1 corinthians 9:19-23

[JudahYAHites]

No, the context of Colossians 2:16-17 has nothing whatsoever to do with the old covenant “offerings” for sin. It quite plainly states that new covenant believers in Christ should not let anyone judge them with regard to keeping the old covenant dietary regulations and appointed yearly, monthly, and weekly religious observances. Don’t let anyone deceive you and bring you under that type of bondage, brothers!

“So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths [there’s absolutely nothing in the text that refers to old covenant “offerings” for sin here], which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” (Colossians 2:16-17)

Paul makes this same basic point in two other passages of Scripture as well.

“You observe days and months and seasons and years [he’s criticizing them for observing these weekly, monthly, and yearly religious ordinances as if they are still required, for those who are dull of perception]. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.” (Galatians 4:10-11)

“Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.” (Romans 14:1-5)

The Apostle Paul couldn’t have made himself any clearer. Under the new covenant a believer is free to regard or disregard the old covenant dietary laws and appointed religious feasts and sabbath observances. They are, quite simply, no longer binding upon any believer in Christ to keep. Only a person who is ignorant and weak in the faith believes that they are still binding and will try to impose them upon others.

I understand perfectly where you are coming from @rgmann so let's consider this from the person who wrote what we are reading.

Was Paul the apostle to the gentiles?

Was apostle Paul a hypocrite ?

Regarding salvation and holiness is there a difference between the jew and the gentile?

 

[JudahYAHites]

I understand perfectly where you are coming from @rgmann so let's consider this from the person who wrote what we are reading.

Was Paul the apostle to the gentiles?

Was apostle Paul a hypocrite ?

Regarding salvation and holiness is there a difference between the jew and the gentile?

Also @rgmann what do you understand "covenant" to mean?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Also @rgmann what do you understand "covenant" to mean?

That question you’ll never get an answer to.

 

[Mark C]

The last time I checked, “a change of the law” and “annulling of the former commandment” amounts to quite a bit more than “one jot or one tittle” (Matthew 5:18). Therefore, either the writer of Hebrews is a liar (which nullifies the inspiration and authority of Scripture), or Jesus was only referring to the moral commandments of the old covenant law, as the context makes abundantly clear.

You 'logic' leaves much to be desired. And look up "Occam's Razor," just for starters.

Have you considered BAD translation? And why call Yahushua a liar by saying He didn't mean what He actually said?

It makes Paul's warning more clear, however: "If someone comes preaching another jesus whom we have not preached..."
(paraphrasing in modern terminology)
...I'm afraid you'll fall for it.


He was right.

The "simplicity" that is in Him doesn't require pretzel-making to justify twisted 'doctrines of men'.

 

[Mark C]

They had already come out of paganism. They were believers in Christ and had already repented of their former false forms of worship. Now, they were confused...

You mean, like people who take $#!^ for coming to faith in the Real Messiah do when they repent of xmas trees and Ishtar bunnies?

So, "let no man judge you" for eschewing chocolate eggs and sun-god birthday fetes?

 

[rgmann]

Also @rgmann what do you understand "covenant" to mean?

The term “covenant” is used in different senses throughout Scripture, so the context of each passage has to determine the precise meaning that is being used at any particular time. The “old covenant” refers to the entire legal system or “the law” that was enacted between God and Israel upon the exodus from Egypt, the covenant of which Moses was the mediator (compare Jeremiah 31:31-32 and Hebrews 8:8-13). This old covenant is now obsolete and no longer binding upon any believer in Christ.

“In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete.” (Hebrews 8:13)

The “new covenant” (in contrast with the “old covenant” of which Moses was the mediator) has been established by the sacrificial death of Christ for His elect people; the “better covenant” of which Christ Jesus is Mediator on behalf of all those who are united to Him by faith.

For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:28)

“And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: ‘The Lord has sworn and will not relent, You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek’), by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.” (Hebrews 7:20-22)

“But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.” (Hebrews 8:6)

“And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.” (Hebrews 9:15)

“He takes away the first [covenant] that He may establish the second [covenant]. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Hebrews 10:9-10)

 

[rgmann]

Was Paul the apostle to the gentiles?

Was apostle Paul a hypocrite ?

Regarding salvation and holiness is there a difference between the jew and the gentile?

Yes, Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles.

No, Paul was not a hypocrite.

No, there is no difference regarding salvation and holiness between the Jew and Gentile under the new covenant.

“Therefore the [old covenant] law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:24-29)

 

[JudahYAHites]

The term “covenant” is used in different senses throughout Scripture, so the context of each passage has to determine the precise meaning that is being used at any particular time. The “old covenant” refers to the entire legal system or “the law” that was enacted between God and Israel upon the exodus from Egypt, the covenant of which Moses was the mediator (compare Jeremiah 31:31-32 and Hebrews 8:8-13). This old covenant is now obsolete and no longer binding upon any believer in Christ.

“In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete.” (Hebrews 8:13)

The “new covenant” (in contrast with the “old covenant” of which Moses was the mediator) has been established by the sacrificial death of Christ for His elect people; the “better covenant” of which Christ Jesus is Mediator on behalf of all those who are united to Him by faith.

For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:28)

“And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: ‘The Lord has sworn and will not relent, You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek’), by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.” (Hebrews 7:20-22)

“But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.” (Hebrews 8:6)

“And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.” (Hebrews 9:15)

“He takes away the first [covenant] that He may establish the second [covenant]. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Hebrews 10:9-10)

Thank you for answering.

You are still using Hebrews so I will use two verses in Hebrews, showing your understanding to be flawed.

For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: — Hebrews 8:10 KJV

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; — Hebrews 10:16 KJV

In a very basic explanation
A covenant is an agreement between parties, the laws statutes commandments are the terms and conditions of the covenant which previously was sealed with the blood of animals but now sealed by the blood of YAHushuWaH as the writer of hebrews explains beautifully

Also read exodus 19-24

The above verses show very clearly that a covenant and the laws are two separate parts

So in light of those two verses

What laws is YAH referring to being put into the hearts and written in the minds?

Where can we find the laws that YAH refers to in these verses?

The pharisees taught the law of Moses, so are you saying the disciples of MessiYAH were meant to ignore the pharisees teaching regarding the law of Moses?

 

[JudahYAHites]

Yes, Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles.

No, Paul was not a hypocrite.

We know according to apostle John that sin is transgression of the law, what law?

If the law is done away with why does Paul uphold the law?

We know we are saved by grace through faith but should we continue to sin so that grace may abound?

No, there is no difference regarding salvation and holiness between the Jew and Gentile under the new covenant.

Can you explain this passage of scripture?

And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the [day] following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard [it], they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise [their] children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave [their] heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but [that] thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. — Acts 21:17-26 KJV

“Therefore the [old covenant] law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:24-29)

Glad you brought up this scripture.

According to your acquired logic you need to do away with with everything you learned in school from first grade upwards

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Nice dodge, ineffective but nice. I’ll answer your question (it appears to be only one) but first are you tacitly acknowledging by your silence that you can’t show me the “new covenant” in scripture? And if not why does it factor so heavily in to your theology?

Now, I’ve always maintained that God could make whatever adjustments to His Law that He wanted, whenever He wanted. That’s why Abraham could marry his sister. Your objections don’t apply to me. God is explicit in Hebrews that the sacrifices and priesthood are no more (at least for now, prophesy seems to imply that something like them will re-emerge). He is also explicit in Acts that the uncircumcised can enter a holding area. You can be in communion with God as a Hellenized Acts 15 believer.

What you haven’t been able to claim is that you have a covenant. I’m still open to the idea. But I have to see it in writing, not your assumptions.

Dodging? Nah, my question was awaiting an answer for a couple of months now.

What or where is the “holding area” in Acts 15? Are you referring to the Torah keeping starter pack that others have referenced in the past? If so, that is something that has to be read into Acts 15 because it is not in the text. The elders and apostles mention that Moses was taught in the synagogues as a reasoning for their decision, but it doesn’t say why that was part of their decision. If their goal was for the gentile believers to go and learn at synagogue how to keep Torah, why didn’t they tell the believers to do that? They didn’t even mention that part of their discussion in their letter they sent back to the gentile believers. No further encouragement to pursue Torah keeping was included, and they signed off with “fare ye well”. So again that has to be read into the text, cause it ain’t there.

Have you always maintained that things can change? I thought I remembered you eschewing dispensationalism. I might be remembering that incorrectly though.

If any change is made, then all is fulfilled. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 KJV
[17] “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

His mission was to fulfill. Which He did when He died on the cross.

Matthew 5:18 KJV
[18] “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

If the priesthood prescribed in Torah is changed, then all is fulfilled because He said not one jot or tittle would change until all is fulfilled.

Hebrews 7:12 KJV
[12] For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.


You know that when we say “new covenant” we are referring to God’s covenant with Abraham before Sinai, that came to fruition in Christ Jesus. At this point it’s at around 2000 years of fruition, so not terribly “new” now but was at the time Matthew and Hebrews was written. It’s actually an older covenant than Sinai in the sense that it was promised beforehand and it supersedes the Sinai covenant. Sinai was a temporary covenant to watch over the nation of Israel until Messiah came. See Galatians 3. God made that covenant with Abraham by promise. The bargain was one sided, God did all the work and Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness, Galatians 3:6. Christ revealed that he was about to shed His own blood to establish the long ago promised new covenant, at the last supper with His Apostles when He said, “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins”. Hebrews explains that the new covenant was inaugurated by Christ’s blood in similar fashion to the way the Sinai Covenant was inaugurated with blood, but the temporary covenant was inaugurated with the blood of animals, the superior covenant was inaugurated with the blood of Christ Jesus. There is not one verse that contains what the new covenant entails, it is articulated through a number of books in much the same way that the Old Covenant is articulated through a number of books. The Old Covenant required detailed instructions because it “stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation”. The new covenant is spiritual, hence it consists of spiritual things like “circumcision made without hands” or “having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water”. We are called to worship in spirit and in truth.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

We know according to apostle John that sin is transgression of the law, what law?

Hebrews 3:5-6 KJV
[5] And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

[6] But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

What house are you under? There are two different covenants depicted as houses here, with two different mediators. Transgression of the law is sin, but which law are we under? The laws in your house are probably different than the laws in my house. If I came to your house and started telling your family what to do, you would tell me to get lost, and rightfully so. Likewise the covenant whose mediator was Moses has no authority to order around the sons in the new covenant whose mediator is Christ Jesus.

If the law is done away with why does Paul uphold the law?

Paul upholds the law in the same way that a grown man would revere and uphold a good paidagōgos who had looked after and taught him well, but it doesn’t mean he is still under the paidagōgos‘ control.

 

[Children of God]

I really appreciate the amount of effort and discussion that has gone one to answer my question. I will admit I don't understand or follow many of them....

I did look at Act 15:20 & 29 which states that we shall refrain from eating what has been sacrificed, has blood in it or has been strangled. These do not appear to be moral laws. It appears there is still more of the torah and law that we should follow above just the moral law. I'll continue to read your responses as well as look for my own answers.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Dodging? Nah, my question was awaiting an answer for a couple of months now.

What or where is the “holding area” in Acts 15? Are you referring to the Torah keeping starter pack that others have referenced in the past? If so, that is something that has to be read into Acts 15 because it is not in the text. The elders and apostles mention that Moses was taught in the synagogues as a reasoning for their decision, but it doesn’t say why that was part of their decision. If their goal was for the gentile believers to go and learn at synagogue how to keep Torah, why didn’t they tell the believers to do that? They didn’t even mention that part of their discussion in their letter they sent back to the gentile believers. No further encouragement to pursue Torah keeping was included, and they signed off with “fare ye well”. So again that has to be read into the text, cause it ain’t there.

Have you always maintained that things can change? I thought I remembered you eschewing dispensationalism. I might be remembering that incorrectly though.

If any change is made, then all is fulfilled. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 KJV
[17] “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

His mission was to fulfill. Which He did when He died on the cross.

Matthew 5:18 KJV
[18] “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

If the priesthood prescribed in Torah is changed, then all is fulfilled because He said not one jot or tittle would change until all is fulfilled.

Hebrews 7:12 KJV
[12] For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.


You know that when we say “new covenant” we are referring to God’s covenant with Abraham before Sinai, that came to fruition in Christ Jesus. At this point it’s at around 2000 years of fruition, so not terribly “new” now but was at the time Matthew and Hebrews was written. It’s actually an older covenant than Sinai in the sense that it was promised beforehand and it supersedes the Sinai covenant. Sinai was a temporary covenant to watch over the nation of Israel until Messiah came. See Galatians 3. God made that covenant with Abraham by promise. The bargain was one sided, God did all the work and Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness, Galatians 3:6. Christ revealed that he was about to shed His own blood to establish the long ago promised new covenant, at the last supper with His Apostles when He said, “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins”. Hebrews explains that the new covenant was inaugurated by Christ’s blood in similar fashion to the way the Sinai Covenant was inaugurated with blood, but the temporary covenant was inaugurated with the blood of animals, the superior covenant was inaugurated with the blood of Christ Jesus. There is not one verse that contains what the new covenant entails, it is articulated through a number of books in much the same way that the Old Covenant is articulated through a number of books. The Old Covenant required detailed instructions because it “stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation”. The new covenant is spiritual, hence it consists of spiritual things like “circumcision made without hands” or “having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water”. We are called to worship in spirit and in truth.

Wow, that’s a lot of new material you’re throwing out there. This is my favorite though.

You know that when we say “new covenant” we are referring to God’s covenant with Abraham before Sinai,

I did not know that. I’ve never heard the claim in my life. You have a part in Abraham’s covenant do you? Bold claim and quite revolutionary. Do you have any scripture to back it up?

I see the appeal. You need some covenant to fall back on since you don’t have one of your own, or so you think, and that’s a good one. If you’re going to appropriate a covenant go for the gusto.

The only problem is that the covenant doesn’t say anything about you or anyone like you. In fact it doesn’t mention anyone but Abraham. So it seems a bit vague. Not all of the alleged details are fleshed out, difficult to enforce you see. No one is sure of their rights and obligations under that covenant. Except for Abraham of course.

What or where is the “holding area” in Acts 15?

That’s my phrase. If you don’t like it then don’t use it. All it means is that you can stay at that Acts 15 sweet spot without penalty.

Have you always maintained that things can change? I thought I remembered you eschewing dispensationalism.

That’s not what dispensationalism is.

If any change is made, then all is fulfilled.

You don’t believe that. You still think incest and bestiality are sins. They’re only articulated in the Law, as are the definition of adultery and all the sexual sins. Are you saying there are no more sexual sins?

Sinai was a temporary covenant

The one that as for all their generations? That one was temporary? Are you sure?

Hebrews explains that the new covenant was inaugurated by Christ’s blood in similar fashion to the way the Sinai Covenant was inaugurated with blood,

Hebrews explains the new covenant? So do you want to retract the following statement?

There is not one verse that contains what the new covenant entails

Seems a bit contradictory.

Brother your near hatred for God’s Law is well documented here. You can’t articulate one problem with any aspect of it. You don’t claim to require the earring of pork or Saturday work. But for some reason when those things are combined you lose your mind.

You don’t have a “new covenant”. It’s a ridiculous lie that was foisted on you by Replacement Theology lunatics. That doesn’t mean you have to leave the Acts 15 sweet spot. In fact keeping Torah doesn’t appear to get you a formal covenant. I don’t believe I have one. Why do you feel the need to invent one?

The covenant is with Israel. There is no new one as you yourself have now tacitly admitted.

There is not one verse that contains what the new covenant entails, it is articulated through a number of books

It’s a principle that you read into the text in a number of different places. It’s good you finally admit it. Getting you to this place is the proudest achievement of my BibFam career to date. Who knows what else we can accomplish together over the coming years.

 

[rockfox]

Interesting, except the “New Covenant” in Hebrews 8 is specifically for the Jews and it doesn’t start until after Christ’s return.

Spectacularly and horribly wrong. You can't get this from Hebrews, you have to want it to mean that. It is plain throughout the entire book that the New Covenant is now.

"Having then a great high priest, who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." - Heb 4:14-15

Christ is NOW our high priest. What kind of high priest? One of the Old covenant? Nope...

"which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and entering into that which is within the veil; whither as a forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." - Heb 6:19

But what of the old law?

"Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. " - Heb 7:11-12

The law has changed, we are no longer under the old law of Moses but the new of Christ. Why?

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt; For they continued not in my covenant, And I regarded them not, saith the Lord....

In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away." Heb 8

And just in case it's not entirely clear the new is in force now, Heb 9....

"And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth. Wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses unto all the people according to the law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded to you-ward. Moreover the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry he sprinkled in like manner with the blood. And according to the law, I may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.

It was necessary therefore that the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place year by year with blood not his own; else must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment; so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation."

The old covenant was a mere shadow, a copy to point to the coming penultimate covenant in Christ.

Who here offers sacrifices for their sins? Who here has a Levitital priest offering sacrifice for them in Jerusalem. None. The temple is gone. The Old Covenant is gone.

"And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent;"

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

There is not one verse that contains what the new covenant entails, it is articulated through a number of books in much the same way that the Old Covenant is articulated through a number of books.

It’s good you finally admit it. Getting you to this place is the proudest achievement of my BibFam career to date. Who knows what else we can accomplish together over the coming years.

Thank you for revealing to all that you intentionally misread things in order to support your false conclusions. I’m optimistic about the future as well!

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I really appreciate the amount of effort and discussion that has gone one to answer my question. I will admit I don't understand or follow many of them....

I did look at Act 15:20 & 29 which states that we shall refrain from eating what has been sacrificed, has blood in it or has been strangled. These do not appear to be moral laws. It appears there is still more of the torah and law that we should follow above just the moral law. I'll continue to read your responses as well as look for my own answers.

The command against sexual immorality is moral law that is part of the new covenant, the other items covered in the letter from Jerusalem were recommendations to avoid offending the consciouses of people who had heard the law of Moses, but to whom the Gospel had yet to be preached. For example, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8 “4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.7 However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11 And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.”

Those other things are to avoid offending the consciouses of those who are weak in faith.

 

[JudahYAHites]

Hebrews 3:5-6 KJV
[5] And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

[6] But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

What house are you under? There are two different covenants depicted as houses here, with two different mediators. Transgression of the law is sin, but which law are we under? The laws in your house are probably different than the laws in my house. If I came to your house and started telling your family what to do, you would tell me to get lost, and rightfully so. Likewise the covenant whose mediator was Moses has no authority to order around the sons in the new covenant whose mediator is Christ Jesus.



Paul upholds the law in the same way that a grown man would revere and uphold a good paidagōgos who had looked after and taught him well, but it doesn’t mean he is still under the paidagōgos‘ control.

You quoted my question but you never answered it, what law, where can the law be found?

Are you conflating covenant with law?

So can you please help me to understand, @rgmann can you help explain this too, with your logic, transport yourself back approximately 2000 years, knowing, that at the time of the apostles there was no Christmas celebration, no easter celebration, no new years, no valentines etc, as we know it now and none of the assembly where you fellowship celebrate those feasts.
In light of how you are so ardently supporting your position, you, would be in the fellowship of believers promoting the rebranding of pagan festivals and celebrations and then proclaiming them as festivals and feasts that the congregations should keep in honour of our saviour and king YAHushuWaH ?

How would you convince the brethren using only the gospels and the tanak ?

I am looking forward to your answer.

Maybe a meme or a flyer would help?


Keep in mind the apostle that you received the gospel from is attested by the other apostles to be a keeper of the law.

Jacob aka James stated to Saul/Paul...... .....all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but [that] thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. — Acts 21:24 KJV

What law was he keeping ?

And to top it off YAHushuWaH stated to his disciples...

Then spake YAHushuWaH to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. — Matthew 23:1-3 KJV

Please answer and explain how that works, what would be your sermon to the faithful believers of MessiYAH?

Would you also tippex out Jeremiah?

Thus saith YAHuWaH, Learn not the way of the heathen.... — Jeremiah 10:2

How would you explain to the brethren that what YAH said through his hand picked prophet is no longer relevant?

I am looking forward to the answers from anyone who would like to answer, maybe I missed something when YAHushuWaH said...

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, (make disciples) baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen. — Matthew 28:19-20

 

[JudahYAHites]

These may help

 

[JudahYAHites]

I really appreciate the amount of effort and discussion that has gone one to answer my question. I will admit I don't understand or follow many of them....

I did look at Act 15:20 & 29 which states that we shall refrain from eating what has been sacrificed, has blood in it or has been strangled. These do not appear to be moral laws. It appears there is still more of the torah and law that we should follow above just the moral law. I'll continue to read your responses as well as look for my own answers.

Very astute, the issue is the usage of words that are not in the text, for example "moral" law, can anyone find that word phrase or description in scripture?
The scriptures interpret themselves.
Using extra non biblical words to reinterpret what YAH had already clearly stated through his prophets and apostles is falling into satans reinterpretation trap clearly exposed in Genesis 3

 

[frederick]

Very astute, the issue is the usage of words that are not in the text, for example "moral" law, can anyone find that word phrase or description in scripture?
The scriptures interpret themselves.
Using extra non biblical words to reinterpret what YAH had already clearly stated through his prophets and apostles is falling into satans reinterpretation trap clearly exposed in Genesis 3

Yes indeed, Scripture interprets Scripture. Leviticus Chapter 18, for example, contains many regulations concerning morality or moral conduct. These regulations by definition are to be regarded as moral laws.