The Law of Moses Has Not Been Abolished

[Richard_oti]

There is no command regarding the washing of hands, except the command given to the priests in relation to temple duty, as were other commands given to priests concerning the holy temple. This, however, was not a command for everyone to wash their hands before eating, that became a tradition of men that was not commanded by God.

Which is exactly the point with regard to keeping meat and milk separate.

The "tradition" regarding the washing of hands, comes down from that very law. Just as storing meat and milk separately, is a "tradition" that come down from a kid and milk. Both of which, are of the yeast of the pharisees.

 

[Richard_oti]

The Sabbath has changed, for we observe not the weekly Sabbath, but the millennial Sabbath to fulfill the requirement to observe Sabbath.

Oy vey, you can't even see it. You proclaim that you teach obedience to the law, yet your shabat in truth is no different than that of @"ByGrace" (No offense intended ByGrace). Her shabat is in Jesus. (Ok, I am assuming a little there, feel free to correct me ByGrace, my apologies if I am badly misrepresenting you).

Your so called teaching of the law, is in fact lawlessness. You are teaching error, you are teaching people in effect, to disregard shabat.

I suggest you read these two studies. Clearly I know more than you (I boast in the Lord),

<snip link to worthless study>

I have read all of your so called studies that I am about too. I won't go read any of them. I would address perhaps one or two of them in detail. Since you have stated they are not copyrighted and that I may take any of them freely, may I repost them here and freely tear them down, showing the depth of error within. Or does take them freely exclude for the purposes of showing them to be worthless.

Your closing sentence reveals your heart and attitude. Thus, the reality is, that nothing that I nor anyone else can say or do, shall help you from the quagmire you are in. Part of me says, let him drown in his own quagmire. Because I know what it will take to break through to you. I have done my part, I have warned you. I spoke to you regarding the horns and the timings from some of your posts. What you choose to do with it, is up to you.

In the words of Supertramp:

"Now some they do and some they don't,
And some you just can't tell;
And some they will and some they won't,
And some it's just as well."

 

[ScottA]

I don't judge you, the Law does. I am merely advising that you need to obey it after you come to knowledge and understanding of it.

You tread on dangerous ground, invoking the law upon one born of the Holy Spirit of God. It is I who should be warning you...while you still have breath.

 

[ScottA]

The apostle Paul said that he, with the mind, serves the law of God. (in Romans 7) And the flesh serves the law of Sin.
He was under law.

We are all under the law of sin and death, that law which is against the flesh. But that is served and fulfilled in death.

However, Paul was not under the law given to Moses - that was Saul, whom is dead. Paul on the other hand, was a new creation in Christ, whom was dead to the law, but alive to God. There is a difference.

 

[ScottA]

hey just throwing it out there, not really a part of the argument at hand.

anyway, its been my experience that the convictions of the faithful is the commandments which does as Paul says, establish the law, within ourselves. not as a hammer to beat those under grace into guilt and shame. its to seek to walk therein, not accuse those who don't according to ones own judgement.

when Jesus spoke the sermon on the mount He was specific about those who would break the law and teach others to, but on the other hand it is honorable to walk therein, and teach other to, or how to.

This I addressed in post# 324.

But I will say it again...

He who has an ear, let him hear:

There is the law of sin and death, and then there is the law given to Moses and Israel. The two are different, distinctly identified as such by Christ.

1. All are under and subject to the law of sin and death, which is fulfilled in death: "It is appointed once to die."
2. Only Israel ("the first who are last") were under the law delivered to Moses, whom are the "chosen" "dead in Christ."
3. The gentiles were not chosen to receive the law delivered to Moses and Israel. Since Jesus died fulfilling the law by His death, "the living" "in Christ" (whom are "the last who are first"), are released from the law by His death, and born again of the spirit of God, whom is the law.

These are "the times of the gentiles", and all that remains are those who are under the law of sin and death, and those whom are God's, born of His spirit.

The law given to Moses was fulfilled by Christ, through His death and resurrection. "It is finished."

 

[tabletalk]

After 395 posts about the Law of Moses, I think this teaching from Titus chapter 3 is appropriate.
(If this forum, and discussion, were taking place in a local church, the Pastor/Elders would have ruled on this dispute)

From Titus 3: 9. *But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. 10. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.*

 

[Rev20]

This is not so, for whoever is born of the Spirit now is indeed among the chosen, and this choice came before the foundations of the world were laid, which was on the third day of creation when dry land was caused to appear. The Gentiles who are now born of the Spirit become descendants of Abraham, and grafted into the one olive tree, Israel.

There is no evidence any Gentile was "chosen before the foundation of the world was laid", nor is there any evidence any Gentile was or is of the "elect", nor is there any evidence any Gentile was or is a 'saint".

Rev

 

[christiang]

There is no evidence any Gentile was "chosen before the foundation of the world was laid", nor is there any evidence any Gentile was or is of the "elect", nor is there any evidence any Gentile was or is a 'saint".

Rev

No evidence, are you kidding?

even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love (Ephesians 1:4 [ESV])

And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Romans 8:30 [NIV])

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. (Romans 8:29 [NIV])

Who accuses against the chosen of God? God is the one justifying. (Romans 8:33 [ABP])

Paul, a bondman of God, and apostle of Jesus Christ, for belief of the chosen of God, and full knowledge of truth, of the one according to piety; (Titus 1:1 [ABP])
But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. (2 Thessalonians 2:13 [ESV])

 

[christiang]

You tread on dangerous ground. I have been

You tread on dangerous ground, invoking the law upon one born of the Holy Spirit of God. It is I who should be warning you...while you still have breath.

You do not have the spirit of God, because no one having the spirit of God would deny that the second coming of Jesus Christ is literal. By your own words you reveal what type of believer you are.

 

[christiang]

Oy vey, you can't even see it. You proclaim that you teach obedience to the law, yet your shabat in truth is no different than that of @"ByGrace" (No offense intended ByGrace). Her shabat is in Jesus. (Ok, I am assuming a little there, feel free to correct me ByGrace, my apologies if I am badly misrepresenting you).

Your so called teaching of the law, is in fact lawlessness. You are teaching error, you are teaching people in effect, to disregard shabat.




<snip link to worthless study>

I have read all of your so called studies that I am about too. I won't go read any of them. I would address perhaps one or two of them in detail. Since you have stated they are not copyrighted and that I may take any of them freely, may I repost them here and freely tear them down, showing the depth of error within. Or does take them freely exclude for the purposes of showing them to be worthless.

Your closing sentence reveals your heart and attitude. Thus, the reality is, that nothing that I nor anyone else can say or do, shall help you from the quagmire you are in. Part of me says, let him drown in his own quagmire. Because I know what it will take to break through to you. I have done my part, I have warned you. I spoke to you regarding the horns and the timings from some of your posts. What you choose to do with it, is up to you.

In the words of Supertramp:

"Now some they do and some they don't,
And some you just can't tell;
And some they will and some they won't,
And some it's just as well."

If working on the Sabbath is sin, then explain how the priests were able to work on the Sabbath doing temple duty? Or how the disciples were able to pick up grain on the Sabbath when a man mentioned in the Law was condemned to death for merely picking up wood on the Sabbath?

 

[christiang]

Which is exactly the point with regard to keeping meat and milk separate.

The "tradition" regarding the washing of hands, comes down from that very law. Just as storing meat and milk separately, is a "tradition" that come down from a kid and milk. Both of which, are of the yeast of the pharisees.

They are not equivalent examples, for meat and milk are still meat and milk whether you boil them together, or serve them together. Whereas washing of hands before performing temple duty is not the same as washing of hands before eating. By mere implication of your unequal analogy, anyone could say, oh you must wash your hands before going outside because the priests wash their hands before entering the temple. It is not an equivalent analogy.

 

[christiang]

For a fact, with regard to shabat, and tame' and tahor. You fail to make a distinction.

How have I broken the Sabbath?

 

[christiang]

A kid and milk for starters. But as I have also pointed out to you, you have miss the mark regarding the horns. And that, was being polite.

You also miss the mark regarding making a distinction between that which is tame' and that which is tahor. Also with regard to shabat. You have made up a law for yourself. You accuse me with regard to milk and a burger of disregarding the Instruction of YHVH for the sake of my palette, yet you use a single verse from Bere'shit to justify your palette. Contrary to the obedience to the "commands" / "law" you claim to teach.

According to you it is sin to separate milk and cheese in regard to the command of not boiling a kid in milk?

 

[christiang]

For one, it is your attitude.




No, you teach partial obedience, and as in the case of a kid and milk, you go way beyond that which is written to the point of being ludicrous. You are partaking of the yeast of the pharisees.




ChristianG, you're reply to @"ByGrace" alone is cause enough from my perspective. However, I read your replies to others who tried to assist you.




<chuckle> Oh yes, I realize it, you. I have spent many many years opposed to such as yourself. All people who claim "the law" or some form thereof making near identical claims as yourself.

As I have said, perhaps I spent too many years amoung the cults of this world, assisting to break them down and bring some to truth. I have seen many like you.

What's the matter? You can berate or be harsh to others, but now you cry like a girl when it returns upon your own head? Oh, why me ...

Partial obedience? If I'm going above and beyond in obedience to the command of God, how is that partial, if not above and beyond? If anything, it is you who is being partial in obedience to the command by not separating your milk and cheese. So out of the two, the one with lesser righteousness is you, not me, who wants to not be at fault in anything I do.

 

[christiang]

But... is it OK to call a brother on this forum an idiot?

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Matt 5:22

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Matt 12:36-37

I do not call brothers idiots out of hate, which is what that saying is in the context of, murder of the heart, which is hate. I say it out of admonishment, that you may repent. For even Paul called men fools, out of admonishment, not hatred.

 

[christiang]

Yes.


I agree that it is by the Holy Spirit, but what is it that the Holy Spirit does in a man?



And what verse(s) of scripture did you use to draw this conclusion?



And what happened to this?

"The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." John 10:10




When does a person have to be a good steward? While he is a steward is not yet an heir, is he?

Read this study Repentance and Sin No More, Perfection and Born of the Spirit | Wisdom of God . Scriptures are there.

 

[bbyrd009]

For even Paul called men fools, out of admonishment, not hatred.

if you go back and check that you will see that Paul spoke generally, and not specifically to anyone

 

[christiang]

if you go back and check that you will see that Paul spoke generally, and not specifically to anyone

Are you so dull not to realize that there is a difference between calling a man a fool out of admonishment vs hatred? Did Jesus Christ not call the Pharisees specifically snakes and whitewash tombs? Stop grumbling and trying to find fault in what I say because you also want to reject what I am telling you.

These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage. (Jude 1:16 [NIV])

 

[ScottA]

You do not have the spirit of God, because no one having the spirit of God would deny that the second coming of Jesus Christ is literal. By your own words you reveal what type of believer you are.

Now you add giving false witness against me. I never said that.

 

[christiang]

Now you add giving false witness against me. I never said that.

Don't make me scroll through old posts to find where you implied the second coming of Jesus Christ will not be literal. Even someone else on this forum pointed it out against you, so I have a witness of the words you yourself spoke. Like I said, no one truly having the holy spirit will deny that the second coming of Jesus Christ is literal.