Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote: So lemme get this straight...We need to follow the law in order to be obedient to Christ. But since we can't follow all of the law, we only follow the laws that we feel apply to us.

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

So, since we can't keep the whole law because some of it doesn't apply to us, we are guilty of breaking the entire law. Yet, picking and choosing which laws apply to us, and which ones we want to obey, that is obedience to Christ?

Gman, are you sure that's the story you want to stick to?

Again.. No one can keep the entire law... And no one obeys the law unto salvation..... It's that simple.... So simple you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.

So answer my other question.. How is it not legalism to celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December? Why are you following legalism?

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think that Gman means that we are to follow only the Laws that directly apply to us.
Laws oriented towards women do not apply to men, Laws oriented towards the priestly class to not apply to the layman.

What about laws that only applied to the nation of Israel? Do we follow those? For example, the Sabbath laws.

Been down this road many many times... Christian’s graft into the commonwealth of Israel and are co-citizens of the estate (Ephesians 2:11-13, 19, Ephesians 3:6, Romans 11:11-24)..

There are no covenants of the gentiles... None. G-d made the covenants ONLY between the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31-32, Hebrews 8:6-13). So we graft into the Israeli tree... If you don't want to then fine by me..

RickD wrote:One quick question for the Sabbatarians here: If a Sabbatarian lives in say, Alaska, at the Arctic circle, how does he observe the Sabbath? In the summer, the sun doesn't set. So sunset to sunset, is not possible in one day. Do those unlucky Sabbatarians have no sabbath? And in the winter, the sun doesn't rise for a long period of time. Is that extra Sabbath rest?

I guess the Soup Nazi in Alaska would say, "You want Sabbath rest? NO SUNSET FOR YOU!!!

As long at it is 24 hours it will be fine, obviously there are fluctuations in the schedule. .

Gman wrote:
So answer my other question.. How is it not legalism to celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December? Why are you following legalism?

I'm not getting the point that you're making here because for all I know, Christmas is just tradition. It was never said that we should celebrate Christ's birth or whatnot so it is solely up to the person to celebrate it (as for me, I like the family time it gives me). This is not legalism but a plan to convert pagans.

~Grey

jlay wrote:makes no sense. Divorced myself from God's law? God's Law (written down or written on the heart) serves a good function. As Paul points out the Law shows us our sinful nature. Romans 7:7. It maginfies the corruption of the human heart and it's need of saving. Please tell me how that is being divorced from the Law?
Your part about demons is just,...well, insulting. Paul expounds on walking in the Spirit. So, if you think I mean spirit filled "divorced" from the teaching that Paul covers, then you obviously have ignored my body of work here on G&S and have decided to take a on dirty debate tactics. I imagine your "working definition" is just some term you picked up and enjoy using.

It's not meant to be insulting.. It's a valid question.. Evils spirits are everywhere in the bible Luke 7:21, Acts 19:12-13. Saying "let the spirit guide you" has many many implications..

jlay wrote:Few things I take acception with here. Paul's comments about circumsicion are referencing of a term already used in the OT. Deut. 30:6
Also, when you say first "Christian" beleivers used the Temple. You are using a term that those people wouldn't have even used. The Little Flock in Jerusalem were Jews, and they continued going to the Temple, because, well, they were Jews continuing in their Jewish plan that their Jewish Messiah had commissioned them to do. So quoting those scriptures doesn't deal or contradict anything I am stating. Not in the least.

Again, you stated you won't hear Paul instructing Gentile believers to start going to the temple. Well it is wrong.. Paul was never against the teachings of the temple or people worshiping there.

Acts 25:8
8 Then Paul made his defense: “I have done nothing wrong against the Jewish law or against the temple or against Caesar.”

Furthermore if you believe in the millennium reign of Christ, the temple will be coming back for a thousand years according to Ezekiel 43:4-5.. The Torah will be taught from Jerusalem by Yeshua during the Messianic age (Isaiah 2:2-3; 42:6, Micah 4:2) and all nations (including gentiles) will come to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) there including the other festivals (Zechariah 14:16, Isaiah 56:7, Ezekiel 44:24; 45:17; 46:9-11). So if you want to go against scripture be my guest..

jlay wrote:Regarding Paul's visit. It is very important in the timeline. I don't have the time to go through the whole chronology of Acts, but Acts does present a transition. As you quoted in Acts 22, Paul had a vision where God said, ‘Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’ (Acts 22:21)
If you go back to Chapter 21 you will see the conflict and the differences in the message.
Jewish believers report of the message to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. (Acts 21:20)
And here is the conflict: "They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs." Does Paul deny this? No. In fact, a compromise is made. our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 21:25)

So? Where does it say that he is abolishing the rest of the laws? This is not a compromise.. At that time Gentile believers were still assembling in the local synagogue every Shabbat. That is why he warned the Jews there to not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Later on in the synagogue they would be introduced to the full torah laws.

jlay wrote:At this time, there is a church in Jerusalem. Based on the report it is growing. There is a finctioning temple, and the Apostles are preaching the same Gospel of the Kingdom. Paul, obviously is teaching something different. So much that it caused his arrest while in Jerusalem. It's possible that the controversy is over what he wrote in Galatians, but that is speculation.

Speculation over nothing because we already know that Galatians does not contradict what Paul has stated before..

jlay wrote:But, they claim that Paul follows the law and require him to submit to a vow to show himself a good Jew. As far as Paul's practice, he answers here. "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law." (1 Cor. 9:20)

That is all I have time for now.

Yes, we've addressed this before.. You haven't defined what Paul meant to be "under the Law." Paul no-where says that the law itself was bad or legalism... How it was "practiced" however could have devastating results thus putting oneself under bondage...

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:

Gman wrote:
So answer my other question.. How is it not legalism to celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December? Why are you following legalism?

I'm not getting the point that you're making here because for all I know, Christmas is just tradition. It was never said that we should celebrate Christ's birth or whatnot so it is solely up to the person to celebrate it (as for me, I like the family time it gives me). This is not legalism but a plan to convert pagans.

~Grey

And thus many people celebrate it on the 25th of December... Why? To commemorate the birth of Christ...... Exactly the same reason why we want to follow G-d's Torah. Reverence... It is solely up to those who want to follow it.. And if they don't want to, then that is their choice.

Gman wrote:

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:

Gman wrote:
So answer my other question.. How is it not legalism to celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December? Why are you following legalism?

I'm not getting the point that you're making here because for all I know, Christmas is just tradition. It was never said that we should celebrate Christ's birth or whatnot so it is solely up to the person to celebrate it (as for me, I like the family time it gives me). This is not legalism but a plan to convert pagans.

~Grey

And thus many people celebrate it on the 25th of December... Why? To commemorate the birth of Christ...... Exactly the same reason why we want to follow G-d's Torah. Reverence... It is solely up to those who want to follow it.. And if they don't want to, then that is their choice.

I see what you did there. Although Christmas was never commanded in the Bible.
So we are not required to follow the Mosaic Law.

~Grey

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote: I see what you did there. Although Christmas was never commanded in the Bible.

Christmas was never commanded but yet for a Christian to disown Christmas, regardless of what day it falls on, would be a peculiar thing for a Christian to refrain from.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:So we are not required to follow the Mosaic Law.

~Grey

If we want to abstain from sin then naturally we would want to do our best to follow G-d's laws... It's not picking and choosing laws either. We would naturally want to obey our creator. Furthermore how can the laws be considered a curse?

1. The Sabbath - taking a day off of legalistic work. Heaven forbid...
2. Not eating pork - Meat that is tainted with toxic chemicals. Pigs being scavengers by nature that will eat anything. Even other pigs and poo...
3. Celebrating the Biblical festivals - The same festivals that Christ celebrated which actually augment Christ's work on earth.

If these are curses or legalistic to follow then why are we teaching other laws such as a sin to practice homosexuality? That was part of the Mosaic laws too..

Concerning that comment on evolutionism, I should have said that macro-evolutionism (cats evolving into dogs, etc.) is a grand fairy tale. Yes, micro-evolutionism is obviously true since many dozens of different breeds of dogs can come from one or two types of dogs, etc. So I admit bacteria, viruses, etc. can mutate, adapt and change.

Regarding Christmas, that is a serious sin, to observe Christmas because of its pagan traditions, some of which even involve ghastly child sacrifice. Attaching the extremely holy name of Jesus to a series of thoroughly pagan traditions is a serious insult to our Creator. Christmas also flagrantly breaks the Mosaic law that forbids adding to or subtracting from Biblical laws. Since Christmas is not in the Bible, it is an addition. Easter, likewise, is also a serious sin if you observe it. Easter eggs are symbolic or refer to the worship of pagan gods of fertility, etc. The very name of Easter is short for the name of a pagan god, I believe.

Surely no one on this forum observes Christmas or Easter.

Come on, jlay, what did you mean about "what goes in to the mouth, etc"? That verse definitely cannot refer to forbidden food if you check the Greek.

Gman wrote:
So answer my other question.. How is it not legalism to celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December? Why are you following legalism?

Sorry G. Not following you here.

Gman wrote:

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote: I see what you did there. Although Christmas was never commanded in the Bible.

Christmas was never commanded but yet for a Christian to disown Christmas, regardless of what day it falls on, would be a peculiar thing for a Christian to refrain from.

... A peculiar thing to refrain from Christmas? Not really, take a look at Wolfgang's post. He says he abhors the idea of Christmas because of its pagan origins. Yes, there are some Christians that do refrain from Christmas.

Gman wrote:

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:So we are not required to follow the Mosaic Law.

~Grey

If we want to abstain from sin then naturally we would want to do our best to follow G-d's laws... It's not picking and choosing laws either. We would naturally want to obey our creator. Furthermore how can the laws be considered a curse?

1. The Sabbath - taking a day off of legalistic work. Heaven forbid...
2. Not eating pork - Meat that is tainted with toxic chemicals. Pigs being scavengers by nature that will eat anything. Even other pigs and poo...
3. Celebrating the Biblical festivals - The same festivals that Christ celebrated which actually augment Christ's work on earth.

If these are curses or legalistic to follow then why are we teaching other laws such as a sin to practice homosexuality? That was part of the Mosaic laws too..

I never said the law was a curse. Anyway, I agree with you here. The law did provide to help people live. What else would you expect from a loving God?
It is a natural tendency for Christians to obey the law whether they are conscious of doing so or not. It is the Fruit of the Spirit that is manifested then.
However, when Paul talked about Judaizing, he meant making the law's works come hand-in-hand with grace as a way to salvation which, as I have said before, will make Christ's death for us all for naught.

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

RickD wrote:What about laws that only applied to the nation of Israel? Do we follow those? For example, the Sabbath laws.

Gman wrote: Been down this road many many times... Christian’s graft into the commonwealth of Israel and are co-citizens of the estate (Ephesians 2:11-13, 19, Ephesians 3:6, Romans 11:11-24)..
There are no covenants of the gentiles... None. G-d made the covenants ONLY between the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31-32, Hebrews 8:6-13). So we graft into the Israeli tree... If you don't want to then fine by me..

Indeed the covenant is between God an israel and there will not be found a scripture that asserts any covenant between God and the gentiles. In every case including Abram who was also a gentile God goes to the gentiles to separate from them a people for himself. Gods chosen people are defined as israelites. There is one God, one mediator between God and man and one people of God. One body, one faith and one set of Gods laws written in their hearts.

Gman wrote: It's not meant to be insulting.. It's a valid question.. Evils spirits are everywhere in the bible Luke 7:21, Acts 19:12-13. Saying "let the spirit guide you" has many many implications..

G, please don't patronize me. You are a mod, and anyone with half a brain can see what you are implying here.

Again, you stated you won't hear Paul instructing Gentile believers to start going to the temple. Well it is wrong.. Paul was never against the teachings of the temple or people worshiping there.

How is it wrong? Because you say so. Show me scripture?

Acts 25:8
8 Then Paul made his defense: “I have done nothing wrong against the Jewish law or against the temple or against Caesar.”

Furthermore if you believe in the millennium reign of Christ, the temple will be coming back for a thousand years according to Ezekiel 43:4-5.. The Torah will be taught from Jerusalem by Yeshua during the Messianic age (Isaiah 2:2-3; 42:6, Micah 4:2) and all nations (including gentiles) will come to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) there including the other festivals (Zechariah 14:16, Isaiah 56:7, Ezekiel 44:24; 45:17; 46:9-11).

Will be, being the operative term. Paul's quote above has to do with him speaking in his own defense. Nothing to do with Gentiles.

So if you want to go against scripture be my guest..

Bravo, well played sir.

jlay wrote:Regarding Paul's visit. It is very important in the timeline. I don't have the time to go through the whole chronology of Acts, but Acts does present a transition. As you quoted in Acts 22, Paul had a vision where God said, ‘Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’ (Acts 22:21)
If you go back to Chapter 21 you will see the conflict and the differences in the message.
Jewish believers report of the message to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. (Acts 21:20)
And here is the conflict: "They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs." Does Paul deny this? No. In fact, a compromise is made. our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 21:25)

So? Where does it say that he is abolishing the rest of the laws?

The term "abolish the law" is from Paul's letter to the Ephesians. I like the term "set aside better. Eph. 2:14-15 "For he himself is our peace, who has made the

two groups one

and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations.
How is the one new man formed. By the setting aside of the Law. Theologically, I would consider this to be a temporary setting aside. How long? Until the number of the Gentiles is complete. Then Isreal's Kingdom program will be restored. But is that the case now? No. Temple? No. Priests? No.

This is not a compromise.. At that time Gentile believers were still assembling in the local synagogue every Shabbat. That is why he warned the Jews there to not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Later on in the synagogue they would be introduced to the full torah laws.

?? You have a very different intperpretation of what is going on.
Acts shows the pattern of Paul's ministry. He would first go to the Jews at the synagogues scattered throughout the Roman empire. If rejected He would then go the Gentiles, eventually leaving Israel because of their unbelief and rejection.

Yes, we've addressed this before.. You haven't defined what Paul meant to be "under the Law." Paul no-where says that the law itself was bad or legalism... How it was "practiced" however could have devastating results thus putting oneself under bondage...

And I am not saying the law is "Bad." Please stop implying such. What I am saying is it is bad to practice something not intended for you, and then imply you are 'loving' God by doing so.

Gman wrote:Furthermore if you believe in the millennium reign of Christ, the temple will be coming back for a thousand years according to Ezekiel 43:4-5.. The Torah will be taught from Jerusalem by Yeshua during the Messianic age (Isaiah 2:2-3; 42:6, Micah 4:2) and all nations (including gentiles) will come to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) there including the other festivals (Zechariah 14:16, Isaiah 56:7, Ezekiel 44:24; 45:17; 46:9-11). So if you want to go against scripture be my guest.

So? Where does it say that he is abolishing the rest of the laws? This is not a compromise.. At that time Gentile believers were still assembling in the local synagogue every Shabbat. That is why he warned the Jews there to not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Later on in the synagogue they would be introduced to the full torah laws.

One should realise that the Ark of the covenant was directed to be made according to a pattern;
Exo 25:40 And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount. The earthly ark with the testament of God was a shadow of a heavenly ark which also contains the testament of God;
Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

What is the testament of God? is it not the whole Torah? doesn't Gods testament contain his laws for both the physical israel and the spiritual israel that he will dwell within forever;

Eze 43:7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places.
Eze 43:8 In their setting of their threshold by my thresholds, and their post by my posts, and the wall between me and them, they have even defiled my holy name by their abominations that they have committed: wherefore I have consumed them in mine anger.
Eze 43:9 Now let them put away their whoredom, and the carcases of their kings, far from me, and I will dwell in the midst of them for ever.

We should note that Revelation is a book that gives details of a future time and it describes the things that will be occuring at that time and when that time comes there will not be one spiritual gentile in Gods kingdom. There will only be spiriual israelites since Gods covenant is only with israelites.

Wolfgang wrote:macro-evolutionism (cats evolving into dogs, etc.) is a grand fairy tale.

<3

Wolfgang wrote:Regarding Christmas, that is a serious sin, to observe Christmas because of its pagan traditions.

<3

Wolfgang wrote:Easter, likewise, is also a serious sin if you observe it. Easter eggs are symbolic or refer to the worship of pagan gods of fertility, etc. The very name of Easter is short for the name of a pagan god, I believe.

<3
Easter originated from the worship of the goddess Estere.

Wolfgang wrote:Surely no one on this forum observes Christmas or Easter.

....

Wolfgang wrote:Come on, jlay, what did you mean about "what goes in to the mouth, etc"? That verse definitely cannot refer to forbidden food if you check the Greek.

<3
Interesting, another person who recognizes the Jewish perspective of what 'food' means. nice