What did Christ say about the Law?

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
9,683
3,820
N/A
✟155,972.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Bible does not say that the Mosaic Law was given for a specific time period
Wrong.
"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law...
So the law was our guardian until Christ came...
Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."

Gal 3:23-25

Your explanation of this verse is not what the text is about. Quite obviously, honestly. Not sure how you were even able to come with such explanation.

, but repeatedly says that it is eternal.
This biblical word means "for the age" or "till the end of age".

they taught for people to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the fact that that Gospel was intended to go out to the nations means that the Mosaic Law is universal.
No, it does not mean that. The gospel of the kingdom was to be preached to the world, not the Mosaic Law.

None of the commandments in the Mosaic Law are against Christianity, but rather Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey it by word and by example.
For example:
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person

Or:
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘Hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies

I wonder why such known places must be even mentioned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TPop
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,919
1,079
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟117,551.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Neither Jesus nor John taught people to stop repenting because the Torah has ended, but just the opposite. In Luke 16:16, is says that the Torah and the Prophets were until John and since the the Gospel of the Kingdom of God has been preached, namely to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, so if Jesus was speaking about the Torah still being preached, then he was not saying that it ended with John. Furthermore, in Luke 16:17, Jesus said that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Torah to become void, so he was not speaking about something that he thought had already become void. Moreover, in Luke 16:18, Jesus proceeded to teach how to obey the Torah.

Good points, but realize that the poster you are engaging does not argue according to scripture logic: he argues according to his own logic, and therefore it is perfectly fine in his mind that Meshiah was crucified "under the law" and "fulfilled the law" even though he makes the claim by default that the law ended with Yohanne, that is, by quoting Mat 11:13 in the manner in which he uses it in the context of his own commentary. In other words, although he doesn't openly state it, he apparently does not perceive that his incorrect understanding of the Matthew 11:13 supposes exactly that, that the Torah supposedly ended with Yohanne, and you rightly caught that error in his reasoning.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
9,683
3,820
N/A
✟155,972.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Good points, but realize that the poster you are engaging does not argue according to scripture logic: he argues according to his own logic,
There is only one logic with universal laws of reasoning. It applies to all rational thought.

Regarding the rest, the coming of kingdom of God was a process. It started with the public service of John and ended in the 70 AD.

So there is no contradiction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TPop
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,919
1,079
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟117,551.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
There is only one logic with universal laws of reasoning. It applies to all rational thought.

Regarding the rest, the coming of kingdom of God was a process. It started with the public service of John and ended in the 70 AD.

So there is no contradiction.

The contradiction is created by your misapplication of Mat 11:13 because it does not mean what you claim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobRyan
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,633
10,770
Georgia
✟930,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:

1. The Ten were kept apart from all of scripture - they were in the Ark of the Covenant.
So the inside of the ark was more holy than the outside?
When the ark was returned to Israel by the Philistines who had captured it in war. It was not a problem that Israel saw the outside of the ark - the problem came up when they ventured to look inside it. God Himself made that distinction. It was His way of showing distinction.
Rightly divide: that circumcision is outward and physical
1 Cor 7:19 "circumcision is nothing, what matters is keeping the Commandments of God".

But circumcision for Jews is an actual commandment of God in the scriptures. Paul is showing that there is a distinction between ceremonial law and the moral law of God contained in the commandments of God.
It has already been shown in my previous reply that your opinion is in opposition to what the Master himself teaches in Mark 9:43-50, for he applies Lev 2:13 in a completely supernal way, while you apply it to animal sacrifices which you then find a need to abolish.
You need to actually address my quote and the text Heb 10:4-12 before you can claim to have found a flaw in it.

Referencing the Mark 9 teaching of Christ before the cross - is not the same as rightly stating the Heb 10 teaching of Paul where the text says "He TAKES AWAY the first to establish the second" - in reference to the work of Christ on the cross that ends all animal sacrifices and offerings.

The text you are not quoting says this --

4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,

“You have not desired sacrifice and offering,
But You have prepared a body for Me;
6 You have not taken pleasure in whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(It is written of Me in the scroll of the book)
To do Your will, O God.’”

8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,434
4,605
Hudson
✟287,922.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Wrong.
"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law...
So the law was our guardian until Christ came...
Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."

Gal 3:23-25

Your explanation of this verse is not what the text is about. Quite obviously, honestly. Not sure how you were even able to come with such explanation.
I explained why your interpretation of those verses is obviously incorrect. Again, Christ did not teach to stop repenting because God's law has ended, but just the opposite. And again, God's law leads us to Jesus because it teaches us how to know him, but does not lead us to him so that we can reject what he taught and God back to living in sin. I also explained how the surrounding context of Galatians 3:16-19 and 26-29 fully support obedience to God's law.

This biblical word means "for the age" or "till the end of age".
God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), not just for the age, so the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is also eternal (Psalms 119:160), not just for the age. Again, the OT frequently uses language like this is a statute forever throughout your generations, which does not give a hint that it was intended to be temporary.

No, it does not mean that. The gospel of the kingdom was to be preached to the world, not the Mosaic Law.
In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the nations, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom. Jesus also set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that was what he taught to his disciples that he commissioned them to bring to the nations (Matthew 28:16-20).

For example:
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person

Or:
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘Hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies

I wonder why such known places must be even mentioned.
In Matthew 4, Jesus consistently preceded a quote from what was written by saying "it is written...", but in Matthew 5, he consistently proceeded a quote from what the people had heard being said by saying "you have heard that it was said", so his emphasis on the different form of communication is important. Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to what was written, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people had heard being said about it.

For example, an eye for an eye is still a good standard for judges to help ensure fair sentencing that does not escalate out of proportion to the offense, however, it was not intended to be used in person situations to justify people taking revenge into their own hands.

While the God's law does instruct us to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), it does not instruct us to hate our enemy, so that is again what Jesus was correcting. Rather, loving our enemies is in accordance with verses like Exodus 23:4-5, Deuteronomy 23:7, Proverbs 24:17-18, and Proverbs 25:21-22, so Jesus was not making changes to what was written in disagreement with what the Father commanded, but was fulfilling the law by correcting false teachings, which affirms that he was teaching it both by word and by example.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,434
4,605
Hudson
✟287,922.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
so God gave laws to men knowingly they will fail to keep it because they are men? is this Righteous?
There is nothing wrong with not following laws when their conditions are not met. In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it says that God's law is not too difficult to obey and that obedience to it brings life while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So teaching us the way to choose eternal life is indeed an action of a righteous God. Moreover, Romans 10:5-10 references Deuteronomy 30:11-20 as the word of faith that we proclaim in regard to saying that God's law is not too difficult to obey, that obedience to it brings life, in regard to what we are agreeing to obey by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and in regard to the way to believe that God rose Jesus from the dead (Titus 2:14).
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,919
1,079
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟117,551.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
When the ark was returned to Israel by the Philistines who had captured it in war. It was not a problem that Israel saw the outside of the ark - the problem came up when they ventured to look inside it. God Himself made that distinction. It was His way of showing distinction.

The question is, What is that distinction? I say it is not what you say.

1 Cor 7:19 "circumcision is nothing, what matters is keeping the Commandments of God".

Rightly divide according to context. Paul rails about physical circumcision according to the Pharisee way, which is according to the flesh, and he rightly does so because it is a failure to heed the supernal, spiritual, and inward meaning, and deceives the one being circumcised according to the flesh into believing that he is fulfilling the commandment.

Romans 15:8-9 ASV
8 For I say that Christ hath been made a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, that he might confirm the promises given unto the fathers,
9 and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, Therefore will I give praise unto thee among the Gentiles, And sing unto thy name.

Philippians 3:2-6 ASV
2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision:
3 for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh:
4 though I myself might have confidence even in the flesh: if any other man thinketh to have confidence in the flesh, I yet more:
5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 as touching zeal, persecuting the church; as touching the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless.

See also Deut 10:16 and Deut 30:6.

But circumcision for Jews is an actual commandment of God in the scriptures. Paul is showing that there is a distinction between ceremonial law and the moral law of God contained in the commandments of God.

That is the Pharisee understanding which is in opposition to Mosheh, Meshiah, Peter, and Paul.

These are not multiple choice suggestions but rather emphatic statements:

Romans 2:28-29 KJV
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

There is no refuting what Paul here plainly and emphatically states: you either believe it or not.

You need to actually address my quote and the text Heb 10:4-12 before you can claim to have found a flaw in it.

Just to be clear, I did not say I found a flaw in the text: it is speaking of the natural minded, outward, physical interpretations and understandings of those things. The Torah was not speaking in those terms to begin with, see Jer 7:21-31, as well as many other statements and passages from both the Prophets and the Psalms.

Referencing the Mark 9 teaching of Christ before the cross - is not the same as rightly stating the Heb 10 teaching of Paul where the text says "He TAKES AWAY the first to establish the second" - in reference to the work of Christ on the cross that ends all animal sacrifices and offerings.

Yes, animal sacrifices, which is a natural-man Chief Priest, Sadducee, and Pharisee understanding of the Torah: but the Torah is spiritual, (Rom 7:14), and likewise the offerings they offered which were also according to the natural mind of the natural man who cannot please Elohim because he does not hear the Father or His Torah.

The text you are not quoting says this --

4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,

“You have not desired sacrifice and offering,
But You have prepared a body for Me;
6 You have not taken pleasure in whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(It is written of Me in the scroll of the book)
To do Your will, O God.’”

That's one of the very texts that proves what I am saying from the scripture.

Just believe what it actually says. If the Father did not desire sacrifice and offering according to the natural, outward, physical way of the Sanhedrin, Elders, Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes: then how say you that it is the Torah instructions concerning those things that are abolished and not rather the faulty interpretations of those instructions foisted upon the people by the Sanhedrin, Elders, Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, whose handwritten dogmas, decrees, ordinances, and injunctions, were incorrect and therefore against the people, and yet were binding upon the whole nation? In this you are siding with the interpretations of the Sanhedrin, Elders, Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, in opposition to the Testimony of the Meshiah and the writings of his Apostles.

8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God

Amen, and "the first" is the same as "the old", (Heb 8:13, 2 Cor 3:14, Exo 34), which is the natural man outward and physical understanding and interpretation of the Torah, which is to choose death, (Dt 30:11-20, Rom 8:4-8, Rom 10:6-8).

Exodus 34:10-27 LSV
10 And He says, "Behold, I am making a covenant. I do wonders before all your people, which have not been done in all the earth, or in any nation, and all the people in whose midst you [are in] have seen the work of YHWH, for it [is] fearful—that which I am doing with you.
11 Observe for yourself that which I am commanding you today. Behold, I am casting out from before you the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite;
12 take heed to yourself lest you make a covenant with the inhabitant of the land into which you are going, lest it become a snare in your midst;
13 for you break down their altars, and you shatter their standing pillars, and you cut down its Asherim;
14 for you do not bow yourselves to another god—for YHWH, whose Name [is] Zealous, is a zealous God.
15 Lest you make a covenant with the inhabitant of the land, and they have gone whoring after their gods, and have sacrificed to their gods, and [one] has called to you, and you have eaten of his sacrifice,
16 and you have taken of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters have gone whoring after their gods, and have caused your sons to go whoring after their gods;
17 you do not make a molten god for yourself.
18 You keep the Celebration of Unleavened Things; [for] seven days you eat unleavened things, as I have commanded you, at an appointed time, [in] the month of Abib: for in the month of Abib you came out from Egypt.
19 All opening a womb [are] Mine, and every firstling of your livestock born a male, [whether] ox or sheep;
20 and you ransom the firstling of a donkey with a lamb; and if you do not ransom, then you have beheaded it; you ransom every firstborn of your sons, and they do not appear before Me empty.
21 [For] six days you work, and on the seventh day you rest; in plowing-time and in harvest you rest.
22 And you observe [the] Celebration of Weeks for yourself, of [the] first-fruits of wheat-harvest; and the Celebration of Ingathering at the revolution of the year.
23 Three times in a year all your males appear before the Lord YHWH, God of Israel;
24 for I dispossess nations from before you, and have enlarged your border, and no man desires your land in your going up to appear before your God YHWH three times in a year.
25 You do not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice with a fermented thing; and the sacrifice of the Celebration of the Passover does not remain until morning.
26 You bring the first of the first-fruits of the land into the house of your God YHWH. You do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk."
27 And YHWH says to Moses, "Write these words for yourself, for I have made a covenant with you and with Israel according to the tenor of these words."

For yourself, for yourself, for yourself .....

This is not the same as the original: it is different because they made a golden calf and worshiped it. This entire renewal is predicated on whether or not they would make their way His Way which was already all stated and commanded before the golden calf incident. And what eventually happened? They did not choose what is pleasing to the Father, they did not make their way His Way, and the Prophets bear this out.

Isaiah 1:10-15 KJV
10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law [Torah] of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

Your, your, your....... not My, My, My.

Amos 5:21-26 KJV
21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.
22 Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.
23 Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.
24 But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.
25 Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?
26 But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.

Your, your, your....... not My, My, My.

Isaiah 66:1-4 KJV
1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?
2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.
3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
9,683
3,820
N/A
✟155,972.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The contradiction is created by your misapplication of Mat 11:13 because it does not mean what you claim.
I do not know what you think I claim. I am claiming that the Law was till John and with John the process of coming of the kingdom of God had begun.

There you have it in a longer variant in Luke, if you are not familiar with it:

“The Law and the Prophets were until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it."
Lk 16:16
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
9,683
3,820
N/A
✟155,972.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I explained why your interpretation of those verses is obviously incorrect.
I presuppose that people here know the Bible, therefore I am not too verbose, I just refer to the verses. But I sometimes get surprised.

So lets do it:

15Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” i meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23Before the coming of this faith, j we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

26So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Gal 3

1. The first, superior covenant is the one with Abraham and Christ (v. 15 and next) - not Torah or what you said in your post
2. The law was given since Moses (vs 17) till Christ (vs 19, 24, 25).
3. The law had a specific purpose - it was given to Israel to prepare it for Christ (vs 19, vs 24)
4. The law is no longer our guardian (v 25).

Again, Christ did not teach to stop repenting because God's law has ended, but just the opposite.
I did not claim "Christ taught to stop repenting because God's law [i.e. the Mosaic law, in fact] has ended". Its a strawman.

Jesus taught to start repenting, because the final judgement and the kingdom of God was coming.

And again, God's law leads us to Jesus because it teaches us how to know him, but does not lead us to him so that we can reject what he taught and God back to living in sin.
The Mosaic Law led to Jesus, because it was the preparation for Him. The rest of your sentence is not clear to me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,919
1,079
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟117,551.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
I do not know what you think I claim. I am claiming that the Law was till John and with John the process of coming of the kingdom of God had begun.

There you have it in a longer variant in Luke, if you are not familiar with it:

“The Law and the Prophets were until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it."
Lk 16:16

The Matthew 11 passage says what it means and means what it says:

Matthew 11:12-15 ASV
12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force.
13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14 And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come.
15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Following the transfiguration event:

Matthew 17:10-12 ASV
10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?
11 And he answered and said, Elijah indeed cometh, and shall restore all things:
12 but I say unto you, that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they would. Even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them.
13 Then understood the disciples that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Malachi 4:4-6 KJV
4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

So then, Eliyah came to you in 70 AD? and you were willing to receive it? and all things were restored? The kingdom of Elohim does not come with ocular-visual observation because it is within you, (Luke 17:20-21), and it is personal, private, and individual, just as is all of the Gospel: to each in his or her own appointed times, times appointed of the Father.

In Luke 7:28, the Byzantine texts types have it that among those born of women there is no greater prophet than Yohanne the Immerser, and if you will receive it, perhaps you should start at Revelation 1:1 and begin your water (of the Word) immersion therein: for the Spirit of the prophecy is the Testimony of the Meshiah, (Rev 19:10). The immersion by the Holy Spirit and fire only comes after that by way of the One whom Yohanne also confessed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soyeong
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,633
10,770
Georgia
✟930,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:

1 Cor 7:19 "circumcision is nothing, what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" NASB, NKJV, NIV, NASB1955

The distinction between "circumcision" vs the "commandments of God" when in fact BOTH are in scripture - indicates the difference between ceremonial law and the moral law of God where "sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4

Deut 5:22 “These words the Lord spoke to your whole assembly at the mountain from the midst of the fire, from the cloud, and from the thick darkness, with a great voice, and He added nothing more. He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.

Inside the Ark - were the TEN --- that was the only Law of God kept inside the ark - as per the direct command of God.

God setup a lot of glaringly obvious arrangements to signify the high degree of authority and obligation regarding the TEN.
Paul rails about physical circumcision according to the Pharisee way,
There is nothing in 1 Cor 7 about "according to the Pharisee way" -

Paul is talking about two forms of law and BOTH are in scripture - neither of them written by Pharisees. As we all know.

Jesus and Paul were both circumcised by the Jewish priesthood of that day (and Pharisees were not priests)
Romans 15:8-9 ASV
8 For I say that Christ hath been made a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, that he might confirm the promises given unto the fathers,
The term "circumcision" in Rom 15 has an entirely different context.

Eph 2 shows that Paul used it as an alias identifier for "literal Jews".

Eph 2:
11 Therefore remember that previously you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision”
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,919
1,079
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟117,551.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
BobRyan said:

1 Cor 7:19 "circumcision is nothing, what matters is keeping the Commandments of God"

The distinction between "circumcision" vs the "commandments of God" when in fact BOTH are in scripture - indicates the difference between ceremonial law and the moral law of God where "sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4

That passage is clearly speaking of the natural-minded outward physical circumcision of the Pharisees, according to their "custom of Mosheh", meaning their interpretation of outward physical circumcision of the male private member.

1 Corinthians 7:18-20 KJV
18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

You cannot be called with a heart that is already circumcised because Meshiah has become the new Minister of the Circumcision, and that circumcision of the heart is a process which is accomplished by way of full immersion into his Testimony, which circumcises the heart. That's why I said, rightly divide, which you have failed to do: for you do not differentiate between Paul's meaning here and true circumcision written in the Romans 2 statement which I also quoted concerning circumcision of the heart.

As for the Pharisee "custom of Mosheh", concerning circumcision, see Acts 15:1 ASV.

There is nothing in 1 Cor 7 about "according to the Pharisee way" -
Paul is talking about two forms of law and BOTH are in scripture - neither of them written by Pharisees. As we all know.

So you think "we all know", but Mosheh in the Torah does not appear to agree with you, as already referenced, Dt 10:16 and Dt 30.

Deuteronomy 10:16 KJV
16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Please explain your understanding of the meaning of the foreskin of your heart since you appear to believe that this is nothing. One cannot keep, observe, or perform the Torah-instructions and commandments of the Father in His Word if one does not hear intelligently and understand what those instructions and commandments actually mean: only then is it possible, the heart having been circumcised, and this therefore no doubt means that it can only be the Pharisee way of circumcision or "the custom of Mosheh" according to the Pharisee way that Paul means to say "is nothing".

Jesus and Paul were both circumcised by the Jewish priesthood of that day (and Pharisees were not priests)

As for Paul, he tells you how much that Pharisee way of outward physical circumcision counted for him after having been converted, in yet another passage that was just quoted in my previous reply to you. Just because I did not include verse seven in my previous post, in the following passage, does not mean that I meant this text to be taken apart from its greater context.

Philippians 3:2-7 ASV
2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision:
3 for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh:
4 though I myself might have confidence even in the flesh: if any other man thinketh to have confidence in the flesh, I yet more:
5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 as touching zeal, persecuting the church; as touching the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless.
7 Howbeit what things were gain to me, these have I counted loss for Christ.

The term "circumcision" in Rom 15 has an entirely different context.

Eph 2 shows that Paul used it as an alias identifier for "literal Jews".

Therefore you confess that there are two different meanings for circumcision in the writings of Paul, and yet, still refuse to rightly divide between the two when it interferes with your beliefs. What is admonished and warned about in Dt 30 is not going to change. There is a choice to be made between good and evil, and blessing and cursing, and life and death, and these things concern our understandings and interpretations of the Torah: how we choose to hear what we hear, and see what we see when we read, and the outward physical way of understanding the Torah, according to the natural mind of the natural man who cannot please Elohim, is a choice for death. Insisting that the Torah means outward physical circumcision when the Torah actually gives you a choice, and admonishes and warns you to choose life, is a choice in favor of the Pharisee way which is a choice for death.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,633
10,770
Georgia
✟930,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
That passage is clearly speaking of the natural-minded outward physical circumcision of the Pharisees
Pharisees were not priests and they did not circumcise anyone


, according to their "custom of Mosheh", meaning their interpretation of outward physical circumcision of the male private member.

1 Corinthians 7:18-20 KJV
18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
19 "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping of the commandments of God." NASB, NKJV, NIV, NASB1955

Those who were Jews and became Christian were to continue to live as circumcised Jews -- who accepted the Messiah..
Those who were gentiles and became Christian were to continue to live as uncircumised non-Jewish Christians - who also accepted the Messiah

The distinction is made between the moral law of God applicable to BOTH groups and the ceremonial law that only applied to the Jews.


BobRyan said:

1 Cor 7:19 "circumcision is nothing, what matters is keeping the Commandments of God"

The distinction between "circumcision" vs the "commandments of God" when in fact BOTH are in scripture - indicates the difference between ceremonial law and the moral law of God where "sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4

Deut 5:22 “These words the Lord spoke to your whole assembly at the mountain from the midst of the fire, from the cloud, and from the thick darkness, with a great voice, and He added nothing more. He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.

Inside the Ark - were the TEN --- that was the only Law of God kept inside the ark - as per the direct command of God.

God setup a lot of glaringly obvious arrangements to signify the high degree of authority and obligation regarding the TEN.

There is nothing in 1 Cor 7 about "according to the Pharisee way" -

Paul is talking about two forms of law and BOTH are in scripture - neither of them written by Pharisees. As we all know.

Jesus and Paul were both circumcised by the Jewish priesthood of that day (and Pharisees were not priests)

The term "circumcision" in Rom 15 has an entirely different context.

Eph 2 shows that Paul used it as an alias identifier for "literal Jews".

Eph 2:
11 Therefore remember that previously you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision”
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0