Colossians 2:14-16 - The Law That Was Against Us

[Marymog]

Good question Mary,
In order to answer this question I need to make three observations. First, the passage you quote was spoken in a different context than the last supper. Unlike the occasion of the Passover, where Jesus spoke metaphorically about his body and blood, the Lord makes another reference to his body and blood after he had miraculously fed five thousand people (perhaps more depending on how crowds are typically counted.) And here, Jesus is using a different metaphor to make an entirely different point.

The next day, the crowds followed Jesus to the other side of the lake where they were hoping that Jesus would feed them again. To this he answers,

John 6:26-27 Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.”

Who wouldn't want someone to deliver bread to the door step every day? These folks were hoping that Jesus would continue to feed them bread, just as Moses did. Bread is sustenance and maintains life and getting bread is hard work. What a blessing it would be if Jesus could lighten the work load.

Even so, those who eat the bread that perishes will eventually get hungry again and they will die eventually anyway. In order to live forever, in order to receive eternal life one must find a source of another kind of food -- another kind of "bread", if you will. Jesus asserts that he has a source for this particular "bread", one that will sustain a person's life forever. Jesus hasn't yet told the crowds what this bread is, at this point all he has said is that he will give it to anyone who works for it.

Secondly, during his conversation with the crowds, they reminded Jesus that Moses fed the people with Mana. The crowds are pressing the issue. If Jesus is greater than Moses, and Moses was able to feed bread to the people, then why not Jesus? And since the crowds mentioned the mana, Jesus decides to employ the mana in his argument to make the point again. Moses gave the people the mana that perishes. If Jesus were to feed the people mana (or any other kind of bread), they would eventually perish. They need a different kind of "mana" that doesn't perish, such that when they eat that "mana" they will live forever.

John 6:32-34 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”

The Lord has already made several audacious claims about himself and chief among these is his claim that the Father, God, has given him the authority to grant eternal life to whomever he wishes. He claims that God has give him the ability to give to someone a form of life-sustaining bread by which if one were to eat it, one would live forever. In this context, he seems to suggest that eating his body and drinking his blood is the spiritual food that will sustain a person forever. For those who first heard this statement, this was an absurd statement seeming to recommend cannibalism. Zoe says it's a waste of time for me to explain that Jesus didn't mean this literally. I told her that some people actually believe it. Nonetheless, the crowds, living at the time knew it to be an absurd statement.

Why would Jesus employ an absurdity to make his point? His purpose is to argue that his people need to change their way of thinking with regard to what sustains their life. Does bread sustain life? Yes, temporarily. But the lesson of the mana is that man can not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. And by "word" he means "promise." People need more than food; they need hope, and meaning, and love also. Jesus isn't speaking literally when he talks about ingesting him; he means that one must ingest his teaching and follow him in order to obtain the "bread" that sustains life forever.

Finally, Jesus eventually says what the bread IS.

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Eating the actual body and blood of Jesus profits nothing. The flesh profits nothing. It is the Spirit that gives life and it is the Spirit that Jesus will give his disciples at Pentecost.

Hey CZ,

So your theory is that after Jesus said MULTIPLE times you must eat my flesh if you want to have life in you etc. he then took that all back In John 6:63 and said His flesh profits nothing? I think Jesus was a great teacher and your theory makes him a confusing teacher. It is true that some were confused since they walked away. They even asked “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”. Do you CZ not believe He showed them HOW they could eat His flesh??? (Hint; last supper)

Multiple times before The Last Supper Jesus TOLD them you must eat/drink my body/blood. That was a very confusing statement to His followers. At the Last Supper he SHOWED them how to do it. He TOLD them what to do and then he SHOWED them how to do it. That is a great teacher. What more do you want from Him CZ? He told you and showed you.....

I call it your theory but maybe someone else taught you this??? If so, who?

 

[Marymog]

Eating the actual body and blood of Jesus is blasphemy.

Then why did He tell us we must eat/drink Him?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Hey CZ,

So your theory is that after Jesus said MULTIPLE times you must eat my flesh if you want to have life in you etc. he then took that all back In John 6:63 and said His flesh profits nothing?

Jesus said it; I'm just relating what he said.

I think Jesus was a great teacher and your theory makes him a confusing teacher.

It's only confusing if one insists on taking him literally. Even Catholics don't take him literally. Based on Greek philosophy, Aristotle I think, Catholics misinterpret the passage to say, "He who eats bread which has been transmogrified into my body shall have eternal life. But again, Jesus said the bread profits nothing.

 

[charity]

Then why did He tell us we must eat/drink Him?

'Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life;
and I will raise him up at the last day.
For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him.
As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father:
so he that eateth Me, even He shall live by Me.
This is that bread which came down from heaven:
not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead:
he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.'
(Joh 6:53)

Hello @Marymog

The Lord's disciples found this difficult to understand, as we see in verse 60, and His response to them, shows clearly how we are to understand the act of eating and drinking of Him:-

'Many therefore of His disciples, when they had heard this, said,
This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,
He said unto them, Doth this offend you?
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before?
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:
the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
But there are some of you that believe not.
For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not,
and who should betray Him.'
(Joh 6:60)

Here the Lord shows clearly that it is the words that He spoke that they were to hear, and receive, inwardly digest and make part of themselves, for it is the words that He spoke that would quicken them into spiritual life.

The last supper was the Passover (Exodus 12:1-28; Numbers 9:1-5), which He and His disciples, being Jews, were obliged to keep; but the Lord tells them that from that time on they were to eat and drink it, in remembrance of Him, that the bread and the wine that they ate and drank was to be an act of remembrance of His blood that was shed for them and of His body that was laid down for them.

'And He took bread, and gave thanks,
and brake it, and gave unto them, saying,
This is My body which is given for you:
this do in remembrance of me.
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying,
This cup is the new testament (or covenant) in My blood,
which is shed for you.'
(Luke 22:19)

* He thus showed that He was the Mediator of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31; Hebrews 8:8; Hebrews 12:24), and that He would one day sit down with them again....

'Ye are they which have continued with Me in My temptations (ie., trials).
And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as My Father hath appointed unto Me,
That ye may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom,
and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'
(Luk 22:28)

* What an encouragement this would be to the Twelve in the days to follow, when they would continue the Lord's ministry among the Jews scattered among the nations. They would get together to celebrate the Passover feast with their countrymen, and they would remember Him and the sacrifice He had made for them. They would remember also the promise that He made to them, which would keep them faithful and true in the light of adversity and the martyrdom that so many would experience for His Name, that one day they would once more sit and celebrate the feast with Him when His Kingdom come; and, as Overcomers in their generation, they would reign with Him for 1,000 years, during His millennial reign, as Kings and Priests unto God and of His Christ.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[marks]

Exactly how I use forums too! Most of the time I come across like a know it all. But that's because I grew up in a teacher's family. I'm not a teacher myself, but I have that gift naturally. Even when I don't know something I "teach" it as if I know it.

I home-schooled my daughter. I taught her things I never learned myself when I went to school! Sorry if I come across that way--it's just me being me! These forums always keep me on my toes. And in reality, it helps me to know how little I do know.

Don't apologize, I enjoy our discussion!

Much love!

 

[charity]

The Law can only condemn. That's why it is for the ungodly. We have no condemnation. We are not governed by the Law. We are governed by Jesus in our hearts. He does not condemn us. He changes us. The Law cannot make one righteous. Jesus can.

Yes, it seems many think that the Law can make them righteous, or declares them righteous, it does not. It only condemns.

Much love!

Hello @marks

I have not been following this thread, but I noticed your last response and looked back to see to what it applied, and found this.

How wonderful it is that we have not been placed under law. How hard and diligently Paul fought for his Gentile converts, to keep them from those who would place them under law, thereby making the grace of God of no avail to them. His was a constant battle, and it would seem that it is a battle still needing to be fought!

The law is good, but sin takes advantage of it, by using it to awaken within us the lusts, longings and desires of the flesh and of the mind, deceitful lusts which war against the soul (or the whole man), and seek to bring us into captivity. Thankfully we are not under law but under grace, and so have died with Christ to all sin's calls and claims, clothed in His righteousness, and at peace with God.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[charity]

'But sin, taking occasion by the commandment,
wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.
For without the law sin was dead.
For I was alive without the law once:
but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.'
(Rom 7:8-11)

Hello again, @marks,

No one who has tried to keep to a diet to lose weight will be in any doubt as to what is meant by sin taking advantage of the law that Paul speaks of in Romans 7. For it seems as soon as we seek to live by any law to govern our behaviour, every deceiving lust of the flesh associated with it comes into operation, and we fail. 'Thou shalt not eat ice slices' makes that ice slice the most sought after item in the shop window!!! God knows us so well!!

Praise God for His grace!

Thank you
With love in Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Randy Kluth]

And yes, it seems we are in disagreement here.

<<<Paul was saying that the Law did not have faith because Christ had not yet come to become the object of faith for eternal life. >>>

What Paul said is “the law is not OF faith” and not that the law did not have faith because Christ had not yet come. And he said that even with prior reference to Abraham’s faith.

And as I said in my other response post you, the object of faith is God, before and after Christ. That hasn’t change at all.

<<<And so we know Paul was not speaking of faith under the Law, but rather, of faith in Christ!>>>

Yes he was not speaking of faith under the law, but was speaking of faith, faith in contrast to works. Of faith, the object of which is God.

I understand what is your position. That Paul was saying really is that the law was not of faith in Christ, but abbreviated it into “the law was not of faith”, for the reason you say so that he will not be having to mention Christ repeatedly.

I just do not see it that way, and I don’t think it to be likely. Unless you know Paul that well or is pretty certain that Paul actually did that, that will somehow make a difference.

I see it that way not because I claim to know Paul, but because that is the logical construction of what he is saying theologically. We know faith was how the Law operated and yes, that the Law at the same time was not "of faith."

What does that logically mean? It would be an absolute contradiction unless you recognize that "of faith" refers to it not being "faith in Christ." Clearly, if the Law had been operating through faith and by men of faith, then you could not say the Law was not "of faith" unless you're talking about a specific kind of faith that was already introduced in contrast to the generic faith of the Law.

And Paul does that in all of his letters. Yes, I know Paul that well! In all of his letters he points out not that the Law didn't operate by faith, but that the Law, operating by faith, did not operate by faith in Christ, because until Christ came, sins had not yet been put away.

That's why Paul regularly spoke against keeping the Law after Christ had come, because the Law had been inadequate and only looking forward to the point where faith could have as its object Christ. To reject Christ, all that remained was faith in a system that was premature to Salvation. It operated by faith, but that faith was meant to culminate in faith in Christ.

It makes no relevant sense to say that the Law had faith but was not "of faith!" That is a clear contradiction, as I see it. It may make sense in how you're thinking about it, but it makes no sense in the way Paul was writing it.

They were blessed with Abraham because they too were justified by faith just as Abraham was.

The fact that God had justified Abraham, speaks well of him. Please read Romans 4 as it tells us a lot about Abraham and faith. Verse 22-24 is very telling about faith ~ of Abraham and of Christians. But please go through the entire chapter.

I memorized it a long time ago brother. Abraham was justified as a righteous man, but he did not yet receive eternal justification. He just didn't look to something like the Law to justify him, because its purpose was to condemn all those in the OT era who had not yet obtained eternal justification through Christ.

By looking for mercy, Abraham did not depend on self-effort or his own record for justification. He just looked for forgiveness.

And this is the basis that would bring eternal justification through Christ when he came. The example of Abraham was given to show this basis for justification, which would only become eternal in the NT era, after Christ had done his work.

Not in my view which take this into account.

Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

Needless to say, the fault was not with God and so not with the Law, but with the man.

You make no point here. I said that the faulty record of man disqualified them for eternal life until Christ provided works of eternal redemption. The Law pointed this out.

So yes, the reason was the Sin Nature of Man--not God. But what point are you making that contradicts what I said? My point was that yes, it was "man's fault."

He had a Sin Nature, and it was this record that disqualified him, whether under the Law or not, from having eternal salvation. Not even Abraham could have that--not even having approached God for mercy--because he also had a Sin Nature that needed to be covered by Christ's blood.

As I said, in my view, there are not two faiths, only one. Paul clearly said that in one of his epistles, we only have one faith.

You are confusing Paul's conversation with mine--I'm only explaining what I think he means using my own words. Words mean what they mean *in context.*

In context, I speak of 2 kinds of faith, OT faith and NT faith. Paul was speaking only of NT faith. He did not reference OT faith, but implied it as part of the OT system of Law.

He did not assume there was no OT faith under the Law! On the contrary, Paul mentioned Abraham having faith even before the Law! This was OT faith!

Also in my view, the matter of having eternal life is beyond man. For it is not something that is earned ~ it is a gift. In that sense, eternal life is neither a matter of works or of faith. It is not a matter of whether your faith is a kind that achieves it or not.

I can't agree with that. Your faith in Christ as its object is critical for Salvation! Works of repentance are also critical for Salvation. But the basis of our Salvation is, as you indicate, neither our Works nor our Faith, but rather, the object of our Faith, as well as the object of our Works of Faith--Christ!

So Faith and Works are essential. Both constitute Man's response to God's word in faith. But the basis of our Salvation is Christ, in whom we must place our faith. It comes through forgiveness of sins, but it must have Christ as its source.

Taking for granted, for the sake of argument, that if it were that before Christ, God has not given eternal life to anyone yet, I don’t see it as though it is because God looks at faith then as lacking or falling short of sort or that because faith at the time before Christ is a kind of faith that is different from faith after Christ.

It is certain that nobody had Eternal Life before Christ died! Men of faith before Christ certainly had the words of life from God which would lead to that, but until Christ died, nobody had a basis for resurrection from the dead. Even when men rose from the dead, they would still have to die!

So yes, God did see the faith of men as they looked to Him for mercy. And He forgave them the things that kept them out of heaven. But that still did not give them eternal life--not until Christ actually purchased that for them.

Forgiveness was the basis for obtaining eternal life, as Abraham's faith showed. But the gift could not actually be delivered until Christ rose from the dead.

That is why I don’t agree with you on that with regards faith.

As I said, I believe that there is only one and the same faith from the beginning, the faith that comes from God, the object of which is God, of course.

Tong
R1693

Faith in the OT and faith in the NT is of the same kind. Both are focused on the word of God, and both pursue forgiveness of sins.

However, OT faith did not yet have, as its object, Christ, who had to come and bring them eternal life before their faith could actually have it. It was quality faith, but faith that was indeed denied because their Sin Nature had not yet been mitigated.

Sorry, we are indeed in disagreement about this. When you say that men in the OT by their faith had Eternal Life before Christ died, you do a disservice to the importance of Christ dying!

 

[Randy Kluth]

<<<You're not actually saying Abraham, by his faith, *had* eternal life before Christ came, are you?>>>
Yes, I am not. What I am saying is not that his faith had achieved eternal life. What I am saying is that I believe that even then, God had given him eternal life when He justified him. Whether that is actual to Abraham or not is outside the scope of what I said. For that is another matter. And what I am saying is that eternal life is it is not something that is earned ~ it is a gift. That I am saying, in that sense, eternal life is not a matter of faith.

I can agree that Faith, without Christ, indeed falls short of Eternal Life. NT Faith, by definition, obtains eternal life because it has Christ as its object. Of course, there are men in the NT era who have an incomplete faith, and it does not achieve eternal life unless Christ really is its source.

But OT faith did *not* achieve Eternal Life. It achieved temporary justification, temporary righteousness, and temporary blessing, because death had not yet been conquered. Eternal Life *requires* that we obtain resurrection from the dead. We obtained that only after Christ himself did it.

It seems to me that we view faith differently. Perhaps, that one reason why we find it difficult to have our minds meet.

Paul speaks of faith as one that comes. Does that influence your view on faith?

Tong
R1694

Absolutely, that is the whole problem. Paul said, in context, that when the Law was in effect, *Faith had not yet come.* We know faith had already existed at that time. Abraham had faith even before the Law. Moses had faith during the Law. So how is it that Paul said *faith had not yet come?*

To me, it's simply that he was speaking of Faith of a kind--the kind that has Christ as its source. As you said, having faith was alone insufficient. It had to have Christ as its object in order to effect Salvation in our lives.

Therefore, I understand that Paul abbreviated things so as to not need to go down rabbit holes. He expected we understand the distinction he was making between OT faith and NT faith. For him all faith was designed to lead to Faith in Christ. That had *not yet come.* Fortunately, now it has come.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Don't apologize, I enjoy our discussion!

Much love!

God bless you, brother. You're one of the "good ones."

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sooooo if God did not make the decision for them God would not have corrected them if they made the wrong decision? Your theory is very confusing.

YOU SAID: I think the Council of Jerusalem was wise, but not the word of God. It was recorded in the Scriptures, but the Scriptures do not say they were God-ordained rules.

Scripture is the word of God Soooo was their the decision the word of God or not???

Mary, you more than adequately pointed out that the Holy Spirit went along with their decisions. But the Scriptures *do not say* that God originated the decision--only that He inspired them with His knowledge, letting them make the decision.

The point is, God does not always dictate things. More often, He gives us His love as a kind of compass, hoping we've studied to show ourselves approved.

 

[Marymog]

Mary, you more than adequately pointed out that the Holy Spirit went along with their decisions. But the Scriptures *do not say* that God originated the decision--only that He inspired them with His knowledge, letting them make the decision.

The point is, God does not always dictate things. More often, He gives us His love as a kind of compass, hoping we've studied to show ourselves approved.

I think you should read that passage again Randy. It says “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit AND to us....”. It doesn’t say that they made a decision and then “the Holy Spirit went along with their decision.” It says it was good to the Spirit 1st and them 2nd. They didn’t put themselves ABOVE the Spirit.

Also, thank you for making my point. I agree with you that God inspired them to make the right decision. They didn’t make a decision and then God said “Nope, wrong decision. Try again”. God from the beginning inspired them with His knowledge. Their decision was His will.

Keeping it real....Mary

 

[Marymog]

'Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life;
and I will raise him up at the last day.
For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him.
As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father:
so he that eateth Me, even He shall live by Me.
This is that bread which came down from heaven:
not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead:
he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.'
(Joh 6:53)

Hello @Marymog

The Lord's disciples found this difficult to understand, as we see in verse 60, and His response to them, shows clearly how we are to understand the act of eating and drinking of Him:-

'Many therefore of His disciples, when they had heard this, said,
This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,
He said unto them, Doth this offend you?
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before?
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:
the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
But there are some of you that believe not.
For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not,
and who should betray Him.'
(Joh 6:60)

Here the Lord shows clearly that it is the words that He spoke that they were to hear, and receive, inwardly digest and make part of themselves, for it is the words that He spoke that would quicken them into spiritual life.

The last supper was the Passover (Exodus 12:1-28; Numbers 9:1-5), which He and His disciples, being Jews, were obliged to keep; but the Lord tells them that from that time on they were to eat and drink it, in remembrance of Him, that the bread and the wine that they ate and drank was to be an act of remembrance of His blood that was shed for them and of His body that was laid down for them.

'And He took bread, and gave thanks,
and brake it, and gave unto them, saying,
This is My body which is given for you:
this do in remembrance of me.
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying,
This cup is the new testament (or covenant) in My blood,
which is shed for you.'
(Luke 22:19)

* He thus showed that He was the Mediator of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31; Hebrews 8:8; Hebrews 12:24), and that He would one day sit down with them again....

'Ye are they which have continued with Me in My temptations (ie., trials).
And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as My Father hath appointed unto Me,
That ye may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom,
and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'
(Luk 22:28)

* What an encouragement this would be to the Twelve in the days to follow, when they would continue the Lord's ministry among the Jews scattered among the nations. They would get together to celebrate the Passover feast with their countrymen, and they would remember Him and the sacrifice He had made for them. They would remember also the promise that He made to them, which would keep them faithful and true in the light of adversity and the martyrdom that so many would experience for His Name, that one day they would once more sit and celebrate the feast with Him when His Kingdom come; and, as Overcomers in their generation, they would reign with Him for 1,000 years, during His millennial reign, as Kings and Priests unto God and of His Christ.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Thanks Chris.

I have heard that theory before “that it is the words that He spoke that they were to hear, and receive, inwardly digest and make part of themselves.”

I have challenged others on this theory before and none have been able Answer it. Maybe you can?

The Greek word, trogo (eat), is translated as “gnaw” or “chew”; this word is never used figuratively in the Greek. When Jesus says “drink My blood” He is saying something that the Jews would find unacceptable with their worldly understanding, for consuming blood was forbidden (Lev 17:14; Deut 12:23). He didn’t mean “figurative” blood and the Jews didn’t take it that way. Two thousand years later how does the man who taught you conflate those facts into “inwardly digesting” His words?? They walked away because they knew that he literally meant EAT him and DRINK his blood. They were disgusted by that. Were they confused or are the men who taught you Confused?

Second century Christians were accused of being cannibals for eating the Eucharist. Why were they accused of cannabilism if they were only, according to your teaching, ingesting His words?

I look forward to your response....Mary

 

[Marymog]

Jesus said it; I'm just relating what he said.

It's only confusing if one insists on taking him literally. Even Catholics don't take him literally. Based on Greek philosophy, Aristotle I think, Catholics misinterpret the passage to say, "He who eats bread which has been transmogrified into my body shall have eternal life. But again, Jesus said the bread profits nothing.

Oh goodness....Aristotle thinks that Catholics misinterpret that passage. Case closed then....thank you for your time.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Oh goodness....Aristotle thinks that Catholics misinterpret that passage. Case closed then....thank you for your time.

I didn't say that. Perhaps you didn't know that many of the Early Church Fathers were Gentiles, not Jews, and they grew up steeped in the culture of their day, which included education in the Greek philosophers. When these Gentile converts read the New Testament, they were reading the NT through the lenses of Greek philosophical thought which colored their interpretations of various passages. As a Catholic, you inherited these false interpretations, which are not based on a Jewish exegesis but rather on a Greek exegesis.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Then why did He tell us we must eat/drink Him?

Colossians 2:16-19!
But you say, instead of Him, I must eat bread. Bread that comes from where?
"This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever." John 6:53
No Roman Catholics live longer than Protestants! Not one Roman Catholic on earth who never died!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I think you should read that passage again Randy. It says “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit AND to us....”. It doesn’t say that they made a decision and then “the Holy Spirit went along with their decision.” It says it was good to the Spirit 1st and them 2nd. They didn’t put themselves ABOVE the Spirit.

Also, thank you for making my point. I agree with you that God inspired them to make the right decision. They didn’t make a decision and then God said “Nope, wrong decision. Try again”. God from the beginning inspired them with His knowledge. Their decision was His will.

Keeping it real....Mary

I am keeping it real. I think you're missing the point, and also not understanding the ways of the Lord. You seem to think God dictates each and every thing we do in our lives--otherwise, we're just on our own, doing our own thing, and carnal men and women?

So I'm trying to keep it real, despite your best efforts at trying to persuade me this isn't real. My belief is that the Christian walk is a partnership between God and ourselves. We are not slaves, but children. Therefore, we sometimes are servants, because God is our Lord. But because we're also children, God sets us free to do as we will in association with His Spirit.

God does *not* dictate to us, but helps us to see our way through as we make our own decisions. Again, the Council at Jerusalem was Man's decision, in partnership with God. God did *not* dictate the decision for them. God helped them make an inspired decision. So I'm going half way with you, because even in the decisions we make on our own, we depend upon God to help us make *spiritual decisions.* That is, we want to make decisions of our own, and yet not without the influence of God's Spirit.

Now that sounds a little funny, I admit. That's just how I've experienced it for 50 years, Mary. If I haven't learned anything from a lifetime in Christianity, and from 50 years of walking in the Spirit, then just ignore me.

In case you don't yet understand the point, let me give you an example. Right now I'm sitting down in my chair, and I could make 50 different decisions about what to do next--go out and do more on my burn pile. But no, that doesn't seem wise right now. I'm tired, and risk overdoing it.

I could have a pizza. Well, I haven't eaten for some time. I think I'll have a pizza. Besides, my wife offered to make me one.

I could spend more time here. But sometimes it gets repetitive, and some don't seem interested in understanding much more anyway. Seems wise to call it quits for now.

None of these choices are being dictated by God to me. But I consult with the Lord to get His wisdom in every decision, because I live in constant partnership with Him. That's the Christian life, to live in spiritual unity with Him, consulting Him on everything.

This isn't receiving orders from on High, moment by moment. Rather, it is relying on God's word, which sometimes dictates and sometimes advises.

The Jerusalem Council was an example of God *advising them.* It was not dictated as a Scriptural dogma that all now have to follow.

Obviously, it doesn't apply to us today. It is not NT doctrine. If you still can't understand, I'm not sure what more I can say?

 

[Marymog]

I didn't say that. Perhaps you didn't know that many of the Early Church Fathers were Gentiles, not Jews, and they grew up steeped in the culture of their day, which included education in the Greek philosophers. When these Gentile converts read the New Testament, they were reading the NT through the lenses of Greek philosophical thought which colored their interpretations of various passages. As a Catholic, you inherited these false interpretations, which are not based on a Jewish exegesis but rather on a Greek exegesis.

Really? Catholicism inherited “false interpretations”?

Protestants have multiple interpretations of the same passage from Scripture. Some of those interpretations agree with Catholic interpretations. Who decides if the interpretations are false? YOU?

Curious

 

[Brakelite]

So you have no specific command in the New Testament for Gentiles to keep the sabbath? Thought so.

The Sabbath & Sunday

For what purpose? For evangelism and not sabbath worship. Acts 13:43 "Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God."

Acts 14:1 "In Iconium they entered the synagogue of the Jews together, and spoke in such a manner that a large number of people believed, both of Jews and of Greeks."

Acts 17:4 "And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.

Acts 18:4 "And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks."

The sabbath doesn't offend me. I'm only offended when misguided teachers of the law turn sabbath keeping into a legalistic prescription for believers in the New Testament. So what are the requirements to keep the sabbath for New Testament believers according to you? What are the consequences for failing to do so according to you?

I've said yes and have done many things that God has asked me to do. Now where does God specifically command me and the entire body of Christ to keep the sabbath day in the New Testament?

It's a straw man. The early church gathered on Sunday. (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) You are stuck in the old covenant. So why are you so offended by Sunday worship? In LEVITICUS 23:5-11, Look at verse 11: "And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord for you to be accepted; on the day after the sabbath the priest shall wave it." The day after the Sabbath is Sunday.

Read on specifically looking at Leviticus 23:15 - "'You shall also count for yourselves from the day after the sabbath, from the day when you brought in the sheaf of the wave offering; there shall be seven complete sabbaths. You shall count fifty days to the DAY AFTER THE SEVENTH SABBATH; then you shall present a new grain offering to the Lord.'" This is the Feast of Pentecost. It was one of the compulsory feasts of Israel.

Note on the day of Pentecost, a Sunday God's people were commanded to worship. God says, "On this same day you shall make a proclamation as well; you are to have a holy convocation. You shall do no laborious work. It is to be perpetual statute in all your dwelling places throughout your generations." (Leviticus 23:2)

Two points, which make the rest of your post above invalid.
Frist, the early church did continue to observe the 7th day Sabbath. Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 were not sacred Sunday meetings. The Acts one was what we would now call Saturday night. It was but a continuation of the Sabbath meetings held earlier, and continued to midnight. Paul walked several hundred Kls the next day. 1 Cor. 16:2 simply says, on the first day of the week, (a normal working day) lay aside some offerings for the church in Jerusalem which I shall collect when I come next. That's it.
Second point. The Ceremonial Sabbath of Pentecost and the wave sheaf after Passover had nothing whatsoever to do with Sunday, the first day of the week. You completely misunderstand the timing and intent of the feasts and annual Sabbaths.

Feast of Unleavened Bread
TEXTS: Exodus 12:15-20; M5-9; Leviticus 23:6-8; Numbers 28:17-25; Deuteronomy 16:8.
TIME: Fifteenth to twenty-first of Abib. (These could be on any day of the week)>
OFFERINGS: For burnt offering, daily, two bullocks, one ram, seven lambs, with appropriate meal offerings; and one kid for a sin offering. CEREMONIAL SABBATH: On the first day and the seventh day shall be holy convocations. No servile work may be done.

Ceremony of the Wave Sheaf
TEXT: Leviticus 23:10-14.
TIME: Sixteenth of Abib, the second day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
OFFERINGS: Wave sheaf or omer of barley, waved before the Lord; yearling lamb and its appropriate meal offering. “Ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn,' nor green ears, until the selfsame day that you have brought an offering unto your God.” Leviticus 23:14. Pentecost
TEXTS: Leviticus 23:15-21; Numbers 28:26-31; Deuteronomy 16:9-11. TIME: Fifty days from the wave sheaf. OFFERINGS: Two loaves to be waved; For the day, two bullocks, one ram, seven lambs, for a burnt offering, with appropriate meal offerings; one kid for a sin offering. Numbers 28:26-30. 2. For the bread, one bullock, two rams, seven lambs, for a burnt offering, with appropriate meal offering; one kid for a sin offering; two lambs for a peace offering. Leviticus 23:15-21.
CEREMONIAL SABBATH: On this day shall be a holy convocation. No servile work may be done.

Pentecost
TEXTS: Leviticus 23:15-21; Numbers 28:26-31; Deuteronomy 16:9-11.
TIME: Fifty days from the wave sheaf.
OFFERINGS: Two loaves to be waved; For the day, two bullocks, one ram, seven lambs, for a burnt offering, with appropriate meal offerings; one kid for a sin offering. Numbers 28:26-30. 2. For the bread, one bullock, two rams, seven lambs, for a burnt offering, with appropriate meal offering; one kid for a sin offering; two lambs for a peace offering. Leviticus 23:15-21.
CEREMONIAL SABBATH: On this day shall be a holy convocation. No servile work may be done.

Blowing of Trumpets
TEXTS: Leviticus 23:24, 25; Numbers 29:1-6.
TIME: First day of seventh month.
OFFERINGS: One bullock, one ram, seven lambs, for a burnt offering, with appropriate meal offering; one kid for a sin offering.
CEREMONIAL SABBATH' On this day shall be a holy convocation. No servile work may be done.

Day of Atonement
TEXTS: Leviticus 16; 23:27-32; Numbers 29:7-11.
TIME: Tenth day of seventh month.
OFFERINGS: (See under Special Ceremonies, Day of Atonement.)
CEREMONIAL SABBATH: On this day shall be a holy convocation. “You shall afflict your souls.” No manner of work may be done.

Feast of Tabernacles
TEXTS: Leviticus 23:34-43; Numbers 29:12-34; Deuteronomy 16:13-15.
TIME: Fifteenth to twenty-first of seventh month.
OFFERINGS: First day, thirteen bullocks, two rams, fourteen lambs, for a burnt offering, and one kid for a sin offering. Each day thereafter, the number of bullocks is reduced by one, until on the last day the offering is seven bullocks, two rams, fourteen lambs for a burnt offering, and one kid for a sin offering.
CEREMONIAL SABBATH: On this day shall be a holy convocation. No servile work may be done.

Octave of Feast of Tabernacles
TEXTS: Leviticus 23:36, 39; Numbers 29:35-38.
TIME: Twenty-second day of seventh month.
OFFERINGS: One bullock, one ram, seven lambs, for a burnt offering; one kid for a sin offering.
CEREMONIAL SABBATH: On this day shall be a solemn assembly. No servile work may be done.

Note the timing of these feast days and annual Sabbaths. They are dictated by days and months, or by the first new moon. Nothing to do with the days of the week, either Sunday or Sabbath. Note also the contrast between the weekly Sabbaths (upon which no special offerings were made) and the annual Sabbaths which all had significant peculiar istructions attached, depending on the type/antitype signification.
The weekly Sabbath had no type/antitype significance in that the future ministry of Jesus met or fulfilled thuse rendering the type obsolete.

 

[Brakelite]

But when God commanded his own and chosen People, Remember the Sabbath, BUT CHANGED HIS MIND, HIS WILL, HIS FAITHFULNESS, AND HIS SABBATH, AND SWOPPED HIS PEOPLE, REJECTED HIS BELOVED, FORGOT HIS FAITHFULNESS, NEGATED HIS POWER, AND RESENTED HIS PROMISES : HE DID SO WITHOUT A WORD!

Yes, amazing isn't it, that God can announce His commandments with pomp, fanfare of trumpets, lightening, thunder, a voice that shook he earth and caused fear and panic in millions of people, yet all of a sudden all of that is undone, quashed, done away with without a whimper. Almost as if God wanted to keep it secret and only a few select people "in the know" are aware of the situation and are now "free" to use the Sabbath day for whatever they like.

So, additionally regarding the Sabbath, let me say this. The Sabbath in the old covenant is kept according to the code or to the letter ~ literally and physically so to speak. The Sabbath in the new covenant is kept according to the Spirit and spiritually so to speak. Though whether the Christian want to keep it literally and physically as well, in like manner as was in the old covenant or in the custom of the Jews or not, is of no matter. For as long as he do so by faith and keep it according to the Spirit.

The Jews could well have kept the laws of the OT in a legalist "I must obey" type attitude. And when they failed, they knew they had a "get out of jail free card" grazing behind the house. None of that would have been from love or a genuine desire to honour God. To those, and also to those today who have the same attitude...see below...

The Law can only condemn.

Indeed, the law condemns those who transgress it. However, to those who obey out of love for their Creator and Savior, the law becomes a delight. Read Psalm 119. Are those the words of someone being condemned by the law? Or are they the words of someone who loves the law, seeks to honor it, and knowing God is always merciful in his failures? Someone who knows from the prophets "that the just shall live by faith", thus fully aware that any righteousness comes only from God above...any power to obey comes from God above...and commandments that come from God above come also with the promise of power to keep those commandments. God did not give His law to entrap people with failure, condemnation, and subsequent destruction. God gave His law that men may come to Him and live. That men may come to the Lawgiver and praise Him and worship Him for His wisdom and goodness...both in the law and in the remedy offered in transgression. Is such an attitude really any different to what Christians ought to be today? I think it so sad that Christians...those who profess to love God and understand why Jesus had to die, turn around and abuse God by claiming His laws are unfair and impossible to obey. Even to the point as in this thread of searching diligently throughout scripture for reasons why they shouldn't bother. Quite frankly, its pathetic.