1 Timothy 4 - Deceiving Spirits & Doctrines Of Demons.

[Spiritual Jew]

God has said that it is an abomination to eat Lobster, so let God’s word be true and every man a liar.

Why do you think you're under the old covenant which was only a shadow of the new covenant that was to come, which was established by the blood of Christ? You're talking about what God said in Old Testament times, but this is what He says in New Testament times:

Colossians 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

For one thing, the laws about what to eat or drink were NEVER given to anyone but the Jews, so why do you think they apply to you, assuming that you are a Gentile? And for another thing, scripture says that the new covenant replaced the old covenant and its many commandments, so why do you want to live under the old covenant and its 613 commandments in the law of Moses instead of the new covenant and the law of Christ? It's sad when I see someone like you who doesn't understand the freedom we have in Christ. We are not under the curse of the old covenant law, but you put yourself under it!

Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

You think you are under the law. Do you obey all 613 commandments of the law perfectly? I'm sure you do not, so that means you are cursed. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, but you clearly don't understand what that means. We are free to eat lobster all we want because we are under the new covenant which has no commandment against it.

 

[Soyeong]

Why do you think you're under the old covenant which was only a shadow of the new covenant that was to come, which was established by the blood of Christ? You're talking about what God said in Old Testament times, but this is what He says in New Testament times:

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 Gentiles, and God's 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 for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to God's law and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6). Jesus did not establish the New Covenant in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could be free to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Jeremiah 31:33), so I have been speaking about how we should live under the New Covenant.

Colossians 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

In Colossians 2:16-23, they were keeping God's feasts in obedience to His commands in accordance with the example that Jesus set for us to follow, they were being judged by pagans who were promoting human teachings and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone prevent them from obeying God. Those promoting asceticism and severity to the body would be judging people for celebrating feasts, not for refraining from celebrating feasts.

For one thing, the laws about what to eat or drink were NEVER given to anyone but the Jews, so why do you think they apply to you, assuming that you are a Gentile?

Jews were given the role of being a light and a blessing to the nations by turning the nations from their wickedness and by teaching them to walk in God's way in obedience to His law in accordance with the promise and with spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45) and the only way that we should cease to follow God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy would be if God were to cease to be holy.

And for another thing, scripture says that the new covenant replaced the old covenant and its many commandments, so why do you want to live under the old covenant and its 613 commandments in the law of Moses instead of the new covenant and the law of Christ?

I don't see a reason to think that the Law of Christ is something other than or contrary to anything that Christ spent his ministry teaching.

It's sad when I see someone like you who doesn't understand the freedom we have in Christ. We are not under the curse of the old covenant law, but you put yourself under it!

Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Those verses say that cursed is everyone who does not continue everything written in the Book of the Law, so the position that we should continue to do everything written in it is the position that we are not under its curse (which is my position) while the position that we should not continue to do everything in it puts ourselves under its curse (which is your position). According to Deuteronomy 27-28, relying on the Book of the Law is the way to be blessed while lawlessness is the way to be cursed, so Galatians 3:10 should not be interpreted as Paul quoting from that passage in order to support a point that is arguing the opposite of that passage, but rather the way to be cursed is by not relying on the Book of the Law, which is why everyone who relies on works of the law instead come under its curse.

In Titus 2:14, it doesn't say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from God's law, but to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what Jesus spend his ministry teaching and in what he accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law (Acts 21:20) while the way to reject everything that he accomplished is by returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from. So the freedom that we have in Christ is not the freedom to be lawless, but the freedom from lawlessness.

The Gospel of the Kingdom is in accordance with Jesus being sent in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-28), which is the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham in accordance with the promise (Galatians 3:8), so you are interpreting that passage in a way that is contrary to the blessing given to Abraham that comes to Gentiles through Christ so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

You think you are under the law. Do you obey all 613 commandments of the law perfectly? I'm sure you do not, so that means you are cursed. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, but you clearly don't understand what that means. We are free to eat lobster all we want because we are under the new covenant which has no commandment against it.

God is sovereign, so we are all under His law. God's law came with instructions for what to do when His children sinned, so it did not require us to have perfect obedience, and someone who continues to be a doer of God's law by repenting does not come under His curse. In Deuteronomy 11:26-32, the difference between being under God's blessing or his curse is not based on whether or not we have perfect obedience, but based on whether we choose to serve God or to chase after other gods. While all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, everyone being under God's curse does not reflect the reality of what is recorded about those who served God, just those who chased after other gods. Jesus redeemed us from the curse of lawlessness so that we could be free to enjoy the blessing of lawfulness. Sin is what is contrary to God's eternal character traits regardless of which covenant someone is under, but the New Covenant is still made with the same God with the same character and therefore the same instructions for how to be a doer of His character traits.

 

[RandyPNW]

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 Gentiles, and God's 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.

I see this misconception all the time. It is thought that because Paul said the Law made sin known that it is strictly the means of identifying what sin is. But in reality, sin had been long exposed and identified by men who defied God's commands, long before the Law even came into existence.

The commandment in all of its kinds, depending on what covenant or system is in place, exposes sin. It is God's word, when rebelled against, that identifies sin, whether under the old covenant of Law or by the new covenant of grace.

The problem is, when do not recognize the difference in covenants, as God activates them, we will be found to be in ourselves. We will claim the covenant of Law is in effect, when Jesus, at the end of his ministry, signified that the Law, as a covenant system, had ended at the Cross with the rending of the Temple veil. A system that only partly covered sin in Israel could not redeem them for eternal life apart from the redeeming death of Christ.

 

[Soyeong]

I see this misconception all the time. It is thought that because Paul said the Law made sin known that it is strictly the means of identifying what sin is. But in reality, sin had been long exposed and identified by men who defied God's commands, long before the Law even came into existence.

The commandment in all of its kinds, depending on what covenant or system is in place, exposes sin. It is God's word, when rebelled against, that identifies sin, whether under the old covenant of Law or by the new covenant of grace.

The problem is, when do not recognize the difference in covenants, as God activates them, we will be found to be in ourselves. We will claim the covenant of Law is in effect, when Jesus, at the end of his ministry, signified that the Law, as a covenant system, had ended at the Cross with the rending of the Temple veil. A system that only partly covered sin in Israel could not redeem them for eternal life apart from the redeeming death of Christ.

God's way is the way to know Him by being in His likeness through being a doer of His character traits, such as in Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in God's way by being a doer of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that He has promised. Sin is what is contrary to God's way, such as with unrighteousness being sin, and sin is the transgression of God's law because it was given to teach us how to walk in God's way (1 Kings 2:1-2). While God's covenants teach us how to walk in God's way, God's way is based on God's eternal character, not a particular covenant. For example, the way to be a doer of God's righteousness is straightforwardly based on God's righteousness and God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so any instructions that God has ever given for how to be a doer of His righteousness are therefore also eternal (Psalms 119:160), which is true regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any.

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to teach us how to know God and Jesus, which is His gift of eternal life (John 17:3). In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so the Mosaic Covenant is of grace and law, and this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves following God's law, so the New Covenant is also of grace and law.

The Bible doesn't state that the tearing of the veil signifies the end of God's law. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what Jesus spent his ministry teaching by word and by example and in what he accomplished through the cross is by repenting and becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law (Acts 21:20) while the way to reject everything that he accomplished would be by returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from.

 

[RandyPNW]

God's way is the way to know Him by being in His likeness through being a doer of His character traits, such as in Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in God's way by being a doer of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that He has promised.

However, doing righteousness is defined by God's word under the particular covenant presently in effect.

Sin is what is contrary to God's way, such as with unrighteousness being sin, and sin is the transgression of God's law because it was given to teach us how to walk in God's way (1 Kings 2:1-2).

Moses' Law was initiated on Mt. Sinai and was a covenant unique to Israel in the time between Moses and Jesus' death on the cross. The rending of the veil at Jesus' death represented the end of the covenant of Mosaic Law.

While God's covenants teach us how to walk in God's way, God's way is based on God's eternal character, not a particular covenant.

The covenant that is currently in effect determines what, in particular, God's word is demanding of man at the time. God's character does not change with the changing of covenants. But the change in covenants presents different sets of rules.

The Bible doesn't state that the tearing of the veil signifies the end of God's law.

Actually, it does.
Heb 9. 8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning.

Heb 10.19 Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God.

 

[Soyeong]

However, doing righteousness is defined by God's word under the particular covenant presently in effect.

Moses' Law was initiated on Mt. Sinai and was a covenant unique to Israel in the time between Moses and Jesus' death on the cross. The rending of the veil at Jesus' death represented the end of the covenant of Mosaic Law.

The covenant that is currently in effect determines what, in particular, God's word is demanding of man at the time. God's character does not change with the changing of covenants. But the change in covenants presents different sets of rules.

The way to be a doer of God's righteousness is independent of any covenant. If the way to be a doer of God's righteousness changed between covenants, then God's righteousness would not be eternal. For example, it is was a sin to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9 long before the Mosaic Covenant was made, during it, and after it has become obsolete, and if God were to ever make a covenant where it was righteous to commit adultery, then His righteousness would not be eternal. Jesus expressed his righteousness through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and he did not go to the cross in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching by word or by example. The New Covenant is made with the same God with the same eternal character traits and therefore the same eternal instructions for how to be a doer of His character traits (Jeremiah 31:33) and the only way that if could involve following a different set of laws would be if it were made with a different god with a different set of character traits. This is why Deuteronomy 12:32 prohibits adding to or subtracting from the Mosaic Law and why Deuteronomy 13 equates false prophets who speak against obeying the Mosaic Law with those who teach to follow other gods.

Actually, it does.

Heb 9. 8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning.

Heb 10.19 Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God.

Those verses notably do not say do not say anything about the Mosaic Law ending. The only way to end a set of instructions for how to be a doer of God's character traits would be by first ending God.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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 Gentiles, and God's 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 for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to God's law and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6). Jesus did not establish the New Covenant in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could be free to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Jeremiah 31:33), so I have been speaking about how we should live under the New Covenant.


In Colossians 2:16-23, they were keeping God's feasts in obedience to His commands in accordance with the example that Jesus set for us to follow, they were being judged by pagans who were promoting human teachings and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone prevent them from obeying God. Those promoting asceticism and severity to the body would be judging people for celebrating feasts, not for refraining from celebrating feasts.


Jews were given the role of being a light and a blessing to the nations by turning the nations from their wickedness and by teaching them to walk in God's way in obedience to His law in accordance with the promise and with spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45) and the only way that we should cease to follow God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy would be if God were to cease to be holy.


I don't see a reason to think that the Law of Christ is something other than or contrary to anything that Christ spent his ministry teaching.


Those verses say that cursed is everyone who does not continue everything written in the Book of the Law, so the position that we should continue to do everything written in it is the position that we are not under its curse (which is my position) while the position that we should not continue to do everything in it puts ourselves under its curse (which is your position). According to Deuteronomy 27-28, relying on the Book of the Law is the way to be blessed while lawlessness is the way to be cursed, so Galatians 3:10 should not be interpreted as Paul quoting from that passage in order to support a point that is arguing the opposite of that passage, but rather the way to be cursed is by not relying on the Book of the Law, which is why everyone who relies on works of the law instead come under its curse.

In Titus 2:14, it doesn't say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from God's law, but to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what Jesus spend his ministry teaching and in what he accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law (Acts 21:20) while the way to reject everything that he accomplished is by returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from. So the freedom that we have in Christ is not the freedom to be lawless, but the freedom from lawlessness.

The Gospel of the Kingdom is in accordance with Jesus being sent in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-28), which is the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham in accordance with the promise (Galatians 3:8), so you are interpreting that passage in a way that is contrary to the blessing given to Abraham that comes to Gentiles through Christ so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.


God is sovereign, so we are all under His law. God's law came with instructions for what to do when His children sinned, so it did not require us to have perfect obedience, and someone who continues to be a doer of God's law by repenting does not come under His curse. In Deuteronomy 11:26-32, the difference between being under God's blessing or his curse is not based on whether or not we have perfect obedience, but based on whether we choose to serve God or to chase after other gods. While all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, everyone being under God's curse does not reflect the reality of what is recorded about those who served God, just those who chased after other gods. Jesus redeemed us from the curse of lawlessness so that we could be free to enjoy the blessing of lawfulness. Sin is what is contrary to God's eternal character traits regardless of which covenant someone is under, but the New Covenant is still made with the same God with the same character and therefore the same instructions for how to be a doer of His character traits.

You clearly didn't understand a word I said, so it's clearly not worth continuing this discussion. You have failed to give an argument that proves that any of the ceremonial or ritualistic commands of the law of Moses ever applied to Gentiles. We in the church are never commanded to not eat lobster. You are sadly mistaken and have put yourself under the curse of the law. You don't seem to have any understanding of grace or of the freedom we have in Christ or of the new covenant that was established by the blood of Christ while replacing the inferior old covenant (Heb 8:6-13) with its burdensome commandments (burdensome in the sense that no one except Christ can keep them all and if you are guilty of breaking even one of them, you are guilty of breaking them all - James 2:10).

 

[RandyPNW]

The way to be a doer of God's righteousness is independent of any covenant.

I can't think of a statement more absurd! God intentionally made a covenant with Israel and then expected Israel to be righteous apart from that covenant? I'm speaking with an irrational person, or someone hopelessly caught up in some kind of cult!

If the way to be a doer of God's righteousness changed between covenants, then God's righteousness would not be eternal.

That does not follow. The infinite God can certainly require different covenants with men without compromising His eternal nature or His moral consistency. It is *you* who are requiring of God that He impose either a single covenant or no covenant at all to obtain righteousness from men.

For example, it is was a sin to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9 long before the Mosaic Covenant was made, during it, and after it has become obsolete, and if God were to ever make a covenant where it was righteous to commit adultery, then His righteousness would not be eternal.

God has been consistent along certain moral lines. What He does not change is His requirement that we conform to whatever word He has for us at the time, to obey whatever covenant is in place at the time.

To say that God is love and then may require of us hatred is indeed inconsistent. But God consistently requires of men love in all of His covenants.

Jesus expressed his righteousness through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and he did not go to the cross in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching by word or by example.

You seem to be separating the Law from the Covenant of Law? You argue here that we are still under Israel's Law, but then claim our righteousness is separate from the Law? The Law was intrinsically connected to Moses' Covenant.

The New Covenant is made with the same God with the same eternal character traits and therefore the same eternal instructions for how to be a doer of His character traits (Jeremiah 31:33) and the only way that if could involve following a different set of laws would be if it were made with a different god with a different set of character traits.

You are defying both Paul's teaching and the teaching of Hebrews. We no longer offer animal sacrifices. We rest in Christ's work in dying on the cross. We do not trust in Israel's priesthood. Christ is our priest now. We do not worship at a Temple in Jerusalem. Christ is in us and we worship God wherever we are.

This is why Deuteronomy 12:32 prohibits adding to or subtracting from the Mosaic Law and why Deuteronomy 13 equates false prophets who speak against obeying the Mosaic Law with those who teach to follow other gods.

Idolatry and apostasy were defined in relation to the Law of Moses prior to Christ's death on the cross.

Those verses notably do not say do not say anything about the Mosaic Law ending. The only way to end a set of instructions for how to be a doer of God's character traits would be by first ending God.

That doesn't follow. If God showed that the way to the Holy of Holies has now been opened for us by Christ's death on the cross, it is ludicrous to go back to the Law and its animal sacrifices which could not give Israel entry into the Holy of Holies. The veil is rent. We go in with Christ to our heavenly reward.

 

[Soyeong]

You clearly didn't understand a word I said, so it's clearly not worth continuing this discussion.

I'm sorry, what did you say that you think I didn't understand?

You have failed to give an argument that proves that any of the ceremonial or ritualistic commands of the law of Moses ever applied to Gentiles. We in the church are never commanded to not eat lobster.

I made the point both that Jews were given the role of being a light and a blessing to the nations by turning the nations from their wickedness and by teaching them to walk in God's way in obedience to His law in accordance with the promise and with spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom and I quoted 1 Peter 1:16 calling for us to be holy as God is holy. Likewise, in 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, which are terms used to describe Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6), so Gentiles also have the delight of getting to obey the instructions that God gave for how to fulfill those roles. It would be contradictory for a Gentile to want to live as part of a holy nation while not wanting to follow God's instructions for how to live as part of a holy nation.

You are sadly mistaken and have put yourself under the curse of the law.

God did not give His law in order to curse His children, but as a gift to teach us how to be blessed. In Deuteronomy 28, it lists the blessing of the law for living in obedience to it and the curse of the law for refusing to live in obedience to it, so I have put myself under the blessing of the law while you have put yourself under the curse of the law.

You don't seem to have any understanding of grace

In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in 1 Kings 2:1-3, God taught how to walk in His way through His law. In Titus 2:11-13, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so God graciously teaching us to obey His law is part of His gift of salvation. The people in the Bible wanted God to be gracious to them by teaching them to obey God's law, but you seem to want God to be gracious to you instead of teaching you to obey it, so you don't seem to have any understanding of grace.

or of the freedom we have in Christ

I showed that the freedom that we have in Christ is the freedom from sin, not the freedom to sin.

or of the new covenant that was established by the blood of Christ while replacing the inferior old covenant (Heb 8:6-13)

In Galatians 3:16-19, a new covenant does not nullify the promises of a covenant that has already been ratified, so God's covenants are cumulative. The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be replaced by the New Covenant is if it is cumulative with it, which is what it means to make it obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). So the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6). The fault that God found with the Mosaic Covenant was not with His law, but with the people for not continuing in their covenant (Hebrews 8:7-9), so the solution to the problem was not for God to do away with His law, but to do away with what was hindering us from obeying it. This is why the New Covenant involves God sending His Son to free us from sin so that we might be free to fulfill the righteous requirement of the law (Romans 8:3-4), God taking away our hearts of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and sending His Spirit to lead us in obedience to His law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), and God putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).

with its burdensome commandments (burdensome in the sense that no one except Christ can keep them all and if you are guilty of breaking even one of them, you are guilty of breaking them all - James 2:10).

In 1 John 5:3, to love God is to obey His commandments, which are not burdensome. In James 2:1-11, he was speaking to people who had sinned by committing favoritism, so he was not telling them that they needed to have perfect obedience because that would have already been too late, and he was not discouraging them from trying to keep God's law, but rather he was encouraging them to repent and to keep God's law more consistently.

 

[Soyeong]

I can't think of a statement more absurd! God intentionally made a covenant with Israel and then expected Israel to be righteous apart from that covenant? I'm speaking with an irrational person, or someone hopelessly caught up in some kind of cult!

I did not suggest that. For as long as God has been righteous there has also existed a way to act in accordance with God's righteousness. God can included instructions for how to act in accordance with His righteousness in His covenants, but the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is based on His righteousness, not on a particular covenant. Any number of covenants can be made or become obsolete, but God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is also eternal (Psalms 119:160). For example, it will always be righteous to do charity and it is not as though if God were to make another covenant, then it would be up in the air whether it would still be righteous to do charity. If God were to make another covenant were the way to act in accordance with His righteousness was by helping the poor, then God's righteousness and righteous laws would not be eternal.

That does not follow. The infinite God can certainly require different covenants with men without compromising His eternal nature or His moral consistency. It is *you* who are requiring of God that He impose either a single covenant or no covenant at all to obtain righteousness from men.

While God can certainly do that, all of God's covenants are made with the same God with the same eternal character traits and therefore the way to act in accordance with His character traits is eternally the same across all of them. I said nothing about God imposing a single covenant or no covenant at all or about obtaining righteousness from men.

God has been consistent along certain moral lines. What He does not change is His requirement that we conform to whatever word He has for us at the time, to obey whatever covenant is in place at the time.

To say that God is love and then may require of us hatred is indeed inconsistent. But God consistently requires of men love in all of His covenants.

Everything that God has commanded is in regard to how to love Him and our neighbor, so God consistently requiring love across all of His covenants is in support of my position.

You seem to be separating the Law from the Covenant of Law? You argue here that we are still under Israel's Law, but then claim our righteousness is separate from the Law? The Law was intrinsically connected to Moses' Covenant.

God's laws are not arbitrarily given, but are graciously give to teach us how to act in accordance with His character traits. God's love, righteousness, justice, holiness, goodness, and so forth are all the same, so it is not as though a new covenant means that the way to act in accordance with these traits has changed. I didn't say anything about righteousness being separate from the law.

You are defying both Paul's teaching and the teaching of Hebrews. We no longer offer animal sacrifices. We rest in Christ's work in dying on the cross. We do not trust in Israel's priesthood. Christ is our priest now. We do not worship at a Temple in Jerusalem. Christ is in us and we worship God wherever we are.

I don't think that Hebrews should be interpreted in a way that turns it against obeying what God has commanded, but if you think that Paul was speaking against obeying God, then you should obey God instead of him. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for him is if they teach against obeying His law, so if you interpret Paul as doing that and you consider him to be a servant of God, then you should conclude as I do that you must have misinterpreted him, but if you think that your interpretation must be correct, then your option is to conclude that Paul was a false prophet, but either way you should still obey God's law. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to rest on what he accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law (Acts 21:20). A priesthood led by God's word made flesh should be understood to be in accordance with God's word rather than as being contrary to it.

Idolatry and apostasy were defined in relation to the Law of Moses prior to Christ's death on the cross.

Christ did not go to the cross so that we could be free to do what God has previously revealed to be idolatry and apostasy.

That doesn't follow. If God showed that the way to the Holy of Holies has now been opened for us by Christ's death on the cross, it is ludicrous to go back to the Law and its animal sacrifices which could not give Israel entry into the Holy of Holies. The veil is rent. We go in with Christ to our heavenly reward.

The way to go with God's word made flesh is not by refusing to go with God's word.

 

[RandyPNW]

I did not suggest that.

I was responding precisely to what you said! You suggested righteousness somehow is separate from obedience to covenants. I realize you know God intended for His people to obey His covenants. But you are suggesting that "righteousness" is a virtue that Transcends obedience to covenants. You said, "The way to be a doer of God's righteousness is independent of any covenant."

For as long as God has been righteous there has also existed a way to act in accordance with God's righteousness. God can included instructions for how to act in accordance with His righteousness in His covenants, but the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is based on His righteousness, not on a particular covenant.

And now you're saying it again! Obviously, righteousness exists apart from the Law. But the point is, righteousness exists in obedience to the Law, as well. This is common sense, and yet you double down on the idea that obedience to the Law does not constitute "righteousness." That is the implication when you say that "the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is based on His righteousness, not on a particular covenant. That is, you are contradicting yourself.

Any number of covenants can be made or become obsolete, but God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is also eternal (Psalms 119:160).

I've answered this already. It is a non-sequitur to say that because God is eternal and gave mankind temporary covenants that righteousness for men cannot be based on these covenants and still constitute eternal righteousness. And that's because the righteousness of faith operated through these temporary covenants such that the righteous deeds of obedient men "follow them" into eternity. By the cross of Christ, righteousness by faith was able to operate through obedience to God's covenants despite our own inability to achieve Eternal Life.

For example, it will always be righteous to do charity and it is not as though if God were to make another covenant, then it would be up in the air whether it would still be righteous to do charity. If God were to make another covenant were the way to act in accordance with His righteousness was by helping the poor, then God's righteousness and righteous laws would not be eternal.

As I said before, God's eternal nature of love does not change in any of the covenants He has imposed upon mankind. Our obedience, to become eternal, relies upon God's eternal nature of love, which has included His grace.

While God can certainly do that, all of God's covenants are made with the same God with the same eternal character traits and therefore the way to act in accordance with His character traits is eternally the same across all of them. I said nothing about God imposing a single covenant or no covenant at all or about obtaining righteousness from men.

See your statements above

Everything that God has commanded is in regard to how to love Him and our neighbor, so God consistently requiring love across all of His covenants is in support of my position.

Not at all! I would agree with you on God's eternal nature. But when you say that our righteousness is based on His eternal perfection, what you're really doing is implying that we must be perfect in order to be viewed as righteous.

God's laws are not arbitrarily given, but are graciously give to teach us how to act in accordance with His character traits.

Kind of missing the point here! God's Law was given not just to teach, but to invite obedience. As I said before, righteousness is defined as obedience to God's word, in whatever form it takes--in covenants, in God's word directly to our heart, etc.

God's love, righteousness, justice, holiness, goodness, and so forth are all the same, so it is not as though a new covenant means that the way to act in accordance with these traits has changed. I didn't say anything about righteousness being separate from the law.

See your statements above. Your explanations do not really explain your statements.

I don't think that Hebrews should be interpreted in a way that turns it against obeying what God has commanded, but if you think that Paul was speaking against obeying God, then you should obey God instead of him.

I never said Hebrews, whoever the author was, indicated we should not obey God. It is an inspired book, and part of Scripture canon.

In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to rest on what he accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law (Acts 21:20). A priesthood led by God's word made flesh should be understood to be in accordance with God's word rather than as being contrary to it.

The Law, used in a technical sense, refers to the Law of Moses. But the Law of God is also used in a more general sense, indicating God's requirements, regardless of what covenant is in play. If you are advocating for the continued applicability of the Law of Moses, you are in error, in accordance with historic Christianity.

The New Covenant is based on God's Law not on the technical reference to the Law of Moses but to the sense of God's Moral Law, as it existed from the beginning when God made Man "in His image and likeness."

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I'm sorry, what did you say that you think I didn't understand?

Everything I said in my post. Maybe try reading it again and see if you can understand this time.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The Law, used in a technical sense, refers to the Law of Moses. But the Law of God is also used in a more general sense, indicating God's requirements, regardless of what covenant is in play. If you are advocating for the continued applicability of the Law of Moses, you are in error, in accordance with historic Christianity.

That is exactly what he's doing. It seems that maybe Judaism would be more appealing to him than true Christianity. He won't admit it, but he puts himself under the curse of the law, as Paul wrote about here:

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. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

He clearly doesn't understand what it means to be redeemed from the curse of the law by Christ and it's sad to see. He thinks he can earn justification by keeping the works of the law of Moses, but "no man is justified by the law in the sight of God".

The New Covenant is based on God's Law not on the technical reference to the Law of Moses but to the sense of God's Moral Law, as it existed from the beginning when God made Man "in His image and likeness."

Right. He doesn't understand this, so he thinks we are obligated to keep the law of Moses which was never commanded of Gentiles. Or of Christians in general, so it's not a requirement for Christian Jews, either.

 

[RandyPNW]

1Now the Spirit [a]expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5for it is 1 Timothy 4 NKJVsanctified by the word of God and prayer.

So what is your take on this ?
Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from certain foods.

I was thinking along the lines of Klaus Schwab & the WEFs NWO or great reset , where they wanted us to eat bugs and do away with the cattle because they fart too much. And they were all for homosexuality transhumanism etc.

However , that plan failed and they got nowhere with it , so here I am , looking at 1 Timothy 4 and wondering exactly what this prophecy might mean and how it might come about.
Any Ideas guys?T

Those who do not wish to be "saddled" with a continual relationship with God, having to respond to His guidance all the time, often choose to create their own moral system, replete with laws that appear to look good to others. A person may restrain himself or herself from various things to appear disciplined and pure, even though it is only living in relationship to God that completes human righteousness.

Avoiding God's Spirit in our lives can never be a good thing. And avoiding a lasting relationship with God will not lead to Eternal Life. But that's what some people choose--their independence from God as opposed to reliance upon God. Like Satan they are proud and wish to be their own God. And they therefore seek glory for themselves in all of their disciplines.

Col 2.16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

This kind of self-abasement and legalism has been present from the beginning. Men create idols that do not speak, so that they can insert messages into their stone mouths that they want to believe is from God.

 

[Soyeong]

I was responding precisely to what you said! You suggested righteousness somehow is separate from obedience to covenants. I realize you know God intended for His people to obey His covenants. But you are suggesting that "righteousness" is a virtue that Transcends obedience to covenants. You said, "The way to be a doer of God's righteousness is independent of any covenant."

You are not correctly understanding me, so sorry for not being clear. God was righteous before He made any covenants with man, so even if God had never made any covenants with man, then there would still exist a way to acting in accordance with God's righteousness, though God has revealed this way through His law. Sin was in the word before the law was given (Romans 5:13), so there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when the law was given, but rather the law revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do that. If righteousness changed between covenants, then what it would mean to say that God is righteous would also change between covenants, which would mean that God's righteousness and righteous laws would not be eternal.

And now you're saying it again! Obviously, righteousness exists apart from the Law. But the point is, righteousness exists in obedience to the Law, as well. This is common sense, and yet you double down on the idea that obedience to the Law does not constitute "righteousness." That is the implication when you say that "the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is based on His righteousness, not on a particular covenant. That is, you are contradicting yourself.

No, in order for righteousness to exist there needs to be something that defines what it is, which what God's eternal law was given to do, so righteousness can't exist apart from it. I said that righteousness is not based on a particular covenant, not that God's law does not constitute righteousness. A covenant can be made or become obsolete, but what God's eternal law has revealed to be true about the way to do what is righteous is eternally true.

I've answered this already. It is a non-sequitur to say that because God is eternal and gave mankind temporary covenants that righteousness for men cannot be based on these covenants and still constitute eternal righteousness. And that's because the righteousness of faith operated through these temporary covenants such that the righteous deeds of obedient men "follow them" into eternity. By the cross of Christ, righteousness by faith was able to operate through obedience to God's covenants despite our own inability to achieve Eternal Life.

God does not renege on His promises, so He does not make temporary covenants. The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8) and the same is true for God's other covenants. The way to do what is righteous does not change between any of God's covenants. If God made a covenant where it was in accordance with His righteousness to do something and then made another covenant where it was contrary to His righteousness to do that, then His righteousness would not be eternal.

As I said before, God's eternal nature of love does not change in any of the covenants He has imposed upon mankind. Our obedience, to become eternal, relies upon God's eternal nature of love, which has included His grace.

See your statements above

Nothing in that statement has anything to do with God imposing a single covenant or no covenant at all or about obtaining righteousness from men. I didn't even mention obtaining righteousness from men or above how many covenants God made.

Not at all! I would agree with you on God's eternal nature. But when you say that our righteousness is based on His eternal perfection, what you're really doing is implying that we must be perfect in order to be viewed as righteous.

I didn't say that our righteousness is based on God's eternal perfection or that we must be perfect in order to be viewed as righteous. The one and only way that there has ever been for someone to become righteous is through faith and what it means for them to become righteous is to become a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law, which is why the same faith by which we are declared righteous apart from works does not abolish our need to obey it, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:28-31).

I never said Hebrews, whoever the author was, indicated we should not obey God. It is an inspired book, and part of Scripture canon.

There are things that God has commanded that you said that we no longer do.

The Law, used in a technical sense, refers to the Law of Moses. But the Law of God is also used in a more general sense, indicating God's requirements, regardless of what covenant is in play. If you are advocating for the continued applicability of the Law of Moses, you are in error, in accordance with historic Christianity.

The New Covenant is based on God's Law not on the technical reference to the Law of Moses but to the sense of God's Moral Law, as it existed from the beginning when God made Man "in His image and likeness."

In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God spoke to Him without departing from it, so it is the Law of God, which is why it is called the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts. The Mosaic Law is God's Moral Law and existed from the beginning when God made Man in His image and likeness.

 

[Soyeong]

Those who do not wish to be "saddled" with a continual relationship with God, having to respond to His guidance all the time, often choose to create their own moral system, replete with laws that appear to look good to others. A person may restrain himself or herself from various things to appear disciplined and pure, even though it is only living in relationship to God that completes human righteousness.

Avoiding God's Spirit in our lives can never be a good thing. And avoiding a lasting relationship with God will not lead to Eternal Life. But that's what some people choose--their independence from God as opposed to reliance upon God. Like Satan they are proud and wish to be their own God. And they therefore seek glory for themselves in all of their disciplines.

Col 2.16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

This kind of self-abasement and legalism has been present from the beginning. Men create idols that do not speak, so that they can insert messages into their stone mouths that they want to believe is from God.

The Mosaic Covenant is often described in term of being a marriage between God and Israel, so the Mosaic Law is His instructions for how to have a continual relationship with Him. The Hebrew word "yada" refers to an intimate relationship/knowledge gained through experience, such as in Genesis 4:1, Adam knew (yada) Eve, she conceived, and gave birth to Cain. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know (yada) Him, in 1 Kings 2:1-3, God taught how to walk in His wya through the Mosaic Law, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the Mosaic Law is to teach us how to know (yada) God and Jesus, which is His gift of eternal life (John 17:3).

The Mosaic Law is the moral system that God instructed, not something that I created.

In Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Mosaic Law.

God is trustworthy, therefore the Mosaic Law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so the way to trust in God is by obediently trusting in His instructions and it is contradictory to think that we should rely on God instead of relying on His instructions.

Our good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law do not glorify ourselves, but rather they glorify God (Matthew 5:16).

In Colossians 2:16-23, they were keeping God's feasts in obedience to His commands, they were being judged by pagans who were promoting human traditions and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone prevent them from obeying God. This promoting asceticism and severity to the body would be judging people for celebrating feasts, not for refraining from celebrating them.

You are insinuating a lot about me that is not true.

 

[Soyeong]

Everything I said in my post. Maybe try reading it again and see if you can understand this time.

I understood what you said and explained why I disagreed.

That is exactly what he's doing. It seems that maybe Judaism would be more appealing to him than true Christianity.

Jesus did not come to start his own religion following the ways of a different god, but rather he came as the Jewish Messiah of Judaism in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and he spent his ministry teaching how to practice Judaism by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Torah. In Acts 21:20, they were rejoicing that tens of thousands of Jews were coming to faith in Jesus who were all zealous for the Torah, which is in accordance with Titus 2:14, where Jesus gave himself in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so Jews coming to faith in Jesus were not ceasing to practice Judaism. This means that there was a period of time between the resurrection of Jesus and the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10 that is estimated to be around 7-15 years during which all Christians were Torah observant Jews and that true Christian is the form of Judaism that recognizes that Jesus is the Messiah.

He won't admit it, but he puts himself under the curse of the law, as Paul wrote about here:

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. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

He clearly doesn't understand what it means to be redeemed from the curse of the law by Christ and it's sad to see. He thinks he can earn justification by keeping the works of the law of Moses, but "no man is justified by the law in the sight of God".

In Deuteronomy 28, it describes the blessing of the law and the curse of the law and the Bible repeatedly says that obedience to it is the way to be blessed while lawlessness is the way to be cursed, so the law itself is not a curse, but a blessing, and you are the one who is putting yourself under the curse of the law. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from the Mosaic Law, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness. I do not think that I can earn justification by keeping the works of the law of Moses, so you're just making things up at this point.

Right. He doesn't understand this, so he thinks we are obligated to keep the law of Moses which was never commanded of Gentiles. Or of Christians in general, so it's not a requirement for Christian Jews, either.

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so while a Gentile does not need to become a Jew in order to become a follower of Christ, a Gentile can't become his follower by refusing to follow what he taught.

 

[RandyPNW]

You are not correctly understanding me, so sorry for not being clear. God was righteous before He made any covenants with man, so even if God had never made any covenants with man, then there would still exist a way to acting in accordance with God's righteousness, though God has revealed this way through His law.

There are various ways of determining righteousness for Man, and they are all related to God's word to Man. Whether covenant with a nation, or a personal word to an individual, it is obedience to what God requires that determines what "righteousness" is.

There is no sense in being vague about what "righteousness" is for God. We know He is perfect and holy. He defines what "righteousness" for Man is. And He does that by issuing to us mandates of various kinds. Therefore, we cannot speak of our "righteousness" apart from God's word of command.

Sin was in the word before the law was given (Romans 5:13), so there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when the law was given, but rather the law revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do that.

That simply isn't true. The Law of Moses introduced new commands that were not present from the beginning. For example, before sin existed there was no need for commandments regarding the demonstration of our need for atonement.

If righteousness changed between covenants, then what it would mean to say that God is righteous would also change between covenants, which would mean that God's righteousness and righteous laws would not be eternal.

As I said before, "righteousness" is based on the particular word God gives, whether associated with a temporary covenant or with an eternal covenant. The righteousness associated with obedience to a temporary covenant cannot bring Eternal Life. But obedience directed at an eternal covenant can bring Eternal Life.

No, in order for righteousness to exist there needs to be something that defines what it is, which what God's eternal law was given to do, so righteousness can't exist apart from it.

God's word defines what obedience is and therefore what "righteousness" is.

I said that righteousness is not based on a particular covenant, not that God's law does not constitute righteousness. A covenant can be made or become obsolete, but what God's eternal law has revealed to be true about the way to do what is righteous is eternally true.

That's a truism--God's eternal law brings eternal righteousness. But the opposite is equally true, that obedience to a temporary Law brought only temporary righteousness, lacking Christ's eternal atonement.

God does not renege on His promises, so He does not make temporary covenants.

False. The Law of Moses was a temporary covenant. Yes, God always keeps His word. But it doesn't follow that He cannot make temporary covenants.

The Mosaic Covenant is eternal.

You are not understanding this in context. Hebrews explains it. It was to be an "ongoing covenant," for "all your generations." It had an end game, namely with the eternal atonement of Christ. Israel was to continuously keep the Law until it was resolved with Christ's redemption.

 

[RandyPNW]

The Mosaic Covenant is often described in term of being a marriage between God and Israel, so the Mosaic Law is His instructions for how to have a continual relationship with Him.

Nevertheless, the Covenant of Law also showed the Israel's engagement to God was in a precarious position. Having been born with a Sin Nature, that Sin defiled Israel and could not fully project a lasting marriage to God.

That's why Christ had to come and establish the Marriage on stronger grounds--on grounds that could last forever. The Law only provided shadows of that, as the letter of Hebrews indicates, and as Paul himself indicated.

The Mosaic Law is the moral system that God instructed, not something that I created.

Nobody remotely suggested that you created the Mosaic Law!

In Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Mosaic Law.

No, Paul did not say "Mosaic Law." It referred to God's Law in the general sense--in the sense of God's word, which exists as a law for us in every generation, whatever covenant we may be under.

God is trustworthy, therefore the Mosaic Law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so the way to trust in God is by obediently trusting in His instructions and it is contradictory to think that we should rely on God instead of relying on His instructions.

God's word is trustworthy in the context of whatever He is saying in a particular context, in whatever covenant He is speaking through. While the Law of Moses was in effect, Israel could rely, as a nation, on certain results coming from their obedience to that particular word.

Our good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law do not glorify ourselves, but rather they glorify God (Matthew 5:16).

Jesus' earthly mission, and words he spoke at that time, were directed through the Law of Moses and specifically, to the nation Israel.

In Colossians 2:16-23, they were keeping God's feasts in obedience to His commands, they were being judged by pagans who were promoting human traditions and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone prevent them from obeying God. This promoting asceticism and severity to the body would be judging people for celebrating feasts, not for refraining from celebrating them.

Paul did not distinguish between pagan asceticism and Jewish legalism--both were efforts at self-justification. Both were forms of exhibitionism, and not true obedience to God's word. Obedience to the Law was promoted in the NT era by heretical Ebionites. And you are doing the same thing.

You are insinuating a lot about me that is not true.

What is clear and most relevant is that you're promoting the heresy of Legalism. You are promoting the idea of observing the Law of Moses, which has been condemned universally in Christianity as error.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I understood what you said and explained why I disagreed.

Your response showed that you didn't understand anything I said because your response made no sense in relation to what I said. It didn't address what I said at all. What else does that mean except that you didn't understand what I said? Unless you understood it, but decided not to actually address it? So, this is obviously a waste of time.

Jesus did not come to start his own religion following the ways of a different god, but rather he came as the Jewish Messiah of Judaism in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and he spent his ministry teaching how to practice Judaism by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Torah. In Acts 21:20, they were rejoicing that tens of thousands of Jews were coming to faith in Jesus who were all zealous for the Torah, which is in accordance with Titus 2:14, where Jesus gave himself in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so Jews coming to faith in Jesus were not ceasing to practice Judaism. This means that there was a period of time between the resurrection of Jesus and the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10 that is estimated to be around 7-15 years during which all Christians were Torah observant Jews and that true Christian is the form of Judaism that recognizes that Jesus is the Messiah.

Judaism is a false religion taught by the scribes and Pharisees. It's unbelievable that you say Jesus came "as the Jewish Messiah of Judaism". Nonsense! His religion is not Judaism, it is Christianity. Those who are in Judaism don't believe the Messiah has come yet.

Paul talked about how he was delivered from the false religion of Judaism and here you are acting as if it's the truth. You are deceived.

Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

Notice how he called it "the Jews' religion" and how that false religion led him to persecute the church. And you think Judaism is the truth? Please ask God for wisdom about this (James 1:5-7).