Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances

[JaumeJ]

Thank you my dear one for the blessings m'shamaim, amen. I pray all and more for your walk too, amen

Proverbs 20:24, “The steps of a man are from יהוה; What does a man know about his own way?”

Psalm 32:8 “I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you."

Hosea 6:3, “So let us know, let us pursue to know יהוה. His going forth is as certain as the morning, and He comes to us like the rain, like the latter rain watering the earth.”

Psalm 42:2, “My being thirsts for Yah, for the living Strength When shall I enter in to appear before Yah?"

may it be so! praiseYah!

 

[posthuman]

You must omit most of the Word's of the Bible because they expose your religion as from man and not from God. You are left to just spew words out of the imagination of your own mind because the scriptures explain themselves, and they condemn your preaching.

This is not my fault that you are more interested in men's preaching and religious traditions, than actually letting the Word which became Flesh direct your thinking.

Why don't you actually read the post and tell me where the scriptures prove they are wrong. But the only way you can do that is to cherry pick one verse somewhere, and claim this one verse destroys the rest of the Word's of God.

Maybe you are right. Maybe you have found a verse which beats up all other scriptures in the bible. But I don't believe it.

blah blah blah unsubstantiated ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem.

simple questions, please answer:

"you are not under law but grace"

does this mean "under 1/3 of the law but not under 2/3 of it" or does it mean "not under law" ?

are the sections of the Law which describe sacrifices and priesthood and diet and ceremony made up of jots and tittles or not?

 

[JaumeJ]

Is it not possible for anyone under grace and mercy because of the Lamb of God to have astrong desire to be obedient to Him when He tells us the law isnot destroyed by Him rather it isfulfilled?

From the sermon on the mount and on Jesus, Yeshua, teaches from the "la" yet clarifying it.

One perons who cannot understand this in trying to trip me up in words asked if Jesus was under the law.

I replied Jesus, Yeshua, obeyed all of the law, but as He knows it, since He is sthe Author.
He fulfilled so many of them there are few left to be observed, and by observe He teaches that itbe
practiced with faith, mercy and justice..

When I read teh law, it is obvious which can no longer be, for they are completed by Jesus. The ones that continue are the ones we find result in sin should we break them, and this is why we have a contstant Mediator to the Father in the Son, our High Priest..

None of this means we break laws remaining...sin....as a lifestyle or habitually, but it does mean we do have standards set
by Jesus Christ, Himself.

If you believe you love, and God is Love, then you are already perfect and ou do not need God to finish any work He began in you.

I am not perfect yet, and I need my blessed and beloved Mediator at all times to continue His fulfilling the law in me,thus I live in mercy and grace as do all who have this same Mediator.

It is not reocket science, we are imperfect to the end while being perfected, Jesus is, was and always will be perfect for us.

Do not teach against the law unless you are PERFECT . Here is a further clue, you are not perfect and you cannot perfect yourself.

 

[Studyman]

blah blah blah unsubstantiated ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem.

simple questions, please answer:

"you are not under law but grace"

does this mean "under 1/3 of the law but not under 2/3 of it" or does it mean "not under law" ?

are the sections of the Law which describe sacrifices and priesthood and diet and ceremony made up of jots and tittles or not?

Originally Posted by Studyman

the Priesthood Law changed

. . .

Not one Jot or Tittle has passed from it.

PH said:

surely i'm not the only one seeing the blatant contradiction here..

Studyman replied:

Did the Word which became Flesh promise in the Law and Prophets to change the Priesthood? Only a fool and a liar would say He didn't.

So if the Word which became Flesh promised in the Law and Prophets to "change" God's Priesthood, how is doing what He promised to do removing one Jot or Tittle?

Come now PH,

We were talking about the Priesthood. You made a statement, and an accusation of a "Blatant contradiction".

I answered with truth and as is your custom, and the custom of "many" who come in Christ's name, you completely ignored it and moved on to the next example of your lack of understanding.

Lets clear up one false accusation at a time.

Regarding the Priesthood, the Word which became Flesh prophesied of a change. (Jer. 31:31)

And, as surely even you must acknowledge, the Priesthood has indeed changed, just as the Word which became Flesh told us it would.

So how is this taking away a Jot or Tittle from the Law and Prophets?

Shouldn't you answer to this accusation of a "blatant contradiction" before moving on to your next accusation?

 

[posthuman]

Originally Posted by Studyman


PH said:

Studyman replied:



Come now PH,

We were talking about the Priesthood. You made a statement, and an accusation of a "Blatant contradiction".

I answered with truth and as is your custom, and the custom of "many" who come in Christ's name, you completely ignored it and moved on to the next example of your lack of understanding.

Lets clear up one false accusation at a time.

Regarding the Priesthood, the Word which became Flesh prophesied of a change. (Jer. 31:31)

And, as surely even you must acknowledge, the Priesthood has indeed changed, just as the Word which became Flesh told us it would.

So how is this taking away a Jot or Tittle from the Law and Prophets?

Shouldn't you answer to this accusation of a "blatant contradiction" before moving on to your next accusation?

Jeremiah 31:31 says a new covenant, not a new priesthood in the same covenant.

Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy describe the old covenant.

 

[posthuman]

Priesthood means priesthood.
Covenant means covenant.

Now why would someone want to change the scripture like that? Why would they want it to only say priesthood when it really says covenant?

 

[posthuman]

Does "not under law but grace" mean "under law but with different priests" or does it mean "not under law"?

 

[posthuman]

Does "new covenant not like the old" mean "same covenant just under new management with different rituals"?

 

[Ralph-]

I guess lev 19 is the whole law folks. James taught the whole law because he made this one point.

No, James taught from Deuteronomy too:

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress"-James 1:27

This comes from here in the law (among other places):

"He (the Lord your God) the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing."-Deuteronomy 10:18



See, Jesus and James DID teach the law, EG. But this should be no surprise since Paul himself said that is what the law was useful for:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"-2 Timothy 3:16

What ralph does not understand is that was James spoke of was NOT about the law. But about a probem which was going on in the church (people CLAIMING to be SAVED bUT faith but LIVING like the WORLD. )

James used the scriptures of the day, the law, to correct that problem. As Paul says, the law is useful that way, for "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness".

 

[eternally-gratefull]

No, James taught from Deuteronomy too:

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress"-James 1:27

This comes from here in the law (among other places):

"He (the Lord your God) the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing."-Deuteronomy 10:18

ok, I am sorry, I missed one, So james spoke of two aspects of the law. thus he taught the whole law. Ok.
You still do not get it, When you teach mulctiplication tables. You teach the WHOLE THING, you do not just MENTION a few things from it.

See, Jesus and James DID teach the law, EG. But this should be no surprise since Paul himself said that is what the law was useful for:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"-2 Timothy 3:16

Your right, Paul did tell us what the law was USEFUL FOR. in fact he told us why we were given the law

[SUP]19 [/SUP]What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. [SUP]20 [/SUP]Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.

[SUP]21 [/SUP]Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. [SUP]22 [/SUP]But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. [SUP]23 [/SUP]But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. [SUP]24 [/SUP]Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. [SUP]25 [/SUP]But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.



It is simple. if you can not read here what the law was useful for. Thats on you.

If you think you are stil under the tutor. all I can assume through scripture is you still have YET to come to christ.

James used the scriptures of the day, the law, to correct that problem. As Paul says, the law is useful that way, for "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness".

James used scripture to show those who had not yet come to christ, Yes, He was trying to use the tutor to those who needed it. (hearers of the word not doers of the word. ) but he was NOT teaching law.

If you still need the tutor. You have yet to place your faith in christ. and I suggest you repent.

 

[Studyman]

Priesthood means priesthood.
Covenant means covenant.

Now why would someone want to change the scripture like that? Why would they want it to only say priesthood when it really says covenant?

Now there you go again. Why not actually read what the Word which became Flesh said about it?

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Hebrew for Covenant = "bryith" (in the sense of cutting) a compact, confederacy, a league, testament.

Greek for covenant = "diatheke" disposition, a contract.

Covenant means agreement, compact, contract.

Doesn't the Word which became Flesh tell us what the "CHANGE" in the contract or agreement is? "For this shall be".

So shouldn't we listen to the Word which became Flesh to know what the "Change in the "contract" shall be"? And what is the change in the contract God made with Moses and the people to make it "new"?

Shouldn't we let the Word show us?

He says:

"I will put my law in their inward parts"
How is this different from the way I people received His Laws before?
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

"for I will forgive their iniquity"

How is this different than the way sins were atoned before? How is this different that the compact Jesus made with Moses regarding the atonement of sin?

Are you preaching that Jesus, the Word which became Flesh, didn't make an agreement, a compact, a covenant with Moses and the people as to how God's Laws are administered, and as to how sins are atoned for?

Of course you will not engage here. Because this truth exposes you. But for those reading. Do you see what the Word is saying here?

The way sins are forgiven, the way God's Laws were administered, this was done by the Levitical Priesthood God gave to Moses.

And Hebrews confirms this.

Heb. 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood,

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,)

Heb. 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Greek for ministry- "public function (as a priest) ministration.

Why the change?

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them,( Levite Priests who were in charge of administering God's Laws, and for the atonement of sins) he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

No more Levite Priests, no more "Levitical Priesthood "Works of the Law" for atonement of sins. Like Paul said:

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Post,

I am not twisting things to promote an ancient religious tradition. I am following the obvious direction and instruction that are in both your Bible and mine.

It is not my fault that you haven't been taught these truths, or that you don't believe these truths. But it says what it says.

The New Covenant is the Change in the Priesthood. You unbelief does not make the Word's of God void.

 

[gb9]

you failed to include the word " testament " in your definition of the word " diatheke " , it can also be translated into that. honesty , try it sometimes, it is very refreshing.

 

[Studyman]

Does "new covenant not like the old" mean "same covenant just under new management with different rituals"?

The New covenant of the Word means what the Bible teaches it means. Not what you or some ancient religious doctrines tell us. I have posted what God's Word says about it.

If you can find scriptures which refute what I have posted says, show them. Otherwise you are just noise.

 

[Studyman]

you failed to include the word " testament " in your definition of the word " diatheke " , it can also be translated into that. honesty , try it sometimes, it is very refreshing.

Testament and covenant mean the same thing, it's the same Greek word.. diatheke "Compact, contract.

Has no bearing on the post and you know it. But I'm glad you read it anyway. If that's the only thing you can find to fault the post, that says a lot.

 

[Studyman]

you failed to include the word " testament " in your definition of the word " diatheke " , it can also be translated into that. honesty , try it sometimes, it is very refreshing.

And besides, it was an old testament quote and the Hebrew also uses the word testament which I posted. So once again your accusation of dishonesty is dishonest.

I am glad you are reading these posts though. God's Word does not return void.

 

[gb9]

And besides, it was an old testament quote and the Hebrew also uses the word testament which I posted. So once again your accusation of dishonesty is dishonest.

I am glad you are reading these posts though. God's Word does not return void.

you can take tofu, put poultry seasoning in, make soup, and call it chicken soup. but, it is not.

you can take Scripture, put in assumptions , conspiracy theories, and call it God's Word, but it is not.

you remind me of a flat earther. no matter how much evidence they are shown that they are wrong, they have a answer ready to go to keep believing what they believe no matter what. just like you.

 

[Ralph-]

ok, I am sorry, I missed one, So james spoke of two aspects of the law. thus he taught the whole law. Ok.

No, he taught more than two aspects of the law. I cited three laws in what he taught to show you that he did in fact teach from the law. You say he did not. And you say that because you have been taught that it is evil and you trying to save yourself if you obey anything in the law of Moses. That is ridiculous.


And it is not necessary to teach the parts of the law that the people of God no longer HAVE to keep. It's just necessary to teach the parts that the people of God HAVE to keep-'love your neighbor as yourself', 'don't show favoritism', 'take care of widows and orphans', 'be opened handed toward the brother in need', etc. All of these James taught in his letter to the believing church.

You still do not get it, When you teach mulctiplication tables. You teach the WHOLE THING, you do not just MENTION a few things from it.

No, you do not have to teach all of the law. Christ's finished work on the cross propels the believer above and beyond what the Mosaic Feasts and Sabbaths sought to do for the people of God but could not do. You do not have to do what faith in Christ did for you already. Those parts of the law you do not have to literally do.

What Christ's work on the cross did not do for you, like 'do not steal', 'do not covet your neighbor's wife', etc., those you have to do. The believer must keep those laws, albeit, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Christ fulfilled the payment of guilt concerning those laws, but he did not keep them for you by dying on the cross. You have to do that part--through the power he gives.

It is simple. if you can not read here what the law was useful for. Thats on you.

I can read what the law is for very plainly:

"useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"-2 Timothy 3:16

How are you not able to see what Paul plainly says the law is useful for? You said Jesus and James did not teach the law. I showed you they did. It is useful for training in righteousness. James and Jesus both used it for that useful purpose. It's not you trying to save yourself by works for doing what the law says believers in Christ must do.

If you think you are stil under the tutor. all I can assume through scripture is you still have YET to come to christ.

The law no longer being a guardian hardly means we are now released from keeping laws like 'do not murder', 'do not steal', etc. In fact, faith in Christ makes it so you DO keep those laws. God gave us the power to now keep the law we could not before.

James used scripture to show those who had not yet come to christ, Yes, He was trying to use the tutor to those who needed it. (hearers of the word not doers of the word. ) but he was NOT teaching law.

No, he said, "My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus must not show favoritism."-James 2:1


See, he's telling his brothers and sisters who believe in Christ that they must keep the law to not show favoritism.

That bothers you because you have been indoctrinated by the church that not being under the law means you do not have to keep any of it.

If you still need the tutor. You have yet to place your faith in christ. and I suggest you repent.

This is the among the most absurd teachings in the church. That somehow I don't believe in Christ if I read a law in the OT and I obey it through the power of the Holy Spirit, and that Paul was wrong because the law is NOT useful for teaching and training in righteousness.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

No, he taught more than two aspects of the law. I cited three laws in what he taught to show you that he did in fact teach from the law. You say he did not. And you say that because you have been taught that it is evil and you trying to save yourself if you obey anything in the law of Moses. That is ridiculous.

My God Ralph the law is spread over a few books of the OT. and you want to sit there and say because someone mentioned 2 or 3 laws he TAUGHT LAW?

He used the law according to its purpose. TO SHOW THEM they NEEDED CHRIST.

Get over it man. Your WRONG.

And it is not necessary to teach the parts of the law that the people of God no longer HAVE to keep. It's just necessary to teach the parts that the people of God HAVE to keep-'love your neighbor as yourself', 'don't show favoritism', 'take care of widows and orphans', 'be opened handed toward the brother in need', etc. All of these James taught in his letter to the believing church.

dude the law came as one set. God did not break it up into pieces or sections, Legalists do this to tryu to enforce one aspect of the law. Yet it is a bad practice.

as paul said in Galatians, if your going to try to add one aspect of the law (in this case circumcision) your required to obey every jott and tittle (every word)

No, you do not have to teach all of the law. Christ's finished work on the cross propels the believer above and beyond what the Mosaic Feasts and Sabbaths sought to do for the people of God but could not do. You do not have to do what faith in Christ did for you already. Those parts of the law you do not have to literally do.

What Christ's work on the cross did not do for you, like 'do not steal', 'do not covet your neighbor's wife', etc., those you have to do. The believer must keep those laws, albeit, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Christ fulfilled the payment of guilt concerning those laws, but he did not keep them for you by dying on the cross. You have to do that part--through the power he gives.

Learn what it means to teach a subject man, You do not teach part of a subject and then claim you teach the subject.

What did Jesus do for me? He saved me from the curse of the law number 1. and number 2, He loved me, so I in turn can take that love and love him and others, AND IN THAT MANNER, and seeking after things of the spirit, I will live a morally righteous life which is pleasing nto God. Something the law NEVER could do. because it was NOT GIVEN for that purpose.

I can read what the law is for very plainly:

"useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"-2 Timothy 3:16

How are you not able to see what Paul plainly says the law is useful for? You said Jesus and James did not teach the law. I showed you they did. It is useful for training in righteousness. James and Jesus both used it for that useful purpose. It's not you trying to save yourself by works for doing what the law says believers in Christ must do.

Yet you totally ignore what Paul said about the law in particular.

I can read also. It is useful for "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"-2 Timothy
3:16

But it also must be taken in context. the law is just part of the word and it was given for a specific purpose. which I showed you, and I am sure to soon find out you twisted that also.

The law no longer being a guardian hardly means we are now released from keeping laws like 'do not murder', 'do not steal', etc. In fact, faith in Christ makes it so you DO keep those laws. God gave us the power to now keep the law we could not before.

I never said otherwise did I? You and your stupid strawman excuses are really getting on people nerves. Can you for one second sit and try to understand what people are saying instead of spouting off in untruths about what they are saying?

The law required PERFECTION. Are you PERFECT? If not the LAW CURSED YOU.

It does not mean you can go around breaking commands, It means the command (as given) was there to prove your guilt. Because NO ONE CAN KEEP EVERY JOT AND TITTLE.

The CURSE of the law was nailed to the cross. Thats why we are no longer under law. IT CAN NEVER AGAIN CURSE US FOR NOT BEING PERFECT

No, he said, "My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus must not show favoritism."-James 2:1


See, he's telling his brothers and sisters who believe in Christ that they must keep the law to not show favoritism.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA (I am sorry, I am really laughing, so I figured I would show it.

No, he is not telling them they must keep the law. Wow man what a joke, He is telling them they should not show favoritism. Not everyone he is talking to is saved for one, Some were hearers of the word not doers. Their faith was dead, they were never saved.

How do you not show favoritism? By obeying the law?? HA HA HA HA HA!! NO!!

BY LOVING THEM!! (THE LAW OF LOVE)

That bothers you because you have been indoctrinated by the church that not being under the law means you do not have to keep any of it.

No your the one bothered by truth, because you have been shown we become morally good by obeying the law of moses, not the law of Christ (love).

Good luck with that, Been there done that, It failed to do its job, because the purpose of the law in that context was misused.

This is the among the most absurd teachings in the church. That somehow I don't believe in Christ if I read a law in the OT and I obey it through the power of the Holy Spirit, and that Paul was wrong because the law is NOT useful for teaching and training in righteousness.

The most obsurd teaching in the church is that we become morally good people by obeying the law. (which was not its purpose. nor does it have the ability to do it, as JESUS PROVED in his sermon on the mount) Not by learning to take focus of self (flesh) and placing it on God and all people (love)

 

[Shamah]

anti Law people can only quote Paul they have not another writer to support their stance.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2 Peter/Kepha 3:15-17, "and reckon the patience of our Master as deliverance, as also our beloved brother Paul/Sha’ul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, as also in all his letters, speaking in them concerning these matters, in which some are hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the other Scriptures. You, then, beloved ones, being forewarned, watch, lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the delusion of the lawless, but grow in the favor and knowledge of our Master and Savior [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהושע [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Messiah. To Him be the esteem both now and to a day that abides. Awmiĕn.”[/FONT]


Do they twist the word?

 

[JaumeJ]

The more the lawless ones post against the law, the more I feel Yeshua's eternal mercy and grace for we who believe Him cannot be lawless ince He is fulfilling us as we walk in His manner, amen.

anti Law people can only quote Paul they have not another writer to support their stance.
2 Peter/Kepha 3:15-17, "and reckon the patience of our Master as deliverance, as also our beloved brother Paul/Sha’ul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, as also in all his letters, speaking in them concerning these matters, in which some are hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the other Scriptures. You, then, beloved ones, being forewarned, watch, lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the delusion of the lawless, but grow in the favor and knowledge of our Master and Savior יהושע Messiah. To Him be the esteem both now and to a day that abides. Awmiĕn.”


Do they twist the word?