Evidence for God from Science

Wolf,
I agree context is everything. And if I'm totally honest, then yes, I agree. Ultimately, I do agree with what you stated regarding Peter and what these verses ultimately communicate. But this also fails to show how the Hebrew dietary laws now apply to these same Gentiles.
If I am also honest, then I have to say what you are promoting sounds like a fringe legalistic cult. You neglected to answer the question. Please let us know what affiliation you are with.

Thank you for your humble agreement. I try to be humble too, and am willing to "turn on a dime" if necessary to correct myself if I am wrong.

Is it not true that Christian churches during the first century at one time were also considered "cults"? I do not agree 100 per cent with the policies or doctrines of any church I have mentioned.

To the board administration: My intentions on this forum are not necessarily to try to convert anyone to my beliefs, but rather to truly expose people to Biblical truths that you can yourself relatively easily and quickly confirm. If the purpose of this thread is really to discuss whether or not the Mosaic laws are still valid and need to be obeyed, but you automatically and almost instantly kick out anyone and everyone who provides reasonable Biblical proof that the laws still need to be observed, then the title of this thread is obviously a flagrant fraud. Would it not then be an attempt to reconfirm your own anti-Mosaic law beliefs, and even therefore an attempt to convert others to your beliefs? Am I not somewhat correct?

Now I admit I got a little unnecessarily cocky with RickD, and I apologize for "stepping on his toes." I admit I sometimes need to be more respectful of others. So I hope you will accept my apology, RickD, and anyone else I have offended.

Concerning this forum, I do want to praise and thank the creators of it since it is the first one I have ever seen that automatically quotes the entire Biblical verse when a Biblical verse location is posted here.

If you want me to, I will agree to try to never say anything that is not stricly related to the issue of whether or not we still need to obey the Mosaic laws.

KBCid wrote:ummm... Christ did not take our place as a sacrifice. The Jews did not sacrifice people. They sacrificed animals. Christ took the place of the 'animals' that were being sacrifed all year long by Jews as offerings for their sins according to mosaic law. Here is an example;
Mat 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:Yes, He did. Refer to Rick's post.

I don't see it.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:In actuality, animals really never cut the cost or even paid our sins in full but I'm sure you knew about this. We were deserving death (Rom 3:23 and Rom 6:23).

I said the same thing and in truth it never paid for any of the Jews sins. Further I stated that his sacrifice eliminated the temporary laws requiring animal sacrifice. These laws were fulfilled / ended after Christ died.

KBCid wrote:See this is a sin offering being given because of a mosaic law that demanded a specific form of sin offering, which was a temporary law, and was still required to be observed until Christ made his sacrifice. At the moment that Christ did make the sacrifice however, it eliminated all the laws that directed specific sacrifices to pay for their sins.
So what the apostles had to deal with after Christ was the ingrained customs of the jews to make animal sacrifices for their sins. They had to teach the people that those laws were temporary and never actually saved the bringer of the sacrifice. What the apostles needed to change was the actions and thoughts of the people from the concept of animal sacrifice eliminating the cost of sin to Jesus Christ being the sacrifice to eliminate the cost of sin.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:The gift that Moses commanded was to be a testimony unto the priests of Jesus' work. It's just that obvious. This is a testimony that would be revealed later on to us.
What you're trying to do is lessen the scope of the Law, similar to what the Pharisees did in their hypocrisy so that they may be deemed "Holy" through their works.

The gift that Moses commanded was from the mosaic law plain and simple and until the proper sacrifice occured it was still required. Christ himself obeyed all the laws as well so he understood that the action had to occur.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:A few chapters before Hebrews 10, say that the old covenant is obsolete (Heb 8:13).

KBCid wrote: Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
And indeed it did. Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. God has made a new way to take away sin. He also eliminated the simple understanding of what a sin is since he has magnified how a sin can occur. Thus the old agreed upon commandments that limited coverage for the physical has been upgraded to the spiritual and now is to be written on the heart instead of the old stone method.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:The New Covenant, let's look at that. But first, let's go back to what the Old Covenant was. Actually, the "magnification thing" of the requirements of the Law WAS the original intention of the Law.

Then show me where this is written in the laws of the OT "Mat 5:28 ...whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
This was the problem. The Jews used the law in its most literal sense based entirely on what was written and not with the intent of the two royal laws. Since they were not following its intent they made what was written into a horrible legalistic life essentially. So when Christ came to make the new covenant he made sure that we understood that the law has intent and we need to follow that intent just as he did. He was our example for living a Godly life.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:The situation during Jesus' time was that some of the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law skewed the entire thing up (lessened the requirement) so that THEY can be seen as "Holy" which was hypocritical of them as Jesus repeatedly said they were.

No they didn't lessen requirements. They added to them with oral traditions and in a case like that spoken of below they exchanged requirements with a defined law. Just like washing hands was required so were the actions required for anything else.
Mat 15:2-3 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

And those are just two references to Jewish traditions that were added to the mosaic laws. according to many sources oral traditions were a 'volume of laws all on their own'

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote: (Remember: the wages of sin is death Rom 6:23) I can't keep that kind of Law and nor can you and anyone else but Jesus did.

Tell me which of Gods laws is it impossible for you to keep?

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:If that Law was still in our hearts then we basically spit on what Jesus' did. For He came to fulfill that Law once and for all.

Christ fullfilled only what was fullfillable which were those laws that dealt with sacrife to pay for sin. The decalogue does not define any payment for sin. It does however, show us a lot of how not to sin in the first place. How we pay for sins was the temporary part of mosaic law, how we came to owe for the sin that required a payment was defined by other laws that define what a sin is. So really can you define which of the old testament commands that defined what sin was that are impossible for you to keep and why?

KBCid wrote:The new covenant is that we will love God and our neighbor and if we sin then Christ is our offering for those sins. Since all the old commandments other than the sin offering ones hung from those two commands then they must still apply since the two main commandments still apply.
I invite you to define how one might obey the main two commandments without obeying the old ones.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:Really? Uh, no. But you aren't far from the Kingdom, the New Covenant that Jesus ushered after His death. (*cough* read the verses after Jesus said about the two main commandments you speak of. *cough* spoilers: Mark 12:34). What Jesus was talking about here is more or less the summary of the Laws of the Old Covenant.

I have read it all many times. If you have a point then reference the verses with a specific point.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:The New Covenant, the new law and the only command is found in John 13:34. Given by Jesus Himself to His disciples as He predicted the betrayal of Judas and Peter's denial.
John 13:34 (NASB) "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

I have heard this argued before and this one ends in "then we are not required to;
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
and in every case people tend to agree that the command to Love God still applies and is higher on the totem pole of importance than the other command.

I suppose you are serious since you had no remark to my Apologetic joke earlier.
I should get to the point then.

KBCid wrote:

KBCid wrote:ummm... Christ did not take our place as a sacrifice. The Jews did not sacrifice people. They sacrificed animals. Christ took the place of the 'animals' that were being sacrifed all year long by Jews as offerings for their sins according to mosaic law. Here is an example;
Mat 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:Yes, He did. Refer to Rick's post.

I don't see it.

If you don't see it then I guess, it would be futile if I repeat Rick's statement.
As a similar case, Abraham was supposedly to sacrifice his "only son". Does that ring any bells?

KBCid wrote:

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:In actuality, animals really never cut the cost or even paid our sins in full but I'm sure you knew about this. We were deserving death (Rom 3:23 and Rom 6:23).

I said the same thing and in truth it never paid for any of the Jews sins. Further I stated that his sacrifice eliminated the temporary laws requiring animal sacrifice. These laws were fulfilled / ended after Christ died.

Enlighten me then, where did it say that ONLY the sacrificial laws are fulfilled? You see, the old covenant included everything including the sacrificial laws. When you say that only the sacrificial laws are removed then what you have is just a pick-a-law-to-follow Christianity. We're shifting covenants and so that means all of the Laws in the old covenant were fulfilled.

KBCid wrote:

KBCid wrote:See this is a sin offering being given because of a mosaic law that demanded a specific form of sin offering, which was a temporary law, and was still required to be observed until Christ made his sacrifice. At the moment that Christ did make the sacrifice however, it eliminated all the laws that directed specific sacrifices to pay for their sins.
So what the apostles had to deal with after Christ was the ingrained customs of the jews to make animal sacrifices for their sins. They had to teach the people that those laws were temporary and never actually saved the bringer of the sacrifice. What the apostles needed to change was the actions and thoughts of the people from the concept of animal sacrifice eliminating the cost of sin to Jesus Christ being the sacrifice to eliminate the cost of sin.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:The gift that Moses commanded was to be a testimony unto the priests of Jesus' work. It's just that obvious. This is a testimony that would be revealed later on to us.
What you're trying to do is lessen the scope of the Law, similar to what the Pharisees did in their hypocrisy so that they may be deemed "Holy" through their works.

The gift that Moses commanded was from the mosaic law plain and simple and until the proper sacrifice [occurred] it was still required. Christ himself obeyed all the laws as well so he understood that the action had to occur.

Well, I agree with you on this one. Jesus did follow all of the laws and this is because He tutored us on what it really means: to see that we can NEVER be able to follow ALL of them. With the magnified law of Jesus the occurrences would go up a notch - hold on, scratch that! All of us would be held accountable for.
The thing about the Law is that if you break one, you break all (James 2:10). God demands 100%. This is why it is said "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom 3:23 NIV)
BUT, the fulfillment of the Law has not occurred yet.

KBCid wrote:

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:A few chapters before Hebrews 10, say that the old covenant is obsolete (Heb 8:13).

KBCid wrote: Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
And indeed it did. Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. God has made a new way to take away sin. He also eliminated the simple understanding of what a sin is since he has magnified how a sin can occur. Thus the old agreed upon commandments that limited coverage for the physical has been upgraded to the spiritual and now is to be written on the heart instead of the old stone method.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:The New Covenant, let's look at that. But first, let's go back to what the Old Covenant was. Actually, the "magnification thing" of the requirements of the Law WAS the original intention of the Law.

Then show me where this is written in the laws of the OT "Mat 5:28 ...whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

You misunderstand me. When I said that "The magnification WAS the original intention", I meant Christ would magnify and glorify the Law and that was the original intention as said in Isaiah 42. Again, this is to show how unholy we are in God's eyes.

KBCid wrote:This was the problem. The Jews used the law in its most literal sense based entirely on what was written and not with the intent of the two royal laws. Since they were not following its intent they made what was written into a horrible legalistic life essentially. So when Christ came to make the new covenant he made sure that we understood that the law has intent and we need to follow that intent just as he did. He was our example for living a Godly life.

I laughed at this statement, sorry. Let's look back at the man who asked Jesus about the two royal laws you speak of.
This was his exclamation: "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding, and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." (Mark 12:32-33 NIV)
In short, the man, who was a teacher of the law, knew this already.
In the following verse (Mark 12:34), Jesus says that the man was not far from the kingdom of God. This just means that he was close but when held accountable without the fulfillment of the Law, that man would not enter the kingdom of God for he was only - dare I say it - close.

As for the rest of your statement, yes I agree that Jesus showed us how to live. He was essentially preparing us for the New covenant. That was part of His mission, was it not? He showed us how to live by faith.

Now, my turn. Have you followed the two royal laws? Without the grace of God, you are under condemnation if you don't then.

KBCid wrote:

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:The situation during Jesus' time was that some of the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law skewed the entire thing up (lessened the requirement) so that THEY can be seen as "Holy" which was hypocritical of them as Jesus repeatedly said they were.

No they didn't lessen requirements. They added to them with oral traditions and in a case like that spoken of below they exchanged requirements with a defined law. Just like washing hands was required so were the actions required for anything else.
Mat 15:2-3 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

And those are just two references to Jewish traditions that were added to the mosaic laws. according to many sources oral traditions were a 'volume of laws all on their own'

I see. I forgot to mention the orals, how silly of me. Thank you for pointing that out.
Yet my point still stands, what the Pharisees did was rely on the base requirements of the animal sacrifices so that they can see themselves as "holy". Combine that with their religiosity in works and what you get is the worst kind of pride, the pride that absorbed the devil himself: the pride of being better than God.
As you've said yourself, the animal sacrifices were not enough nor will they ever be.
So did you just mean that what makes us holy is our works?

KBCid wrote:

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote: (Remember: the wages of sin is death Rom 6:23) I can't keep that kind of Law and nor can you and anyone else but Jesus did.

Tell me which of Gods laws is it impossible for you to keep?

Everything, for I have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If you say that you aren't a sinner, that would be tantamount to equating yourself with God who is Holy. However, I do not fear judgement for Christ has saved me by His grace (Acts 15:11). I have faith in He who sets me free (Eph 2:8).
The first step is to admit that we're sinners, KBCid.

KBCid wrote:

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:If that Law was still in our hearts then we basically spit on what Jesus' did. For He came to fulfill that Law once and for all.

Christ fulfilled only what was fulfillable which were those laws that dealt with [sacrifice] to pay for sin. The decalogue does not define any payment for sin. It does however, show us a lot of how not to sin in the first place. How we pay for sins was the temporary part of mosaic law, how we came to owe for the sin that required a payment was defined by other laws that define what a sin is. So really can you define which of the old testament commands that defined what sin was that are impossible for you to keep and why?

You focus on the decalogue too much. Then be aware that that is the ministry of death (2 Cor 3:7).

Indeed the decalogue did not mention the payment for sin. But has it ever occurred to you to ever ask why it wasn't? The sacrificing of animals was God's provision for them to survive. He knew that the Israelites would not be able to keep their covenant. Moses said that the Israelites should not be afraid because God had come to test them so that the fear of God will be with them to keep them from sinning (Exodus 20:20). Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin (Heb 9). This is why God provided the sacrificial laws.

They thought they could accomplish this impossible covenant (in fact many times did the Israelites break this covenant with God). Note that a Holy God cannot be in-step with the wicked. The worst case scenario would be God leaving them and in multiple times it seemed like He did.

God sought righteous people and one of them was Abraham. God's covenant with him was what made God stick with the Israelites and if it were only the covenant at Sinai then all the Israelites most likely have died. You yourself should note that Abraham's covenant with God is different from the Mosaic covenant (Deut 5:2-3). Now try to compare what happened to the Israelites before the Israelites received this Mosaic covenant and after. It was not a pretty sight when you read the 'after' part.

Did the Israelites ever attain righteousness through the law? As far as I know, they NEVER attained it by following the decalogue (Rom 9:31). Then what more I?

KBCid wrote:

KBCid wrote:The new covenant is that we will love God and our neighbor and if we sin then Christ is our offering for those sins. Since all the old commandments other than the sin offering ones hung from those two commands then they must still apply since the two main commandments still apply.

I invite you to define how one might obey the main two commandments without obeying the old ones.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:Really? Uh, no. But you aren't far from the Kingdom, the New Covenant that Jesus ushered after His death. (*cough* read the verses after Jesus said about the two main commandments you speak of. *cough* spoilers: Mark 12:34). What Jesus was talking about here is more or less the summary of the Laws of the Old Covenant.

I have read it all many times. If you have a point then reference the verses with a specific point.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:The New Covenant, the new law and the only command is found in John 13:34. Given by Jesus Himself to His disciples as He predicted the betrayal of Judas and Peter's denial.
John 13:34 (NASB) "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

I have heard this argued before and this one ends in "then we are not required to;
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
and in every case people tend to agree that the command to Love God still applies and is higher on the totem pole of importance than the other command.

Well, you haven't met me. So I plead you to convince me of my statements otherwise.

Ah, a familiar argument indeed. Nope, we really aren't. So stone me if you can, Tarsusian. I'll shed some light on this subject.
Okay, let's assume that you do follow that commandment and you love the Lord your God, etc. You've done that fine. But just like the rich man (Matt 19:16-22) who came to Jesus boasting about your good works, you'll find that it's impossible to ever follow the law to the letter and be PERFECT as well (Matt 5:48). Scripture has made it clear: we are ALL SINNERS. Juxtapose that with James 2:10, now it's obvious why we are all sinners: break one and you break everything.

Can't you see how hopeless we are when we are under the Law? This is exactly why the New Covenant was made. It is through grace by faith that we are saved not by works. Jesus died for us, fulfilling the Law; He did it all so that we won't be required to follow it but fulfill it by faith with Love (Gal 5). It is only when you accept the grace that you can finally worship the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength AND without God having to look at your sin and imperfection but in your new glory as new creations in Christ. You need to have faith and we exercise this through loving others as Jesus loved us (John 13:34).

As for a reference point, I refer you to Galatians. The Apostle Paul speaks of the new covenant more clearly than I. Especially since this is aimed at the gospel you are preaching.

We can follow the Law but it is not required.

Alright, I won't repeat the same argument. But now that I've shown you the difference between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant. You should be well aware that Abraham sinned against God many times, lying to different rulers etc. yet he was never punished disastrously by God. Why? Because he had faith (Heb 11) and his belief in God was counted to him as righteousness (Rom 4:3). Think on that.

The Son has set me free and yes, I am free indeed; free of the bondage of sin which gains its power from the Law. All that's left is to have faith as He follows through with His promise. In love. In grace. I couldn't be any happier in my life.

This reminds me of the story of the Prodigal Son. The older brother worked all he could to attain the Father's inheritance but the younger son received grace. The older son threw a tantrum and similarly, those who hold to the Law.

~Grey

About several weeks ago someone apparently tried to use Mark 7:18,19, half quoting it, as additional support for the idea that the food laws no longer need to be obeyed. However, a quick, simple look at the context and especially the Greek word for "purifying" shows that those verses do not conclusively support an antinomian interpretation of those verses. The purpose of this comment is to promote Biblical accuracy in what is said on this forum, not necessarily to embarrass anyone or promote any particular church's doctrines. I do not think that a person can legitimately be labeled as "legalistic" for merely wanting to correctly understand what the Bible says. Read the following analysis of Mark 7:18,19 to see if it makes sense to you.

Mark 7:18-19: "........ Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" --- New King James Version

ANALYSIS: The false belief that this verse proves the Old Testament dietary laws have been abolished is another classic case of a) totally ignoring the over all meaning or context of the first two thirds of the seventh chapter of Mark, b) totally ignoring the definition of the original Greek word katharizo, Strong's number 2511, translated "purifying" in verse 19, and worst of all, c) unquestioningly accepting the DIRECT ADDITIONS of translators' MISLEADING comments in translations such as those in the New International Version of the Bible, the New American Standard Bible, and in most other English translated Bibles!! The subject of verses 18-19, according to verses 2-5 refers to the Pharisees' man made ceremonial ritual of meticulously washing hands, not what foods are "unclean" or Biblically inedible. The first, primary definition of katharizo refers to the cleansing of physical stains, dirt, and other external contamination on food, not the neutralization of fatal poisons or infections ingested by consuming forbidden foods listed in the Mosaic laws. If you don't believe that, just read about what happened to someone who ate an improperly cooked pig with trichinosis (no cure for trichinosis exists after the parasites have entered muscle tissue which can cause heart failure), a Flamboyant Cuttlefish, another forbidden food, which has poisonous flesh, or a Phyllobates terribilis frog, a third forbidden food which is a poison dart frog that can kill as many as 10 people or 20,000 mice. Even boiling this frog will not reduce its toxicity, which remains potent for a year. The NIV, NASB, AND MOST OTHER English translations, incredibly, BRAZENLY ADD the following or similar very misleading comment at the end of Mark 7:19: "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)," a comment that IS NOT found in the more accurate, conservative King James and New King James versions, and certainly not in the original Greek. In verses 20-23 Jesus added that the Pharisees should put more emphasis on cleansing their thoughts which is more important than washing their hands.

Wolfgang, 2 things:

1) while antinomians may hold to the interpretation you mentioned, the interpretation is not exclusive to Antinomianism. I really don't think anyone here holds to the heretical belief of Antinomianism.

2) if your post is a quote from a site, you need to show the link your quote is from.

Thanks

ISAIAH 66:22,23: "I will make new heavens and the new earth which will last forever ....... 23 ALL PEOPLE will come to worship Me every SABBATH .......,' says the Lord." --- New Century Version

ISAIAH 56:6,7: "....... Everyone who keeps from defiling the SABBATH ....... 7 ....... I will ....... make them joyful in MY HOUSE of prayer ........ For MY HOUSE shall be called a house of prayer for ALL NATIONS." --- New King James Version

Could someone tell me what those prophecies mean concerning the distant future? They seem to say that everyone on the earth will someday worship the Lord on the Saturday Sabbath.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:
Which festivals are you talking about? I never considered it legalistic to follow the Biblical Festivals.

It's not surprising that you don't know. Many Christians have been blinded to the Biblical festivals. The seven main ones are the following. They are not legalistic to follow.. In fact, Christ would have followed them as well. Was Christ being legalistic to practice them?

1. Passover - Pesach - Christ the passover lamb.
2. Feast of Unleavened Bread - Chag HaMatzah - Christ the bread of life.
3. Feast of Firstfruits - HaBikkurim - Christ is the first fruits of the Barley harvest (resurrection).
4. Feast of Weeks - Shavuot - The festival of Pentecost (giving of the holy spirit).
5. Feast of Trumpets - Rosh HaShanah - The day of awakening of Christ return.
6. Day of Atonement - Yom Kippur - Christ's atoning work.
7. Feast of Tabernacles - Sukkot - The gathering of believers to Christ.

I can assure you that won't get hurt practicing these festivals... No body gear needed..

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:
I have yet to know of any Biblical evidence to celebrate Christmas. I'll try to look for some in my free time.
G, We're going off-topic.

Christmas wasn't commanded, but the angles and magi celebrated it Luke 2:10-14, Matthew 2:1-23.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:No, I'm not that stupid though I really should have expounded on that so thanks for pointing it out for me.
"We receive grace through faith and not by works so that no one can boast" this is found in (Eph 2:8-9). But wait a sec you might say, "How about Eph 2:10, the next verse that says we are to do good works, doesn't that still make us follow the Mosaic Law? The verses before are about not boasting in works." Well, thing is we are not required to follow the Mosaic Law but fulfill the Mosaic Law through

We don't need to follow G-d's laws anymore?

Do you teach against homosexuality? Then you are teaching and fulfilling the Mosaic law of Lev 18:22..
Do you help the poor? Then you are teaching and fulfilling the Mosaic law of Deuteronomy 15:7.
Do you Tithe? Then you are teaching and fulfilling the Mosaic law of Deuteronomy 14:22
Do you not rob others? Then you are teaching and fulfilling the Mosaic law of Lev 19:13

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:Love as Galatians 5:13-14 puts it. Note that in verse 14 it says that the entire Law is fulfilled in keeping one command and that is "Love your neighbor as yourself." It's a bit confusing since this is only ONE command to fulfill the others (I mean, what happened to the greatest command in the Old Covenant?)... that is if you don't note the new command and (as far as I know) the only command in the New Covenant (because Jesus, our new High Priest, said so) which is found in John 13:34-35. Note that verse 35 also says that we may be known as Christ's disciples.

So if Christ fulfilled the law, we can sin? I thought the Bible taught against sin.. Romans 6:1-2 If you say we shouldn't sin, then what is sin according to the Bible?

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:John 13:34 (NIV)
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Living by faith means we should love one another as Christ loved us. How do we love like Christ? Well, you can answer this on your own.
Also, the apostle Paul shows us LOVE clearly in 1 Cor 13. I think you know about this already.

What does it mean to love? What are you basing love on?

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:
Yes, what you say is true. Understand that every bit of the Mosaic Law has been fulfilled. Never was it said just this law and not that law, but everything was fulfilled.

So according to this logic, since Christ fulfilled the law, we can do anything we want? Much like if someone paid my speeding ticket, I can speed again?

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:The question of this thread is "Are we still required to follow the Mosaic law?" and my answer is no. It is not required.

~Grey

Of course we give our personal opinions here. It's to show others our ideas and let them react to it so we can be open to correction and etc. I guess I caught your attention so thanks for this discussion.
Yet, what I say to you IS scriptural. The question was "Are we required to follow the Mosaic law?" my answer is a simple "no". Christ fulfilled it already.
You follow it out of love, I can follow them too but I'm not required. But what's important is that we fulfill them with love - this is faith.

~Grey

We don't HAVE to follow G-d's laws... Actually none if we want to... Especially unto salvation, but we can still practice G-d's laws in love. Can you imagine a world without any laws? I would hope not...

Wolfgang wrote:ISAIAH 66:22,23: "I will make new heavens and the new earth which will last forever ....... 23 ALL PEOPLE will come to worship Me every SABBATH .......,' says the Lord." --- New Century Version

ISAIAH 56:6,7: "....... Everyone who keeps from defiling the SABBATH ....... 7 ....... I will ....... make them joyful in MY HOUSE of prayer ........ For MY HOUSE shall be called a house of prayer for ALL NATIONS." --- New King James Version

Could someone tell me what those prophecies mean concerning the distant future? They seem to say that everyone on the earth will someday worship the Lord on the Saturday Sabbath.

Sounds good to me Wolfee... Where do I sign??

Gman, you just said we don't HAVE to follow the Lord's laws. Concerning the distant future, though, don't the following Zechariah verses contradict that idea? Those verses basically say that feast skippers will die of starvation because of a drought caused famine or suffer from hideous plagues.

Leviticus 23:34,41: "........the Feast of Tabernacles........ 41 You shall keep it as a feast to the Lord for seven days in the year. It shall be a statute forever in your generations. You shall celebrate it in the seventh month."

Zechariah 14:16-19: "And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 ........ whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King ........, on them there will be NO RAIN. 18 ........ they shall receive the PLAGUE ........ 19 This shall be the PUNISHMENT ........ of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles."

Wolfgang wrote:Gman, you just said we don't HAVE to follow the Lord's laws. Concerning the distant future, though, don't the following Zechariah verses contradict that idea? Those verses basically say that feast skippers will die of starvation because of a drought caused famine or suffer from hideous plagues.

Leviticus 23:34,41: "........the Feast of Tabernacles........ 41 You shall keep it as a feast to the Lord for seven days in the year. It shall be a statute forever in your generations. You shall celebrate it in the seventh month."

Zechariah 14:16-19: "And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 ........ whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King ........, on them there will be NO RAIN. 18 ........ they shall receive the PLAGUE ........ 19 This shall be the PUNISHMENT ........ of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles."

Yes, I'm aware of those scriptures.. What I mean is that G-d didn't create robots. We also follow them because we don't want to upset the Lord our G-d and receive His righteous wrath...

The most common command recorded in the Bible is "Fear not."

It's always amazed me that those wishing to walk in the Law appeal to fear and treat this command as if it didn't exist.

Wolfgang wrote:About several weeks ago someone apparently tried to use Mark 7:18,19, half quoting it, as additional support for the idea that the food laws no longer need to be obeyed. However, a quick, simple look at the context and especially the Greek word for "purifying" shows that those verses do not conclusively support an antinomian interpretation of those verses. The purpose of this comment is to promote Biblical accuracy in what is said on this forum, not necessarily to embarrass anyone or promote any particular church's doctrines. I do not think that a person can legitimately be labeled as "legalistic" for merely wanting to correctly understand what the Bible says. Read the following analysis of Mark 7:18,19 to see if it makes sense to you.

Mark 7:18-19: "........ Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" --- New King James Version

ANALYSIS: The false belief that this verse proves the Old Testament dietary laws have been abolished is another classic case of a) totally ignoring the over all meaning or context of the first two thirds of the seventh chapter of Mark, b) totally ignoring the definition of the original Greek word katharizo, Strong's number 2511, translated "purifying" in verse 19, and worst of all, c) unquestioningly accepting the DIRECT ADDITIONS of translators' MISLEADING comments in translations such as those in the New International Version of the Bible, the New American Standard Bible, and in most other English translated Bibles!! The subject of verses 18-19, according to verses 2-5 refers to the Pharisees' man made ceremonial ritual of meticulously washing hands, not what foods are "unclean" or Biblically inedible. The first, primary definition of katharizo refers to the cleansing of physical stains, dirt, and other external contamination on food, not the neutralization of fatal poisons or infections ingested by consuming forbidden foods listed in the Mosaic laws. If you don't believe that, just read about what happened to someone who ate an improperly cooked pig with trichinosis (no cure for trichinosis exists after the parasites have entered muscle tissue which can cause heart failure), a Flamboyant Cuttlefish, another forbidden food, which has poisonous flesh, or a Phyllobates terribilis frog, a third forbidden food which is a poison dart frog that can kill as many as 10 people or 20,000 mice. Even boiling this frog will not reduce its toxicity, which remains potent for a year. The NIV, NASB, AND MOST OTHER English translations, incredibly, BRAZENLY ADD the following or similar very misleading comment at the end of Mark 7:19: "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)," a comment that IS NOT found in the more accurate, conservative King James and New King James versions, and certainly not in the original Greek. In verses 20-23 Jesus added that the Pharisees should put more emphasis on cleansing their thoughts which is more important than washing their hands.

Wolf, this is a moot point. The book of Acts is clear what food laws would and would not be imposed on Gentile believers. And that is contextually clear. (Acts 15:28,29)
This confirms what Paul wrote in Colossians 2:16. The issue with food laws TODAY is that food laws are for corporate Israel and their economy, neither of which is currently in effect. No priests, no temple, etc.
This doesn't negate that eating certain things are still unhealthy.

Concerning Acts 15:28,29 the following discussion may be an explanation you have never seen before. I believe it is valid. It is from the site TithingHelps.us:

"Acts 15:19,20,28,29: "Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. ....... 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality ......."

When the book of Acts was written the dominant Greek and Roman cultures at that time were centered around idol worship and even had many local pagan temples. Christian Gentiles assembled, literally with the sizable Jewish community, in the synagogues each Saturday. Bibles were extremely expensive at the time since Scrolls were hand written, and very few people had them except the very rich. Synagogue services were the only opportunity most Gentile Christians had to hear the Scriptures and learn Christianity since new Christian congregations had not yet been established in many areas. The Jews welcomed the new people, but they needed to be assured that the Gentiles had genuinely forsaken any form of idolatry. The apostles therefore required the Gentile believers, to get along with the Jews, to accept certain rules (generally man made rules or customs that were not necessarily always required for salvation) showing that they had rejected idolatrous practices: 1) they should not become involved in any ritual involving animal strangulation, 2) they should not participate in any ceremony misusing blood in sacrifices, 3) they should not become involved in any meal associated with idol worship, and 4) they should completely avoid any contact or dealings with temple prostitutes. Verse 21: "For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." This last verse shows that the apostles were motivated to help make the Jews accept the new Christian converts into the synagogues to regularly hear and learn what Moses was recorded to have said. If Acts 15:20,29 is a complete, exhaustive list of laws for Christians to obey, Gentile believers can now murder, cheat, lie, remove property landmarks, commit bribery, abuse the name of the Lord, work on the Sabbath, eat an animal torn by a wild animal, consult wizards, eat trichinosis infected pork and other toxic, scavenger meat, forget about tithing which often saves the helpless hungry from starving to death, curse their parents, covet, divorce for frivolous reasons and marry someone else, look at women adulterously, etc. which of course is a ridiculous conclusion. Acts 15:20,28,29 therefore does not even remotely begin to prove that the Mosaic laws have been nullified."

End of slightly edited quotation.

I will refute, using the Bible, your use of Colossians 2:16 tomorrow.