Page 58 of 60 FirstFirst ... 8485657585960 LastLast
Results 571 to 580 of 596

Thread: Keeping His Commandments

  1. #571
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmatic View Post
    If you want to contend about circumcision, or other questions about the Law, we can, if you are willing to listen, although I should ask again first, Do you believe the commandments of God should be taught? If you honestly answer that question, I will proceed. Thanks, forty9er. Otherwise, as you say, it may be "pointless" to engage in an argument.
    Let me expose this intellectually dishonest game you are playing so it will be plain for everyone to see. You asked me the question of whether I believed the commandments of God should be taught. I responded by essentially asking you to define what you meant by the "commandments" and if circumcision was one of those commandments. And as I suspected you refuse to answer my question about circumcision. So you want me to answer a question you refuse to define. That is being intellectually dishonest.

    And that is not the only way you are being intellectually dishonest. On the one hand you have repeatedly argued that Christians are required to keep all of the Law of Moses. And not only that but you condemn those who don't believe they are under the Law by saying that they lack love and are lawless. And then on the other hand you openly admit that the Levitical priesthood and the sacrificial system of the Law have been done away with and shouldn't be followed.

    Quote Originally Posted by dmatic View Post
    I have not, by the way, argued for a return to a Levitical priesthood and the sacrificial system, which, in my belief, has been done away with
    That is hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. And if that isn't enough, by saying that parts of the Law have been done away with you are disobeying one of the prime commandments from the Law that you say everyone should keep:

    Deut 4:2 You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.
    You are not only deceiving yourself but you are trying deceive everyone else with your intellectually bankrupt doctrine.

  2. #572
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,746

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmatic View Post
    If you want to contend about circumcision...
    Circumcision of the heart always comes first. That was the pattern set.

    Rom 2:26 So, if an uncircumcised one watches over the righteousnesses of the Torah, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned as circumcision?

    In the days to come...

    Eze 44:9 ‘Thus said the Master יהוה, “No son of a foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, comes into My set-apart place, even any son of a foreigner who is among the children of Yisra’ĕl.
    "The one who says he stays in Him ought himself also to walk, even as He walked." 1Jn 2:6

    >>Without Torah, this is impossible. Don't be a harlot daughter of Rome.<<

  3. #573
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,746

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmatic View Post
    I have not, by the way, argued for a return to a Levitical priesthood and the sacrificial system, which, in my belief, has been done away with, nor do I support any nation or tribe, Jew or Gentile, to return to it.
    Read Ezek. 44 and let me know your thoughts.
    "The one who says he stays in Him ought himself also to walk, even as He walked." 1Jn 2:6

    >>Without Torah, this is impossible. Don't be a harlot daughter of Rome.<<

  4. #574
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,489

    Default

    [QUOTE=Davy Crockett;2733981]Thanks for that explanation, dmatic.

    It seems the argument here is whether the Old Covenant was repealed by the New or if there are, now, two?
    In earthly law, if an agreement is broken by one side, then the contract is null and void.

    More by upbringing than detailed knowledge of Scripture, I am in the belief that Christ, alone, is sufficient.
    I sure hope I'm on the right track because, if my salvation depends on following the 600 some laws, I'm done.

    With my upbringing, I'm certainly aware of the Big 10.
    Since I don't read Hebrew or Greek, I don't know if there is a translation difference between the words "commandment" and "law"

    Throughout this discussion, I keep thinking of this:

    [Matthew 12:1-8 1At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath." 3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread-which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven't you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath."/QUOTE]
    Thanks, Davy. When Jesus posed the question to the pharisees, in that passage, He knew that they revered David. The obvious answer, though it escaped the self-righteous Pharisees, was that not only was David a king, he was also a priest! A type of priest of the Melchizedek order! So, in fact, it was lawful for him to eat the showbread! The Levitical priests 'worked' on the Sabbath, and even performed circumcisions on eight day old males if it so happened that the eighth day was on the weekly Sabbath. And yet, they were innocent. Why? Because they were obeying God's instructions to them, I think.

    You wrote: "More by upbringing than detailed knowledge of Scripture, I am in the belief that Christ, alone, is sufficient.
    I sure hope I'm on the right track because, if my salvation depends on following the 600 some laws, I'm done."

    Your 'salvation' depends on God. In the New Covenant, of which, Christ is the mediator, God promises to cause you to walk in His ways, and your iniquities will not be remembered. "Salvation" is being made whole, or perfect, which includes getting rid of sin in our lives. He is able to present you faultless before His throne. It is composed of three main parts, which include justification, sanctification and glorification. We sin because we lack the glory of God. But, He will provide. But, after being justified by the Messiah's sacrifice, we need sanctification. Being made holy, I think, is a way to understand that phase. It is where we are transformed in a sense. We "put on Christ", our 'attitude' changes. We desire to know God's Way and seek the grace, or teaching to walk in it. we hunger and thirst after righteousness, doing what is right, as God defines it. We seek the promised land of His Kingdom.

    God, of course, is King of His Kingdom, and within it are laws and subjects and land, or space to live. All of His creation, including you and me are subject to His rule and rules, but we don't yet see that in the 'natural'. Jesus will rule until all things are put under His feet by our Father, the last enemy being conquered forever is death, and then Jesus Himself, will subject Himself to our Father as well. and God will be all in all. But, what cause death? Sin. Sin, or the transgressing of His Law, will be done away with, by His grace, eventually. All will be keeping His commandments.

    Today we yet struggle with the lawlessness that is even within our own hearts sometimes.

    If you'll notice in the history of the children of Israel, and their Egypt experience, being in bondage. God "saved" them all out of Egypt, through their obedience to put their faith in the blood of the Passover Lamb....but only two, of accountable age...made it all the way through the process of baptism, sanctification and actually entered the Promised land of full salvation.

    Thanks for your good questions. Some, I suppose, think that the commands of the "Old" covenant have been made null and void, like the contract had become because the people broke it, but Jesus made it clear that His Father's commands were perfect and would last until all were keeping them and would even outlast heaven and earth!

  5. #575
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Off-Grid Organics View Post
    Read Ezek. 44 and let me know your thoughts.
    I will, then I'll get back to you....Thanks

  6. #576
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,489

    Default

    Thanks for the challenge, Off-Grid. Haven't read those chapters for quite a while, but I started with chapter 40 and read to the end.

    First thing I'll say is that if God wants to restart the sacrificial system again, using Zadok seeded Levitical priests, He has my permission! I may be wrong about my outlook on this topic! maybe He will use you to change my mind?

    One thing I note, or want to ask is: When do you think this time period occurs? At one point it seems that it is after the thousand year reign of Messiah. After the second resurrection? We can also deduce that it is not in the New Jerusalem that comes down from God, or is it? Because there is no Temple in the New Jerusalem.

    I am most certainly not a scholar concerning Ezekiel, nor on any part of scripture. But, I am seeking understanding. When we get to the parts about Zadok priests wearing linen when they minister to God and then coming out from that role to put, presumably their 'woolens' back on when they minister to the people, teaching them what is profane and what is holy, what is clean and what is unclean, it may be after the first resurrection, where the overcomers become priests and reign with the Messiah.

    I am very willing to hear your take on these things, and discuss as I am able. Thanks

  7. #577
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,746

    Default

    Some more to consider for now...Isa. 56:7; Isa. 66:20-23; Jer. 33:18; Zec. 14:16-21; Mal. 3:3-4
    "The one who says he stays in Him ought himself also to walk, even as He walked." 1Jn 2:6

    >>Without Torah, this is impossible. Don't be a harlot daughter of Rome.<<

  8. #578
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Off-Grid Organics View Post
    Some more to consider for now...Isa. 56:7; Isa. 66:20-23; Jer. 33:18; Zec. 14:16-21; Mal. 3:3-4
    Thanks, Off-Grid. I am challenged. First, again, if God wants to re-establish sacrifices and burnt offerings, the question is, would we believe and comply? Of course, the book of Hebrews seems to contradict those intentions. When I seem to have discovered a contradiction in scripture, I have usually taken the tack that it is because I am not understanding something.

    In reverse order let's look at the scriptures you bring. Mal. 3:3-4 suggests the sons of Levi need to be purged, which correlates with Ez. 44 in that those Levites of the seed of Zadok, shall be the ones who are allowed to minister to God, in Linen. This seems to correspond to the change of priesthood from Abithar to Zadok, carried out prophetically by Solomon. After the purification, they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness. What is an offering in righteousness?

    Zec. 14...Tabernacles. Bells on the horses. All they that sacrifice (implying that some don't?) shall come and take of them (pots) and seethe therein. Seethe means to become violently agitated, implying boiling of a sacrifice, though.

    Jer. 33...verse 15ff In those days...(when?) the Branch of righteousness....In those days (when?) Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely...and to do sacrifice continually. interesting.

    Is.66: 20 says "and they shall bring all of your brethren for an offering..." Interesting

    Is.56:7 Even the strangers' sons' burnt offerings and sacrifices shall be accepted on God's altar. Interesting again!

    I will await your comments. Thanks

  9. #579
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forty9er View Post
    Let me ask you a question. Is physical circumcision one of the "commandments" of the Law that you believe should be taught?
    Quote Originally Posted by dmatic View Post
    If you want to contend about circumcision, or other questions about the Law, we can, if you are willing to listen, although I should ask again first, Do you believe the commandments of God should be taught? If you honestly answer that question, I will proceed. Thanks, forty9er. Otherwise, as you say, it may be "pointless" to engage in an argument.
    There is a reason why you refuse to answer my question about circumcision. I have explained it previously but let me explain it once again.

    There were two kinds of Gentile proselytes that were recognized in the first century when Galatians was written - "proselytes of the gate" and "proselytes of righteousness". The proselytes of the gate were not required to be circumcised or keep all the requirements of the Law and because of that they were not considered as full members of Israel.

    But if a proselyte of the gate wanted to become a full member of Israel and be a proselyte of righteousness he had to go through a ceremony which included circumcision and had to agree to keep all of the Law. After circumcision he was bound to keep all of the Law. With that understanding, now the meaning of these verses in Galatians is clear:

    Gal 5:2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
    Gal 5:3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
    Gal 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
    Paul didn't just randomly talk about not being circumcised as opposed to some other requirement of the Law. He singled out circumcision specifically because it was the critical act that obligated a Gentile proselyte to keep all of the Law. So he is telling all the Gentiles in Galatia not to accept circumcision and thus be obligated to keep the whole Law because doing so would indicate their desire to be justified by the Law and reject the righteousness from God which is by faith.

    That is the main point Paul is making in Galatians and that is why you refuse to answer my question. You can't deny two facts, first, that physical circumcision was an absolute requirement of the Law, and second, that Paul taught that Christians were not required to be circumcised nor should they be circumcised and by that act obligate themselves to keep all of the Law.

  10. #580
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Born on a Mountaintop
    Posts
    10,446

    Default

    I was re-reading some of the recent posts and saw this:

    Rom 7:4 So my brothers, you also were put to death to the Torah through the body of Messiah, for you to become another’s, the One who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to Elohim.
    Could you explain this, please?
    Plato once said, “Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools, because they have to say something.”

    "Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." "Men willingly believe what they wish to believe."
    Julius Caesar

    There's no natural calamity that government can't make worse.
    Bill Bonner

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •