Is The Mosaic Law Passed Away ??

Tehilah BaAretz · May 11, 2011

I disagree with you when you say that therir has never been but one plan of salvation but I realize you will not change what you believe.

Jesus saved me when I placed ALL my belief, faith, trust and confidence in His work on the cross; His shed blood. Salvation is the work of God.

I think you did not understand what I wrote because I said that Adam and Abraham and all of the other saints of the ages were all saved by grace through faith. Works never provided salvation. Never! If you got saved by your works you can claim a different way of salvation but that is not according to the Bible or the God I serve. I intend for this to be a challenge to the idea that the Temple sacrifices and the teachings of Torah excluded Grace and Faith. It was never the case. Without faith it has always been impossible to please God.

Duckybill · May 11, 2011

Eccl.12:13 said:
God tells us the following...

Whom do you suppose Authored Galatians?

Ezek.44
[9] Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

That was because they were under the works of THE LAW of Moses. Christians are not under the 'works of the Law'.

Galatians 3:10 (NKJV)
[sup]10 [/sup]For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse;

So how will someone be able to obey God's commandment of coming to worship Him and NOT be circumcised in heart OR flesh?

Galatians 2:16 (NKJV)
[sup]16 [/sup]knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Paul is not saying do not get circumcised. Paul is saying whether you are circumcised or uncircumcised, if you do not have faith which works through love, being circumcised will not matter. Christ will not see you any different just because you get circumcised.

You are totally twisting what God said.

Galatians 5:2-4 (NKJV)
[sup]2 [/sup]Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. [sup]3 [/sup]And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. [sup]4 [/sup]You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Galatians 5:18 (NKJV)
[sup]18 [/sup]But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Tehilah BaAretz · May 12, 2011

That was because they were under the works of THE LAW of Moses. Christians are not under the 'works of the Law'.

Galatians 3:10 (NKJV)
[sup]10 [/sup]For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse;

You pulled that one out of it's proper context didn't you?
Let's add a couple verses just to see what the Apostle was talking about:
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, i“Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is 4justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for j“the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet kthe law is not of faith, but l“the man who does them shall live by them.”

13 mChrist has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, n“Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 othat the blessing of Abraham might come upon the pGentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive qthe promise of the Spirit through faith.

I see a couple things that are worthy of note. First: "no one is justified by the law" That would include everyone who ever lived.
Second: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law" That is, the condemnation that comes from failure to fulfill the law. The law is not eliminated here but the curse attached to the law is removed for those who are justified; living by faith.
Third; "the blessing of Abraham" This is a double reference. Abraham is identified in the passage as the one given the promise of the seed. Jesus is clearly identified as that seed. The thing that is often missed is that Abraham is blessed by God. This means that Abraham is identified as one who was saved by grace through faith. The list in Hebrews 11 says it clearly. By the way, Abraham lived long before Moses. He was not, "Under the works of the Law of Moses."
As for Moses, he lived by faith too according to Hebrews 11:27-28.
Let's not miss this one in the following verse. The Children of Israel at the time of Moses also lived by faith!
To recap:
Nobody is saved by or justified by the law or the works of the law. They never were. It has always been all about faith in God.
I'd like to suggest a solution to the seeming contradiction we see here. I believe that the "finished work of the cross" is eternal rather than temporal. That is, it was effective from the beginning of time until the end of all ages. The eternal sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was the only sacrifice that ever counted. All other sacrifices were and possibly will be again, representative of the blood of the Messiah, shed on the cross. They never produced salvation or forgiveness or justification unless the one making the sacrifice acted in/by faith in God. (Perhaps I should point out that I believe that Jesus is God.)

lawrance · May 12, 2011

Tehilah BaAretz said:
You pulled that one out of it's proper context didn't you?
Let's add a couple verses just to see what the Apostle was talking about:
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, i“Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is 4justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for j“the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet kthe law is not of faith, but l“the man who does them shall live by them.”

13 mChrist has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, n“Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 othat the blessing of Abraham might come upon the pGentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive qthe promise of the Spirit through faith.

I see a couple things that are worthy of note. First: "no one is justified by the law" That would include everyone who ever lived.
Second: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law" That is, the condemnation that comes from failure to fulfill the law. The law is not eliminated here but the curse attached to the law is removed for those who are justified; living by faith.
Third; "the blessing of Abraham" This is a double reference. Abraham is identified in the passage as the one given the promise of the seed. Jesus is clearly identified as that seed. The thing that is often missed is that Abraham is blessed by God. This means that Abraham is identified as one who was saved by grace through faith. The list in Hebrews 11 says it clearly. By the way, Abraham lived long before Moses. He was not, "Under the works of the Law of Moses."
As for Moses, he lived by faith too according to Hebrews 11:27-28.
Let's not miss this one in the following verse. The Children of Israel at the time of Moses also lived by faith!
To recap:
Nobody is saved by or justified by the law or the works of the law. They never were. It has always been all about faith in God.
I'd like to suggest a solution to the seeming contradiction we see here. I believe that the "finished work of the cross" is eternal rather than temporal. That is, it was effective from the beginning of time until the end of all ages. The eternal sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was the only sacrifice that ever counted. All other sacrifices were and possibly will be again, representative of the blood of the Messiah, shed on the cross. They never produced salvation or forgiveness or justification unless the one making the sacrifice acted in/by faith in God. (Perhaps I should point out that I believe that Jesus is God.)

That right, there is only one, not two. as the two are as one. but came to it's fulfilment in Christ.

Duckybill · May 12, 2011

Tehilah BaAretz said:
You pulled that one out of it's proper context didn't you?

Do you ever quote a single verse?

First: "no one is justified by the law" That would include everyone who ever lived.

Then why would anyone want to still be under THE LAW?

Second: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law" That is, the condemnation that comes from failure to fulfill the law. The law is not eliminated here but the curse attached to the law is removed for those who are justified; living by faith.Third; "the blessing of Abraham" This is a double reference. Abraham is identified in the passage as the one given the promise of the seed. Jesus is clearly identified as that seed. The thing that is often missed is that Abraham is blessed by God. This means that Abraham is identified as one who was saved by grace through faith. The list in Hebrews 11 says it clearly. By the way, Abraham lived long before Moses. He was not, "Under the works of the Law of Moses."As for Moses, he lived by faith too according to Hebrews 11:27-28.Let's not miss this one in the following verse. The Children of Israel at the time of Moses also lived by faith!To recap:Nobody is saved by or justified by the law or the works of the law. They never were. It has always been all about faith in God.I'd like to suggest a solution to the seeming contradiction we see here. I believe that the "finished work of the cross" is eternal rather than temporal. That is, it was effective from the beginning of time until the end of all ages. The eternal sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was the only sacrifice that ever counted. All other sacrifices were and possibly will be again, representative of the blood of the Messiah, shed on the cross. They never produced salvation or forgiveness or justification unless the one making the sacrifice acted in/by faith in God. (Perhaps I should point out that I believe that Jesus is God.)

If you choose to be under the works of THE LAW then you are under the curse of THE LAW. You can't keep it. Nobody could but Jesus. He fulfilled it nailing it to the cross. It is "obsolete". I'm not under THE LAW.

Tehilah BaAretz · May 13, 2011

Duckybill said:
Then why would anyone want to still be under THE LAW?

If you choose to be under the works of THE LAW then you are under the curse of THE LAW. You can't keep it. Nobody could but Jesus. He fulfilled it nailing it to the cross. It is "obsolete". I'm not under THE LAW.

I still don't think you understood what I was saying. I'll try to word it differently and see if we might actually agree once we understand each other. My possible disagreement is that I don't think the Torah is bad in any way. I do not want to be released from revelation of God's nature, will, character or anything else I might gain from reading the whole Bible. The thing is that you seem to want to be liberated from the Old Testament and I think the whole Bible is desirable for a multitude of good reasons. That does not mean that I am attempting to fulfill all of the commandments of the whole Bible. I sort of wish I was capable of doing that but I know that I failed long ago. Thank God from His mercy and grace. Here's the reasoning: I am a believer, saved by grace through faith. I love God with my whole heart,soul, body and strength. Because I love Him I want to know everything I can learn about Him. Since He decided to reveal himself through Moses, it is profitable to learn what Moses has to say. God has revealed a lot about the things He loves, the things He hates, the way He behaves and much more. Why in the world would I even consider refusing to learn these things? God doesn't need me. He doesn't need any thing I can do for Him or give to him. I am so grateful that He loves me anyway and to my surprise, I see that he even asks for some things from me. He wants me to give to the poor and the widows. I can do that! He wants me to love my neighbors. I'll try! These are things I can do because I love Him. I don't think you mean to tell me that this is the definition of being, "Under the Law" is it?

Duckybill · May 13, 2011

Tehilah BaAretz said:
My possible disagreement is that I don't think the Torah is bad in any way.

Neither do I, but Christians are not obligated to 'the works of THE LAW of Moses', I.E. circumcision, dietary, etc.

I do not want to be released from revelation of God's nature, will, character or anything else I might gain from reading the whole Bible. The thing is that you seem to want to be liberated from the Old Testament and I think the whole Bible is desirable for a multitude of good reasons.

I have never been under THE LAW of Moses. As far as the OT, much is not yet fulfilled.

That does not mean that I am attempting to fulfill all of the commandments of the whole Bible. I sort of wish I was capable of doing that but I know that I failed long ago. Thank God from His mercy and grace. Here's the reasoning: I am a believer, saved by grace through faith. I love God with my whole heart,soul, body and strength. Because I love Him I want to know everything I can learn about Him. Since He decided to reveal himself through Moses, it is profitable to learn what Moses has to say. God has revealed a lot about the things He loves, the things He hates, the way He behaves and much more. Why in the world would I even consider refusing to learn these things? God doesn't need me. He doesn't need any thing I can do for Him or give to him. I am so grateful that He loves me anyway and to my surprise, I see that he even asks for some things from me. He wants me to give to the poor and the widows. I can do that! He wants me to love my neighbors. I'll try! These are things I can do because I love Him. I don't think you mean to tell me that this is the definition of being, "Under the Law" is it?

I have read the Torah MANY times. I do not discard it. I love it. It is God's holy word. But I am not obligated to 'the works of THE LAW'. Christians have the New Covenant. It's still sin to lie, commit adultery, etc. But 'the works of THE LAW are not for Christians. The New Covenant is "better".

Tehilah BaAretz · May 13, 2011

Obviously I am missing something in what you mean then. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean when you say, "Works of the Law." To my mind that is not a reference to the teachings and instructions given to Moses. That is, the revelations of God's will that Moses recorded. I think you must be referring to the Rabbinic code of behavior that replaced the written words of Moses in the first century. Maybe I am mistaken though. Jesus openly and repeatedly rebuked and refuted the Rabbinic codes. Could that be where I am misunderstanding your thinking?

Duckybill · May 14, 2011

Tehilah BaAretz said:
Obviously I am missing something in what you mean then. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean when you say, "Works of the Law." To my mind that is not a reference to the teachings and instructions given to Moses. That is, the revelations of God's will that Moses recorded. I think you must be referring to the Rabbinic code of behavior that replaced the written words of Moses in the first century. Maybe I am mistaken though. Jesus openly and repeatedly rebuked and refuted the Rabbinic codes. Could that be where I am misunderstanding your thinking?

By 'works of THE LAW' I mean circumcision, dietary, no working on the Sabbath, etc. And then there are MORAL commands, I.E. lying, murder, adultery, etc. which are sin. We all know it is wrong to lie, murder, steal... That is MORAL and forbidden under THE LAW, but also forbidden under the New Covenant. The New Covenant does not contain 'works of THE LAW'. The 'works of THE LAW' were ONLY for the Nation of Israel, not for Gentiles.

Tehilah BaAretz · May 17, 2011

Sorry but I need to refute part of that. There were many Gentiles who were included in the Scriptures before the revelation of Jesus in the first century. On the positive side though; yes, all moral laws were always in effect from creation until now. So far, I expect that we actually agree on these things. The point that I don't think you accept is the idea that the rest was never connected to the eternal reward. Circumcision was always a sign of the covenant. There may be an additional area of disagreement on the subject of the Sabbath but I don't want to address that issue at this point. (It has been discussed extensively in other threads.)
There have always been outward signs of being included in the covenants with God. Christians often use water baptism in some form as a sign. Many Christians wear a symbol of some sort like a cross or maybe a fish. It is not a sin for a Christian to have a visible sign as a witness of their faith. It is neither a moral issue nor a salvation issue. By the same token, other signs of a man's relationship with God are also acceptable. It is not a sin for a man to wear a menorah as a symbol of their love of the "Light to the Gentiles" mentioned in the Bible. If a man chooses not to eat meat offered to a different God (halal), that is also acceptable. It is not a sin. Can we at least agree on these things?

Duckybill · May 17, 2011

Tehilah BaAretz said:
Sorry but I need to refute part of that. There were many Gentiles who were included in the Scriptures before the revelation of Jesus in the first century.

There were a few, but the OT is nearly all about the Nation of Israel, as is the NT up until Acts.

Psalm 147:19-20 (ESV)
[sup]19 [/sup]He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and rules to Israel. [sup]20 [/sup]He has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his rules. Praise the Lord!

Circumcision was always a sign of the covenant.

Not for Christians.

Galatians 5:2-4 (ESV)
[sup]2 [/sup]Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. [sup]3 [/sup]I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. [sup]4 [/sup]You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Anyone "severed from Christ" will spend eternity in 'Hell'. He is the ONLY Savior.

There may be an additional area of disagreement on the subject of the Sabbath but I don't want to address that issue at this point. (It has been discussed extensively in other threads.)
There have always been outward signs of being included in the covenants with God. Christians often use water baptism in some form as a sign. Many Christians wear a symbol of some sort like a cross or maybe a fish. It is not a sin for a Christian to have a visible sign as a witness of their faith. It is neither a moral issue nor a salvation issue. By the same token, other signs of a man's relationship with God are also acceptable. It is not a sin for a man to wear a menorah as a symbol of their love of the "Light to the Gentiles" mentioned in the Bible. If a man chooses not to eat meat offered to a different God (halal), that is also acceptable. It is not a sin. Can we at least agree on these things?

Possibly : )

Tehilah BaAretz · May 18, 2011

I'm lovin that!

The point I hope to make is that it is not necessary to disqualify the symbols. The fact that Jesus revealed far more about the nature of God, His will, His plan of redemption and so much more is wonderful. I want us to be able to stand in the presence of Moses and greet him with love when the time comes to stand with him before the Father. I think we'll get the chance to meet him in person. I can't get over the idea that one day I will meet Amos. What will I say when he asks me if I liked the cool message from God he got to reveal to the world?

thisistheendtimes · Jun 26, 2011

No doubt, everyone here is familiar with the word "PERDITION".

This word has "MEANING" to everyone in the world that is in any way familiar with "christian" scripture, BUT, it has had no actual bonafide literary "DEFINITION" in any well known 'standard language' anywhere in the world for the last nineteen and a half centuries (look at each word I used "well known", "standard", "actual", "bonafide", etc.).........it has always been considered a dangerous word to all humanity (especially to "christianity").

You see, the "moneychangers" never released their grip on the temple. Nineteen and a half centuries ago, Paul spoke against "sectas perditionas" (likely translated "doctrinal hell"....??) because the Jews that came to Christ still wanted to follow the laws set forth by the man MOSES (I know it's the same TOPIC being discussed, I'm only contributing "depth", "depths of God", 1 Corinthians 2:10), so they formed the Council of Jerusalem ("Incident at Antioch"). Peter decided to go along with the Jews on this (he also led the disciples into his hole of darkness, even though the disciples were never really sure about 'what's what'). Paul remained spiritually residing inside the body of the one who hung on the cross (he was a "MEMBER OF" Jesus, John 14:6 "I am THE WAY....").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Antioch

Acts 11:26...
"and in Antioch, the disciples were first called Christians".

Neither the word "Christianity" nor the word "bible" are in scripture. The word "Christian" is used twice, the word "Christians" only once).

Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 4:8) but misused those powers by killing Ananias and his wife, glorifying himself instead of God only (with his "shadow", etc., (Acts 5).

Jesus characterized very well the one who denied Him by saying that Peter was not on the side of God...

Mark 8:33
"But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men".

Acts 9:2 (who SAUL persecuted)
"that if he found any belonging to THE WAY, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem".

Acts 19:9
"but when some were stubborn and disbelieved, speaking evil of THE WAY before the congregation".

Act 24:22 "But Felix, having a rather accurate knowledge of THE WAY".

The Hebrew "Christians" never advanced their devotion to a state of "maturity" (Hebrews 6:1) but remained as "babes in Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:1) with only a "faith TOWARD God", but not a "faith FOR FAITH" (Romans 1:17, Hebrews 11:6). They were taught with "milk", but never moved on to "solid food"....

1 Corinthians 3:2
"I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it, and even yet you are not ready".

There are many differences between a Jewish Messianic devotion and the devotion of a "True worshiper" (John 4:23).

The "strong delusion" is not a future event (in eternity, there is no such thing as "FUTURE")......Jesus came in the FULLNESS of TIME (the completion/end of "time",....EVERYTHING is DIFFERENT in "forever"/eternity). ...."TIME" is not COMPLETELY irrelevant to God (a day is as a thousand years).

In Jesus, the age of time ended 2011 years ago, this is the age of eternity,..."life" eternal began when Jesus was glorified and His Spirit was given to us (John 7:39), JESUS is "THE life".

In order to solve the great MYSTERY of "LAWLESSNESS" and WHO is the "son of PERDITION" (and who is "666"?), take into consideration that we have always willingly and enthusiastically learned about the three manifestations of God (Father, Son, and Spirit) as though MAN (the SIXTH day creation) should recieve glory instead of glorifying GOD ALONE and you can clearly see that we have been careless all along about being a "son of THE MOST HIGH" (Ephesians 1:14, Psalm 82:6).....WE/humanity are the 666 "son of perdition"....Revelation 13:18 "it is a HUMAN number".

..................................."and the way of peace they do not know." (the mortal FLESH is our human WEAKNESS....not innately "EVIL", only a WEAKNESS...almost).

All verses are from the RSV.

brionne · Jun 29, 2011

The 10 commandments are principles that provide Gods view on certain matters, so of course they will always be applicable

But what is not applicable is the 'judicial arrangement' set our in the mosaic law that required law breakers to be punished.

God does not use the mosiac law to punish christians for disobedience. Thats why the mosaic law was put aside. But the laws themselves still give us a clear idea of how God views matters, and as christians we do well to learn them. But God is not going to hold anyone accountable to them if they have put their faith in his Son.

veteran · Jun 29, 2011

Gentiles Vs. Israelites According To Dispensationalism:

That should be the real title of this thread.

Dispensationalism came out of 1800's Britain from the writings of John Nelson Darby. It was linked with the doctrines of the Pre-tribulational Rapture, what some later called "the secret rapture" because of its early adhering to the idea that the sign of Christ's coming would be seen only by those raptured.

I'm certain dan p is on that doctrine, and pretty sure that Richard Burger and Duckybill are too.

But the Dispensationalism of the 19th century is not exactly the same as more modern versions of today, like those who follows the schools of C.R. Stam.

You can quote from the Book of Matthew to some of them, even from our Lord Jesus' Own Words, and some of them will say, "That wasn't written for us Gentiles, that was written for the Jews only." It's the erroneous idea that if you're not pulling from Apostle Paul's writings, then nothing else applies.

This is why they have so much difficulty in understanding issues about God's law, what it is for, and how much of it still stands today for all Christians under Christ Jesus (per Galatians and Romans; see Romans 7 especially).

It's nothing but another show of men's doctrines, and how many are deceived by following men's traditions. C.R. Stam created a whole Bible Institute just on that stance of Paul's Epistles being the ONLY Scripture for Gentile believers.

RichardBurger · Jul 4, 2011

veteran said:
Gentiles Vs. Israelites According To Dispensationalism:

That should be the real title of this thread.

Dispensationalism came out of 1800's Britain from the writings of John Nelson Darby. It was linked with the doctrines of the Pre-tribulational Rapture, what some later called "the secret rapture" because of its early adhering to the idea that the sign of Christ's coming would be seen only by those raptured.

I'm certain dan p is on that doctrine, and pretty sure that Richard Burger and Duckybill are too.

But the Dispensationalism of the 19th century is not exactly the same as more modern versions of today, like those who follows the schools of C.R. Stam.

You can quote from the Book of Matthew to some of them, even from our Lord Jesus' Own Words, and some of them will say, "That wasn't written for us Gentiles, that was written for the Jews only." It's the erroneous idea that if you're not pulling from Apostle Paul's writings, then nothing else applies.

This is why they have so much difficulty in understanding issues about God's law, what it is for, and how much of it still stands today for all Christians under Christ Jesus (per Galatians and Romans; see Romans 7 especially).

It's nothing but another show of men's doctrines, and how many are deceived by following men's traditions. C.R. Stam created a whole Bible Institute just on that stance of Paul's Epistles being the ONLY Scripture for Gentile believers.

It is easy for those that do not see dispensational truth to say it is wrong. That does not make dispensational truth wrong. It only means they can't see it and in most cases they refuse to even think about it.

The only problem dispensationist have are those that refuse to see truth for this age. The religion of today blends and homognizes the scriptures to make a gospel of faith and works. They say dispensationist don't believe the scriptures and yet they do not believe them as written. James 1;1 is a good example. A book that the Holy Spirit clearly indicated as being written to the Jews who were under the law.

veteran · Jul 4, 2011

RichardBurger said:
It is easy for those that do not see dispensational truth to say it is wrong. That does not make dispensational truth wrong. It only means they can't see it and in most cases they refuse to even think about it.

The only problem dispensationist have are those that refuse to see truth for this age. The religion of today blends and homognizes the scriptures to make a gospel of faith and works. They say dispensationist don't believe the scriptures and yet they do not believe them as written. James 1;1 is a good example. A book that the Holy Spirit clearly indicated as being written to the Jews who were under the law.

What you're actually saying about James, which I don't think you are aware of, is how James was an Apostle and a believer on Jesus Christ unto Salvation. Those preaching men's doctrine to you apparently have forgotten to point that out. James didn't preach anything different than Paul did. James just said the same things as Paul in a different manner.

The idea that only Paul's Epistles apply to Gentiles, and the rest of The Bible Gentiles should read as meant for Israel only, is a doctrine of those like J.C. O'Hair and C.R. Stam in the 1930-1940's. It was not originally part of the 1830's Dispensationalist doctrine. Some have called it Hyperdispensationalism, or the Grace Movement. That later movement is not considered to be part of Dispensationalism at all.

Eccl.12:13 · Jul 12, 2011

Duckybill said:
[/color]Galatians 5:2-4 (ESV)
[sup]2 [/sup]Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. [sup]3 [/sup]I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. [sup]4 [/sup]You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Acts 24
[10] Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself:
[14] But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Plain and simple. Paul believes EVERYTHING written in the law and by the prophets.

Knowing this.....let's read something Paul MUST believe because he said so. Let's read of a FUTURE event that Paul said he believes.

Zech.14
[16] And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
[17] And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

Now let's read one of the requirements for worshiping the Lord during His reign.

Ezek.44
[9] Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

Now the Lord said, "...all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts,...", and

He also said, "...No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary..."

Now let’s confirm this with something that was also said;

Isa.52
[1] Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.

Again God’s word tells us, “…there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.”

Now...if ALL are to go to Jerusalem to worship the Lord, BUT no one that is uncircumcised can enter in to worship Him, what does that mean?

ALL that come to worship the Lord MUST be circumcised! ALL nations, meaning there are yet Jews AND Gentiles still here on earth during Jesus rule.

.

Duckybill · Jul 12, 2011

Eccl.12:13 said:
ALL that come to worship the Lord MUST be circumcised!

Evidently you don't know what "fallen from grace" and "severed from Christ" means. To put it simply it means you're not Christian.

Galatians 5:2-4 (ESV)
[sup]2 [/sup]Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. [sup]3 [/sup]I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. [sup]4 [/sup]You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Eccl.12:13 · Jul 12, 2011

Duckybill said:
Evidently you don't know what "fallen from grace" and "severed from Christ" means. To put it simply it means you're not Christian.

Galatians 5:2-4 (ESV)
[sup]2 [/sup]Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. [sup]3 [/sup]I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. [sup]4 [/sup]You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Instead of quoting the same old scripture, which you do not understand, please explain to the readers the following;

Acts 24
[10] Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself:
[14] But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Plain and simple. Paul believes EVERYTHING written in the law and by the prophets.

Knowing this.....let's read something Paul MUST believe because he said so. Let's read of a FUTURE event that Paul said he believes.

Zech.14
[16] And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
[17] And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

Now let's read one of the requirements for worshiping the Lord during His reign.

Ezek.44
[9] Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

Now the Lord said, "...all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts,...", and

He also said, "...No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary..."

Now let’s confirm this with something that was also said;

Isa.52
[1] Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.

Again God’s word tells us, “…there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.”

Now...if ALL are to go to Jerusalem to worship the Lord, BUT no one that is uncircumcised can enter in to worship Him, what does that mean?

ALL that come to worship the Lord MUST be circumcised! ALL nations, meaning there are yet Jews AND Gentiles still here on earth during Jesus rule.

Please explain to us what God's word means about this future event. Please explain to us what is meant by these verse that WILL happen during Jesus rule here on earth. What is God telling us when He says;

"Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel."

"Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean."

Tell us using God's word what this means. Or will you just continue to quote scriptures you have no understanding of? Because the above scriptures WILL be carried out.

So please tell us the meaning of God's words from the OT above.

.

Is The Mosaic Law Passed Away ??

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads