GOD'S SABBATH AND THE REAL TRUTH OF COL 2:14-17 WHO DO WE BELIEVE GOD or MAN?

[PS]

Who will save me from this body of death?
Praise God, Jesus Christ!
therefore there is no more condemnation for anyone who is found in Him.

However if it's only with reference to a pre salvation past, then at this moment & all future moments, buddy you'd better be 100% perfect, heart mind and flesh at all times. Which is no salvation at all

Not a problem:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (Joh 10:27-28 KJV)

 

[posthuman]

Not a problem:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (Joh 10:27-28 KJV)

He must be judging His sheep based on whether or not they are His sheep, rather than whether or not they get themselves lost, stuck in brambles, dirty, injured, or sick, huh?

 

[beta]

Thank You, Beta, for sharing your Love and wisdom and understanding with such grace -
it's greatly appreciated...


JOHN 8:28.
Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up The Son of man, then shall ye know that I Am He,
and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father hath taught Me, I speak these things.

13:15.
For I have given you an Example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

I am glad the Lord gave me something to say that was of benefit to you. God bless you !

 

[PS]

He must be judging His sheep based on whether or not they are His sheep, rather than whether or not they get themselves lost, stuck in brambles, dirty, injured, or sick, huh?

The Good Shepherd knows His sheep whether they are lost, stuck in brambles, dirty, injured, or sick, just providing the are not goats, or worse still, goats pretending to be sheep.

And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. (Mat 25:32-33 KJV)

 

[Endoscopy]

You are right that I don't know Greek. But I can gather enough to see that, as you said, Romans 7 is definitely not written in a form of past tense.

What you point out about the tense indicating present, ongoing action/status ((rather than a simple present)) is an even bigger obstacle to interpreting what he writes as being in reference to singularly past events, isn't it?

I'm familiar with the common view that Paul is purely talking about past struggle and failures w/regard to sin here, and I understand the motivation for wishing to read and teach it this way, but as much as I can ((dimly, for sure)) make from the Greek, just by simple research, the grammar in the text really doesn't support that view.

Is that correct?

To me it is part present and past tense. But I have no idea about what the Greek tenses are. This is a problem not being able to read it in the ancient Judean Greek. Jews modify any language they use bringing in Hebrew concepts and words. Yiddish for example is Judean German.

 

[Blik]

It is clear from the text that he's writing about the old covenant, and the supplanting of it with a new. And nowhere in scripture is any covenant spoken of as being made up of distinguishable compartments such that one part can be broken and the others remain. That is a purely human, modern tradition imagined by those who wish to go back to a ministry of death and to pharisetically judge others by a covenant they are not partakers of.

See the last 463 pages? All their arguments hinge on supposing they are able to break one part of the Law and not be guilty of all of it. *poof* it's vapid. Baseless.

I do not follow the current church thinking that says that when God gave us the law through the Jews it was all wrong and only rules. The very letters and words of the Hebrew language operates on many levels at once, when it gives the literal it also has a spiritual meaning. When the law in the old testament says "do not kill" that directive for us in Hebrew is not just refraining from the act of killing, it includes the spiritual meaning of killing. Yet in the mind of the church today they insist on putting their meaning in the words, not the meaning the Lord gave.

I also have a problem with the idea that when God makes a covenant with us it can be broken. If the same people who believe that sign a contract with another human they believe it cannot be broken, yet they are sure the Lord breaks His covenant with us if it is old and God issues a new one. But then I have read that the old covenant that God made with us was that we could earn salvation through obedience, and that is plain not understanding the covenant God made of Mt Sinai. That covenant promises blessings (not salvation) for obedience.

Salvation has never been given to us by law obedience, not from the beginning of our time.

 

[Endoscopy]

I do not follow the current church thinking that says that when God gave us the law through the Jews it was all wrong and only rules. The very letters and words of the Hebrew language operates on many levels at once, when it gives the literal it also has a spiritual meaning. When the law in the old testament says "do not kill" that directive for us in Hebrew is not just refraining from the act of killing, it includes the spiritual meaning of killing. Yet in the mind of the church today they insist on putting their meaning in the words, not the meaning the Lord gave.

I also have a problem with the idea that when God makes a covenant with us it can be broken. If the same people who believe that sign a contract with another human they believe it cannot be broken, yet they are sure the Lord breaks His covenant with us if it is old and God issues a new one. But then I have read that the old covenant that God made with us was that we could earn salvation through obedience, and that is plain not understanding the covenant God made of Mt Sinai. That covenant promises blessings (not salvation) for obedience.

Salvation has never been given to us by law obedience, not from the beginning of our time.

You must use the KJV. The correct modern English is You shall not commit murder. In 1611 the word kill meant murder. There is a significant difference. That is the problem with the KJV translation. It is 400 years of language changes out of date. Here are sites discussing the problem with KJV.

KJV Issues

https://ehrmanblog.org/problems-with-the-language-of-the-king-james-version/

https://newrepublic.com/article/107222/making-it-new

King James Version issues

Is Your Modern Translation Corrupt? - Christian Research Institute

Why the KJV CANNOT be the only true and correct translation of God's Word.

https://www.gotquestions.org/different-gospel.html

The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible: An Interview with Mark Ward
Jonathan Petersen
March 13, 2018

https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2...pJobID=1362532267&spReportId=MTM2MjUzMjI2NwS2

 

[Endoscopy]

Stupid insane 5 minute rule!!
Originally God required a sacrifice every year for the forgiveness of sins. The best sacrifice was an unblemished lamb. Jesus being without sin became our unblemished Lamb of God.

 

[Studyman]

=PS;3582536]1.

Paul was a godly Jew under the law and believed himself to be blameless.

I disagree with this whole premise for the following reasons. I have shown the scriptures which expose this before.

Paul was a Pharisee who murdered innocent people who didn't follow THEIR RELIGIOUS Traditions which were "Commandments of men". He was not a "Godly Jew". As to the Law of the Pharisees, yes, he followed it perfectly.

2. But after his conversion he perceived the law to be "spiritual" (Rom 7:14) and not physical. Therefore all his law keeping had been in vain and instead of being blameless he was actually condemned by the law. (Rom 7:10)

Because you adhere to your religious foundation that is false, ie; Paul was a "Godly Jew", this also is a false statement because he was not a "Law keeper" as was Zechariahs, but a "Law Transgressor" as were the mainstream preachers of his time. His "law keeping wasn't in vain as you preach, because he wasn't a "law keeper". His "worship" was in vain.

Matt. 15: "they worship Me in vain, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men".

Paul teaches a little leaven, leavens the whole lump. You preaching in this matter is a perfect example of this truth. Because you believe a lie "the Pharisees were obeying God", everything built on this belief is also a lie. "Paul was a Godly Jew".

3. When Paul understood this he entered a third phase in which he now knew he was "dead to the law by the body of Christ," (Rom 7:4) and by the power of the indwelling Spirit was, "free from the law of sin and death" (Rom 8:2) while at the same time, "the righteousness of the law" was being wrought in him (not by him) through the indwelling spirit of Christ that resides in those who live according to the Spirit, and not according to human nature. (Rom 8:4)

Since your foundation is wrong, you are also mistaken about the rest of Paul's teaching. God's Law has always been spiritual, and those who "knew Him" like Zechariahs and Jesus, knew this. They knew the OT was written centuries ago for their admonition. Before Paul was a "Godly Jew", as a disobedient Pharisee, He didn't know this. When He converted and followed God's instructions instead of the Mainstream Church doctrines of His Time, He understood this as well. As did Zechariahs and Peter and all others who "Repent, Turn to God, and bring forth works worthy of repentance".

As Jesus promised in John 14 "And I will manifest Myself to them", that is, those who have His Commandments, and Keeps them. Paul didn't do this but Zechariahs did. this is why Paul didn't know Jesus when he came, but Zechariahs and the wise Men did.

(Romans 7 is the record of past conflicts and defeats as experienced by a man renewed under the new law in Christ.)

There is only ONE "Word which became Flesh", He didn't teach differently in the old testament than He did in the New.

Like His Gospel was to the Mainstream Preachers of His time, So also is His true teaching to the Mainstream Preachers of our time.

Not to the Zechariahs of our time, but to all those who "transgress the commandments of God by their own religious traditions.

 

[PS]

=PS;3582536]1.

I disagree with this whole premise for the following reasons. I have shown the scriptures which expose this before.

Paul was a Pharisee who murdered innocent people who didn't follow THEIR RELIGIOUS Traditions which were "Commandments of men". He was not a "Godly Jew". As to the Law of the Pharisees, yes, he followed it perfectly.

Paul was a "Godly Jew" in his opinion. Then he found the truth.

You argument falls flat.

 

[posthuman]

Philippians 3:6
as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

- Paul

 

[posthuman]

Philippians 3:6
as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

- Paul

Please note that the scripture uses the word "Law" here, whereas in studydudes version it apparently says "purely human pharisetical traditions"

???

 

[Endoscopy]

=PS;3582536]1.

I disagree with this whole premise for the following reasons. I have shown the scriptures which expose this before.

Paul was a Pharisee who murdered innocent people who didn't follow THEIR RELIGIOUS Traditions which were "Commandments of men". He was not a "Godly Jew". As to the Law of the Pharisees, yes, he followed it perfectly.


Because you adhere to your religious foundation that is false, ie; Paul was a "Godly Jew", this also is a false statement because he was not a "Law keeper" as was Zechariahs, but a "Law Transgressor" as were the mainstream preachers of his time. His "law keeping wasn't in vain as you preach, because he wasn't a "law keeper". His "worship" was in vain.

Matt. 15: "they worship Me in vain, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men".

Paul teaches a little leaven, leavens the whole lump. You preaching in this matter is a perfect example of this truth. Because you believe a lie "the Pharisees were obeying God", everything built on this belief is also a lie. "Paul was a Godly Jew".


Since your foundation is wrong, you are also mistaken about the rest of Paul's teaching. God's Law has always been spiritual, and those who "knew Him" like Zechariahs and Jesus, knew this. They knew the OT was written centuries ago for their admonition. Before Paul was a "Godly Jew", as a disobedient Pharisee, He didn't know this. When He converted and followed God's instructions instead of the Mainstream Church doctrines of His Time, He understood this as well. As did Zechariahs and Peter and all others who "Repent, Turn to God, and bring forth works worthy of repentance".

As Jesus promised in John 14 "And I will manifest Myself to them", that is, those who have His Commandments, and Keeps them. Paul didn't do this but Zechariahs did. this is why Paul didn't know Jesus when he came, but Zechariahs and the wise Men did.


There is only ONE "Word which became Flesh", He didn't teach differently in the old testament than He did in the New.

Like His Gospel was to the Mainstream Preachers of His time, So also is His true teaching to the Mainstream Preachers of our time.

Not to the Zechariahs of our time, but to all those who "transgress the commandments of God by their own religious traditions.

And here I thought only your view of eschatology was flawed. This post goes way beyond this. You try to prove a point with single verses. That is flawed because the verse isn't in context. Here is the verse in Romans 7 in context.

Romans 7 NIV

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

 

[PS]

Lights out for me. I will catch up in the morning.

 

[Blik]

Stupid insane 5 minute rule!!
Originally God required a sacrifice every year for the forgiveness of sins. The best sacrifice was an unblemished lamb. Jesus being without sin became our unblemished Lamb of God.

God STILL asks for a sacrifice, and His Son became that sacrifice.

 

[Studyman]

Paul was a "Godly Jew" in his opinion. Then he found the truth.

You argument falls flat.

Your quote.

Paul was a godly Jew under the law and believed himself to be blameless.

Paul was not a Godly Jew. He was a Pharisee. He was Blameless as to the traditions of his fathers. Who also were not Godly. Because when they knew God, they did not Glorify Him as God, and became vain in their imaginations, as Paul describes.

The preaching that the Pharisees were "obeying the Letter of the Law" is widespread, but false just the same, If the Bible is your source of information. I/2 of one sentence from Paul, taken out of context, does not change all his other words, or all the scriptures which tell us the Pharisees were "NOT GODLY, but taught for doctrines the commandments of Men.

My argument does not fall flat. Your statement. "Paul was a godly Jew under the law and believed himself to be blameless"

is not representative of the Bibles description of the Pharisee, or Paul before his conversion.

 

[Studyman]

And here I thought only your view of eschatology was flawed. This post goes way beyond this. You try to prove a point with single verses. That is flawed because the verse isn't in context. Here is the verse in Romans 7 in context.

Romans 7 NIV

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

What point was I trying to make that your post exposed?

And here I thought only your view of eschatology was flawed

Can you once again explain yourself here please?

 

[Endoscopy]

What point was I trying to make that your post exposed?



Can you once again explain yourself here please?

Your view of Paul. It is very flawed. I quoted him. That is what he became after following Jesus!! That is what you ignore. The before but mostly after. You dwell on the before and ignore the after!!!

 

[posthuman]

He was Blameless as to the traditions of his fathers.

ahem:

Philippians 3:6
as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

- Paul

when scripture says "the Law" it doesn't mean 'completely extra-scriptural & purely human-origin pharisetical traditions antithetical to the Law'

. . "the Law" means "the Law"

 

[posthuman]

Your view of Paul. It is very flawed. I quoted him. That is what he became after following Jesus!! That is what you ignore. The before but mostly after. You dwell on the before and ignore the after!!!

only in some cases, Endoscopy.

in the case of John 8, he pretends Christ has already died and the literal penalties in the Law should be interpreted 'spiritually'
... as though the before is after.
in the case of Colossians 2, he pretends Christ did not die, and that the Sinaitic Law has been placed on all believers to be strictly followed literally, saying 'spiritually' keeping new moon festivals, feast days, dietary laws and sabbath is damnable. exactly the opposite of what Colossians 2 actually says.
... as though the after is before.

at least i think he does.
i've asked him about 100 times about new moon festivals and never once gotten a response.
((maybe it's just about sabbath for him?))

but sometimes he dwells on the after when looking at the before, ignoring that it is actually 'before'