sin to eat certain foods.
My real dilema is the food laws etc. What makes not eating certain foods any less a sin than homosexuality?
That's a good question.... one that I am going to look at a little closer... i see what you're asking... i don't know the answer either
-
The Law is not abolished for those who are still 'under' it, but isn't it abolished for those who have come to Christ?
Once we have had His commandments written on our hearts, what need have we for those laws written in stone?
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:[/list:u]
The same is discussed in 2 Cor chapter 3:
Where we have moved from one 'glory' (of the law) to another more exceeding 'glory'.
2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones,
was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
2Co 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be RATHER GLORIOUS?
2Co 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.[/list:u]
I didn't want to post the whole chapter, but the entire chapter covers this well and ends:
2Co 3:11 For if that which
is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
2Co 3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
2Co 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
2Co 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
2Co 3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
2Co 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory TO GLORY, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.[/list:u]
From the 'lesser' glory of the law to the 'greater' glory of Christ??
Ok, so I posted almost all of the chapter.... :oops: I couldn't figure out which part to pick apart. :roll:
So is the veil abolished, is the law abolished... are they one and the same... is the 'law' the veil??
Hasn't he freed us from sin and death.... having abolishing death... where the strength of sin is the law... the law being a ministration of death... :shock:
ok, now I'm just confusing myself.... :roll:
Chrissie
-
Isa 1:11-14
(11) To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
(12) When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
(13) Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
(14) Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
Isa 43:23-24
(23) Thou hast not brought me the small cattle of thy burnt offerings; neither hast thou honored me with thy sacrifices. I have not caused thee to serve with an offering, nor wearied thee with incense.
(24) Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities.
Jer 7:21-27
(21) Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.
(22) For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
(23) But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
(24) But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.
(25) Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them:
(26) Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers.
(27) Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee.
It all comes down to what the Mosaic law was FOR. The LAWLESS.
What was the point of NOT eating/touching unclean meat? What is the spiritual application that can be applied to this Mosaic Law and raised?
The food requirments were there for a reason, to keep the lawless under a law, same as with homosexuality. Homosexuality comes from the heart, just the same as eating of certain foods, or not, comes from the same place. So, the real question for me, is not why we don't include the food laws in with keeping homosexuality a sin. The question I ask is, if Christ fullfilled the law, even man's added laws, then when he fulfilled those laws, what was then told to us concerning the estate of those laws?
Mat 15:17-20
(17) Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
(18) But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
(19) For []out of the heart[/b] proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
(20) These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Mar 7:7-16
(7) Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.[/u]
(8) For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
(9) And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
(10) For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
(11) But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
(12) And ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or his mother;
(13) Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
(14) And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
(15) There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him (HIS HEART), those are they that defile the man.
(16) If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Mar 7:18-23
(18) And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
(19) Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
(20) And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
(21) For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
(22) Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
(23) All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Didn't the physical Jews think their temple was great?
1Co 3:16-17
(16) Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
(17) If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
How again are we defiled? OUR HEART.....
1Ti 1:7-10
(7) Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
(8) But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
(9) Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
(10) For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
I tend to trust the words of our Lord and Christ when he says:
Mar 7:20
(20) And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
versus mans understanding BY WAY OF THE LAW:
-
The Law is not abolished for those who are still 'under' it, but isn't it abolished for those who have come to Christ?
Yes, I see it this way also, but as always when typing it out, my thoughts are thinking the same "train of thought" but the use of the "words" are not in jive sometimes when the actual thought.
It isn't until after someone reacts to the words, that I then see how it can be taken a different way...
Anyhow, thought I'd respond with that..
later
-
Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
That seemed to me to be an excellent summary of how I understand that Christ's doctrine of love replaces and exceeds the law of the ten commandments. If we truly follow Christ's doctrine such that we love God and our neighbor, we wouldn't even think of doing anything outlined in the ten commandments.
Nowhere in the ten commandments does it address food or any sex prohibitions other than adultery. Clearly to me adultery is not necessarily the same a homosexuality or fornication.
The subject of shellfish and homosexuality (fornication if you prefer) seems to keep coming up. Perhaps someone can quote from scripture where Christ tells us these are sinful.
I remember the nuns in catholic school telling us that if we masterbated we would go to hell. If it's true then I guess I would have been joining maybe 95% of the male teenage population :lol:
While homosexuality is looked upon as taboo or a perversion in ours and many other societies, I've read somewhere that it is not considered such in some societies , inlcluding certain American Indian tribes, that had not heard of the old testament.
While I don't condone or even understand it all that well. I have friends who are a gay couple. They are just as much in love with each other as I am with my wife. I personally have just never considered it any of my concern whether what they do sexually with each other is sinful or not.
The point of this thread though asks .. are they fulfilling Christ's commandments of love. I don't see how they are breaking any of the ten commandments either.
I am totally confused on this issue, as well, even after all the scripture quoted. I guess you can hit me with the standard eyes and ears too ignorant to understand line. I plead guilty.
feat
-
You see, I understand also that the food laws were just a 'type'.
But then I don't understand if breaking the food laws is the same as say...breaking one of the 10 Commandments.
Are the 10 Commandments the only things we can sin against...or are the other 603 Laws also considered somethings we can sin against? If this is so, then why do we still hold to certain precepts, ackowledging them as sins, yet we don't to others?
You see, I don't believe we should follow the Food Laws, but I want to know what makes them different from other Laws and WHY and WHERE it's pointed out.
-
Isa 1:11-14
(11) To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
(12) When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
(13) Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
(14) Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
Isa 43:23-24
(23) Thou hast not brought me the small cattle of thy burnt offerings; neither hast thou honored me with thy sacrifices. I have not caused thee to serve with an offering, nor wearied thee with incense.
(24) Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities.
Jer 7:21-27
(21) Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.
(22) For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
(23) But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
(24) But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.
(25) Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them:
(26) Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers.
(27) Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee.
It all comes down to what the Mosaic law was FOR. The LAWLESS.
What was the point of NOT eating/touching unclean meat? What is the spiritual application that can be applied to this Mosaic Law and raised?
The food requirments were there for a reason, to keep the lawless under a law, same as with homosexuality. Homosexuality comes from the heart, just the same as eating of certain foods, or not, comes from the same place. So, the real question for me, is not why we don't include the food laws in with keeping homosexuality a sin. The question I ask is, if Christ fullfilled the law, even man's added laws, then when he fulfilled those laws, what was then told to us concerning the estate of those laws?
Mat 15:17-20
(17) Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
(18) But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
(19) For []out of the heart[/b] proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
(20) These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Mar 7:7-16
(7) Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.[/u]
(8) For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
(9) And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
(10) For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
(11) But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
(12) And ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or his mother;
(13) Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
(14) And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
(15) There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him (HIS HEART), those are they that defile the man.
(16) If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Mar 7:18-23
(18) And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
(19) Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
(20) And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
(21) For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
(22) Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
(23) All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Didn't the physical Jews think their temple was great?
1Co 3:16-17
(16) Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
(17) If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
How again are we defiled? OUR HEART.....
1Ti 1:7-10
(7) Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
(8) But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
(9) Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
(10) For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
I tend to trust the words of our Lord and Christ when he says:
Mar 7:20
(20) And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
versus mans understanding BY WAY OF THE LAW:
Awesome scripture, Steve.
Are you suggesting that God never really told the Israelites to burn offerings etc...that the laws outside of the 10 Commandments were just Laws made up by Moses?
-
You see, I understand also that the food laws were just a 'type'.
But then I don't understand if breaking the food laws is the same as say...breaking one of the 10 Commandments.
Are the 10 Commandments the only things we can sin against...or are the other 603 Laws also considered somethings we can sin against? If this is so, then why do we still hold to certain precepts, ackowledging them as sins, yet we don't to others?
You see, I don't believe we should follow the Food Laws, but I want to know what makes them different from other Laws and WHY and WHERE it's pointed out.
They are no different from eachother. They all mean JESUS. I know you have heard that before, but understanding that answers all your questions. They are BOTH types and shadows of Christ within us. If we continue to think of the Law as something that is mandated and kept or broken, we can't get past a certain point. The food laws and the 10 commandments and the sacrifices, etc are the same, not different. They both represent Jesus Christ and him crucified within you.
The morality in the Law is not kept by us. It is kept by Christ in us, and so much more because Christ came with a higher law. He raised the bar and then he put himself in us to establish it. To me, all this talk about which laws we should keep and which ones are more important or less important misses the point. They are all equally important and equally fleshy. If Christ is in us, it is not a struggle: love eachother and avoid sexual immorality.
-
Please re-read the posts made because you obviously are over-looking what has already been stated.
The "bar" has been raised, NOT ABOLISHED. It has been fulfilled.
Commiting physical adultery is SIN as well as SPIRITUAL adultery. Both are SIN. However, if you are following spiritual law then are also following physical law. Physical homosexuality is a SIN under the Mosaic Law. Physical homosexuality is SIN under the spiritual law.
It is SIN, period. If it is a "spiritual law", it is ALSO a Mosaic Law but redefined to include the spiritual....which is MORE REAL, and NOT THE SHADOW. If physical adultery is SIN under the Mosaic Law, then spiritual adultery is SIN under God's Law.
It is not abolished, it is raised to a spiritual truth. Thinking IT is DOING IT.
Under the Mosaic Law you can think about it all you want, but acting on it was a crime. Now, thinking it is THE crime, and acting on it is simply just the end result. Either way, you are still guilty ....even WITHOUT the physical act.
When Eve lusted after the apple according to her flesh and eyes, and she also hadthe pride of life knowing it would give her the knowledge of good and even, SHE HAD ALREADY DONE THE DEED and WAS GUILTY. She has already spiritually eaten the apple.
Basically, this all has already been stated, but if you are conversating with someone who has not been given eyes and ears to see this, then you are battling against our Father himself..
I am sorry if none of this post helps you...
The thing is that these post are helping me understand the nature of sex as a sin, but no one has yet pointed out why it isn't a sin to eat certain foods.
My real dilema is the food laws etc. What makes not eating certain foods any less a sin than homosexuality?
havent read all post posts :shock:
its not what goes in that defiles its what comes out
(http://bestsmileys.com/rude/11.gif)
-
You see, I understand also that the food laws were just a 'type'.
But then I don't understand if breaking the food laws is the same as say...breaking one of the 10 Commandments.
Are the 10 Commandments the only things we can sin against...or are the other 603 Laws also considered somethings we can sin against? If this is so, then why do we still hold to certain precepts, ackowledging them as sins, yet we don't to others?
You see, I don't believe we should follow the Food Laws, but I want to know what makes them different from other Laws and WHY and WHERE it's pointed out.
They are no different from eachother. They all mean JESUS. I know you have heard that before, but understanding that answers all your questions. They are BOTH types and shadows of Christ within us. If we continue to think of the Law as something that is mandated and kept or broken, we can't get past a certain point. The food laws and the 10 commandments and the sacrifices, etc are the same, not different. They both represent Jesus Christ and him crucified within you.
The morality in the Law is not kept by us. It is kept by Christ in us, and so much more because Christ came with a higher law. He raised the bar and then he put himself in us to establish it. To me, all this talk about which laws we should keep and which ones are more important or less important misses the point. They are all equally important and equally fleshy. If Christ is in us, it is not a struggle: love eachother and avoid sexual immorality.
Since you state...... "They are no different from eachother. They all mean JESUS. I know you have heard that before, but understanding that answers all your questions."
........does that mean that we are sinning if we eat pork and shellfish. Do we have to abide in spirit to the other 603 commandments?
This is my source of confusion also. I enjoy eating shellfish and never gave it a second thought as being sinful.
feat
ps euty where do you get those clever smilies?
-
gee i don't know the other laws like shellfish...gee that is a new one for me! :D
-
Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
That seemed to me to be an excellent summary of how I understand that Christ's doctrine of love replaces and exceeds the law of the ten commandments. If we truly follow Christ's doctrine such that we love God and our neighbor, we wouldn't even think of doing anything outlined in the ten commandments.
Nowhere in the ten commandments does it address food or any sex prohibitions other than adultery. Clearly to me adultery is not necessarily the same a homosexuality or fornication.
The subject of shellfish and homosexuality (fornication if you prefer) seems to keep coming up. Perhaps someone can quote from scripture where Christ tells us these are sinful.
I remember the nuns in catholic school telling us that if we masterbated we would go to hell. If it's true then I guess I would have been joining maybe 95% of the male teenage population :lol:
While homosexuality is looked upon as taboo or a perversion in ours and many other societies, I've read somewhere that it is not considered such in some societies , inlcluding certain American Indian tribes, that had not heard of the old testament.
While I don't condone or even understand it all that well. I have friends who are a gay couple. They are just as much in love with each other as I am with my wife. I personally have just never considered it any of my concern whether what they do sexually with each other is sinful or not.
The point of this thread though asks .. are they fulfilling Christ's commandments of love. I don't see how they are breaking any of the ten commandments either.
I am totally confused on this issue, as well, even after all the scripture quoted. I guess you can hit me with the standard eyes and ears too ignorant to understand line. I plead guilty.
feat
1 Corinthians 6:9-20 (New International Version)
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Sexual Immorality
12"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."[a] 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
Well Jesus didn't say it, but here is a new testament passage on the subject... I'm confused too!
-
gee i don't know the other laws like shellfish...gee that is a new one for me! :D
I think you can find most of it in Leviticus.
Don't be sad if you find it boring and have difficulty finishing it. I couldn't get through it in one sitting myself.
feat
-
yeah...hmm.. i read that in october... i did kindof skim over it :oops:
-
I read the part in Leviticus about what to eat and what not to eat.... do the Jews today really follow all these laws to the letter??? it seems impossible... it say if they do eat such and such ... they'll be cut off... wouldn't you think there would be fewer Jews?
(sorry to get side tracked)
-
The rest of the laws are manmade, added laws that basically let the Jews "do their thing". Man kept adding, but never was satisfied with what our Father said were the "rules" of the game.
Food does not defile a man, and homosexuality was a named offense and an abominable sin, so it leads me to believe that since Christ Is, was, and will be, that homosexuality is still an abomination to our Lord, because he never stated otherwise. If he law brings us to Christ, then we must have already at least seen that homosexuality is stated to be a sin under the law.
I guess, in my mind, I can seperate the 2 simply because the unclean food was "corrected" by Christ when he told us all that food ISN'T the issue, but the HEART is. The sin of homosexuality versus "eating unclean food". It is kind of like when Christ says a "Verily, verily"....I try to listen. If he states certain guidelines to follow, then I go with that. If, however, a specific sin was not something Christ spoke about, then I know he doesn't change and sin is still sin.
I'm just trying to let you know where I am coming from with my thinking. I've posted my feelings on homosexuality here in the forums, so I won't go into it here, but my general feelings are that homsexuality is a SIN, as ALL sin is sin. It isn't any different than any other sin in my mind. One for all, all for one...comes to my mind. However, it isn't a sin to eat food that nourishes ones body. From the begining of creation man had preference and control over all the beasts of the field and sea (us being the biggest beast on the block), so taking the whole scripture in helps me work it out in my thinking.
Lol, I don't know if I make sense to anyone else, but all that is clear in my mind....haha, just not articulated very well in typing it out. Sorry for that..
God bless
-
what foods to eat are common sense
i love shrimp, i eat it bout 3 time a year or so, sometimes more.
i like to have blts every now and then.
heres the rub.
DONT SERVE MEAT TO A VEGETARIAN.
LOVE IS THE KEY.
check this out!
Barnabas 10:9 Concerning meats then Moses received three decrees to this effect and uttered them in a spiritual sense; but they accepted them according to the lust of the flesh, as though they referred to eating
link to smilies for scaryfeet
http://bestsmileys.com/pageindex.htm
-
The rest of the laws are manmade, added laws that basically let the Jews "do their thing". Man kept adding, but never was satisfied with what our Father said were the "rules" of the game.
Food does not defile a man, and homosexuality was a named offense and an abominable sin, so it leads me to believe that since Christ Is, was, and will be, that homosexuality is still an abomination to our Lord, because he never stated otherwise. If he law brings us to Christ, then we must have already at least seen that homosexuality is stated to be a sin under the law.
I guess, in my mind, I can seperate the 2 simply because the unclean food was "corrected" by Christ when he told us all that food ISN'T the issue, but the HEART is. The sin of homosexuality versus "eating unclean food". It is kind of like when Christ says a "Verily, verily"....I try to listen. If he states certain guidelines to follow, then I go with that. If, however, a specific sin was not something Christ spoke about, then I know he doesn't change and sin is still sin.
I'm just trying to let you know where I am coming from with my thinking. I've posted my feelings on homosexuality here in the forums, so I won't go into it here, but my general feelings are that homsexuality is a SIN, as ALL sin is sin. It isn't any different than any other sin in my mind. One for all, all for one...comes to my mind. However, it isn't a sin to eat food that nourishes ones body. From the begining of creation man had preference and control over all the beasts of the field and sea (us being the biggest beast on the block), so taking the whole scripture in helps me work it out in my thinking.
Lol, I don't know if I make sense to anyone else, but all that is clear in my mind....haha, just not articulated very well in typing it out. Sorry for that..
God bless
hey steve greetings,
what do you think of this?
1Cr 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
whats your spiritual take?
peace brother
chuckt
-
For me,
As Christ's one's, we still have a command to live by. It is a command written on our heart, a change in heart, , LOVE. This new heart dictates everything we do. It flows from in to out. All actions flowing from us are as a result of, not in order to obtain.
Love makes one crazy, love makes people do crazy stuff, it'a an internal desire. Love is our internal code written on our hearts.
1Jo 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as he gave us commandment.
1Jo 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the vain glory of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
1Jo 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
1Jo 3:7 My little children, let no man lead you astray: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous:
1Jo 3:8 he that doeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
For me, one can follow every 10 commandment perfectly and still sin by doing that, and eat only certain foods and still sin by doing that, if their heart is not Christ.
But one can not love others with true Christ love and sin. If we are loving others, we are not sinning. This is only possible from a heart change.
1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God.
1Jo 3:11 For this is the message which ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another:
1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not abideth in death.
But we all sin (don't love) at times, our new heart sees it, and tells us of it, and praise God we know that
1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
And praise God we know that sin is not our true heart/nature, that it is the flesh sinning not our heart.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not.
Rom 7:19 For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practise.
Rom 7:20 But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:23 but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind (the mind of Christ), and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members.
Because of love in our heart, our new nature, we will have a desire to confess the sin in our members/flesh
For me, it is all summed up in Love.
-
Excellent post Rocky. It really resonated with me.
I wonder what our thinking would be like if we grew up with a "bible" called the doctrine of Christ and his teachings. A book that had only what it believed that Christ said in it.
Clearly Christ and his apostles were raised as Jews. Some if not all of the apostles were very famiiliar with scripture including but not limited to that which became what we call the old testament.
When you read what the apostles wrote, you can see the direct correlation with the old testament details that they grew up with. Where else would they even come up with the word like "abominable" :lol:
As far as the additional 603 laws, unlike his apostles, Christ did not pick and choose and list out specific sins. His message was one of love of the Father and our neighbors. If we love the things of this world we miss the mark.
Immorality both sexual and otherwise. is a subject all its own. It changes based on what society you are in. What one believes is sinful another does not necessarily believe. The most relevant operative message from Christ is dont feed meat to a vegetarian.
I was brought up to believe that adultery, homosexuality, fornication, masturbation, etc. was a mortal sin. I was also told that I would go to hell for those and various and sundry other things too numerous to mention.
I don't believe in hell now and as I am going through my individual search for truth, I discarded quite a lot of baggage that doesn't fit the doctrine of Christ.
To answer your question, Euty, my take on the spiritual meaning of fornication is basically any overindulgence of one's own body, be it sexual gratification, drugs, food, or anything else that leads us closer to love of the things of this world over our love of the Father.
It my opinion that Christ purposely usually steered away from talking about individual sins and instead focused on telling us that if we get too caught up in things of this world, we subordinate our love the Father, which is not in keeping with Christ's doctrine of love.
feat
edited to clarify I was talking about the 603 laws in addition to the ten commandments.
ps thnks euty
-
Since you state...... "They are no different from eachother. They all mean JESUS. I know you have heard that before, but understanding that answers all your questions."
........does that mean that we are sinning if we eat pork and shellfish. Do we have to abide in spirit to the other 603 commandments?
This is my source of confusion also. I enjoy eating shellfish and never gave it a second thought as being sinful.
The apostles never say we need to abide by 603 commandments. We are not sinning if we eat pork and shellfish. There is a component to the Law which represented Christ, such as a Lamb being killed for sin. That NEVER justified a man. Killing a lamb never did anything to justify anyone. There was also nothing inherently wrong with eating pork or shellfish. You and I eat it and we don't pass out and die, right? That is because, like the killed lambs, the food also had representation: separation of the elect. Peter understood that when he had the vision of the sheet cleansing the Gentiles. The food laws represented separation of the elect. The Gentiles have been cleansed and called out.
The 10 commandments and the other moral commandments are also types and shadows. The 10 commandments in particular are a a type and shadow because it is God's righteousness in his Son written on stone, in the flesh, so that flesh can obey and of course fail. NOW, we do not even need those anymore. If a man has the Son within him, he need not even read the Law, for Christ is both willing and doing good through him. Avoiding sin and loving your brother will be instinct.
-
Since you state...... "They are no different from eachother. They all mean JESUS. I know you have heard that before, but understanding that answers all your questions."
........does that mean that we are sinning if we eat pork and shellfish. Do we have to abide in spirit to the other 603 commandments?
This is my source of confusion also. I enjoy eating shellfish and never gave it a second thought as being sinful.
The apostles never say we need to abide by 603 commandments. We are not sinning if we eat pork and shellfish. There is a component to the Law which represented Christ, such as a Lamb being killed for sin. That NEVER justified a man. Killing a lamb never did anything to justify anyone. There was also nothing inherently wrong with eating pork or shellfish. You and I eat it and we don't pass out and die, right? That is because, like the killed lambs, the food also had representation: separation of the elect. Peter understood that when he had the vision of the sheet cleansing the Gentiles. The food laws represented separation of the elect. The Gentiles have been cleansed and called out.
The 10 commandments and the other moral commandments are also types and shadows. The 10 commandments in particular are a a type and shadow because it is God's righteousness in his Son written on stone, in the flesh, so that flesh can obey and of course fail. NOW, we do not even need those anymore. If a man has the Son within him, he need not even read the Law, for Christ is both willing and doing good through him. Avoiding sin and loving your brother will be instinct.
Sorry, I totally misunderstood your comment. The question you were responding to what I thought was the 603 vs the ten and I took your response to be saying the 603 were the same as the ten. Evidently you were saying something else.
feat
-
Unlike his apostles, Christ did not pick and choose and list out specific sins. His message was one of love of the Father and our neighbors. If we love the things of this world we miss the mark.
Here is an instance where Christ did:
Luk 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luk 18:19
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
Luk 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
Luk 18:21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.[/list:u]
The thing is, though, that the law was still in effect until Christ nailed it to the cross and established the New Covenenant - sealing it with His blood.
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, NAILING IT TO HIS CROSS;[/list:u]
The ONE thing that this man in the above verses, who was 'keeping the law', lacked was CHRIST.
Keeping all those laws written in stone never saved ANYBODY. They were a ministration of DEATH.... the strength of sin is the law and by the law came the knowledge of sin.
But the knowledge of God (LOVE) comes through Christ.
Chrissie
-
Some here need to read Leviticus :p
Such things NOT to do in the book of Leviticus are eating certain meats, wearing certain types of material, cutting your hair certain ways, etc.
It's just odd that these same laws are right next to laws that are apparent sins (like homosexuality) and aren't even seperated.
-
Thanks Chrissie,
That was great. I had meant to speak only about the the 603 other laws but neglected to qualify my statement. My sentence should have began with, as far as the other 603 laws.
I knew He talked about the ten commandments. My bad. :oops:
Thanks for pointing that out. I will edit to make it clear for future readers.
feat
-
Some here need to read Leviticus :p
Such things NOT to do in the book of Leviticus are eating certain meats, wearing certain types of material, cutting your hair certain ways, etc.
It's just odd that these same laws are right next to laws that are apparent sins (like homosexuality) and aren't even seperated.
The Law of Moses was the physical representation of what Christ brought and what he brought is much better. Do you think Christ was put into us so that the 10 commandments would NOT be followed, and so that laws regarding homosexuality need not be heeded? Christ was put into us so that the reality of the Law would be realized. Again all the laws, including the moral laws (10 commandments) are shadows of what would come in Christ that we may have life more abundantly.
-
search the word vail
see how many times it comes up in lev.
here ya go:
2Cr 3:13 And not as Moses, [which] put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
Rom 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
2Cr 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which [vail] is done away in Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2Cr 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2Cr 3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
-
oops... sorry feat... :oops:
Here are some more verse about the law:
no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live BY FAITH.
Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit THROUGH FAITH.
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was ADDED because of transgressions, TILL the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Gal 3:23 But BEFORE FAITH CAME, we were kept UNDER the law, SHUT UP UNTO FAITH which should AFTERWORDS be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our SCHOOLMASTER to bring us UNTO CHRIST, that we might be justified BY FAITH.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.[/list:u]
There is OLD wine and the is NEW wine. There is an OLD garment and there is a NEW garment. There is an OLD covenant and there is a NEW covenant. There is the law of Moses (which was ADDED because of trangressions and to bring sin to light) and there is the ROYAL LAW, which is written in our hearts....
which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.[/list:u]
Wonder how or if that ties to "cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree" and Christ "nailing it to His cross"??
The only thing that I can find, so far, that says anything about there NOT being a NEW commandment, but it being and OLD commandment is this:
I write NO new commandment unto you, BUT AN OLD commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.[/list:u]
However, as I see it, Moses is not and was not "the beginning". The laws of Moses were ADDED because of TRANSGRESSIONS. Apart from the law there is NO SIN.... but DEATH still reigned even before the law of Moses was 'added'.
Moses is not the BEGINNING. CHRIST IS.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.[/list:u]
It is the ROYAL LAW (the Law of God and of LOVE) that we have had "from the beginning" and that we should be following.... not the law of Moses, which was 'added'.
If ye fulfil THE ROYAL LAW according to the scripture, Thou shalt LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR AS THYSELF, ye do well:[/list:u]
That's my 2 (more) cents... plus some (more)... :roll:
Chrissie :wink:
-
God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
1Jo 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.[/list:u]
There is the Royal Law... that we have had "from the beginning". [-o<
Blessings,
Chrissie
-
Okay...I understand.
But still, if we are no longer to obey the Law of the flesh, why do we stop eating certain foods and viewing special Holy Days, but we still keep other parts of the physical law like homosexuality?
I'm just saying that I can't find anywhere where the ENTIRE Law is destroyed...nor can I find anywhere where the Food Laws are seperate from the sex Laws.
We are not bound to ANYTHING in law of Moses. The reason homosexuality is wrong (or polygamy or fornication) is because God created male & female for each other and the two shall become one flesh.
The law of Moses was WATERED DOWN because of the unrighteousness of its audience:
Mark 10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
If a righteous person goes ahead and obeys this law of Moses and gives his wife a bill of divorcement then he will be committing adultery. So the law of Moses is substandard. That's why Jesus gave different commandments.
This passage shows that the Ten Commandments are done away for those in Christ.
2 Corinthians 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. 12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.
-
If a righteous person goes ahead and obeys this law of Moses and gives his wife a bill of divorcement then he will be committing adultery.
I think it's if he "puts her away" (without giving her a bill of divorcement) that adultery is committed.
Putting her away and giving her a bill of divorcement are two different things. Though we should do neither, except in the case of fornication/adultery or in the event an unbelieving wife/husband chooses to leave.
Though I think that the definition of fornication is also sometimes misunderstood.
I will look for the article that I read some time back about it on Mike's website and post a link.
Chrissie
-
Divorce is discussed here: What are the grounds of divorce? (http://www.*not-allowed*.com/divorce.html)
and the The Law of Moses Vs the Law of the Spirit is discussed here: The Law Of Moses Versus The Law Of The Spirit: How The New Covenant Differs from the Old (http://www.*not-allowed*.com/freefromlaw.html)
here is part of that (it's a long article, so would be harder to find with just a link) :
Change #3 - Divorce and Remarriage
We now come to the third "you have heard that it was said..." Matt. 5:31: "It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement."
The previous two "changes of the law" (Heb. 7:12) have been dramatic. Will this change be any less so? Not likely. Before we examine this change, let's ask the question: what did the two previous changes have in common?
In the first change, being "angry with your brother without a cause" is elevated to the offense of murder.
In the second change, "looking on a woman to lust after her" has been elevated to the offense of adultery.
What they have in common is that they have both been dramatically changed from a "letter" law to a "spiritual" law. "Who hath made us able ministers of the new testament [covenant] NOT OF THE LETTER BUT OF THE SPIRIT, FOR THE LETTER KILLETH, BUT THE SPIRIT [The new covenant] GIVETH LIFE" (II Cor. 3:6).
Before we continue, let us take note that this change has nothing to do with the ten commandments, but only the statutes and judgments. There was no difference to Christ; it was all "the law of Moses."
Continuing on; "It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him write her a bill of divorcement. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife saving for the cause of fornication; causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, commits adultery" (Matt. 5:31-32). So what "change also of the law" (Heb. 7:12) has been made here? Did Christ really say that "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery"?
No he did not!! The changes made here are as monumental as the changes in the sixth and seventh commandments. This change is in fact simply expanding upon the changes made in the "thou shalt not commit adultery" commandment.
Christ is not banning divorce here, and he did not say "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced comitteth adultery."
The Greek word translated 'divorced' here in Matt. 5:32 is apaluo (Strong's #630). This is the same word which is properly translated 'put away' in the preceding verse.
The translators' mistake here has contributed to mountains of unnecessary misery over the past 400 plus years.
While it is true that a Christian couple would never seek to dissolve "that which God hath joined together", it is not true that Christ said "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." What He did say was whosoever shall marry her that is put away (apoluo) committeth adultery.
There is a Greek word for divorce. It is apostasion (Strong's #647). It does not appear in Matt. 5:32. It does appear in Matt 5:31: "...let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion)." Under the law of Moses, a man was never to apoluo (#630) or 'put away' his wife without giving her apostasion; a bill of divorcement.
But men have never kept the law of Moses. Men were 'putting away' or apoluo their wives without a bill of divorcement or apostasion. Christ was stating the obvious when he pointed out that legally this "causes" the woman and the man she marries to commit adultery because she is not legally apostasion or divorced.
Why would Christ mention this? He certainly was not suggesting that this somehow complicated things for the Father to decide what was to be held accountable for whatever. He is not in any way excusing sinful actions on the part of either partner in the marriage. This was simply a legal statement. It is helpful to realize that before Sinai and the giving of the "law of Moses" the world was governed by the law of Hammurabi.
Under both laws the husband was the decision maker and wives were owned by their husbands.
Under both laws the husband could divorce his wife for many reasons besides fornication. "...if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go..." (Deut. 21:14).
But there was one major distinguishing feature between the law of Moses and the law of Hammurabi regarding the subject of divorce. The law of Hammurabi says simply "if a man wishes to separate from his wife... he shall give her the amount of her purchase money... and let her go" (Law 138). "...if her husband offer her release, she may go on her way..." (Law 141). "She shall take her dowry and go back to her father's house" (Law 142).
Under the law of Hammurabi women had very few legal rights or protections. Nowhere did Hammurabi require a husband to give his ex-wife a bill of divorcement. The door was wide open for a self-centered, jealous and spiteful ex-husband to deny the fact that he had divorced his wife.
The law of Moses on the other hand required the husband to give the wife a written and signed bill of divorcement. So while divorcing one's wife was a simple matter under the law of Moses [simply "if you have no delight in her" (Deut. 21:14)], the ex-wife at least had the added legal protection of being in possession of a document which proved she was legally free to "go and be another man's wife" (Deut. 24:2).
Now let's go to Matt. 19 and see how the KJV translators correct themselves regarding this Greek word apoluo - which is the same word translated 'divorce' in Matt. 5:32 - the Pharisees... came to him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? (Vs. 3).
Why would the Pharisees ask Christ this question "to tempt him"? Perhaps this was some time after the humiliation the Pharisees suffered when they brought an adulterous woman to Christ. Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act (John 8:4). The law says, If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die (Deut. 22:22).
The emphasis is on the man. The Pharisees had already admitted they had caught her "in the very act". If they were serious abut keeping the law, where was the man? Of course they weren't sincere about obeying God; they only wanted to rid themselves of their nemesis who was constantly revealing them for the hypocrites they were. A new tack had to be taken.
So in this case, with the allowances for divorce plainly and explicitly given in the law, the Pharisees, like so many so-called Christians today without the faith of or the spirit of Christ in them, were simply looking for a way around the spiritual new law. This spiritual law had never been given before -- certainly not by Moses. The Pharisees knew this and weren't about to miss a chance to point that out. This is not a new application of the law, this is not some fabled 'spirit of the law'; this is new law disannulling the old law (Heb. 7:18).
Our wise, all knowing Savior knew exactly what was taking place here. He knew that the Pharisees preferred their "own righteousness which is of the law" (Phil. 3:9) to the spiritual law which He was revealing.
So what do these statutes and judgments of "the Lord your God" have to say about divorce? What are the scriptures the Pharisees had on their side? Do these scriptures (yes, these are scriptures) actually say that a man can put away his wife for any reason or "every cause" (Matt. 19:3).
Well, as a matter of fact, they do: "When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness [ervah #6172] in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement [kerithuth #3748] and give it in her hand, and send her out [shalach #7971] of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife" (Deut. 24:1,2).
The "some uncleanness" is certainly not speaking of sexual fraud. The penalty for that was death. "...they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die..." (Deut. 22:21). Neither was it adultery. The penalty for adultery was also death (Deut. 22:22).
The Hebrew word translated "uncleanness" is ervah (Strong's #6172). It appears 40 times in the Old Testament. 37 times it is translated "nakedness". Its first appearance is typical of its use: "And Ham the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father..." (Gen. 9:22). Of the remaining 3 verses, it is translated shame. In Isa. 20:4: "So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners... even with their buttocks uncovered to the shame [or nakedness - ervah #6172] of Egypt."
In Deut. 23:14, we are given the meaning of this word to be applied here in Deut. 24:1. "For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of the camp, to deliver thee and to give up thine enemies before thee: therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing [or nakedness - ervah #6172] in thee, and turn away from thee" (Deut. 23:14).
The church of Laodicea is told that she thinks she is rich and has need of nothing, but in reality, she is "poor and blind and naked. I counsel you to buy of me... white raiment that you may be clothed and that the shame of your nakedness do not appear" (Rev. 3:17-18). Nakedness in scripture is a type of sin; not any particular sin but any sin. The white raiment is defined as "the righteousness of the saints" (Rev. 19:8). This is "Christ in us" (Gal. 2:20) covering any sin.
Clearly the Pharisees were right. Adultery and sexual fraud were punishable by death (Deut. 22:21 and 22) not "a bill of divorcement" and "she may go and be another man's wife". "Some uncleanness" really was all that the law of Moses required for divorcing one's wife.
But in case there is any doubt that the Pharisees were right in their understanding and that Christ wasn't really "changing the law", let's look at one more scripture. If you "seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to your wife; then thou shall bring her home to thine house; ...and be her husband and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money..." (Deut. 21:11-14)
The reason given here to "let her go" (shalach #7971, the same word translated "send her out"-Deut. 24:1) is simply "you have no delight in her" or as the Pharisees put it "for every cause" (Matt. 19:3).
-----------------------
Blessings,
Chrissie
-
If a righteous person goes ahead and obeys this law of Moses and gives his wife a bill of divorcement then he will be committing adultery.
I think it's if he "puts her away" (without giving her a bill of divorcement) that adultery is committed.
Putting her away and giving her a bill of divorcement are two different things. Though we should do neither, except in the case of fornication/adultery or in the event an unbelieving wife/husband chooses to leave.
Chrissie
I don't see it Chrissie. Here is another passage.
Matthews 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
So according to Moses a man can "put away" his wife by simply giving a bill of divorcement without any other cause. According to Jesus a man can "put away" his wife only for fornication, otherwise its adultery.
EDIT... I had not seen your second reply to my post when I wrote this replay. I'll go back and read it and maybe I will see what you are getting at.
-
Can someone please give me some information? In his email on the law Mike was talking about 1Cor. 14:34. I have never been able to find this "law" in the law of Moses. Some reading I have been doing says this was part of the oral law of the Jews. Does anyone have more information on this?
Thanks
Beverley
1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.[/list:u]
Will have to look at that.... but this is one that I've never really understood either.... and wondered why he would even refer to 'the law' to those who are no longer UNDER the law.
My 'thinking' is that the Corinthians were 'yet carnal' and so Paul (as he said he did) became 'as one under the law' to those who were still 'under the law'.
But it would be nice to know exactly what 'law' he was referring to and I am not sure. Will try to look, but hopefully someone else will be able to point it out more quickly.
Blessings,
Chrissie
-
There is this:
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
But it doesn't say be 'silent in the church', nor do I see this as a 'law' :?: ... so still not sure what 'law' is being referred to.
Chrissie
-
1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but
they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.[/list:u]
the words "they are commanded" is in italics and not words that are taken from the text from which the translation originated, but were 'added'.
And we are indeed supposed to submit to our husbands, as is indicated in Ephesians. But he does refer to the law, saying 'as also saith the law', so it must be in the law somewhere??
Here are some other translations of the same verse:
(CLV) Let the women in the ecclesias hush, for it is not permitted to them to speak, but let them be subject, according as the law, also is saying."
(LITV) Let your women be silent in the assemblies, for it is not allowed to them to speak, but to be in subjection, as also the Law says.
(YLT) Your women in the assemblies let them be silent, for it hath not been permitted to them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith;[/list:u]
It is the same word (for submit yourselves) in:
Eph 5:22 Wives,
submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
G5293
ὑποτάσσω
hupotassōhoop-ot-as'-so
From G5259 and G5021; to subordinate; reflexively to obey: - be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.
Chrissie
-
Ever notice any connection to being silent, dumb, unable to speak, or mouths stopped in relation to the law Chrissie?
Ever look at Zechariah HUSBAND of Elizabeth?
He was not allowed to speak, its speaks elsewhere concerning the WOMAN being bound of the law of her HUSBAND (who was an OLD MAN)
See anything in that?
Daniel
-
The masses of Christianity (Babylon) are under the law. Just ask them. But what is the real purpose of the law?
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
THe masses of Christianity is still under the school master because they have not come to that faith which takes them on to maturity. They desire to stay under the law. Speak to them of the things of the Spirit, and they call you a heretic.
Gal 4:1 Now I say, [That] the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
Gal 4:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
So what does all of this mean to us who are mature?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Heb 8:13 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.
-
This topic has gone all over the place where do I even start. ??? Hold on to your socks.
What is it with the 603 ??? I think you are referring to the 613 Mitzvot.
They even went so far as to tie 613 knots tied on their prayer shawls fringes. There are 248 Positive and 365 Negative Commandments.
Give them a break...They added these mitzvots because they were so...o fearful of disobeying the Law that they put these extra hedges around the law with the thought of making it harder to break the Main ones.
Regarding the Food laws, it is well know that many these laws were probably helpful to Israel surviving at the time. Remember everthing that happened was God’s Perfect Will.
Eating Pork was associated with Trichinosis, Shrimp and other bottom dwellers and eat dead stuff as well as many of the animals and birds on the foods off limits list. These would be loaded with bacteria and would have killed people in the day of no refrigeration. There are many other health benefits and examples.
I was nearly knocked off my seat when at Johns Hopkins (an extremely liberal institution) the School of Public Health and Hygeine stated that the institution of the Sabbath was The most significant health policy in history. Without it people throughout the world would have been worked like animal 7 days a week until till they dropped. Even the animals got a break with these mizvot. My God is Good.
Regarding Homosexuality and the Law. Oh well here I go. I hope I do not shock anyone.
Sexuality is always Spiritual in the Bible. Christ is the Groom and yes some of you guys out there are going to be the Bride. Throughout the Bible, God’s use of Gender are very specific.
Spiritual adultery occurs when the church becomes intimate with any one or any thing other than God. Sex is a type / shadow. Remember Paul said there is no male or female in heaven. Christ implied it when he was talking about the divorce laws concerning the women with seven husbands.
Homosexuality (male and female) in the physical would certainly be an abomination to God because it totally goes against God’s basic (spiritual) plan when he created sex. All sex (outside marriage) is all about defilement of the Spirit
It would be like the elect engaging in similar activity (since they are the body, the first fruits and sons who spiritually represent males as individuals and collectively as a chaste bride).
Spiritually remember Christ is the husband and mankind will be the bride. The elect are His body and as part of the groom will help bring in the rest of the bridal party. Did any of you catch the phrase Cildren of the Bride chamber in Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34?
(Mar 2:19 KJVR) And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.
(Mar 13:22 KJVR) For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
The elect (spiritual males ) however will however be virgins and know not women (spiritual females not physical)
(Rev 14:4 KJVR) These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
(Remember Peter was married and therefore was not a physical virgin, but as a new born spiritual male he is a new creature and with Christ in Him ....knows not any spiritual woman ).
It is hard to explain all of this in a post but I hope you see some of the points I am trying to make. I am presently writing a study on Genders in the Word and did not want to paste too much Scripture right now.
To Daniel ( sorry I do not how to clip a quote from a post )
Ever look at Zechariah HUSBAND of Elizabeth?
He was not allowed to speak, its speaks elsewhere concerning the WOMAN being bound of the law of her HUSBAND (who was an OLD MAN)
See anything in that?
Yes and it too will seem weird but Zecharias not Zachariah was the spiritual woman and questioned his Spiritual Husband who was God and Zacharias was made dumb (basically told the women to keep quiet in the Church… this case it was the temple).
Really all of the “:spiritual women� in the old testament Job, various prophets etc shut their face holes when they realized exactly “Who� they were trying to converse with in the physical
They were both “old� people Daniel. Old Elizabeth was also a “spiritual woman� and both physically and spiritually barren.
In closing I like to think of the law is like the spiritual Fig Leafs and The Lamb is the Robe of Righteousness. Stop arguing with these fools and stay dressed.
The ELECT It's a Spitual BOY
(http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/liebe/love-smiley-073.gif)
Beloved
(http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/liebe/love-smiley-006.gif)
-
Beloved good post,
I'll often "ask questions" to stimulate thought leaving room for another to come in and add. Its a blessing when that happens. I'm not the preachy type, its just my way :lol: Thanks for adding to the thread. I saw the very thing you caught in Elizabeth and her hub, Dumb unable to speak, even as a woman under the law of her husband.
You wrote,
The ELECT It's a Spitual BOY
I agree a renewed youth :lol:
Filled days of an Old man. The exchange (at the same time) between a child and a Son. The Second Child "in His Stead "being Christ in you. :D
Daniel
-
BELOVED,
Thanks for sharing... that is how i am beginning to see sex in the bible and it is nice to have some other examples and verses to look at as i continue to study..
one question:
I'm confused about the physical sin being sin if it was meant to be a spiritual sin... where can i look for those answers>?
-
What is it with the 603 ??? I think you are referring to the 613 Mitzvot.
They even went so far as to tie 613 knots tied on their prayer shawls fringes. There are 248 Positive and 365 Negative Commandments.
yes...Origen...ask your Jewish friend when referring to "law"...does he mean the Torah (Books of Moses) or the Talmud?
in the Talmud (devised by Rabbis) you'll find all kinds of "laws"
on the topic of the Law vs Jesus...He completed the Law in all its fullness...it was Him (as Jahweh) who gave the Law in the first place.
Also, everything He said which is recorded in the NT is Law :wink:
-
BELOVED,
Thanks for sharing... that is how i am beginning to see sex in the bible and it is nice to have some other examples and verses to look at as i continue to study..
one question:
I'm confused about the physical sin being sin if it was meant to be a spiritual sin... where can i look for those answers>?
Start in Genesis.
Eating the apple was not the sin, it was the disobedience. Before she ate Eve committed the three sins listed in 1 John 2:16
(1Jo 2:16 KJVR)
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Christ counteracted these same three things when He was tempted in the Wilderness. His only weapon was the Word. "It is written" Though it happened in the physical this too was spiritual This was also a spiritual lesson on how we are to deal with these three deeds of the mind.
Christ is the First fruit and in.. Perfect Obedience... the Fruit.. was put back on ..the tree (the cross). The elect as His body are there too.
(Rom 8:1 KJVR)
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
(Rom 8:4 KJVR)
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
If Christ is our head and we do the Will of the Father then the first three commandments are automatic, since God loves and will save All of mankind, thenwe can finally love are enemy as well as our friends. Now the remaining seven commandments no longer have any meaning to us.
The elect as the spiritual Body still has the physical flesh to contend with, we need to mortify and keep it under control. When we don't we have an advocate who will forgive our sins when we repent. Everything in the physical starts to beome more and more meaninless. "The flesh profith nothing"
(Rom 8:5 KJVR)
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
(Rom 8:6 KJVR)
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
All of the sins in the Buble are like this, David and Bathsheb ( the adultery, lies, murder etc) Anaisis and his wife (attempting to hold something back from God). The list goes on.......
(Gal 5:16 KJVR)
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
This following scrioture only makes sence from our present perspective.
(
1Co 15:46 KJVR)
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
From God'd perspective it is always spiritual
Speaking of the Flesh and Spirit, I think I am becoming a BT Forum junkie.
Becky I don't know if this helped or not.
Beloved
(http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/liebe/love-smiley-006.gif)
-
oops
-
thanks again beloved! I am learning more now in genesis