Jesus' plea for the Father's forgiveness from the cross - question.

shnarkle

Well-known member
The old covenant commandment was not to murder which one could do through even carnal willpower. Jesus' new commandment is to love which is from the heart.

That's not a new commandment. The difference is that it is kept perfectly in Christ. It's the same commandment.
But not just friendship love, but supernatural agape love from the divine nature.


Right. The whole point of Jesus coming was to take sin out of our nature.
No. the sinful nature is crucified altogether. "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:" Roman 8:3
The Sabbath was fulfilled by Jesus,

So were all the rest of God's laws.
which is why we don't keep the feast days of Leviticus 23.

And yet Paul explicitly enjoins that they be kept, e.g. "Christ is our Passover, therefore let us keep the feast" Moreover, the new testament Church is given the exact same oracles of God that were given to the children of Israel.

"This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:" Acts 7:38

To us?? Luke is addressing the New Testament Church.


Notice, the first holy convocation in that chapter is the Sabbath Day. Every covenant has a sign of the covenant. And if a covenant ends and is replaced, like a will and testament is replaced by the next will and testament, the sign of the old covenant ends with it.

The sign of the old covenant was not the Sabbath. It's also circumcision as well as all the other signs that accompany those who are observant. There is no law that says this is the only sign between God and his people. Again, this idea that the Sabbath is the only sign is nowhere to be found in scripture. There are all sorts of signs throughout the bible
You just believe the old covenant has continued. And therein lies your confusion.

Not at all. I'm pointing out what Paul says the distinction makes which is that under the old testament, one carried out by their own will and efforts, while the new is accomplished "by grace through faith, and that NOT of yourselves....etc"
The dietary laws changed a few times from the week of creation.
And?
If the first dietary law was perpetual, we would all be vegetarians, even the animals. But it changed after the flood.

No, it didn't, at least not with regards to what's clean and what isn't.
Flesh was introduced to both man and animals. In fact, even unclean meat was food as they are included in "everything that moves," except the life-blood.

You're taking that way out of context. Look at it again, and you should see that he includes a very important caveat which precludes that as a possibility. What he says is "just as I gave you the herb of the field...." Did God give them hemlock to eat, how about nightshade? See the problem yet?
Clean meat from the first sin was only for offerings to God.

Not really. You're not paying very close attention to what was allowed to be offered to God. Clean meat was not offered to God. The fat and entrails were offered to God, the meat was eaten.
Then to separate the Jews from the rest of mankind, God gave them dietary laws to eat only what was good enough for an offering for God.

Totally unbiblical. That's not even in the Oral law. Moses points out that they may eat together with the gentiles. The Talmud even goes so far as to allow them to eat out of the same bowl!! Your doctrines are completely unbiblical.
Unclean meat represented the Gentiles. And at first, the gospel went only to the Jews, God's chosen nation. Luke 2:34. But when God allowed the gospel to go to the Gentiles, He cleansed the unclean meats that represented them. Acts 10.

On the surface, it sounds nice, but it's nothing like the reality. Peter's vision is symbolic, and by definition, a Symbol is a substitution. Unclean animals are being substituted for gentiles. It doesn't then follow that unclean animals are gentiles. Peter provides the biblical interpretation, and nowhere does he ever then conclude that God has made unclean animals clean. Moreover, he simply points out that he is not to refer to gentiles as unclean. God didn't cleanse Symbols. he cleansed gentiles.
Now in 1 Tim. 4 we can eat previously unclean meat. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Let's take a look at that in context:

"Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving "

Created to be received? What animals did God create to be received? Swine? Nope. Shellfish? Nope. Unclean animals were not created to be received at all.

"of them which believe and know the truth."

The truth? Would that be the truth found within the pages of scripture? If so, then there is no place where it states unclean animals are clean.

"4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:"

Every creature? Are people created by God? Yep. Is it a coincidence that God told Peter, "kill and eat'? You yourself are pointing out that this is a direct reference to Gentiles, right?

"5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

The word of God? That is a direct reference to the Old Testament. The new testament didn't exist when this was written.
As far as the other laws such as against witchcraft, sexual perversions and such, they are still valid as Paul refers to them.

He doesn't refer to cannibalism, bestiality, and a number of other perversions, I'll not mention in polite company. Furthermore, by annulling the dietary laws specifically, the door is thrown wide open for cannibalism as that is the only set of laws that prohibits that from happening.
But the ceremonial, dietary, and sacrificial laws, as well as the covenant of the Ten Commandments engraved on stone Ex. 34:28 ended. Galatians 4:22-36

You're still conflating the commandments with the ceremonial law. They are not the same. There is nothing in that passage of Galatians that does away with the ten commandments or any of the commandments . What is being distinguished is the fact that the physical nature is incapable of keeping the law without the spiritual. works must be mixed with faith. What is done away is the sacrificial system, but that is only for those who no longer sin
It was a perpetual sign for only the nation of Israel and still is.

There is no other covenant than with Israel. You are either in that one or you're not. There is no place where the gentiles get their own covenant. They are brought into the covenant with God's people as I've already pointed out with Acts 7:38 etc.
But our covenant has a NEW SIGN for only the Jews and Gentiles that came into covenant with Jesus. We don't have two signs in the same covenant, only one.

There is only one sign, and that is keeping God's commandments, not just one. As Paul points out if you break one, you've broken them all.
Cutting off again.
 

CharismaticLady

Active member
Fallacy of the Non Sequitur. We're also called to be Christ's bride now, therefore we needn't remain married to another under the Old Covenant. See how that works? I can do this all day long with pretty much all of the commandments. I don't need to come up with doctrines that are nowhere to be found within God's word to do it either.
Re: Our rest is in Jesus.

They are the words of Jesus.

Matthew 10:
25 At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. 26 Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. 27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. 28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

Hebrews 4:
9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. 10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. (This does not just speak of creation week, but Christ's ministry and death and resurrection. It is finished.)

11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.

14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
Book, chapter and verse please. And please show how this applies to remaining faithful to one's spouse as well because I can make the exact same argument for any other commandment.
Re: letter vs. Spirit. (keeping the Sabbath day is by the letter, not the Spirit)

We are just talking about a commandment related to God, not each other, and are covered by loving one another.

Colossians 2:
13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, (the ministry of death and our carnal nature 2 Corinthians 3:6-11; 1 John 3:5) which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

As I recall, I believe you spoke of the sacrificial system being what was nailed to the cross, relating to this verse. That is not all that was fulfilled. The Ten Commandments pointed out our sin. But Jesus was manifest to take away our sin and in Him there is no sin, so the covenant of the written laws are what was nailed to the cross. The eternal laws of God and His nature are now in our nature.



And Jesus keeps the commandments. Not coincidently, so does Paul. Paul not only keeps the weekly Sabbath, but instructs his church to keep the feasts as well.
Re: keeping Jesus is by the Spirit and we become one with Christ as we abide in Him,

Jesus LIVED under the Old Covenant and laws. But He preached His New laws and covenant, but it couldn't come into effect until AFTER the death of the testator.

Just because Paul went to where the people gathered to preach, doesn't mean he was "keeping" the Sabbath.

These are what they added from the law for the Gentiles.

Acts 15:19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

Notice not clean meats only, nor keeping the Sabbath.

The blood of Jesus is an explicit reference to his sacrifice, not any commandments. The sacrifice was to atone for "transgressions" of the commandments, not for keeping them. There are no laws that forbid keeping God's commandments. Nor are there any that suggest they are abrogated or annulled. If so, where?
Re: 1 Cor. 11:25 the sign of the New Covenant.

Hebrews 7:
11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. 17 For He testifies:

“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”

18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

Galatians 3:
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?

(The Galatians were being harrassed by Judaizers telling them they must keep the works of the law to be saved. (circumcision, feasts, and Sabbaths.)

Galatians 4:
8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.

Galatians 5:
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
 
Last edited:

shnarkle

Well-known member
Re: Our rest is in Jesus.
Sure, but it doesn't then follow that we are instructed to profane the Sabbath, or ignore HIS Feast days. The Sabbath was made "FOR" man i.e. for our benefit. It was made before anyone ever sinned. Did Adam sin before God made the Sabbath? Nope. The sinless Adam walked with Christ on the Sabbath. He also worked in the garden before he sinned.

I don't know how to embolden text for emphasis so I employ all caps. I am not doing this as an attempt to "yell" or "yelling" I'm not getting flustered or bent out of shape over this. This screen doesn't convey how calm I am so I hope the caps don't suggest that I am getting upset or angry.
They are the words of Jesus.

Nowhere does he ever claim that profanation of the Sabbath is now acceptable. He isn't condoning breaking any laws
This does not just speak of creation week, but Christ's ministry and death and resurrection. It is finished.)

Most definitely! What was Christ's ministry??? Was it to come and profane the Sabbath? Wasn't it to save us from sin and death? Sin is transgression of the commandments, and his death atones for all sin. It is not an invitation to break any commandments.

I'm not emboldening the text here on purpose. The computer is doing it on its own. lol.

wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, (the ministry of death and our carnal nature

Again, the ministry of death is the "administration" administration of what? What was Moses administering? The commandments. It is the administration that is done away with, not what he was administering. The handwriting of ordinances that was against us is a direct reference to Deuteronomy 31:26 Pay close attention to what is INSIDE the ark of the covenant verses what is BESIDE the ark of the covenant. What is inside the ark of the covenant are the STONE tablets whereas what is beside the ark of the covenant was a SCROLL. The commandments are FOR our benefit while the scroll is there as a witness AGAINST our transgressions. There is no witness against anyone keeping the commandments. It is imperative that one remember the difference between keeping the commandments and breaking them.
2 Corinthians 3:6-11; 1 John 3:5) which was contrary to us.

The commandments are not contrary to us. This is especially the case with those who walk after the Spirit. What is contrary to sound doctrine? The commandments? Sound doctrine is based in the commandments of God. Sin is what is contrary to sound doctrine.
And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

Christ did not triumph over God's commandments. He triumphed over sin which is the transgression of God's law.
16 So let no one judge you

Again, note the context. Is he referring to the church??? Nope. Note the actual words. He is referring to the preceding "no man"
in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,

Note the word "regarding" To regard is the exact opposite of "disregarding" Who would have a problem with the church regarding the Sabbath? Who would have a problem with the church disregarding the Sabbath? Think about it.
17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

The manuscripts don't say, "but the substance is of Christ" What they say is "BUT the body of Christ" The word "but" indicates what follows is in contradistinction to what preceded it. Therefore, let no man judge But the church shall judge you. The body of Christ is the church, no?
As I recall, I believe you spoke of the sacrificial system being what was nailed to the cross, relating to this verse. That is not all that was fulfilled. The Ten Commandments pointed out our sin.

No, they didn't, and they don't point out sin. They point out what God's will is, and God's will is to KEEP the commandments, not transgress them. The SCROLL is what points out that they have sinned. There is no law against keeping God's commandments. If so, where?
But Jesus was manifest to take away our sin

Yep, and he doesn't do that by getting rid of the commandments. IF that were the case, then the commandments are capricious. There is nothing inherently wrong with eating swine. There is nothing inherently wrong with profaning the Sabbath. There is nothing inherently wrong with divorce or adultery, etc. etc. Jesus takes away sin by crucifying it "in the flesh", not be breaking the stone tablets just like Moses did.
and in Him there is no sin,

Very true! Therefore no one who is in Christ sins. Christ doesn't eat swine. Christ doesn't profane the Sabbath.
so the covenant of the written laws are what was nailed to the cross.

And which laws were written? Those that were placed "BESIDE" the Ark of the Covenant, and were "AGAINST" us, not the laws chiseled with the finger of God into "STONE" tables.
The eternal laws of God and His nature are now in our nature.

And those eternal laws are in keeping God's will, not disobeying it.
Re: keeping Jesus is by the Spirit and we become one with Christ as we abide in Him,

Jesus LIVED under the Old Covenant and laws.

And the bible points out that those who keep the commandments "will live". Those who don't must die.
But He preached His New laws and covenant, but it couldn't come into effect until AFTER the death of the testator.

Again, note what the author of the book of Hebrews has to say about that in Hebrews 9:15 Pay close attention to which sins are covered.
Just because Paul went to where the people gathered to preach, doesn't mean he was "keeping" the Sabbath.

Again, look at what Luke actually writes in the book of Acts. The people came to him on the Sabbath and asked him if he would be returning the following Sabbath. What a perfect opportunity for Paul to point out that he doesn't have to wait until the next Sabbath to preach. He can be there the very next day, on the day of the Lord's resurrection. He didn't do that, did he? Instead he said he would be back on the following Sabbath.
These are what they added from the law for the Gentiles.

They are not added. You need to look at the fact that this is exactly what any convert to Judaism would be required to do.
continued below...
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Acts 15:19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

Notice not clean meats only,

Clean meats only? Where do you get that from? Things strangled, and blood is a direct reference to the dietary laws. Would the elders of the church point out egregious transgressions committed by converts, or would they point out something that they weren't actually doing wrong? Is there any reason for them to point this out to them if they aren't eating things strangled or drinking blood? Of course not. They are being pointed out because that's what they 're actually doing.
nor keeping the Sabbath.

They don't have to caution them against keeping the Sabbath. LOL. If they aren't breaking the Sabbath then there's no reason to bring anything up.
Re: 1 Cor. 11:25 the sign of the New Covenant.

The sign of the new covenant doesn't do away with any of God's commandments. They are all observant Jews keeping their Jewish Passover. He says as often as you keep this Jewish Passover, remember me. That is explicitly what is going on. How does it then follow that they would all then think, "Oh, hey he's telling us to profane the Sabbath and start eating swine!" ???
Hebrews 7:
12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

A change in the law??? That's supposed to automatically do away with the Sabbath? How does that follow? You could just as easily say that the law against adultery was done away with as well. How about theft? Jesus did not think it robbery to claim equality with God means that we're all equal, therefore it isn't robbery to take what is rightfully ours which is anything we want. See how that works? Everything is Christ's. Everything was created for Christ and we are in Christ. Therefore everything is ours. What we're looking for is an actual verse that tells us that it is okay to profane the Sabbath, or that the Sabbath is done away. There are none, and you know it. What you're presenting are doctrines and traditions that annul God's commandments Mark 7: 1-19 refutes that doctrine or tradition.
13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.

Well if there is no sin, then there is no need to offer a sacrifice. See how that works?
14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.

Jesus' mother was Elizabeth's sister who was the wife of Zachariah. He was a Levitical priest and Levitical priests cannot marry outside of the tribe of Levi. They must marry full blooded Levites. That means Mary's mother was a full blooded Levite. QED.
15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. 17 For He testifies:

“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”

18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

Why was nothing made perfect? Was it because of the law? Nope. It was because of the sinful flesh which cannot keep the law. So sin was the problem, not the law. The law is not weak in killing sin. Sin is weak through disobedience to God's law.
Galatians 3:
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?

Crucified refers to the crucifixion which is the sacrifice for "transgressions" of the law, NOT KEEPING the law.
2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Faith to disobey or the keep the law?
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?

This isn't applicable to my position because I'm not suggesting that the flesh can be perfected, nor am I suggesting that anyone is saved by the works of the law. Strawman argument.
(The Galatians were being harrassed by Judaizers telling them they must keep the works of the law to be saved. (circumcision, feasts, and Sabbaths.)

False. Please document. What they were being told was that they were "justified" by the law, and no one is justified by the law. Just because no one is justified by the law, it doesn't then follow that the law is done away with. The law never justifies anyone regardless of which covenant you're looking at.
Galatians 4:
8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.

Galatians 5:
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
BINGO!!! Read it again until you see where he explicitly says "attempt to be justified by law" That's NOT MY POSITION. You are committing the fallacy of the Strawman argument. You are also committing the fallacy of the Non Sequitur because just because no one is justified by the law, it does not then follow that any laws are done away with.

What does he say in Romans 3? What profit is there in circumcision? "MUCH IN EVERYWAY, chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God" Again look at the PRIMARY reason. It is because they were given God's law that it is profitable to keep them. They are for our benefit. AGAIN, look at the fact that those EXACT same oracles were given to the church. As i pointed out already, and which you summarily ignored, Luke documents this fact in Acts 7:38 He points out that those oracles were given "to us" Again, Luke is speaking to the New Testament Church.
 

CharismaticLady

Active member
No. the sinful nature is crucified altogether. "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:" Roman 8:3

Exactly! We agree on this. And, my friend, I haven't found many who do agree with me on this! Maybe Galatians can help your understanding of what this fact means for us, and why those who are free from sin, are also free from the law. Now read these passages carefully and slowly. Let them sink in.

Galatians 3:
16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 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. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.

21 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. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Galatians 4: (two covenants - one from Mt. Sinai is Ismael, son of the flesh; the other by promise, Isaac. We are under Isaac, not Ismael.)
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are [g]the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written:

“Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.
 

CharismaticLady

Active member
The sign of the old covenant was not the Sabbath. It's also circumcision as well as all the other signs that accompany those who are observant. There is no law that says this is the only sign between God and his people. Again, this idea that the Sabbath is the only sign is nowhere to be found in scripture. There are all sorts of signs throughout the bible

No, as I said in the last post, in Galatians 3:17. Two different covenants, two different signs. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant with Abraham, and Jesus fulfilled that covenant, whereby we are no longer COMMANDED to circumcise our boys - it is now of the heart - or SPIRIT. And the covenant of the laws engraved on stone also came to an end when the eternal laws of LOVE were written on the heart. The Sabbath was the sign of the covenant of Ismael, the flesh. Exodus 31:13

Jesus is the end of the law. Romans 10:4
 

CharismaticLady

Active member
Clean meats only? Where do you get that from? Things strangled, and blood is a direct reference to the dietary laws.

No it isn't. This was BEFORE the law was given, and I already explained that to you.

Genesis 9:
3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
 

CharismaticLady

Active member
BINGO!!! Read it again until you see where he explicitly says "attempt to be justified by law" That's NOT MY POSITION. You are committing the fallacy of the Strawman argument. You are also committing the fallacy of the Non Sequitur because just because no one is justified by the law, it does not then follow that any laws are done away with.

What does he say in Romans 3? What profit is there in circumcision? "MUCH IN EVERYWAY, chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God" Again look at the PRIMARY reason. It is because they were given God's law that it is profitable to keep them. They are for our benefit. AGAIN, look at the fact that those EXACT same oracles were given to the church. As i pointed out already, and which you summarily ignored, Luke documents this fact in Acts 7:38 He points out that those oracles were given "to us" Again, Luke is speaking to the New Testament Church.

You are reading chapter 3 out of context of the whole teaching on the Law. The whole teaching is 8 chapters long, ending with the SPIRIT.

Romans 8:1-9
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be ]carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.
 

CharismaticLady

Active member
My friend, I need my tea, so will talk to you later. I hope you realize that by walking in the Spirit, and our whole nature changed to partake of the divine nature of God, we don't need a written law telling us to do something we do naturally. It is in our new nature to fulfill the righteous requirements of LOVE when filled with the God of LOVE. We no longer need a day to remind us. We worship Him everyday.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Exactly! We agree on this. And, my friend, I haven't found many who do agree with me on this! Maybe Galatians can help your understanding of what this fact means for us, and why those who are free from sin, are also free from the law. Now read these passages carefully and slowly. Let them sink in.

Not going to happen because the law that "was added because of transgressions" is not the commandments. The commandments are not added because of transgressions.

Where this is no law, there is no sin, right?

How can one transgress a commandment if it isn't there to begin with? You can't transgress laws that don't exist. There has to be a law to transgress before anyone can transgress it. Satan sinned long before the laws were codified on stone tablets. Codifying the law isn't necessary in order for someone to transgress God's law. Codification simply helps one to remember how to "keep" it.

Moreover, Lo and Behold, there actually are a whole list of laws that were specifically added to deal with actual transgressions of God's commandments. So why do we need to pretend that the commandments even can be used to deal with transgressions at all? For example, A man picks up sticks on the Sabbath. He has transgressed God's commandment. So what? The fourth commandment doesn't provide any remedy for transgressing it at all. The fourth commandment only articulates how to KEEP it.

The law that was added to deal with transgressing that specific commandment requires that those who BREAK that commandment be stoned to death. The commandment is FOR us as Christ affirmed, and the law that was added to deal with those who transgressed it was "a witness against us" When someone transgressed a commandment, Moses would retrieve the scroll from "BESIDE" the Ark and read the "curse", or "penalty". Sometimes there would be an offering or sacrifice, but all of those offerings and sacrifices couldn't remove anyone's sin. Only Christ's sacrifice removes anyone's sin, and that law that points to Christ's sacrifice is done away in Christ. That's the law that was "added".

When you have a law, and you add another law. You have two laws. When the law that was added is removed. What do you have left? You still have the original law you had to begin with.


19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Again, look up this term in the Greek. It has nothing to do with instruction. The tutor simply supervised the child, or motivated them to learn. When that tutor is no longer necessary, Paul points out that we have a much better form of motivation than before. Nowhere are the sound doctrines we're supposed to learn changed. Again, the only scriptures at that time were the Old Testament Hebrew scriptures. That's what they were explicitly referring to. Either God's commandments are sound doctrine or God is capricious.

The early church were all observant Jews who kept the Sabbath, dietary laws, etc. They would never have thought of excusing each other for being disobedient to God's law. God is not a respecter of persons. He does not forbid one member from profaning the Sabbath while condoning it in another. There are no double standards with God.

 

shnarkle

Well-known member
No, as I said in the last post,

I addressed and refuted you last post with your cited quotations.
in Galatians 3:17. Two different covenants, two different signs. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant with Abraham, and Jesus fulfilled that covenant, whereby we are no longer COMMANDED to circumcise our boys - it is now of the heart - or SPIRIT. And the covenant of the laws engraved on stone also came to an end when the eternal laws of LOVE were written on the heart. The Sabbath was the sign of the covenant of Ismael, the flesh. Exodus 31:13

Jesus is the end of the law. Romans 10:4
As I pointed out already. Each and every passage you go searching for is going to be referring to one of two thing: 1. establishing one's own righteousness/justification, or 2. an explicit reference to the sacrificial system, or the penalty or curse of the law; not the commandments. This one is an example of the former

"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to ESTABLISH THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them."

Note that the man who does keep the law will live by them The law is for our benefit, not to establish our righteousness. Refuting those who choose to establish their righteousness by quoting the law doesn't do away with the actual purpose of the law. That is a Non Sequitur.


When you post these passages, you're ignoring my point altogether and presenting an argument that was presented 2000 years ago. This is what is known in debate as the fallacy of the Strawman argument. Are you ever going to address what I'm actually posting? Is ignoring what other people post a fruit of the Spirit?

I have repeatedly addressed and refuted what you have posted. Is there some reason why you can't return the favor?

Could you address what I've posted without wandering off to find yet another passage for me to refute? I can refute them all, but I'd really like to see you address what I'm posting instead of going on a wild goose chase.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
No it isn't. This was BEFORE the law was given,

Please show where the formation of the church was before the law was given.
and I already explained that to you.

Genesis 9:
3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.

Again, I already addressed this and explained that "even as the green herb" clearly instructs us to consume hemlock and nightshade. Wait, Does God want us to eat hemlock and nightshade? Nope. Even as he gave us the green herbs which doesn't include certain herbs which are not good for us, so too there are animals which are clean and there are those which are unclean. In the Hebrew the word is "tame" which means "filthy, polluted"
4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
And that was long before the formation of the church so I have no idea what you're talking about. This was an established practice long before the Christian sect existed. In other words, as I already pointed out, when a gentile convert joined the cult of Israel, they could no longer receive unkosher food from a Jew. This was what Jews did when they botched a kosher slaughter, or someone's pig got loose into their property. They would give it, or sell it to a gentile. This courtesy didn't extend to those who converted to Judaism. There is no difference whatsoever. This was an established practice, and still is even to this very day.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
You are reading chapter 3 out of context of the whole teaching on the Law.

I'm pointing to what he is explicitly saying, i.e. "attempt to be justified by the law" Again, I'm not presenting that position. I'm not the one who is pointing out that anyone is justified by the law. You need to see that I AGREE with Paul. I AGREE that no one is justified by keeping the Mosaic law. You're not catching that little fact.
The whole teaching is 8 chapters long, ending with the SPIRIT.

Romans 8:1-9
There is therefore now no condemnation

Condemnation is for those who "transgress" God's law, not for those who keep it.
to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh,

The flesh transgresses the law, the flesh does NOT keep it.
but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.

The commandments are NOT the law of sin and death. The law of sin and death is not the law of life. Those who keep the law 'shall live" I just quoted that already. You still haven't addressed anything I've posted.
3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh,

Weak through the flesh meaning they failed to keep the law. The law can't make anyone keep the law. That's not the a problem with the law. That's a problem with the flesh.
God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,

Yep, he didn't condemn the commandments though.
4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us

The righteous requirement of which law? The Mosaic law? It can't be any other law because Paul never mentioned any other law to the Romans.
who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be ]carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God,

The carnal mind is not subject to the law. The carnal mind is lawless, and can only follow the lawless one.
nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.
 

CharismaticLady

Active member
Not going to happen because the law that "was added because of transgressions" is not the commandments. The commandments are not added because of transgressions.

Where this is no law, there is no sin, right?
There were still transgressions, but before the law was given those sins were not held against them. The ETERNAL LAW of God is what Lucifer broke.

Romans 3:25
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,

It doesn't look like we are getting anywhere. You believe we are still under the Old Covenant and its covenential commandments, the Ten Commandments, the "ministry of death,"and I know we are not. By following the Spirit, the "ministry of the Spirit" we keep the righteous requirements of the Eternal law, which goes far deeper than the Ten Commandments. It doesn't really matter to me if you want to keep the covenant of Ishmael, as long as you keep every bit of it. Break one, and you've broken them all. I am free from sin, so am not breaking the commandments you want to keep, nor the commandments of Jesus. And you have added believing in Jesus to your commandments. I just hope you add loving your neighbor that your commandments do no cover.
 
Last edited:

shnarkle

Well-known member
There were still transgressions, but before the law was given those sins were not held against them. The ETERNAL LAW of God is what Lucifer broke.

Romans 3:25
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,

It doesn't look like we are getting anywhere. You believe we are still under the Old Covenant

Not really. I'm just pointing out the distinction between the two without any reference to anyone in particular. You're the one who feels the need to make it about you or me.
By following the Spirit, the "ministry of the Spirit" we keep the righteous requirements of the Eternal law, which goes far deeper than the Ten Commandments.

The ONLY problem with that claim is when you annul God's commandments. Ignoring God's commandments is not going deeper. Going deeper would be keeping the Sabbath in your heart which allows you to keep it externally as well. Profaning it in your heart is what allows on to profane it externally as well. Again, no one is justified by keeping the law so posting any of those passages is to ignore what I'm posting altogether.
It doesn't really matter to me if you want to keep the covenant of Ishmael, as long as you keep every bit of it. Break one, and you've broken them all.

Again, Strawman argument. The whole point of those claims is "Justification". Again, Strawman argument.
I am free from sin,

Well, according to your logic, everyone is free from sin because "where there is no law, there is no sin" If Christ did away with the law as you claim, then we're all free from the law.
so am not breaking the commandments you want to keep, nor the commandments of Jesus. And you have added believing in Jesus to your commandments. I just hope you add loving your neighbor that your commandments do no cover.
Where or how did you come to that conclusion from anything I've ever posted? Never mind. I'm not interested in Ad Hominem either. Go with God. Be blessed.
 

CharismaticLady

Active member
Not really. I'm just pointing out the distinction between the two without any reference to anyone in particular. You're the one who feels the need to make it about you or me.


The ONLY problem with that claim is when you annul God's commandments. Ignoring God's commandments is not going deeper. Going deeper would be keeping the Sabbath in your heart which allows you to keep it externally as well. Profaning it in your heart is what allows on to profane it externally as well. Again, no one is justified by keeping the law so posting any of those passages is to ignore what I'm posting altogether.


Again, Strawman argument. The whole point of those claims is "Justification". Again, Strawman argument.


Well, according to your logic, everyone is free from sin because "where there is no law, there is no sin" If Christ did away with the law as you claim, then we're all free from the law.

Where or how did you come to that conclusion from anything I've ever posted? Never mind. I'm not interested in Ad Hominem either. Go with God. Be blessed.
What you've said against me, I've already explained to you. I'm not repeating it any longer. If you don't know why we are not under the Ten Commandments, and why we don't keep a day holy, but worship and trust God everyday, then it is not up to me to convince you, but the Spirit. I'll leave you to Him.
 
Top