Evidence for God from Science

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

If this were true then every single command given at that time is no longer a sin. The missing control here is that only those parts of the law that would be fullfilled by Christs sacrifice were to be done away with. By throwing out all the laws along with those that were temporary you are effectively throwing the baby out with the bath water.

All the laws that dealt with offerings for sin were the ones done away with because Christ eliminated the necessity to sacrifice animals to pay for sins which occur when a man performs an action that God defines as a sin such as murder or stealing. The proper understanding of what laws were no longer required was plainly shown here;

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Christs entire purpose was to replace those "sacrifices which they offered year by year" demanded by the mosaic law since only those laws were "a shadow of good things to come". In Hebrews 10:9 it clearly and concisely states that those laws talked about just above it were the ones that he would "taketh away the first, that he may establish the second". The new covenant has a new method for dealing with sin and it no longer requires any form of animal sacrifice. However, the second covenant does reapply the original commandments that God gave the Jews which defined what a sin was along with an expanded understanding of its original intent as it is written;

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

So the original mosaic laws that dealt with defining what a sin is are still in effect and they have been magnified to include the inward man.

jlay wrote: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.

Oh my. Look a this bit of circular reasoning.

"....I am not saying the law is Bad...."
Which ultimately includes the decalogue
"....What I am saying is it is bad to practice something not intended for you...."
And since you believe that the decalogue was only intended for jews then ultimately if we were to practice it then;
"....What I am saying is it is bad...."
Therefore according to this rationale it is bad to practice the commandment not to murder because that would be to;
"....practice something not intended for you...."

KBCid wrote:

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

If this were true then every single command given at that time is no longer a sin. The missing control here is that only those parts of the law that would be fullfilled by Christs sacrifice were to be done away with. By throwing out all the laws along with those that were temporary you are effectively throwing the baby out with the bath water.

All the laws that dealt with offerings for sin were the ones done away with because Christ eliminated the necessity to sacrifice animals to pay for sins which occur when a man performs an action that God defines as a sin such as murder or stealing. The proper understanding of what laws were no longer required was plainly shown here;

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Christs entire purpose was to replace those "sacrifices which they offered year by year" demanded by the mosaic law since only those laws were "a shadow of good things to come". In Hebrews 10:9 it clearly and concisely states that those laws talked about just above it were the ones that he would "taketh away the first, that he may establish the second". The new covenant has a new method for dealing with sin and it no longer requires any form of animal sacrifice. However, the second covenant does reapply the original commandments that God gave the Jews which defined what a sin was along with an expanded understanding of its original intent as it is written;

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

So the original mosaic laws that dealt with defining what a sin is are still in effect and they have been magnified to include the inward man.

Christ indeed took our place as a sacrifice but does it mean that we should be bound to the Mosaic laws? This is the question now.
A few chapters before Hebrews 10, say that the old covenant is obsolete (Heb 8:13). Have you taken at least a peek at the rest of Hebrews 10? The law cannot be placed juxtaposed with wickedness yet we are told that it was placed in our hearts, written in our minds (Heb 10:16, Jer 31:33). So this means we don't have a sinful heart. Contradiction? No, Christ died for us and sanctified us in the process. Does this mean we should follow the Mosaic law? No, none of that sort. All the law did was enter us because of Christ. In fact, Heb 10:19-39 is where Paul mentions what happens after we accept the Truth (note emphasis on capitalization) and that is we should persevere in faith, not the observance of the law; the faith that we have empowers us to follow the laws written in our minds, whatever those may be, find out yourself. This is the New Covenant.
(Also, this may or may not be relevant to the rest of my argument but the law was not one of the 3 that would remain: Faith, Hope, and Love. Faith, I can see is there.)
You also took Matt 5:27-28 out of context. Christ operated this way before His death and Resurrection: He took a cue from His Father and held the mighty Sword of Justice to the throats of the Jews who were so proud of their salvation by works. But later on, He fulfilled the law for us so that we won't be condemned.

~Grey

It seems what is being said is that NO, we are not under ALL the Law but we are under some, which ones is up to the individual and those that are chosen are followed out of love for God, not for any legalistic reason.
Yes?

KBCid wrote:So the original mosaic laws that dealt with defining what a sin is are still in effect and they have been magnified to include the inward man.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:Christ indeed took our place as a sacrifice but does it mean that we should be bound to the Mosaic laws? This is the question now.

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.

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

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.
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:Have you taken at least a peek at the rest of Hebrews 10?
The law cannot be placed juxtaposed with wickedness yet we are told that it was placed in our hearts, written in our minds (Heb 10:16, Jer 31:33).

uh huh.
Let's look;
Heb 10:16-20 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:So this means we don't have a sinful heart. Contradiction? No, Christ died for us and sanctified us in the process.

So you have recieved the gift from the Father?
If at Christs death it sanctified everyone who would come to believe in him then how does this happen?

Mat 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

And notice it is not just a few either, it is 'many'. Obviously those people believe that Christ is the way otherwise why would they say what they say. These people 'believe' in Christ right?.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:You also took Matt 5:27-28 out of context. Christ operated this way before His death and Resurrection: He took a cue from His Father and held the mighty Sword of Justice to the throats of the Jews who were so proud of their salvation by works. But later on, He fulfilled the law for us so that we won't be condemned.

What laws exactly did he fulfill. Can you specifically name them? And in the verses below what sins are being refered to?

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

And how would it be possible to sin if Christ eliminated or fulfilled the laws that defined what a sin was?

PaulSacramento wrote:It seems what is being said is that NO, we are not under ALL the Law but we are under some, which ones is up to the individual and those that are chosen are followed out of love for God, not for any legalistic reason. Yes?

Correct we are not under the whole law anymore. Anything that involved a law for making a sacrifice to cover sin has been eliminated. Christ takes the place of the temporary animal sacrificial system that was in place.
Therefore, the dividing line for what to observe and what not to observe is drawn in the sand wherever there was a requirement for a payment for sin.
And the reason one follows the rest of the laws are because they fall under two main commandments;

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

All of the decalogue was derived from those two commandments and they still define how you can break either of those main commandments. So if you Love God and your neighbor as God commands you then you will also obey any laws derived from the main two principles which both hang on LOVE.

Probably been said somewhere in the course of these posts which I've scanned, but not read in full, so forgive me if I'm repeating but I think it's worth pointing out.

Who is "we?"

Mosaic law was given to the nation of Israel and is part of the covenant God had with them, established first with Abraham and his descendents, and fulfilled in whole or large part with the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

The Church is not Israel. The Gentiles are not Israel.

So, if you're attempting to keep the Mosaic Law as a part of your relationship with Christ in the Church and as a Gentile (non-Jew) then you're doing the theological equivalent of reading somebody else's mail. If you want to do that, then more power to you. Do it as your worship toward God, not the foundation of your relationship with God, which is Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone.

If you want to use it as the measure by which you judge who are real believers and who are not, then read through the Gospels carefully and when Jesus speaks to the Pharisees, feel free to include yourself because that's pretty much what you're doing.

Grace is living in freedom and love as a child of God and not returning to the old system as a house servant who is trying to earn his way into the family.

Legalism is not a mountain to be scaled; It is a tree to be climbed. The closer you think you are to the top, the more branches that sprout and the taller it grows. You never reach the top. That was the point of the Law; to point us to Christ. Live in Him, not the old systems designed to reveal Him from the past.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:
Christ indeed took our place as a sacrifice but does it mean that we should be bound to the Mosaic laws? This is the question now.

KBCid wrote:
ummm... Christ did not take our place as a sacrifice. The Jews did not sacrifice people. They sacrificed animals.

KBC, what Grey means is that the wages of sin is death. Christ died to pay those wages. Christ took our place in death, because He was the perfect sacrifice. Not that the Law required sacrifice of humans.

KBCid wrote:

jlay wrote: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.

Oh my. Look a this bit of circular reasoning.

"....I am not saying the law is Bad...."
Which ultimately includes the decalogue
"....What I am saying is it is bad to practice something not intended for you...."
And since you believe that the decalogue was only intended for jews then ultimately if we were to practice it then;
"....What I am saying is it is bad...."
Therefore according to this rationale it is bad to practice the commandment not to murder because that would be to;
"....practice something not intended for you...."

This has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've read in a while. I am essentially quoting Paul. 1 Tim. 1:8. And Romans 7:13.
I have no idea what you are trying to show with that ridiculous bunch of gibberish.

I think Bart illustrated the point very well.

Jlay recently attempted, mistakenly, to use Ephesians 2:15 to help prove the Mosaic laws were set aside or temporarily annulled. The following very reasonable analysis of that verse shows that it is far more likely that only the burdensome oral torah (the man made, embellished portion of the torah) was abolished, not the written Mosaic laws as they appear in the Bible.

EPHESIANS 2:14,15: "For he Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace." --- New King James Version

Paul describes apparently the very man made, burdensome Oral Torah as "the law of commandments contained in ordinances." Context is very important to understand this verse. Verse 14 sets the stage for understanding verse 15. Verse 14: "He ........ has broken down the MIDDLE WALL OF SEPARATION." The specific phrase "middle wall" is helpful to understand verse 15 because it identifies and concentrates only on a wall or barrier made by man, not a barrier made by God or His divine laws. The Greek for "middle wall" is mesotoichon, Strong's 3320, a special, rare word appearing only once in the Bible in Ephesians 2:15. The word mesotoichon was used by the famous Jewish historian Josephus to refer specifically to a balustrade in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem to keep gentiles from entering the holy section of the temple. That balustrade (the Jews built the barrier because they wanted to, not by any Scripture) was definitely a man made barrier, not a divinely made barrier or wall created by any Scripture. The Greek word for "of separation" is phragmos, Strong's 5418, which means a "fence" or "railing." In his book Wars of the Jews Flavius Josephus used the terms mesotoichon and phragmos for a particular balustrade or barrier in the Jerusalem temple (Book 5, chapter 5, section 2 and 6). This barrier was built by the Jews to isolate the outer court where the gentiles were, from the the inner part of the temple where all gentiles were banned. Written notices in Greek and Latin were posted at the bottom of the steps leading to the inner area, warning gentiles that death would be the penalty for entering the inner area of the temple. Two of those notices were found, one in 1871 and the other in 1935. The actual, physical "middle wall" was demolished when the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Romans. Several years before the middle wall was destroyed, though, Paul pointed it out as an appropriate symbol of racial and religious barriers separating people.

In verse 15 the original Greek for "law" is nomos, Strong's 3551, which can refer to man made laws depending on the context of the verse that nomos is in, since there are more than seven definitions of nomos. "Commandments" in Greek is entole, Strong's 1785, which can also refer to rules and laws created by men. The Greek word for "ordinances" is dogma, Strong's number 1378. This word appears only 3 other times in the entire Bible besides Ephesians 2:15 and Colossians 2:14, which refers to man made opinions, judgments, or decrees (in Colossians 2:14, according to the context of Colossians 2:13, dogma logically refers to the written or somehow recorded record [apparently in heaven] of people's sins). In the other 3 times dogma is used it never clearly refers to the Bible's written Mosaic laws. In 2 cases dogma refers to secular regulations devised by a non-Christian Roman ruler, Caesar, not God's holy laws:

1) Luke 2:1: "......... there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed." The Greek for decree is dogma.

2) Acts 17:7: "........ these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar saying that there is another king ......." The Greek for decrees is dogma.

3) Acts 16:4: "And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem."

In the remaining third case the Greek dogma appears in Acts 16:4 as the English translated "decrees" (again, man made) formulated by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, primarily informing church members that circumcision was no longer required.

Ephesians 2:15: "having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances ......" The words "that is" is actually an artificial addition to the verse, added by translators. The only Greek word appearing between "enmity" and "law" is the word that has the Strong number 3588, usually translated as "the." Also, remember, scholars believe that the original Greek probably contained no punctuation, so translators put in commas where they think they should be, hoping that they are correct.
Since "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" is nonspecific, if it really did refer to the written Mosaic laws and if Ephesians 2:15 really did mean that the Mosaic laws have been abolished, then a large number of very good, common sense laws also would have been done away with by Jesus Christ Himself, which is absurd, demonstrating another glittering flaw in mainstreamers' reasoning that Ephesians 2:15 proves that the written Mosaic laws were annulled. Very good, common sense Mosaic laws not specifically listed in the New Testament that even most pagan societies would not break include laws prohibiting removing property landmarks, prohibiting the mingling of lepers with the general population, forbidding incest, forbidding punishing a son for a crime his father committed, forbidding eating armadillos which often carry leprosy (just touching them before cooking them can give you leprosy), prohibiting eating frogs or their legs (if you undercook this forbidden food and eat it or sometimes merely handle it before cooking it, you can contract a potentially deadly gnathostomiasis infection), prohibiting being a member of a vandalizing mob, prohibiting bribery, prohibiting bestiality, prohibiting putting stumbling blocks in front of blind people, and on and on. Do you really think Jesus thought that the law forbidding putting stumbling blocks in front of the blind created "enmity" between Jews and gentiles?

In conclusion, there is no reasonable way that Ephesians 2:15 can be used to support the mistaken idea that most of the Mosaic laws have been abolished. Only the man made, burdensome Oral Torah additions were done away with, not the written Old Testament laws in the Bible.

It is the gentiles that need to become slightly "more Jewish" than the Jews "more gentile," one might say, so that the two become one according to Ephesians 2:11-14, 3:6, John 4:22, Galatians 3:28, and Romans 1:16, 10:12, 11:11,26.
Some good sites for further study include http://www.ucg.org/booklet/new-covenant ... ty-christ/ and thercg.org/questions/p154.a.html#c.

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:
... A peculiar thing to refrain from Christmas?

Again the point being that many Christians celebrate Christ's birth on the 25th.. And yet some look at the Biblical festivals as being legalistic to follow.... That is the point I'm trying to make. How is it legalistic to follow the Biblical festivals? I mean truly...

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote: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.

Actually wolfgang is correct. Christmas, the date it's celebrated, is actually pagan historically. The issue here however is can it be celebrated... I believe and many others believe that it can. Of course... And that is Biblical to celebrate Christmas.. And the second coming too..

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote: 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.

Fruit of the spirit? So you think that people magically know not to practice homosexuality, commit adultery, fornication, and the likes? Come now...

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote: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.

No where did Paul talk about Judizing.. He did talk about trying to use G-d's law legalistically to try and attain salvation... But that had to do how one perverted G-d's law. Not the law itself....

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

That is your personal opinion, it is not scriptural... If you see the LOVE behind G-d's commandments, then you would naturally want to follow them. G-d gave His commandments OUT OF LOVE... Not legalism.. That is why we follow it.

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

Again it's a valid question... Satan is also a big part of the spiritual world. We have to be careful when we say, let the spirit guide you...

2 Corinthians 4:4
Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

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?

I just did.. If Paul was never against the temple even after Christ ascended. if he was, he would have stopped the worshipers at the temple..

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.

Gentiles were part of the ministry.. Scripture was very clear about that..

jlay wrote: 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.

That would be a blatant contradiction of scripture.. Because Christ said that He came not to abolish the law..

Matthew 5:17
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

The barrier or enmity is not the Torah or laws.. According to scripture G-d's laws are holy Romans 7:12.. What Paul seems to be saying is abolishing of the barrier between Jew and Gentile. The fleshy law of legalistic rabbinical rules and regulations.. Not the law itself.

jlay wrote: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.

Obviously we can't do the temple practices right now. But we can practice that others if we want to... That is the point here.

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:?? 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.

That verse was showing how Jews should handle the Gentiles coming into the fold.. Of course the Jews wouldn't hit the Gentiles with all the 613 commandments of the Torah.. That would be crazy. So they gave them parts of the Torah first.. Later they would be introduced to the full laws later.

Tell me... If a police officer stopped you for speeding, would you want him to spew out all the thousands of highway laws on the road?

jlay wrote: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.

Yes, if we claim we love Him then we keep His commandments John 14:15, John 14:21, 1 John 5:3-4, 1 John 2:3-7. If you say that it's bad practicing G-d's laws is not intended for you, then it seems you are saying that His way are not good.. That's all I'm saying.

Wolfgang wrote:Do you really think Jesus thought that the law forbidding putting stumbling blocks in front of the blind created "enmity" between Jews and gentiles?

Don't look at me dude... I would never think that.

According to my Bible, G-d's ways are good......

Romans 7:7, What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

Romans 7:12, “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.”

1 Timothy 1:8 We know that the Torah is good, provided one uses it in the way the Torah itself intends.

In fact I'm actually having the best years of my life now that I'm trying to follow them... I lost 20 pounds on the Kosher laws, I have my sanity back for taking a day off of work, and I really enjoy celebrating the Biblical festivals.. They are GREAT fun!!!! No one will trick me out of this lifestyle again..

In fact I'm taking people's unwanted Sabbaths and storing them up in my barn.. If no one else wants them, I'll take them...

Wolfgang wrote:Do you really think Jesus thought that the law forbidding putting stumbling blocks in front of the blind created "enmity" between Jews and gentiles?

Now here is a real scary thought.. If G-d's laws are stumbling blocks or enmity, He is going to write those things into the Jews and Gentiles minds....

Hebrews 10:16 “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”

Gman wrote:
In fact I'm actually having the best years of my life now that I'm trying to follow them... I lost 20 pounds on the Kosher laws,

That's great Gman. Now that you mention it, I've been on a diet similar to the Atkins diet. I get to eat a lot of bacon. It's called "the blessing of having the freedom in Christ to eat whatever you want" diet.

Gman wrote:
I have my sanity back for taking a day off of work,

G, what kind of job do you have that gives you Saturday off, and requires you to work on Sunday?

In fact I'm taking people's unwanted Sabbaths and storing them up in my barn.. If no one else wants them, I'll take them

Gman, Jesus Christ is my Sabbath. And, you're not taking Him from me.