Did Jesus ever tell us that we no longer need to keep the law of Moses?

[SimpleGardner]

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:

Very important aspect of our daily life is our daily death!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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.

You can never have a normal conversation can you?

My issue is trying to deal with people who have no grasp of what it means to discuss. Who refuse to acknowledge when they have made a mistake. And can not grasp normal communication.

1. You made a comment (basically saying you do the same things,
2. I. Replied. I never claimed I was innocent.

ITS NOT THaT HARD!!

 

[SimpleGardner]

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.

Does EG have their score for the day?

 

[SimpleGardner]

Are you angry at the commandments that I find lovely or the ones that I tell you, you have to keep?

Because if you don't like my desire not to Murder, or Steal etc you won't change that. If you are mad because I think they are wrong for you to do then that is just too bad. And did i tell you not to murder today, yesterday, day before? What's the beef?

You make your choices and You deal with the consequences. That's the walk....choose carefully.

 

[Grandpa]

Are they?

Where is no-strangled-meat and where is no-food-that-has-been-blessed-by-idols in the Law?

I'm trying to determine if this is 'because you say so' or if it's actually true.

I looked. I can't find it. Show me the verses, please?

I didn't go look through all the laws to see if these even were ACTUAL laws.

I assumed they were.

Pretty funny that they don't even end up being OT Laws...

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Does EG have their score for the day?

Can you answer peoples questions yet? Or are you too afraid still?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Are you angry at the commandments that I find lovely or the ones that I tell you, you have to keep?

Because if you don't like my desire not to Murder, or Steal etc you won't change that. If you are mad because I think they are wrong for you to do then that is just too bad. And did i tell you not to murder today, yesterday, day before? What's the beef?

You make your choices and You deal with the consequences. That's the walk....choose carefully.

You do not understand people at all. If you did you would not make such comments.

Is it really so hard for you for a minute to sit down and listen to someone and try to understaind them without getting offended and using this same old argument about how we hate Gods commands? Or is this just to hard?

By the way Yahshua, here is your oportunity. This person just lied about people just because they disagree with him

Are you going to call him out?

 

[Yahshua]

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?

It doesn't matter what you accuse me of doing or what you call me or what warning you give me, you're still not addressing the apparent conflict between your view of galatians and what the apostles did. They gave "carnal laws" (your words) to gentiles after salvation, to fellowship with pharisees??

You said one can not work at the law after salvation, not even one law.

Stop trying to shoot the messenger when your issue is with the events of acts chapter 15 in relation to your understanding of galatians.

The fact of the matter is, if a "future pharisee" (derogatory as it is to called me) taught not to eat meat with blood in it to believers, they would be teaching the very same law the apostles instructed the gentiles believers to follow in the first century. The very same.

...and yet you say it's reasonable for the apostles to do it, because "they're the apostles!" To heck with galatians at that point? What happened to "who have bewitched you..."?

Truth is truth. It doesn't matter who they are or who I am. Only truth matters. It doesn't change from one person to the next. "Thy word is truth".

Are you a respecter of persons or a lover of truth?

There's a different understanding to be found here.

 

[NayborBear]

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...

Oh Con'traire Gandpa!
When one "delves" into that which "love" doesn't cover?
You shall, NOT "may" be "delivered" to the "synagouges!"
It is at this time? The Holy Spirit will "instruct" one as to what to say!
Only requirement? One HAS to SAY it!
This is what separates the "sheep", and that which sheep teach from the Priests! And, that which Priests teach!
And, this is where it starts "feeling" like a "woman in travail."
As the Father "beaming with happiness" exclaims to one afterwards in a rewarding fashion: "Now that wasn't so hard, was it?" "You did it!"
Actually? It's not AS hard, as it is just DOWNRIGHT "bare-boned" SCARY! Standing there by your lonesome, staring down in the very pit of hell!

I cannot "connect the dots" for you! Or ANYONE!

I can only testify and bare witness to "the DOTS?" Are THERE! As the Father reveals them to one!

So? Please! Tell me AGAIN! I don't "understand" the very scriptures I post!

 

[Grandpa]

It doesn't matter what you accuse me of doing or what you call me or what warning you give me, you're still not addressing the apparent conflict between your view of galatians and what the apostles did. They gave "carnal laws" (your words) to gentiles after salvation, to fellowship with pharisees??

You said one can not work at the law after salvation, not even one law.

Stop trying to shoot the messenger when your issue is with the events of acts chapter 15 in relation to your understanding of galatians.

The fact of the matter is, if a "future pharisee" (derogatory as it is to called me) taught not to eat meat with blood in it to believers, they would be teaching the very same law the apostles instructed the gentiles believers to follow in the first century. The very same.

...and yet you say it's reasonable for the apostles to do it, because "they're the apostles!" To heck with galatians at that point? What happened to "who have bewitched you..."?

Truth is truth. It doesn't matter who they are or who I am. Only truth matters. It doesn't change from one person to the next. "Thy word is truth".

Are you a respecter of persons or a lover of truth?

There's a different understanding to be found here.

It appears that what the Apostles gave to the Gentiles, in order for them to fellowship with Pharisees, wasn't even from the Law.

So the point you are trying to make has no basis and the point I was making to you does.


So do you change the meaning of scripture in order to continue to push your error?

Or do you admit that what you are charging the Apostles of is not True?

 

[Yahshua]

You can never have a normal conversation can you?

My issue is trying to deal with people who have no grasp of what it means to discuss. Who refuse to acknowledge when they have made a mistake. And can not grasp normal communication.

1. You made a comment (basically saying you do the same things,
2. I. Replied. I never claimed I was innocent.

ITS NOT THaT HARD!!

This is more code-speak. If you mean me then say me not people, else I'll have to assume again.

One thing is clear and I think you may agree with me on this at least: i can have a normal conversation with others but apparently not you, and you can have a normal conversation with others but apparently not me.

....So i think we have our solution to our communication problem starting us in the face.

Be blessed.

 

[Grandpa]

Oh Con'traire Gandpa!
When one "delves" into that which "love" doesn't cover?
You shall, NOT "may" be "delivered" to the "synagouges!"
It is at this time? The Holy Spirit will "instruct" one as to what to say!
Only requirement? One HAS to SAY it!
This is what separates the "sheep", and that which sheep teach from the Priests! And, that which Priests teach!
And, this is where it starts "feeling" like a "woman in travail."
As the Father "beaming with happiness" exclaims to one afterwards in a rewarding fashion: "Now that wasn't so hard, was it?" "You did it!"
Actually? It's not AS hard, as it is just DOWNRIGHT "bare-boned" SCARY! Standing there by your lonesome, staring down in the very pit of hell!

I cannot "connect the dots" for you! Or ANYONE!

I can only testify and bare witness to "the DOTS?" Are THERE! As the Father reveals them to one!

So? Please! Tell me AGAIN! I don't "understand" the very scriptures I post!

I just did.

Are they going to take you to the synagogues for claiming to keep the law? (hint: no)

Or for stating point blank "I am not under YOUR law, I am dead to the law, I am alive to Christ fully and trust in Him alone" (hint: yes)

I thought that would maybe marinate for a bit and you would see you misunderstood scripture. I guess not.

 

[Yahshua]

It appears that what the Apostles gave to the Gentiles, in order for them to fellowship with Pharisees, wasn't even from the Law.

Q1: Did the apostles instruct gentiles not to meat with blood in it at the council?

Q2: Is this from the law or not?

Q3: Does this violate what Paul says in Galstians, yes or no?

Q4: If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

This is more code-speak. If you mean me then say me not people, else I'll have to assume again.

One thing is clear and I think you may agree with me on this at least: i can have a normal conversation with others but apparently not you, and you can have a normal conversation with others but apparently not me.

....So i think we have our solution to our communication problem starting us in the face.

Be blessed.

Lol. Is this your response so you do not have to call your brother out

 

[posthuman]

-_-'

......


........


.....what happens when you hurl metal into a deer? How does it die?

Hey, but maybe you chase them down and use your bare hands, I dunno *shrugs*...

This is a rabbit trail. You're avoiding the greater point again. Will you address the greater point?

I'm not the one failing to address the point.

'do not eat strangled animals' and 'do not eat anything that has been waved before an idol' are not commands in the Sinai covenant law.

Rather, 1 Corinthians 10 informs us about the rationale behind the councils recommendations to the gentiles.

Unless you think Paul is an heretic?

 

[Grandpa]

Q1: Did the apostles instruct gentiles not to meat with blood in it at the council?

Q2: Is this from the law or not?

Q3: Does this violate what Paul says in Galstians, yes or no?

Q4: If so, why? If not, why not?

Acts 15:24-29
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

What is it in Galatians that you think is in violation? Is it this one;

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.


The Holy Spirit gave no greater burden than those necessary things. So by following those necessary things given by the Holy Spirit, and ONLY those necessary things, a person wouldn't be in violation, and Paul either, by quoting Galatians 3:10


I think Galatians 3:10 is meant ESPECIALLY for the Pharisees who would try to pick and choose which laws they liked and which they don't.

So that when they did that they would be under the curse of following all of it.


But I don't think a Christian would be under the curse of the law for not eating meat offered to idols, or blood or abstaining from fornication. I think these 3 things are reasonable. And even if I didn't the Holy Spirit thinks they are reasonable, therefore, they are reasonable.

And conversely, the Holy Spirit didn't give any Greater Burden than those necessary things. So to add to those necessary things out of the law would then put you in the area of the curse.

 

[NayborBear]

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.

You either are ignorant of, or purposely (willingly) ignorant of what's being discussed here.
You are speaking of the "salvation" that is an "everlasting" salvation!

If you do not understand that there was (at least) 1 earth/heaven age BEFORE this one?
You will never understand the "difference" from an "everlasting salvation", and "eternal salvation."
Jesus, His Disciples, the Apostles HAVE this "Eternal salvation!"

Because? The "Fullness of the Gentiles?" It's nigh on "being fulfilled!"

I CAN'T stop it from coming? Nor, do I even wish to!

YOU, can't STOP it from coming? Nor, SHOULD you wish to!

ALL the demons and godless and lawless spirits, AND "entities", CAN'T stop it from coming! TRY AS THEY DO!

The "carnal man", like the "energizer bunny?" Wants this present earth/heaven age to just "keep going, and going, and going!

News flash! It's not gonna keep going, and going, and going!

Stop teaching that which is everlasting salvation ONLY!

Start teaching that which "merges" INTO eternal salvation! If one can, that is!

 

[Yahshua]

I'm not the one failing to address the point.

'do not eat strangled animals' and 'do not eat anything that has been waved before an idol' are not commands in the Sinai covenant law.

Rather, 1 Corinthians 10 informs us about the rationale behind the councils recommendations to the gentiles.

Unless you think Paul is an heretic?

Did the apostles instruct the gentiles not to eat blood at the council?

 

[KJV1611]

I'm not the one failing to address the point.

'do not eat strangled animals' and 'do not eat anything that has been waved before an idol' are not commands in the Sinai covenant law.

Rather, 1 Corinthians 10 informs us about the rationale behind the councils recommendations to the gentiles.

Unless you think Paul is an heretic?

Paul gives us the reason why we should not eat meat offered to idols and it has nothing to do with the law or dietary reasons - it's for the conscience of the weak so that the stronger doesn't offend the weaker.

1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
1Co_8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

 

[Yahshua]

But I don't think a Christian would be under the curse of the law for not eating meat offered to idols, or blood or abstaining from fornication. I think these 3 things are reasonable. And even if I didn't the Holy Spirit thinks they are reasonable, therefore, they are reasonable.

So then you don't think a Christian would be under the curse of the law for obeying certain laws you and the Holy Spirit deem are reasonable?