Did Jesus ever tell us that we no longer need to keep the law of Moses?
- Thread starter Marcelo
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I saw no insincere motives, just questionable methods. Not questionable in a moral sense, just in what is most effective, open, sincere. Thanks
Perhaps the matter can best be settled with the definition;
Thayer Definition:
1) suffocate, strangled
1a) what is strangled, i.e. an animal deprived of life without the shedding of blood
The presumption of a strangled animal is that it has not been bled out before butchering.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
You bet ya,I'll hold you to your own words here. Fair?
And when someone who believes as you do does it, can you call them out also?
What do think Paul means by I die daily? I think he means that he does the will of God rather than his own will. If God says go to Rome, he goes to Rome for example.
"All the things..."?
............smh.
Yes. Then it's something worse. It would suggest the apostles made concessions to followers under their authority (because they were pharisees) by telling newly converted gentiles to obey rules from the Talmud.
It would mean these are the following instructions to gentile converts:
1. Dietary law from Moses' law ("eat no food with blood")
2. Obey two laws from the Talmud
...That's an even worse position than where we started dont you think? because the whole argument against circumcision is it "judaizes" gentiles and rejects Christ. And yet you're suggesting the resulting conclusion is to make gentiles twofold judaized (Moses & Talmud)??
And that still leaves the original argument against us, that we're trying to judaize by obeying some laws after Salvation, using Galatians to say we're ALSO denying Christ, even though that's what the apostles did in acts 15.
I've reported, not interpreted. It's a fact that can be verified that the apostles gave dietary laws. You've interpreted some as not Torah and possibly Talmud, not me...
And if all things are clean and the point isn't to make fellow believers stumble, then there wouldn't need to be any dietary laws given to new gentiles believers at all, whether from Torah or (as you suggest) Talmud, right? So no it doesn't jive.
----
So this brings us back to the issue at hand: if what the apostles did regarding laws after salvation was reasonable to instruct gentiles to do, what's the difference between their position and ours? Or were the apostles in error for their instruction?
Something else is going on here.
No more than you can for those who believe as you do when they commit the act. We're not omnipresence. This is an agreement between us
If you think that's an attack then something's wrong EG. That's called sarcasm.
How else do you mean what you've said then what you've said?
Please define "pushing you" for me then? What would constitute "pushing you"?
NayborBear
Banned Serpent Seed Heresy
Why do you ask me? You think perhaps I am God? The "anti-christ?"
News Flash! I'm NEITHER!
Wouldn't asking God Himself concerning those sin/s that love for him DOESN'T cover, be what behooves (motivates) the believer to seek out within one's (individually) as well as ones (corporately) self, and "enterprising's?"
The answer/s? May well cause a reduction of a certain "wise ones, in their OWN conceitedness", in "milky's", that have puffed themselves up, who fancy themselves as being "teachers of the law?"
I can say with "certainty", that this was the reason/s, when Paul taught? He spoke of such things as "Mysteries!"
As believers are so want that strong meat be "chewed up" before ingesting, that, when, not if, matters go south, or not as one would, or has been "taught"(traditions of man) to expect, they would have SOMEONE ELSE to hang their accountability on? In their effort/s in ABSOLVING, or distancing themself/ves from?
Much like Adam did when he tried distancing himself from his accountability, in the "garden of Eden" incident. when he pointed his finger at Lord God, and BLAMED HIM, for giving him "the woman?"
Just like believers HANG their OWN accountability ON the cross of Christ! NEVER to be taken away!
Tis 1 thing to be "IN Christ", who was crucified!
Tis QUITE ANOTHER, to be "Crucified WITH Christ!" EVERY DAY!
Like THIS!
Isaiah 28
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
For God (the Father) is VERY SLOW to anger! Tis the "carnal/natural" man, within us all that gets ANGRY!
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Amen
To me it is agreeing and serving others, and sacrificing doing for self
In your example, a work of the flesh would be an attitude of i do not want to go to rome, there is nothing for me there and how can i have to much i need to do here
Where as dieing to self says i will gomto rome and trust god to take care of my needs here and there, its not about me
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
I have called them out when they do that, go ahead and ask them
And i do not see them refusing to respond
So your hurting your own case already
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Sarcasm, a slight remark used to attack ones character.
More denial? You could have just said what you said without that sarcasm, but it was too tempting right?
How often do you want me on CC? Around the clock or just when certain people post? Who are those people? Should I follow all of the people who you perceive agree with me on every issue? If so, you have a list?
These are questions just to prove my point.
Instead of making a simple agreement between us to not be confrontational, you want me also to bear the responsibility of everyone else who you've grouped with me. And yet that somehow hurts my case for *my* agreement with you?
Why all of the song and dance? wouldn't this be considered dodging?
Give and ye shall receive EG. You haven't defined what would constitute "pushing you". You told me to simply ask and so I have but you're not answering the question. Would this be considered dodging too?
This is derailing this thread when a simple "I agree" would've been sufficient.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
I will point them out to you,
If i remember right you have liked some of their posts, so you should have seen it
But we will see, as you said, i will hold you to it
Ps, i never claimed to be innocent.. so i would not assume things without asking first
Are they going to deliver you up to the synagogues because you claim to keep the law?
Or because you tell them point blank "I am not under law. I am dead to the law. I am alive to Christ"
I don't think you've thought this all the way through.
Or in typical legalist fashion you don't understand the very scriptures that you post...
What are you talking about? I don't want to assume what you're talking about. It would also help if you didn't speak in code, and just flat out said what you mean. One wouldn't need to assume in that case.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
I am sorry, I did not know I was being deceptive.
I mean when someone (like say you) says give and ye shall recieve, and the person responded to admits he is not innocent. I would think it is easy to understand what they were agreeing to.
To me it seems your just looking again to try to belittle th epwerson you are discussing with.. But its ok, i am used to it.. It does notaffect me either way. I try to share it so maybe others will see that they are doing, and most of the time they think I say it because I am mad..lol
I asked the question because people (including yourself I believe) are using Romans 10 to say that a believer can lose his salvation if he commits certain sins or habitually commits certain sins or commits willful sins. That IS NOT the context of Romans 10.
Romans 10 is as you say "meat". Meat doesn't contradict milk.
Milk says:
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Salvation is by grace alone and works play not part in salvation. Your side is flipping Romans 10 upside down and trying to make it say something that it doesn't to support works salvation.
Like I said earlier, the Carnal Mind thinks very highly of itself and thinks it can keep spiritual laws.
Now, first off, you are NOT an Apostle sent by God to the gentiles to teach them what Christianity is and what it isn't. Right? That was already done 2000 yrs ago.
Secondly, it was already decided, by the REAL Apostles which carnal laws the Gentiles would follow in order to be in fellowship with the Pharisees that believed.
The Pharisees were probably saying we can't be in fellowship with these brute beasts that follow no law. We have to circumcise and make them follow Moses so they will be clean and righteous, like us.
So after a bunch of arguing and a bunch of explaining, Peter said to the Pharisees "Why do you tempt God to put a yoke on the Gentile brothers that neither we (Apostles and Pharisees) nor our fathers (Ancestors up to and including Moses) were able to bear?
So the Pharisees probably pretty much had to agree with that one. But still, a Pharisee isn't going to let go of the law that easy. They must have said "Well at the very least make them stop fornicating and eating meat sacrificed to idols." So that seemed to be OK in the eyes of the Apostles and the Pharisees so that the Gentiles and Pharisees could fellowship in Christ.
And it doesn't seem to be too much to me either.
So, here we have a couple laws, that were given 2000 yrs ago to Gentiles in order to fellowship with Pharisees.
What is not said, or taught, by any of the Apostles, in any Epistle, is that future Pharisees can take it upon themselves to choose any laws that they think are good ones and start applying it to All Christians. What is not said or taught is that its a good idea to go back to the law and pick and choose which ones you can work at carnally and which ones should be tucked away for awhile.
What is taught by the the Apostles in their Epistles is that the error of the wicked is falling from their steadfastness in Christ and instead going back to work at the law.
So I suppose I would be very careful in taking Authority upon myself to teach that its fine to go back to the law and work at ALL your favorites, just like you mistakenly think the Apostles did. You know what I'm saying?
Eternally-gratefull, you misunderstand. If I did ^^the above^^ and responded to what i thought you meant it would be making another assumption, which you just finished accused me of doing.
But then saying, "it should be easy to understand", makes my lack of assumption the new issue...which you've then assumed as another attack against you (i.e. belittling).
I can only conclude that either:
A) The position you want me in is a constant state of imbalance. Shifting sands. Where I'm virtually walking on eggshells. Or..
B) You're dealing with issues within yourself that are playing themselves out with me.
Either way, this is untenable. So I can't worry about what you perceive me to be doing.
Yah knows our hearts either way.