The law of Moses vs the law of Christ

[robert derrick]

These Jews that you guys allegedly proclaim sacrificed animals at a dispensation in history, so I ask how do your Jews atone for their sins?

And where are the Levites they pay their tithes to?

They don't atone. No more than Muslims. They can 'proclaim' all the sacrifice they want and tithe everything they have to their priesthood in their religion to no effect.

Even as I am not 'anti' Sabbath, nor am I 'anti' Jewish. Just don't preach to me some command of Sabbath as law of Christ or honor of unbelieving Jews as promised people of God.

 

[marks]

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly." And so he that is circumcised outwardly is not a Jew. Simple fact of Scripture. When He came, they were, and when they rejected Him, they were not.

Rather, being born from Abaham isn't enough, you have to be of the child of promise. And being born of Isaac isn't enough, you have to be of the chosen child. And being born of Jacob isn't enough, you must be of faith.

If this sounds familiar it's from Romans 9, the primary teaching of that chapter.

Simply being a circumcised Jew isn't enough, if you don't believe. But that's not to say there is no such thing as a Jew, and in the same way the Bible speaks. This is not to say that Christians are the "new Jews". In Christ, there is no Jew or gentile, we are one in Him. And yet to the children of Jacob will be land grants by tribe, in the millennial kingdom. According to the Bible.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Save who?

Who were we talking about? Jesus' brothers according to the flesh.

Much love!

 

[robert derrick]

It's amazing watching the Israel wannabe's twist Scripture to bring the curse on themselves and their loved ones!

Genesis 12:3 (NKJV)
3 I will curse him who curses you;

All unbelievers are cursed with a curse, and they all curse God in their hearts.

You go ahead and give honor and glory to the unbelievers, calling themselves Jews of God, all you want. Hooray for you.

 

[robert derrick]

Trust Jesus, and love others. These two commandments.

Much love!

Amen brother. Scripture of truth indeed.

 

[Wrangler]

and there is plenty of room for individual belief about prophecy

Not to derail this thread but it's hard enough to understand the prophecy to even have a belief about it.

 

[Waiting on him]

Rather, being born from Abaham isn't enough, you have to be of the child of promise. And being born of Isaac isn't enough, you have to be of the chosen child. And being born of Jacob isn't enough, you must be of faith.

If this sounds familiar it's from Romans 9, the primary teaching of that chapter.

Simply being a circumcised Jew isn't enough, if you don't believe. But that's not to say there is no such thing as a Jew, and in the same way the Bible speaks. This is not to say that Christians are the "new Jews". In Christ, there is no Jew or gentile, we are one in Him. And yet to the children of Jacob will be land grants by tribe, in the millennial kingdom. According to the Bible.

Much love!

In 70 ad all the inhabitants of that area were murdered. Where did the Jews your referencing come from? I wish @APAK would respond here he seems to have studied in depth as to whom these modern inhabitants of Jerusalem are.

 

[FHII]

You are STILL doing it!

Instead of throwing a temper tantrum, try for the first time explaining my error and get the verse right for me. Obviously, I don't see it.

If not, then take your fit elsewhere, with your phantom 'address'.

Well, I was hoping you would correct the error yourself. I pointed out what you did wrong: I stated you partially quoted the verse and left out context. Here is what you said:

1."be not drunk with wine" (Eph 5) There is no context nor full Scripture needed. It is written, it is plain, it is easy to read, and it is law of Christ.

Here is what it really says:

Ephesians 5:18 KJV
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

You left out both context and full scripture. The context was never about condemning drunkeness; it was about proper treatment and love for brethren (which is shown in the preceding verses). You missed the full scripture because it doesn't simply say never be drunk: it says don't do it excessively.

But now we have a dilemma: does it mean don't do it frequently or don't do it once to excess? It doesn't say... So the obvious answer would be not to do either. But it STILL misses what Paul was saying. I can live you missing that point.

The problem is there is a difference between what you said and what the Bible says.

No, I am not condoning drunkeness... Not even once, and I realize there are other verses that discuss the matter. But yes, I am throwing a tantrum because even when you realize this error (IF you will even admit to it), you don't undersatand GRACE! And that is worthy of a tantrum!

We can go through the law, and somewhere there will be something in the law that you are guilty of every day... Just like a drunk who is a drunk every day. And James said rightfully if you are guilty of one point in the law, you are guilty of the whole law.

 

[robert derrick]

what's the law of Christ?

seeing that the Word of God (who Jesus is) gave the law to Moses. you forget it was Jesus that was on mount Sinai with Moses. that talked to Moses in the tabernacle. the Word of God is the Word of God.

so tell us, how is there a difference pray tell?

The law of Christ is written in the Scriptures given to His apostles, which He began to do after His resurrection (Acts 1), and continued to do after His ascension (Acts 10:28), and ceased to do after Rev 22.

That law is written and found only in the doctrine of Christ, also called the apostles' doctrine. No other commandment nor law may be preached as law of God to believers in Christ. Only that which He gave to His chosen 12 apostles for that very purpose (Acts 1:2). Paul called it laying the foundation of Christ, which we may all build upon to build up our fellow believers by ministry of the faith. (1 Cor 3)

To preach any other law, even as any other gospel, than that which the apostles wrote, is to falsely lay another foundation for Christ. A false foundation of a false christ.

The law of Christ is the law of God for His New Covenant, which he established for His believers after His death on the cross, where the Old Covenant and law of God by Moses was changed for the New. (Heb 7:11,12) It is the law that is written on the believers hearts, rather than the law that Moses wrote on tables of stone.

The law and commandments engraven in stone have been done away with it's foreshadowing glory (2 Cor 3) to make way for the law of Christ and His more excellent glory.

The Word of God is the Word of God, and all Scripture given by God is still Scripture today, but not all Scripture is written as law of God, and only Scriptures given to the apostles by our Risen Saviour is written as law of Christ. Any Scripture can be followed and practiced personally by any believer, but only the law of Christ is to be obeyed by all believers in Christ.

So, you can do whatever you want that was written in stone by Moses, but if you preach it as law of Christ for all, then you are preaching your own personal faith as the faith of Jesus for all to abide in.

 

[Wrangler]

That's what I am saying. It is not talking about there being no private interpretations of Scripture, which there are plenty. Private interpretation literally means : own ideas or personal expounding.

But rather that we ought not preach our private interpretation as Scripture, even as the Scriptures themselves came not by private interpretation and will of man.

I am grateful for this thread for it revealed to me the dastardly opposition to 'private interpretation of Scripture.' It's origin is:

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.
2 Peter 1:20
​

The obsolete translations use 'private interpretation' for the prophets interpretation. Scripture does not prohibit what traditional churches condemn as 'private interpretation' as that expression has come to be used at all.

Another complete and total abomination of Scripture by those who seek power over others!


If the Son gives you freedom, you are free!
John 8:36 (CEV)

 

[Wrangler]

God's plan was rejected, when His Son was rejected.

The following of the Son of God is greater than all other religions. Hard to call that a rejection of God's plan. More like the certain implementation of God's plan.

Honestly, your posts are more frequently completely off than most.

 

[robert derrick]

Well, I was hoping you would correct the error yourself. I pointed out what you did wrong: I stated you partially quoted the verse and left out context. Here is what you said:


Here is what it really says:

Ephesians 5:18 KJV
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

You left out both context and full scripture. The context was never about condemning drunkeness; it was about proper treatment and love for brethren (which is shown in the preceding verses). You missed the full scripture because it doesn't simply say never be drunk: it says don't do it excessively.

But now we have a dilemma: does it mean don't do it frequently or don't do it once to excess? It doesn't say... So the obvious answer would be not to do either. But it STILL misses what Paul was saying. I can live you missing that point.

The problem is there is a difference between what you said and what the Bible says.

No, I am not condoning drunkeness... Not even once, and I realize there are other verses that discuss the matter. But yes, I am throwing a tantrum because even when you realize this error (IF you will even admit to it), you don't undersatand GRACE! And that is worthy of a tantrum!

We can go through the law, and somewhere there will be something in the law that you are guilty of every day... Just like a drunk who is a drunk every day. And James said rightfully if you are guilty of one point in the law, you are guilty of the whole law.

Ok, and thank you. (Finally )

I am very analytical by nature. I take Scripture in mathematic literal terms as much as possible, and I believe God is the most perfect mathematician, and applies such precision to Scripture. And this thread is about teaching the Law, which requires great accuracy of detail and clarity meaning.

1. You object to me declaring being drunk with wine to be a sin, because you read 'wherein is excess' as a necessary component to the statement.

I.e. Be not drunk with wine excessively. Which also could have support from being not a drinker of much wine, as in frequency. There is also the fact that no drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God, and never says no one who gets drunk...

I can see your point, and had not considered it before. If it is correct, then as you say, frequency would be the key for God to judge, as well as one's own conscience.

However, at this point, I still read it as the excess being in the drunken volume, not in getting drunk frequently. And the admonition to ministers is to not be drinking often, even if never to excess. So, if I get drunk, I sin, even as fornicate, but a drunkard and fornicator and adulterer is not necessary one who gets drunk, or fornicates, or commit adultery.

The difference in law being: the former shall not inherit the kingdom of God, because their life of transgression condemns them as not being born of God (1 John 3:4-10), while the latter can well be in error to be forgiven with confession, but not necessarily unto condemnation and death. If a brother sins, he can be prayed for and restored (James 5:19-20), but if he sins unto death, there is no help, because no unconfessed or unrepented sin can be forgiven by God, no matter how much prayed for by man. (1 John 5:16)

So, I believe I have a clearer understanding of the law of Christ. Thanks. And perhaps I should include full context to conclude a point of law. (Because honestly, I did not have a clue what you were so upset about)

 

[robert derrick]

Well, I was hoping you would correct the error yourself. I pointed out what you did wrong: I stated you partially quoted the verse and left out context. Here is what you said:


Here is what it really says:

Ephesians 5:18 KJV
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

You left out both context and full scripture. The context was never about condemning drunkeness; it was about proper treatment and love for brethren (which is shown in the preceding verses). You missed the full scripture because it doesn't simply say never be drunk: it says don't do it excessively.

But now we have a dilemma: does it mean don't do it frequently or don't do it once to excess? It doesn't say... So the obvious answer would be not to do either. But it STILL misses what Paul was saying. I can live you missing that point.

The problem is there is a difference between what you said and what the Bible says.

No, I am not condoning drunkeness... Not even once, and I realize there are other verses that discuss the matter. But yes, I am throwing a tantrum because even when you realize this error (IF you will even admit to it), you don't undersatand GRACE! And that is worthy of a tantrum!

We can go through the law, and somewhere there will be something in the law that you are guilty of every day... Just like a drunk who is a drunk every day. And James said rightfully if you are guilty of one point in the law, you are guilty of the whole law.

2. "We can go through the law, and somewhere there will be something in the law that you are guilty of every day."

I believe there is a difference between sins of imperfection and errors, vs transgression of law of Christ. Jesus was and shall be the only perfect 'Christian'. However, transgression is a willfully knowing sin, called iniquity.

By two counts we by nature know the law of Christ: written in our hearts, and written on paper. We don't need the law written in paper (1 Tim 1:9) in order to find out what we are doing wrong with God. We know by nature that drunkenness , fornication, thievery, lying, etc... is wrongful sin.

And so, while we are most likely guilty of sinful imperfection every day, we do know when we have transgressed God and Jesus, except we be reprobates (2 Cor 13:5).

To my mind, the only reason the law of Christ is written on paper is to confirm to us what is not transgression, because it is not written certainly as law, and so we need not be judged guilty by them that make up law, which is exactly what this thread is about. A defiled conscience before God is one thing, but a guilt-trip of man is entirely another. I will confess and repent to God according to His Word, but I will not be brought into subjection by the law and commandments of men. (Col 2:22)

 

[robert derrick]

The following of the Son of God is greater than all other religions. Hard to call that a rejection of God's plan. More like the certain implementation of God's plan.

Honestly, your posts are more frequently completely off than most.

If I get your point, then what is off is your understanding what I say. I am not saying God's plan was stopped, period. That is obviously not the case. God's plan including the Jews of the flesh was stopped for them, when they rejected Him.

But God's eternal plan since the beginning of the world certainly does continue, which is greater than the Israelites that rejected His plan before the mount, and then the Jews that rejected His Son before the cross.

And yet, all that abide in unbelief today are still rejecting God's plan of salvation and redemption and resurrection of a holy nation and royal priesthood, which He spoke plainly of before the mount to Moses, who then told the people, who then declared themselves obedient and ready, and then went backwards from the mount, rather than forward, when the Lord Himself descended upon it.

God's plan for man is Jesus Christ and Him crucified, the Lamb of God who's blood washes away all sin.

 

[FHII]

Ok, and thank you. (Finally )

I am very analytical by nature. I take Scripture in mathematic literal terms as much as possible, and I believe God is the most perfect mathematician, and applies such precision to Scripture. And this thread is about teaching the Law, which requires great accuracy of detail and clarity meaning.

1. You object to me declaring being drunk with wine to be a sin, because you read 'wherein is excess' as a necessary component to the statement.

I.e. Be not drunk with wine excessively. Which also could have support from being not a drinker of much wine, as in frequency. There is also the fact that no drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God, and never says no one who gets drunk...

I can see your point, and had not considered it before. If it is correct, then as you say, frequency would be the key for God to judge, as well as one's own conscience.

However, at this point, I still read it as the excess being in the drunken volume, not in getting drunk frequently. And the admonition to ministers is to not be drinking often, even if never to excess. So, if I get drunk, I sin, even as fornicate, but a drunkard and fornicator and adulterer is not necessary one who gets drunk, or fornicates, or commit adultery.

The difference in law being: the former shall not inherit the kingdom of God, because their life of transgression condemns them as not being born of God (1 John 3:4-10), while the latter can well be in error to be forgiven with confession, but not necessarily unto condemnation and death. If a brother sins, he can be prayed for and restored (James 5:19-20), but if he sins unto death, there is no help, because no unconfessed or unrepented sin can be forgiven by God, no matter how much prayed for by man. (1 John 5:16)

So, I believe I have a clearer understanding of the law of Christ. Thanks. And perhaps I should include full context to conclude a point of law. (Because honestly, I did not have a clue what you were so upset about)

Ahhh... A mathematician! Ok... I have a great love of math without much understanding of it. I was always a poor student, but one day I contemplated math before a post college exam for a job. Its all pure logic and nothing to be feared! I got a 98% on my exam! Math is the only pure science and the only thing based solely on facts... If that's not true, its what got me through. And yes, God is a perfect mathematician.

We have made progress. Yes, drunkeness is defined by both volume in one consumption or by frequency. Best to avoid both. Things like fornication have to be analyzed too. It isn't always about sex but sometimes it is. The bottom line is that taking a logical, methematical approach to the law and nature of God will teach you much, but I don't see much logic in God's grace (not from a math theory pov). One man's sacrifice > sin of all men? Its true.... But not logical from a math perspective.

What about sin and the law?

1 John 2:1 KJV
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

 

[FHII]

2. "We can go through the law, and somewhere there will be something in the law that you are guilty of every day."

I believe there is a difference between sins of imperfection and errors, vs transgression of law of Christ. Jesus was and shall be the only perfect 'Christian'. However, transgression is a willfully knowing sin, called iniquity.

By two counts we by nature know the law of Christ: written in our hearts, and written on paper. We don't need the law written in paper (1 Tim 1:9) in order to find out what we are doing wrong with God. We know by nature that drunkenness , fornication, thievery, lying, etc... is wrongful sin.

And so, while we are most likely guilty of sinful imperfection every day, we do know when we have transgressed God and Jesus, except we be reprobates (2 Cor 13:5).

To my mind, the only reason the law of Christ is written on paper is to confirm to us what is not transgression, because it is not written certainly as law, and so we need not be judged guilty by them that make up law, which is exactly what this thread is about. A defiled conscience before God is one thing, but a guilt-trip of man is entirely another. I will confess and repent to God according to His Word, but I will not be brought into subjection by the law and commandments of men. (Col 2:22)

In a sense, I agree with you. All major religions have a standard of moral good and evil. Buddhists, Muslims, Jews and Christians all agree that stealing is wrong and caring for the poor is right. And by no means do I condone such behavior.

Christianity was born out of Judaism so the Law of Moses must be addressed. Some of the laws are nearly impossible to follow today. Chances are, your socks make you a sinner as you can't wear garments of mixed fabric!

I have never been a fan of the book of James for reasons beyond this topic, but it does say:

James 2:10 KJV
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Every Word of God... If you keep the WHOLE law except for that point about your socks... You are guilty of the WHOLE law. That's what it says. It doesn't differentiate imperfection or error or transgression. So if you apply your math skills to that, what does the WHOLE law equal? The whole law means all of it and minus 1 is not the whole law! It may be 99 44/100ths%, but its not 100%.

 

[APAK]

In 70 ad all the inhabitants of that area were murdered. Where did the Jews your referencing come from? I wish @APAK would respond here he seems to have studied in depth as to whom these modern inhabitants of Jerusalem are.

" In Christ, there is no Jew or gentile, we are one in Him. And yet to the children of Jacob will be land grants by tribe, in the millennial kingdom. According to the Bible."

@marks can you clearly explain these two clashing sentences you wrote above, via scripture and with secular history?

Thanks,

APAK

 

[robert derrick]

Well, I was hoping you would correct the error yourself. I pointed out what you did wrong: I stated you partially quoted the verse and left out context. Here is what you said:


Here is what it really says:

Ephesians 5:18 KJV
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

You left out both context and full scripture. The context was never about condemning drunkeness; it was about proper treatment and love for brethren (which is shown in the preceding verses). You missed the full scripture because it doesn't simply say never be drunk: it says don't do it excessively.

But now we have a dilemma: does it mean don't do it frequently or don't do it once to excess? It doesn't say... So the obvious answer would be not to do either. But it STILL misses what Paul was saying. I can live you missing that point.

The problem is there is a difference between what you said and what the Bible says.

No, I am not condoning drunkeness... Not even once, and I realize there are other verses that discuss the matter. But yes, I am throwing a tantrum because even when you realize this error (IF you will even admit to it), you don't undersatand GRACE! And that is worthy of a tantrum!

We can go through the law, and somewhere there will be something in the law that you are guilty of every day... Just like a drunk who is a drunk every day. And James said rightfully if you are guilty of one point in the law, you are guilty of the whole law.

3. So, the seeming attack on grace got you so upset. Well, I started this thread for the single purpose of teaching the law, and as we know, the law and grace do not agree. The one has nothing to do with the other, and they are in fact in opposition to one another, which is why the death of the Testator and the Lawgiver was needed to reconcile those who were under the law and needed grace.

All I have been doing therefore is to show the need for complete accuracy in what the law actually is, down to the certain points of commandment listed in Scripture (James 2). And so, I care only about what is and is not law in Scripture, and what difference there is in law of Moses vs Law of Christ.

Where grace comes in does not matter. When I stated that the Scripture plainly says to be drunk is a sin, I was not judging salvation and faith under grace, but only judging that it is in fact a transgression of point of law of Christ. Grace and law therefore is another matter, because it pertains to salvation for life vs salvation conditioned on not falling from grace.

My belief on that matter is grace with charity covers a multitude of sins of imperfection for life unto the end (James 5:20)(1 Peter 4, but Grace by God only allows a space of time to confess and repent of transgressions against His Son's law. As with the Jezebel in Revelation who was given space to repent. (Rev 2:21)

We cannot go on in drunkeness, adultery, fornication, idolatry for life on earth, and yet be saved by grace, because faith can be dead: as love grows cold due to abundance of iniquity (Matthew 24:12), and we no longer care one whit for doing good with faith. (Titus 1:16)(James 2)

Even if we continue to profess faith and the Lord, we know it is only lip service, that works readily disprove as true from the heart. (Matthew 15:8)(Titus 1:16)(1 John 3:18)

And so, without grace of God we cannot be saved, and without faith of Jesus we cannot find grace with God to be saved. Another question would be whether faith once alive in the heart can become dead, once saved, but not unto the end.

 

[Brakelite]

This passage is about the origin of prophecy, rather than it's interpretation.

Much love!

There's actually an even more interesting nuance: Peter was saying this in context of the transfiguration, saying that even though he witnessed am incredible vision and heard the audible voice of the Father, the more sure word of prophecy is what ought to be the basis of faith, that is, scripture, because scripture and prophecy isn't given our to be understood by man's opinion or interpretation but by the Spirit of God, the scripture itself interpreting scripture, therefore more sure than hearing voices and seeing visions... The written word is therefore more reliable, anything else having no witness.

 

[robert derrick]

In a sense, I agree with you. All major religions have a standard of moral good and evil. Buddhists, Muslims, Jews and Christians all agree that stealing is wrong and caring for the poor is right. And by no means do I condone such behavior.

Christianity was born out of Judaism so the Law of Moses must be addressed. Some of the laws are nearly impossible to follow today. Chances are, your socks make you a sinner as you can't wear garments of mixed fabric!

I have never been a fan of the book of James for reasons beyond this topic, but it does say:

James 2:10 KJV
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Every Word of God... If you keep the WHOLE law except for that point about your socks... You are guilty of the WHOLE law. That's what it says. It doesn't differentiate imperfection or error or transgression. So if you apply your math skills to that, what does the WHOLE law equal? The whole law means all of it and minus 1 is not the whole law! It may be 99 44/100ths%, but its not 100%.

You math is correct, but this is the whole point of the thread, and the very reason for it: law of Moses vs law of Christ.

You still read in Scripture of the New Covenant as law of Moses from the Old.

Several questions: why do so? 1. We know that the Old Covenant is old and vanished away. (Heb 8:13) 2. We know that the law and commandments engraven in stone have been done away. (2 Cor 3:11) 3. And we know that along with the Covenant and priesthood of the old, the law of God has been changed to accommodate the New Covenant, priesthood, and life of Spirit by grace through faith of Jesus.

Why read Scripture with the vail of Moses over our hearts (2 Cor 3:14), as did the unbelieving Jews, who abide yet in unbelief?

This is not an accusation at all, but rather an offer of liberty from a common mistake of believers, pertaining to the law. Not grace. Not faith. Not salvation and justification by grace of God.

By mixing James with law of Moses, you are in effect teaching:

Scripture in James commands believers of Jesus to keep the whole law of Moses, and forbidding to offend in one point. While the Scripture in Galatians 5 condemns believers of Jesus who keep one point of law of Moses, to be debtors to the whole law of Moses.

The Scripture is not the problem. Reading Scripture with the vail of Moses is the problem. Let God take that vail of Moses away, and be a fan of the Scripture in James as well as all Scripture given by God.