# Pretty stinging indictment on the Church in America



## SemperFiDawg

I'm not apologetic on my stance on tithing.  I feel God is giving you 100% of what you earn and expects only 10% back.  I also feel it's a SIN not to give at least 10% of GROSS.  All across the country Churches are losing members.  I feel this article may offer a partial answer as to why.  We as a country are so wealth our poor are considered wealthy throughout the world,  yet we in the Church give so very little to alleviate suffering and spread the gospel.  We will have to answer for that discrepancy one day.   Make no mistake about it.

https://relevantmagazine.com/god/church/what-would-happen-if-church-tithed


----------



## NE GA Pappy

If the church was doing what it should be doing, the government would not have to have the social and food programs it has now.  We are sadly lacking, not only in tithing, but compassion and ultimately in loving others as we love ourselves. 

Christ said that is the 2nd greatest law, like the first.  Love the Lord God with all your heart, all your mind and with all your soul.


----------



## hobbs27

I agree with NE GA Pappy,  only I look at it from a different angle.  I don't think the govt has to have feeding and welfare programs,  but the govt wants them.  Especially the leftist , to help sway votes.  It works like this:

 Dear poor person,  you are poor, always will be.  You cannot survive on your own because you are a victim of the wealthy. The wealthy are supported by Conservatives.. The Liberals are here to help you.. Vote for us,  so we can continue to support you. 

The fact is.  The USA is the most charitable nation in the world.  Not a single person reading this would allow their neighbor to starve. If the church as a whole wants more money,  it needs to be helping more at home,  get people off welfare,  help in the health care crisis,  homes for our veterans,  mental health help for our veterans. ..Do something here,  where those giving can see it. Put the govt out of the welfare business.

 The article says with people tithing ( not the biblical definition of tithing)  , but giving ten percent of wages to the church,  that the church can solve problems in foreign countries... I doubt it.  3rd world nations and it's corrupt governments will not allow it. It's just wasted money for the most part.


----------



## gordon 2

NE GA Pappy said:


> If the church was doing what it should be doing, the government would not have to have the social and food programs it has now.





NE GA Pappy said:


> We are sadly lacking, not only in tithing, but compassion and ultimately in loving others as we love ourselves.
> 
> Christ said that is the 2nd greatest law, like the first.  Love the Lord God with all your heart, all your mind and with all your soul.



Can someone explain what is/are for most Christians the traditional rock bottom sources of what the church should do and what government should do? Is it fixed? If it can change why?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

I agree with the author when he says 





> The truth is: Giving is a heart issue, not a money issue.


----------



## 1eyefishing

... the Vatican bank reportedly has holdings of over eight billion dollars. These other churches don't seem so broke either. What about the rest of them?
 It seems to me that they could easily accomplish some of the things on the list in the article if they cared too....


----------



## gordon 2

SemperFiDawg said:


> I agree with the author when he says



Ok got it. The heart is the motivator for giving according to the author. So it follows that the church does not have a heart for the poor, or to remedy the causes of poverty, otherwise it would tithe more than it does?

Is this the indictment?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

gordon 2 said:


> Ok got it. The heart is the motivator for giving according to the author. So it follows that the church does not have a heart for the poor, or to remedy the causes of poverty, otherwise it would tithe more than it does?
> 
> Is this the indictment?



Is it not?  I feel it is.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Malachi 3

Will a mere mortal rob God? Yet you rob me.

“But you ask, ‘How are we robbing you?’

“In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse—your whole nation—because you are robbing me. 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the Lord Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it. 11 I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not drop their fruit before it is ripe,” says the Lord Almighty. 12 “Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land,” says the Lord Almighty.


----------



## centerpin fan

Brother Durden explains the problem that has crept into the church:


----------



## NCHillbilly

There is a reason I don't give money to the church. It's because most organized branches of the church have become self-serving institutions defined by their accumulation of money for the sake of accumulating money. 

I worked for about five years for a major denomination of the church, at a posh retreat they own for their leaders. I have never seen so much spiteful, dirty, conniving politics and power madness and greed as I saw at that place. It is corrupt to the core. I never saw any money going to any kind of helping the community or the sick or the poor, but they didn't bat an eye at spending tens of millions to build luxurious hotels, work on the dam for the huge private lake, or for landscaping and beautification of the retreat. That money came from the pockets of the individual church members. I often found myself wondering, why does the church have any business having hundreds of millions in capital; and if they do, why don't they use it on something besides a fancy retreat for their clergy and administrators?

Most of the charity within the community I have seen from the church has come from small, unaffiliated country churches that are active in their communities. Most bigger churches will turn you upside down and shake the money out of your pockets when you walk in the door, but they always seem to spend all that on making the building bigger and fancier, renovating it, hiring more administrators, and such. And not a year goes by without a couple good scandals locally of some church employee or officer embezzling money-often using it for wicked things.

If I wanted to give money to the less fortunate, I would give it directly to them instead of funneling it through the middleman of the church. Why? I don't trust them with it, and I am definitely not alone. Religion and money have became synonymous in many denominations and congregations. Sadly, the local church is trying to catch up with the TV evangelists in greed and money grabbing, seems like. If they would do good work with it, it would be a good thing. But they usually don't. The greed of the church and lust for and focus on money is one main reason that so many don't want anything to do with it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NCHillbilly said:


> There is a reason I don't give money to the church. It's because most organized branches of the church have become self-serving institutions defined by their accumulation of money for the sake of accumulating money.
> 
> I worked for about five years for a major denomination of the church, at a posh retreat they own for their leaders. I have never seen so much spiteful, dirty, conniving politics and power madness and greed as I saw at that place. It is corrupt to the core. I never saw any money going to any kind of helping the community or the sick or the poor, but they didn't bat an eye at spending tens of millions to build luxurious hotels, work on the dam for the huge private lake, or for landscaping and beautification of the retreat. That money came from the pockets of the individual church members. I often found myself wondering, why does the church have any business having hundreds of millions in capital; and if they do, why don't they use it on something besides a fancy retreat for their clergy and administrators?
> 
> Most of the charity within the community I have seen from the church has come from small, unaffiliated country churches that are active in their communities. Most bigger churches will turn you upside down and shake the money out of your pockets when you walk in the door, but they always seem to spend all that on making the building bigger and fancier, renovating it, hiring more administrators, and such. And not a year goes by without a couple good scandals locally of some church employee or officer embezzling money-often using it for wicked things.
> 
> If I wanted to give money to the less fortunate, I would give it directly to them instead of funneling it through the middleman of the church. Why? I don't trust them with it, and I am definitely not alone. Religion and money have became synonymous in many denominations and congregations. Sadly, the local church is trying to catch up with the TV evangelists in greed and money grabbing, seems like. If they would do good work with it, it would be a good thing. But they usually don't. The greed of the church and lust for and focus on money is one main reason that so many don't want anything to do with it.



Sadly I've seen it too.  Was once in a church and the pastor had everyone bring their wallets and purses to the front, place them in a pile and pray over them.  I walked out and didn't go back.  

On the flip side of that is the church I'm in now and have been a member of for the last 16 or so years.  Every dollar that comes in goes back out to missions of some type.  The goal is to have absolutely no money in savings.  We've lived with that goal for 16 years now and seen an almost unheard of growth during that time.  You can't hold on to the money that comes in or use it on yourselves past paying for necessities.  Use it to help those in need and store up your treasure in Heaven.   Personally I think that applies equally to the Church and the individual.  As an aside, a collective body can through sheer volume, often meet needs that anyone other than a wealthy individual couldn't, but if the Church was hoarding it, I wouldn't give.  That would be a neon sign that I needed to find another church


----------



## centerpin fan

SemperFiDawg said:


> On the flip side of that is the church I'm in now and have been a member of for the last 16 or so years.  Every dollar that comes in goes back out to missions of some type.  The goal is to have absolutely no money in savings.  We've lived with that goal for 16 years now and seen an almost unheard of growth during that time.  You can't hold on to the money that comes in or use it on yourselves past paying for necessities.  Use it to help those in need and store up your treasure in Heaven.   Personally I think that applies equally to the Church and the individual.



Do you guys have a building?  I'm just curious because that's where so many churches tie up all their money.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Yes.  We are a very rural old country church that went through a split in 2001-2002.  We were left with 12 members.  We now have over 700 of which about 400 attend each Sunday so we had to build on a couple of times.  In both instances members volunteered their time and resources leaving very little to be financed allowing us to keep all our financial resources going out to missions.  It's a very welcoming atmosphere.  You want to wear a hat, grow your hair long, come in in shorts or jeans, come on.  I wear overalls every Sunday with a tee shirt.  During deer season everyone is expected to hunt Sunday morning and come in with your camo on.  Call it Camo Sundays.


----------



## Big7

1eyefishing said:


> ... the Vatican bank reportedly has holdings of over eight billion dollars. These other churches don't seem so broke either. What about the rest of them?
> It seems to me that they could easily accomplish some of the things on the list in the article if they cared too....



Can't put a price tag on The Catholic Church.
And.. It's the most charitable organization the world has ever known.
Keep in mind, USA goober*ment was not in the charity business until
the 20th century.  

Most all the artifacts and ECW's writings can not be bought. The basis for most "forms" of Christianity. 

After all, It IS the church, founded by Christ Himself.

Footnote:

I'm not rich or poor. Liquid, not a lot, paper, assets that can go liquid fast, Im good. 
  What I put in the plate
is what I can do. Sometimes it's a lot, sometimes
it's only a few bucks.

I don't follow the 10% deal. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

AND I'm a hard right CONSERVATIVE, I worked for every dime except when my parents helped me out as a kid.
Co-signing loans, helping me build my credit at the age of 15. I'm pushing 54 now as of November.

So, any church that can't stand on it's own don't need subsidies from me.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

In servitude it is clear that the "Church" should spread the word of God to all corners of the earth. 

In practice, where the American Church is concerned, they must first remove the plank from their eye before they go abroad to remove the splinter (tell others of God.) 

Our country is loaded with starving and homeless people, and as was mentioned before, were the Church to have it's heart in the right place (both corporately and congregationally) then there would be no affirmative action programs for the government to fund, and the "Church" would have more resources to do God's work here and abroad than they knew what to do with.


----------



## NCHillbilly

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sadly I've seen it too.  Was once in a church and the pastor had everyone bring their wallets and purses to the front, place them in a pile and pray over them.  I walked out and didn't go back.
> 
> On the flip side of that is the church I'm in now and have been a member of for the last 16 or so years.  Every dollar that comes in goes back out to missions of some type.  The goal is to have absolutely no money in savings.  We've lived with that goal for 16 years now and seen an almost unheard of growth during that time.  You can't hold on to the money that comes in or use it on yourselves past paying for necessities.  Use it to help those in need and store up your treasure in Heaven.   Personally I think that applies equally to the Church and the individual.  As an aside, a collective body can through sheer volume, often meet needs that anyone other than a wealthy individual couldn't, but if the Church was hoarding it, I wouldn't give.  That would be a neon sign that I needed to find another church



That's the way it should be. That's like the little rural churches that I grew up attending. Sadly, they are in the minority now.


----------



## 1eyefishing

NCHillbilly...
Does this look familiar to you? Probably spent more Sundays in this little (Rockwood Methodist) church than in all others combined...
Grandpa mowed the lawn there for years when I was little.
Still a Methodist at heart. I believe you will get to where you need to be according to the 'method' in which you live your life.


----------



## 1eyefishing

Edit to add pic...


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

1eyefishing said:


> I believe you will get to where you need to be according to the 'method' in which you live your life.



Sigline material right there.


----------



## 1eyefishing

... and on my dad's side of the family, on family land with family name...


----------



## NCHillbilly

1eyefishing said:


> NCHillbilly...
> Does this look familiar to you? Probably spent more Sundays in this little (Rockwood Methodist) church than in all others combined...
> Grandpa mowed the lawn there for years when I was little.
> Still a Methodist at heart. I believe you will get to where you need to be according to the 'method' in which you live your life.



About fifteen minutes from where I live. I recognized the pic. 

Edit: I drove by it this afternoon.


----------



## Bones

This is what I believe.  First God owns everything.  Everything I have God has allowed me to have.  I give my tithes to church I go to.  The money is not given to the church.  The money 10 per cent is given to God.  Besides my tithe I also support many of the ministries our church has.  We have a young lady who is a missionary for instance that my wife and I support.  The money is given to God but picked up by man.  If it is not used right God will take care of that.  I do not worry about the giving God will take care of it.  I believe that by not tithing you are missing out on many blessings from God.  Just think if most people were debt free how much more money could be used for Gods word.  My wife and I are debt free and all the money would have to spend on house payment, car payments, CREDIT CARDS and other material things we can now freely use to support different ministries.  Just my thought.  Besides I have a home waiting for me in heaven.

Steve


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Bones said:


> This is what I believe.  First God owns everything.  Everything I have God has allowed me to have.  I give my tithes to church I go to.  The money is not given to the church.  The money 10 per cent is given to God.  Besides my tithe I also support many of the ministries our church has.  We have a young lady who is a missionary for instance that my wife and I support.  The money is given to God but picked up by man.  If it is not used right God will take care of that.  I do not worry about the giving God will take care of it.  I believe that by not tithing you are missing out on many blessings from God.  Just think if most people were debt free how much more money could be used for Gods word.  My wife and I are debt free and all the money would have to spend on house payment, car payments, CREDIT CARDS and other material things we can now freely use to support different ministries.  Just my thought.  Besides I have a home waiting for me in heaven.
> 
> Steve



All good points, BUT I do (not really worry) about where the money goes.  I try to make sure it's going to where it will be used wisely.  Don't really have to worry about it at my church, but if I was at a church that just spent money on itself, or tended to spend money on itself, I would worry.


----------



## ddd-shooter

Where is the tithe found in the New Testament? 
Maybe I'm crazy, but I just happen to believe we will give an account of EVERY penny that passes through our hands. 
Was it used to help others or further the kingdom, or was it used selfishly?


----------



## hobbs27

ddd-shooter said:


> Where is the tithe found in the New Testament?
> Maybe I'm crazy, but I just happen to believe we will give an account of EVERY penny that passes through our hands.
> Was it used to help others or further the kingdom, or was it used selfishly?




It's not, the New Covenant doesn't have a levitical priesthood to support and feed.

I want to say,  it is wise to financially support any organization you believe in or participate  in,  but the biblical definition of tithing is not giving 10% of your income to the denomination of your choice.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Big7 said:


> Can't put a price tag on The Catholic Church.
> And.. It's the most charitable organization the world has ever known.
> Keep in mind, USA goober*ment was not in the charity business until
> the 20th century.
> 
> Most all the artifacts and ECW's writings can not be bought. The basis for most "forms" of Christianity.
> 
> After all, It IS the church, founded by Christ Himself.
> 
> Footnote:
> 
> I'm not rich or poor. Liquid, not a lot, paper, assets that can go liquid fast, Im good.
> What I put in the plate
> is what I can do. Sometimes it's a lot, sometimes
> it's only a few bucks.
> 
> I don't follow the 10% deal. Sometimes more, sometimes less.
> 
> AND I'm a hard right CONSERVATIVE, I worked for every dime except when my parents helped me out as a kid.
> Co-signing loans, helping me build my credit at the age of 15. I'm pushing 54 now as of November.
> 
> So, any church that can't stand on it's own don't need subsidies from me.



I get the impression you have a very narrow view of The Church.  Do you not feel that it consist of believers in Christ worldwide?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

SemperFiDawg said:


> I get the impression you have a very narrow view of The Church.  Do you not feel that it consist of believers in Christ worldwide?



I believe the church consist of many that "say" they believe in Christ, that would like to "believe" they believe in Christ, but are grossly incapable of making the sacrifices necessary to truly believe in Christ and walk that walk. 

Despite what they say and claim to believe and even proclaim, their personal lives prove otherwise.


----------



## Rich M

Be careful that you don't judge yourself like you judge others.  It is tough not to judge others and compare with all "i" do.  Not everyone has to think the same as we were not all called to be the same, but to be part of the body.


In the NT Christ told the Pharisees that they should tithe and have justice mercy & compassion.

The tithing in the OT is broken down into giving to God but then a portion was often consumed by the giver after the priests took a share.  Remember they weren't a money culture - crops, livestock, etc.  All those sacrifices needed animals, bread needed wheat, etc.  There is a section that talks about selling your offering - the animals/wheat/fabric/etc. and taking money to the feasts, buying whatever you wanted once you got there...

Every 3 years folks were supposed to give an extra 10% to the local priests, widows, and orphans.  So, they would have food.

There is no temple except our hearts, we no longer travel to celebrate the Feasts of God at the temple.  So, those giving laws are null at this time.  That leaves us with 10% every 3 years.  Funny how the churches miss that.  Don't believe me - read your Bible, that's what it is there for.  This part would be in the OT.

IMO, the folks giving in the NT are giving to the cause out of the goodness of their hearts - to support Paul, Timothy, etc.  It isn't from a tithe.


----------



## rjcruiser

SemperFiDawg said:


> In both instances members volunteered their time and resources leaving very little to be financed allowing us to keep all our financial resources going out to missions.



I'm curious....does this volunteering of time & resources count towards one's 10% gross?  Or is that above and beyond?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

one verse keeps popping up in my mind....

"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."

Matt 5:17

you might want to tie 16 and 18 with it for context.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

NE GA Pappy said:


> one verse keeps popping up in my mind....
> 
> "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."
> 
> Matt 5:17
> 
> you might want to tie 16 and 18 with it for context.


Via translation in the interlinear scripture, by fulfill the literal meaning is they are complete, they have been satisfied. By His sacrifice we are no longer bound to live by those laws but ARE to respect them as to what their purpose was for.


----------



## Israel

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Via translation in the interlinear scripture, by fulfill the literal meaning is they are complete, they have been satisfied. By His sacrifice we are no longer bound to live by those laws but ARE to respect them as to what their purpose was for.



well said


----------



## StriperAddict

This,


----------



## hobbs27

StriperAddict said:


> This,



He's spot on!  I hope his message convicts the hearts of those that want to place sin on the brethren.. and those that have a want to return to law.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

rjcruiser said:


> I'm curious....does this volunteering of time & resources count towards one's 10% gross?  Or is that above and beyond?



You missed it.  We volunteered so that the money going out didn't diminish.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

It always amazes me the excuses people come up with for NOT tithing or not tithing 10%.  Bottom line is in Acts the believers sold everything and became communal yet I haven't heard one person offer up that.  Wonder why?   Yeah but, but, but........


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> It's not, the New Covenant doesn't have a levitical priesthood to support and feed.



You're 100% correct.  We have a WORLD of suffering lost souls to support and feed physically and spiritually.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I believe the church consist of many that "say" they believe in Christ, that would like to "believe" they believe in Christ, but are grossly incapable of making the sacrifices necessary to truly believe in Christ and walk that walk.
> 
> Despite what they say and claim to believe and even proclaim, their personal lives prove otherwise.



"Sacrifices" as in tithing 10% minimal?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

some Acts 5 happening in the church would sure get some attention now days.  People getting struck dead for lying would sure make for a sober service


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NE GA Pappy said:


> some Acts 5 happening in the church would sure get some attention now days.  People getting struck dead for lying would sure make for a sober service



Would definitely divide the wheat and chaff pretty quick.   Attendance would take a hit, but gracious, God could do wonders with what was left.


----------



## centerpin fan

Anybody ever seen a survey of Christian personal finance data?  It would be interesting to see things like giving percentages vs 401k contribution percentages.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

centerpin fan said:


> Anybody ever seen a survey of Christian personal finance data?  It would be interesting to see things like giving percentages vs 401k contribution percentages.



Not this side of heaven.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> It always amazes me the excuses people come up with for NOT tithing or not tithing 10%.  Bottom line is in Acts the believers sold everything and became communal yet I haven't heard one person offer up that.  Wonder why?   Yeah but, but, but........



It was covered in the video striperaddict linked to.  I know it's lengthy and most won't watch it.. But you even touch on it in your comment.. It was communal. They gave up all their wealth then distributed amongst themselves as needed... That's not tithing or giving to the church.


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> some Acts 5 happening in the church would sure get some attention now days.  People getting struck dead for lying would sure make for a sober service



The branch davidians did this,  and you're right,  they got some attention.

I believe the Jim Jones group did this also.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> The branch davidians did this,  and you're right,  they got some attention.
> 
> I believe the Jim Jones group did this also.



Apples and oranges.

Branch Davidians and Jim Jones were murderers.  

Acts 5, they dropped dead. No one lifted a hand against them.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I think we have a religious community in Augusta where they pool all their income and divide it out as needed.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> It was covered in the video striperaddict linked to.  I know it's lengthy and most won't watch it.. But you even touch on it in your comment.. It was communal. They gave up all their wealth then distributed amongst themselves as needed... That's not tithing or giving to the church.



No it's not.  It's going waaaay beyond.  It's shows where their love and loyalty lay, Again, isn't it ironic when challenged on tithing people will argue it's not taught in the NT as an EXCUSE for not giving, but totally ignore what was practiced and thus obviously taught.  It's totally a heart matter.  Always found it hypocritical and untruthful for folks to say they trust Christ with their eternal life, but not their money and well being.   Isn't the former infinitely more valuable than the latter.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> No it's not.  It's going waaaay beyond.  It's shows where their love and loyalty lay, Again, isn't it ironic when challenged on tithing people will argue it's not taught in the NT as an EXCUSE for not giving, but totally ignore what was practiced and thus obviously taught.  It's totally a heart matter.  Always found it hypocritical and untruthful for folks to say they trust Christ with their eternal life, but not their money and well being.   Isn't the former infinitely more valuable than the latter.



 Actually.. It's not used an excuse to not give. It's used as an excuse to not give by law. We in the NT give with a charitable heart and out of love what we feel we can give.  

 Not everyone should give.  If a family has hardship and cannot pay their bills it's foolish for them to be giving away what they need to survive. There's no law requiring it. 

Same family overcomes the hardship a few years later,  they may be in position to give 30% and can,  because there's no law saying they must give 10%. 

I think Gem once said there was no church around him that he could go to or support because of their doctrine.  I find myself in the same position,  I don't want to be forced to deny what I know is true,  and I don't want to cause trouble in any local congregation.. But I give,  and I bet Gem does too.  Not because of a law,  and not to a denomination,  but because Christ in us.. There's many people in need,  some ask for help and I have no burden to help,  some don't ask,  but I feel like I will die if I don't help.  Jesus is bigger than any organization... Jesus is bigger than any building.


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> Apples and oranges.
> 
> Branch Davidians and Jim Jones were murderers.
> 
> Acts 5, they dropped dead. No one lifted a hand against them.



But they were all communal.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> Actually.. It's not used an excuse to not give. It's used as an excuse to not give by law. We in the NT give with a charitable heart and out of love what we feel we can give.
> 
> Not everyone should give.  If a family has hardship and cannot pay their bills it's foolish for them to be giving away what they need to survive. There's no law requiring it.
> 
> Same family overcomes the hardship a few years later,  they may be in position to give 30% and can,  because there's no law saying they must give 10%.
> 
> I think Gem once said there was no church around him that he could go to or support because of their doctrine.  I find myself in the same position,  I don't want to be forced to deny what I know is true,  and I don't want to cause trouble in any local congregation.. But I give,  and I bet Gem does too.  Not because of a law,  and not to a denomination,  but because Christ in us.. There's many people in need,  some ask for help and I have no burden to help,  some don't ask,  but I feel like I will die if I don't help.  Jesus is bigger than any organization... Jesus is bigger than any building.





> We in the NT give with a charitable heart and out of love what we feel we can give.



Bible reference please?



> Not everyone should give.



Mark 12:43
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Bible reference please, because you seem to be contradicting Jesus on this.



> If a family has hardship and cannot pay their bills it's foolish for them to be giving away what they need to survive.



Bible reference please?

Everyone has hardships that we can use as an excuse to not tithe.  We are to trust God to provide.



> I think Gem once said there was no church around him that he could go to or support because of their doctrine.  I find myself in the same position,



This in itself would cause me to take a long, hard look at what I believed.  You know the old saying, "If you been married 9 times it might be YOU!"



> Jesus is bigger than any organization... Jesus is bigger than any building



I have no idea how this is pertinent to the subject. You didn't elaborate.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bible reference please?
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Corinthians 9:7 - Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, [so let him give]; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
> 
> Mark 12:43
> Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, Put in everything—all she had to live on.
> 
> Bible reference please, because you seem to be contradicting Jesus on this.
> That's old covenant.
> 
> 
> Bible reference please?
> 
> Everyone has hardships that we can use as an excuse to not tithe.  We are to trust God to provide.
> 
> 
> 
> This in itself would cause me to take a long, hard look at what I believed.  You know the old saying, "If you been married 9 times it might be YOU!"
> Some people never question authority,  and are just accepting of what they are told is truth.  They are followers,  others question authority,  and everything they are taught.
> 
> 
> I have no idea how this is pertinent to the subject. You didn't elaborate.
> 
> You're giving to support your church building,  your denomination,  and maybe missionaries of your doctrine... Jesus is bigger than all that.
> 
> JWs give money to their denomination...Mormons give to theirs,  Catholics give to theirs.. But Jesus is bigger than all that!  So to give to God does not mean one must give to the organization of their choice.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

This;



> Remember this:[d] The person who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and the person who sows generously will also reap generously.  7 Each person should do as he has decided in his heart—not reluctantly or out of necessity, for God loves a cheerful giver



does not support this:



> We in the NT give with a charitable heart and out of love what we feel we can give





> Not everyone should give.



No where does it say or even imply NOT to give (sow).  It encourages ALL to give based on their heart which should be much.  



> Some people never question authority, and are just accepting of what they are told is truth. They are followers, others question authority, and everything they are taught.



A self proclaimed follower, boasting of questioning authority?



> You're giving to support your church building, your denomination, and maybe missionaries of your doctrine... Jesus is bigger than all that



I'm giving support to the Church, the living body of Christ........OF CHRIST.   Open your eyes.  Can you not see the difference?


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm giving support to the Church, the living body of Christ........OF CHRIST.   Open your eyes.  Can you not see the difference?



When a Mormon tithes to the LDS,  are they doing the same as you,  when you tithe to the church of your choice?  Are Mormon's giving to the body of Christ by tithing to their church?

I bring this question up because I don't think Mormon's are giving to the body of Christ by tithing.  I also don't think you are.  You and the Mormon's have decided to give 10% of your income to support your organization,  which there's nothing wrong with that. If you're going to participate in it,  you should financially support it.Theres also nothing biblical about it.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

SemperFiDawg said:


> "Sacrifices" as in tithing 10% minimal?



In essence, yes. Whenever I am leading a small group or involved in a broader mentor group and the conversation comes around to tithing I merely sit patiently for all of the usual angles, tactics and banter in attempting to convince someone how it is necessary to come to a circular end. Then I challenge the "woe is me" "can't afford to tithe" "I have bills" blah blah blah excuses against anything scriptural. 

My challenge goes like this; 

First I disarm them by granting them a concession of the 10% being part of the law that was fulfilled and no longer required by God. 

Now, they feel vindicated, but before I let their ego get too big, I interject that all we receive, whether by gift from others or by earning is provided by God, and ask them if they agree. Typically they will. 

So then we shift the discussion to Grace, Mercy and Faith in God, and how many ways we show that Faith to God. One of which is tithing out of a show of appreciation for what He provides for us. 

But they are still broke, have bills, yada yada yada. 

So here is where I interject the challenge part. It is a 30 day challenge. I ask them to identify all of the things they purchase on a weekly basis that are absolutely not necessary for them to survive. Add up the dollar cost of those items and now use that money, whether it is 2%, 5% or 10% of what they earn and tithe it weekly. I ask them to keep a ledger of money earned and gifted to them vs money tithed. At the end of the 30 days if they don't have just as much money as when they started and weren't tithing, I will pay them the money they tithed back. 

Once they accept this challenge I throw in the caveat; You cannot out give God. Understanding that this isn't a "the more I give the more I'll get" game with God, but instead the more faithful I am and more appreciative of what He provides for us, the more Faithful I am in advance for how good He is to us. 

Once they understand where their heart should be in tithing and accept the 30 day challenge it is usually a sealed deal and they never go back to their old ways. 

In 20 years of issuing this challenge I have only had to pay back a months worth of tithes, and it was a very small amount at that, twice. I am not convinced that their heart nor Faith were ever in the right place to accept who is really in control of their lives.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> But they were all communal.



but only one were followers of Christ


----------



## hobbs27

Miguel Cervantes said:


> In essence, yes. Whenever I am leading a small group or involved in a broader mentor group and the conversation comes around to tithing I merely sit patiently for all of the usual angles, tactics and banter in attempting to convince someone how it is necessary to come to a circular end. Then I challenge the "woe is me" "can't afford to tithe" "I have bills" blah blah blah excuses against anything scriptural.
> 
> My challenge goes like this;
> 
> First I disarm them by granting them a concession of the 10% being part of the law that was fulfilled and no longer required by God.
> 
> Now, they feel vindicated, but before I let their ego get too big, I interject that all we receive, whether by gift from others or by earning is provided by God, and ask them if they agree. Typically they will.
> 
> So then we shift the discussion to Grace, Mercy and Faith in God, and how many ways we show that Faith to God. One of which is tithing out of a show of appreciation for what He provides for us.
> 
> But they are still broke, have bills, yada yada yada.
> 
> So here is where I interject the challenge part. It is a 30 day challenge. I ask them to identify all of the things they purchase on a weekly basis that are absolutely not necessary for them to survive. Add up the dollar cost of those items and now use that money, whether it is 2%, 5% or 10% of what they earn and tithe it weekly. I ask them to keep a ledger of money earned and gifted to them vs money tithed. At the end of the 30 days if they don't have just as much money as when they started and weren't tithing, I will pay them the money they tithed back.
> 
> Once they accept this challenge I throw in the caveat; You cannot out give God. Understanding that this isn't a "the more I give the more I'll get" game with God, but instead the more faithful I am and more appreciative of what He provides for us, the more Faithful I am in advance for how good He is to us.
> 
> Once they understand where their heart should be in tithing and accept the 30 day challenge it is usually a sealed deal and they never go back to their old ways.
> 
> In 20 years of issuing this challenge I have only had to pay back a months worth of tithes, and it was a very small amount at that, twice. I am not convinced that their heart nor Faith were ever in the right place to accept who is really in control of their lives.



You've probably raised a lot of money for your church doing this. Nice trick.


----------



## Israel

Law will always provide a man a position to make a show. And this, most especially, to himself. It matters not whether the law is "give 10%" (or twenty or 30...or all) or "Speed Limit 50 MPH". A man can look to a "thing" and measure himself against it. This works very well for the man intent on showing himself, and before others "he is right". One could even say it seems very well designed into law. 

And while among men, a believer in Jesus Christ would have to be very dense indeed to not (at very least) begin to see the _most bizarre...yet natural_ sprouting up of a most peculiar sort...homo legialis. The lawyer. (No, not lawyers of the professional sense, but of the most generic sense, the more fundamental sense, born out of that which appears to come with the laying down of any law, a need for its "right" interpretation.)

For, apart from resource being made available to us of our own endorsement, how then, can we endorse our own selves know anything of our own selves? (Translation: "If there is not an ultimately reliable thing upon which I can depend to tell me what the "law" really means, I am surely lost in all my doings) 

But I am not writing for the more (it appears) satisfied to tell themselves they are coloring within the lines...but to the few I perceive are actually suffering in a wonder encroaching into their own consciousness "have I, am I...really losing my mind?" 

For these few, old touchstones are no longer availing. You know who you are, and you cannot help but feel you have stepped into a la la land of sorts, like ships perhaps ventured a little too far from shore, from old trusty beacon and familiar shoreline to help you know your position. In the present "out there" you feel as men talking only to the wind where words of intent seem to be carried willy nilly on the gusts, and you never see them "touch down"...or in, to what intent, to, and of you, intended. And you surely have no lawyer in your crew to tell you "it's ok, you're still doing things...right". In truth, you know you have no crew at all. Just you, and wind, and waves.

That you might prefer not being buffeted is all of laughter now...when it is found; your _preferences_ stacked against wind and wave are most laughable. The "what I prefer" against the "what is" is absurdly seen infinitely small as to be less than useless to anything. Your own rudder, as with beacon and shoreline, is long since gone. 

I'm just speaking to the wind here, sane ones...move along to your own tides. Only God knows where any of us are being carried.

But, you others, now questioning sanity "is it even a "real" thing???" or just a clever vanity whereby two men (or any multiple thereafter) may come together to declare another "insane" to their own purposes? That clever way of pushing the "odd man out"? Words like sanity mean little in a boat holding only one. One just does...what one does. And your speaking to the wind is past being considered odd, and if pressed by any consciousness to make an account, you are even past caring whether it is born of necessity or to some hope of availing...after all...you just do...what you do. That's all any man...ever does. You can't even answer to yourself to register any fixed-ness of position.

You know though. Don't you? You know. You agreed to cutting of ties. You agreed to severing lashes to land, to the familiar and erstwhile...sensible. Oh, yes, if it was in you for blaming (is it still in you for blaming?) you might say "it was the call", the call started all this...but you can't deny the call... its perfection of claim upon you is all too real in showing your complicity. "Yes" is yes here, and no is no, there is no other thing of "maybe". You do what you do...and in that is all, also of "not doing what you do not do". You cannot measure anything against anything in your doing. Unless you want to summon up the "all" you do not do. Here there is no shelter to be found...in trying.


Yes, the once little cabin of maybe...and comfort of "trying" into which you once secluded yourself for shelter, has also been long since carried away...by the wind. You really have nothing at all...to show. And you know...among men this is craziest of all to have nothing to "show"...to present, to display, that might somehow secure the right (in their discerning) to be. Even here. Especially here. "In the world".

"Come up with a reason we should let you stay" 

Deny that "being" is enough, has all and always been only enough...to be. 

"Present to us your intent of cooperation in being, and we will consider your application to be 'amongst us'." "Of what sort of work are you capable, what sort of production are you fit to?" Tell us. Now. "Show us your letter of intent...to cooperate." With "us".

And all you hear...is the wind...laughing.

And you know...you are out of your mind. And you are really at a loss to say whether it be of joy or sorrow that you must laugh along, it matters not now, to you, which compels you...the laughter is all. 

The lawyer will try to tell you your estate if before accelerating to 50 you are breaking the law, and/or if venturing to 51 you are reprobate. Submit in mind to this and you will soon learn, must learn....will "have to" learn then, that the only fit place to fix one's eyes is always, and unremittingly, upon the speedometer, there can be no other assurance of "rightness". A blackened windshield in this can serve to keep one from the distraction of all taking place outside the vehicle.
Drivers, start your engines, and then "try" to not crash into one another.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

hobbs27 said:


> You've probably raised a lot of money for your church doing this. Nice trick.



By "church" do you mean the congregational body of Christ? or a building people hang out in on a weekly basis?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> When a Mormon tithes to the LDS,  are they doing the same as you,  when you tithe to the church of your choice?  Are Mormon's giving to the body of Christ by tithing to their church?
> 
> I bring this question up because I don't think Mormon's are giving to the body of Christ by tithing.  I also don't think you are.



Well just who exactly is The Church.... other than you?
Maybe I've got it all wrong, but I think the Church is the body of Christ whose only qualification to become a part of is accepting Christ as your personal savior.  

Why do you not think my tithing is not giving to the body of Christ.  The money feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, shows Gods love and shares the Gospel to the lost.  If that is not helping to advance and grow the Kingdom  , just what is?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> You've probably raised a lot of money for your church doing this. Nice trick.



Trick?  Hobbs, the more you talk the less convinced I become that you have any love in your heart except for yourself.  You have built an entire deviant religion based solely on your interpretation of scripture, with the central purpose being to service your prideful ego.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> Trick?  Hobbs, the more you talk the less convinced I become that you have any love in your heart except for yourself.  You have built an entire deviant religion based solely on your interpretation of scripture, with the central purpose being to service your prideful ego.



 I say the poor should not give 10% of their income in tithing.  You still want to squeeze it out of them saying in one place it is sinful to not tithe.  You have failed to demonstrate this sin you would cast on the poor as a new testament commandment... Yet I have a prideful ego?  

 Obviously you haven't understood my point. It's the opposite of what you suggest.  You may give money to the church to help the hungry etc,  etc....but at the same time a large portion of your money is going to fund the church building itself, pay for power,  lawn maintenance,  parking lots,  roofing,  AC... I know,  I once sat on the board of a church.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

hobbs27 said:


> I say the poor should not give 10% of their income in tithing.  You still want to squeeze it out of them saying in one place it is sinful to not tithe.  You have failed to demonstrate this sin you would cast on the poor as a new testament commandment... Yet I have a prideful ego?
> 
> Obviously you haven't understood my point. It's the opposite of what you suggest.  You may give money to the church to help the hungry etc,  etc....but at the same time a large portion of your money is going to fund the church building itself, pay for power,  lawn maintenance,  parking lots,  roofing,  AC... I know,  I once sat on the board of a church.



And so the conundrum for a Christian is exposed.

Where do you go from here? Taking care to not get trapped in the belief that your personal tithing to specific organizations directly linked to the people in need does not become a mission of "works" for you, subtly transforming the intent of your tithing to begin with. 

When you take the intentions of the heart and tithing out of Faith to God out of God's hands and put your human controlling spirit over it, are you tithing out of Faith or the need of self-gratifying works? Where does God exist in that model?

If you do not have enough Faith that God will use the leadership of that church to put the money where it is needed to do His will, then where is your justification in your Faith in God's will and what he provides for you?

I fully understand your distrust of humans and how ornery they are in church councils, boards, etc. and the in fighting and conflict of how and where money can be spent. They are humans and subject to the ego's that come with their God given free spirit to choose to be so. It is the very reason I left one church that was sitting on hundreds of thousands of privately donated money earmarked for a building campaign, but refused to do anything with it out of fear that they would have to supplement it with loans and go into debt and fail as a church. 

My parting words to the building committee was; You don't have to be afraid of the latter, you have already succeeded in that failure. 

Is it our hearts duty to follow our minds instead of Faith in God's will for the money we tithe? If we truly give it freely do we let our distrust in man (church managment) stand in the way of God's will and His ability to bring those in control to accountability in order to accomplish His mission? Creflo Dollar comes to mind here. 

Conundrums abound if we choose to control the path of our tithes. But then, if we tithe through that method we are not truly tithing as it's defined intent is stated, we are merely humans donating money. The spiritual difference between donating and tithing are worlds apart.


----------



## Israel

Miguel Cervantes said:


> And so the conundrum for a Christian is exposed.
> 
> Where do you go from here? Taking care to not get trapped in the belief that your personal tithing to specific organizations directly linked to the people in need does not become a mission of "works" for you, subtly transforming the intent of your tithing to begin with.
> 
> When you take the intentions of the heart and tithing out of Faith to God out of God's hands and put your human controlling spirit over it, are you tithing out of Faith or the need of self-gratifying works? Where does God exist in that model?
> 
> If you do not have enough Faith that God will use the leadership of that church to put the money where it is needed to do His will, then where is your justification in your Faith in God's will and what he provides for you?
> 
> I fully understand your distrust of humans and how ornery they are in church councils, boards, etc. and the in fighting and conflict of how and where money can be spent. They are humans and subject to the ego's that come with their God given free spirit to choose to be so. It is the very reason I left one church that was sitting on hundreds of thousands of privately donated money earmarked for a building campaign, but refused to do anything with it out of fear that they would have to supplement it with loans and go into debt and fail as a church.
> 
> My parting words to the building committee was; You don't have to be afraid of the latter, you have already succeeded in that failure.
> 
> Is it our hearts duty to follow our minds instead of Faith in God's will for the money we tithe? If we truly give it freely do we let our distrust in man (church managment) stand in the way of God's will and His ability to bring those in control to accountability in order to accomplish His mission? Creflo Dollar comes to mind here.
> 
> Conundrums abound if we choose to control the path of our tithes. But then, if we tithe through that method we are not truly tithing as it's defined intent is stated, we are merely humans donating money. The spiritual difference between donating and tithing are worlds apart.



But it would appear you have already established the tithe as (for want of a better expression) the legitimate (?) means of the expression of giving amongst believers. 

Though it is true, as with all things given...words, money, material goods, our only assurance to their "good" end is God. I am simply convinced the consciousness of percentages (if only to my own conscience) has an unsavory effect.
Yet, only God knows...if it should.


It can become (and perhaps must become...?) as the speedometer mentioned in my last post.

This is not even addressing the matter of apostolic instruction in regards to giving...what it is, what it is not.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> I say the poor should not give 10% of their income in tithing.  You still want to squeeze it out of them saying in one place it is sinful to not tithe.  You have failed to demonstrate this sin you would cast on the poor as a new testament commandment... Yet I have a prideful ego?
> 
> Obviously you haven't understood my point. It's the opposite of what you suggest.  You may give money to the church to help the hungry etc,  etc....but at the same time a large portion of your money is going to fund the church building itself, pay for power,  lawn maintenance,  parking lots,  roofing,  AC... I know,  I once sat on the board of a church.



First.  I didn't say it was a sin not to tithe.  God did.

Second.  Maybe you haven't been keeping up with the conversation, but our entire budget goes to missions.  If you want to say paying the light bill doesn't count because people can read their bibles in the dark or the church can feed the hungry cold uncooked food then I will cede the point.  I guess sitting on a church board is what made you so high and mighty as to think you are above what is biblical.  Maybe you should try the pew if you can descend to that level again.  Though I can't see that with your self proclaimed boasting of not being a follower and challenging authority.   I give thanks to God that he keeps me humble enough to not be deaf to those who are clearly more spiritually mature than me.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> First.  I didn't say it was a sin not to tithe.  God did.
> 
> Second.  Maybe you haven't been keeping up with the conversation, but our entire budget goes to missions.  If you want to say paying the light bill doesn't count because people can read their bibles in the dark or the church can feed the hungry cold uncooked food then I will cede the point.  I guess sitting on a church board is what made you so high and mighty as to think you are above what is biblical.  Maybe you should try the pew if you can descend to that level again.  Though I can't see that with your self proclaimed boasting of not being a follower and challenging authority.   I give thanks to God that he keeps me humble enough to not be deaf to those who are clearly more spiritually mature than me.



Sitting on the church board didn't make me feel high and mighty.. It broke my heart.  It showed me what religion has done to Christianity... It showed me how fake people are.... Always pray for your deacons or board members,  they need it.  They have to deal with all the mess no one else see's going on.

To your first point.  It isn't possible for us to give 10% of our harvest to the levitical priests.. The Law is fulfilled and levitical priests no longer exist. Not to mention we are merely Gentiles and were never under the Law,  so we don't have to be circumcised or tithe.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> Sitting on the church board didn't make me feel high and mighty.. It broke my heart.  It showed me what religion has done to Christianity... It showed me how fake people are.... Always pray for your deacons or board members,  they need it.  They have to deal with all the mess no one else see's going on.
> 
> To your first point.  It isn't possible for us to give 10% of our harvest to the levitical priests.. The Law is fulfilled and levitical priests no longer exist. Not to mention we are merely Gentiles and were never under the Law,  so we don't have to be circumcised or tithe.



Excuses.  You don't owe them to me.  There's another that will hear them.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> I say the poor should not give 10% of their income in tithing.  You still want to squeeze it out of them saying in one place it is sinful to not tithe.



You still don't get it.  To you and many others it's about MONEY.  "Squeeze it out of them" says it all.  You think God needs your money?  It's insane to think that.  

The tithe is totally symbolic of ones gratitude to God.  Should a poor man be less grateful to God than a rich man?

If God gives one everything he needs to substain his every need AND eternal life, is expecting him to be grateful enough to tithe 10% back as a thank you asking too much regardless of his station in life.  A man of faith would say "no", God will provide.  A man without faith sees only HIS money.

It's a heart issue.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> Excuses.  You don't owe them to me.  There's another that will hear them.



 Yes,  I have excuses.  My excuses are Jesus Christ ' Death,  burial,  and resurrection that freed God's people from the bondage of Law.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> Yes,  I have excuses.  My excuses are Jesus Christ ' Death,  burial,  and resurrection that freed God's people from the bondage of Law.



Why am I debating with someone who has created their own counterfeit of Christianity.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

SemperFiDawg said:


> Why am I debating with someone who has created their own counterfeit of Christianity.



I wondered why too.

I quit.  It doesn't get beyond square one.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> Why am I debating with someone who has created their own counterfeit of Christianity.



The fulfillment of the law through the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is counterfeit Christianity? I don't think it gets much more orthodox than that. 

 Maybe you should have stopped when you had no scriptural support?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

SemperFiDawg said:


> First.  I didn't say it was a sin not to tithe.  God did.



I would love to see that Book/Scripture & Verse.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I would love to see that Book/Scripture & Verse.



Post #9 has you covered.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

SemperFiDawg said:


> Post #9 has you covered.



So you also believe in the cutting off of hands of thieves and stoning women to death whom you believe to be prostitutes? Why do you cling so tightly to the law that was completed with the crucifixion?

One cannot abide by the laws of the Old Testament and claim Jesus as their Savior if you do not believe he has paid the price for those old laws in advance via his sacrifice.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> The fulfillment of the law through the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is counterfeit Christianity? I don't think it gets much more orthodox than that.
> 
> Maybe you should have stopped....


I should have remembered I was engaging someone who's only purpose for scripture is to twist it to stroke his intellectual ego and ignored you which I'll do from now on.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

SemperFiDawg said:


> I should have remembered I was engaging someone who's only purpose for scripture is to twist it to stroke his intellectual ego and ignored you which I'll do from now on.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So you also believe in the cutting off of hands of thieves and stoning women to death whom you believe to be prostitutes? Why do you cling so tightly to the law that was completed with the crucifixion?



Tell me brother,  are you free from the 10 commandments also.  They are surely OT Law, or are you called as a Christian to observe it to the Nth degree by not even committing murder with your tongue.  If you understand the Sermon on the Mount I'm confident you understand that his followers are called to the Nth degree because it's a heart/love calling.  So you say the tithe is dead based on being old covenant.  Maybe you are correct, which begs the question the rich young ruler asked.  "What must I do to be saved?" And Christ answered with a Nth degree answer: "Sell all and follow me."  I highly doubt those who argue against tithing based on it being old covenant , aren't doing so to swallow the New camel.  If you have sold everything you own and given it to the poor, my apologies.  Speed limit indeed!!!!


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

SemperFiDawg said:


> Tell me brother,  are you free from the 10 commandments also.  They are surely OT Law, or are you called as a Christian to observe it to the Nth degree by not even committing murder with your tongue.  If you understand the Sermon on the Mount I'm confident you understand that his followers are called to the Nth degree because it's a heart/love calling.  So you say the tithe is dead based on being old covenant.  Maybe you are correct, which begs the question the rich young ruler asked.  "What must I do to be saved?" And Christ answered with a Nth degree answer: "Sell all and follow me."  I highly doubt those who argue against tithing based on it being old covenant , aren't doing so to swallow the New camel.  If you have sold everything you own and given it to the poor, my apologies.  Speed limit indeed!!!!



If the Bible were to be taken at it's many generations of "literal" translation, yes. But that isn't the case now is it?

To "sell everything you own" was quite clearly a metaphor to cast aside your worldly ties and travel with him in his ministry. Otherwise His charge to John to take care of Mary after his crucifixion would have been null and void, even careless or contemptuous. For in those days a man must have a house and belongings in that house to take in and care for an elder, or even a wife, even when charged to do so by Jesus. 

Now, we also have to make note of the differences between the moral / Mosaic Law and the Rabbinical Law of the Hebrews. All were observed pre-Christ, even post-Christ until the concept of his Commission and greatest Command were taking effect in the new movement called Christianity. 

Sadly, many have yet to fully grasp the purpose of His coming and His sacrifice.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Miguel Cervantes said:


> If the Bible were to be taken at it's many generations of "literal" translation, yes. But that isn't the case now is it?
> 
> To "sell everything you own" was quite clearly a metaphor to cast aside your worldly ties and travel with him in his ministry. Otherwise His charge to John to take care of Mary after his crucifixion would have been null and void, even careless or contemptuous. For in those days a man must have a house and belongings in that house to take in and care for an elder, or even a wife, even when charged to do so by Jesus.
> 
> Now, we also have to make note of the differences between the moral / Mosaic Law and the Rabbinical Law of the Hebrews. All were observed pre-Christ, even post-Christ until the concept of his Commission and greatest Command were taking effect in the new movement called Christianity.
> 
> Sadly, many have yet to fully grasp the purpose of His coming and His sacrifice.




A metaphor?  Really?  How quaint.  Odd the rich young ruler didn't have a sense of humor and missed it don't you think?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Israel said:


> Jesus has (what in any other circumstance but reality) would be called the uncanny ability to zero in on what holds the heart bondage. What the heart has _made friends with_ for safety. The simulacrum of salvation.
> 
> He loves those naked little vulnerable hearts...to death. And that is their true salvation. And really...we don't even know what they look like of ourselves...we have to keep looking at Him to see what a perfectly vulnerable and naked heart is.
> 
> Cause His Daddy loves that of Him, no less.



Uhhhhhh Brother was this meant for another thread?


----------



## hummerpoo

I suppose that, in His Sermon on the Mount, Christ made a mistake; He should have used more than seven examples to illustrate fulfilled Law.  Would seven times seven be sufficient?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

SemperFiDawg said:


> A metaphor?  Really?  How quaint.  Odd the rich young ruler didn't have a sense of humor and missed it don't you think?



I think it more odd that one of his faithful servants whom followed his instructions had a house and belongings where he could care for Mary, when charged to do so by Jesus. Despite how literal some may interpret the scripture. 

Parable, metaphor, fable, inflection in order to incur thought towards moral behavior and justice. The Bible is full of them and Jesus used them well.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I think it more odd that one of his faithful servants whom followed his instructions had a house and belongings where he could care for Mary, when charged to do so by Jesus. Despite how literal some may interpret the scripture.
> 
> Parable, metaphor, fable, inflection in order to incur thought towards moral behavior and justice. The Bible is full of them and Jesus used them well.



Going back and reading it, the story is recorded as a historic event, not a metaphor, parable, etc.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> I should have remembered I was engaging someone who's only purpose for scripture is to twist it to stroke his intellectual ego and ignored you which I'll do from now on.



I think you've ignored what I've said anyways.  Ad hominem attack after Ad hominem attack.

Still you have no scriptural basis for tithing in the New covenant.. No example whatsoever...and even if you got together with a friend or two,  to attempt to demonstrate how tithing in the old covenant was a shadow of what we do today... It doesn't fit.  Tithing was never every week... Tithing wasnt even money. Abraham tithed once in his entire life,  and it was the spoils of war.  The Pharisee tithed spices Like cumin and mint yet they were wealthy..

 There was a time Money raising was involved though... Remember the selling of doves for sacrifice in the temple?  Did Jesus approve or disapprove?


----------



## StriperAddict

*A note more on law than tithing ...*

Eyes trained on the law or eyes fixed on the Savior?  

We simply refuse to trust that we can live out of our new hearts; no, we must add the rules to call us out and show up how well we're doing the Christian thing, tithing, etc.

What are the 10 commandments called under the new covenant?  Ans: A ministry of condemnation, see here for yourself ...  (2 Corinthians 3:7-10)

Yes, there was a tutor, a mentor who pointed us to a new way.  But the tutor, the law, did not lift a finger to help us see anything than our own sinful condition ...  yes,  "Thank you, tutor, your work is done."  
And so is that Mans work as well, who we saw at our "Adamic" destruction, who, graciously, gave us what the law could not.  If we entered His Life in this way of grace thru faith, why not continue this way?  Why add Moses when the Christ did it perfectly and sealed the deal by His Spirit - (who lives within, just in case we haven't heard).  

We will see and understand nothing apart from His revelation, and that by faith (trust) and grace (the unalterable-ness of that one loving Provision).   

What I think we are doing here is beating ourselves up with some 'standard' that will never bring us Life.  A Life  which we now in Christ live out of - by the gift of redemption from that One, and out to that new man, you and I.   

Is it so impossible to trust that one will make choices out of his/her focus on that One Provider?  Will we ever NOT be judged by a former perfect written standard?  

A little leaven leavens the whole message.

Nearly everything I hear in Church-ianity today are efforts to put redeemed men under the curse of the law again, as if they had returned back to the old covenant in the first place.  It is no wonder so many walk with a blanket of self-condemnation, the focus is the letter and not the Perfect who brings permanent Life and with it - the letting out of that Life by free choices in all things.

This says it best ...
"It’s actually very easy to identify the difference between the old and new covenant teachings. Just ask yourself if the teaching is putting the emphasis on what you have to do or what Jesus has done. Does it make you introspective, always looking to yourself and how you fared or failed? Or does it turn your eyes away from yourself to look upon Jesus?"


----------



## hummerpoo

2 Cor. 3
10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it.

Which refers to 2 Cor. 2; which refers to 1 Cor. 5.


edit >>>
 1 Cor. 5
9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; ...11CensoredBut actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, ...

2 Cor. 2
3 This is the very thing I wrote you, ...

Being taken out of context is not new for Paul.  <<<


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

StriperAddict said:


> This says it best ...
> "It’s actually very easy to identify the difference between the old and new covenant teachings. Just ask yourself if the teaching is putting the emphasis on what you have to do or what Jesus has done. Does it make you introspective, always looking to yourself and how you fared or failed? Or does it turn your eyes away from yourself to look upon Jesus?"


Excellent quote but also there are those that think His Salvation is all about them. 

Fear of the Lord should still exist, if for no other reason than under this scripture;



> *Matthew 7:21-23*
> 
> *I Never Knew You*
> 
> 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’



Would practicing the wrong law, ignoring the application of the New Covenant Commission and Greatest of all Commandments justify lawlessness? Is anyone really willing to take that risk to find out?



hummerpoo said:


> 2 Cor. 3
> 10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it.
> 
> Which refers to 2 Cor. 2; which refers to 1 Cor. 5.



But the 2Cor3 in it's entirity tells quite a different story.

2 Corinthians 3New International Version (NIV)

3 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? 2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. 3 You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

4 Such confidence we have through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit;* for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.*


----------



## hummerpoo

Miguel Cervantes said:


> But the 2Cor3 in it's entirity tells quite a different story.
> 
> 2 Corinthians 3New International Version (NIV)
> 
> 3 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? 2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. 3 You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
> 
> 4 Such confidence we have through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit;* for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.*



I don't understand what you mean by "a different story".
Paul seems consist in all three chapters — the law is not to be ignored, but always applied from the "new heart" given by God through the Spirit.


----------



## gordon 2

StriperAddict said:


> Eyes trained on the law or eyes fixed on the Savior?
> 
> We simply refuse to trust that we can live out of our new hearts; no, we must add the rules to call us out and show up how well we're doing the Christian thing, tithing, etc.
> 
> What are the 10 commandments called under the new covenant?  Ans: A ministry of condemnation, see here for yourself ...  (2 Corinthians 3:7-10)
> 
> Yes, there was a tutor, a mentor who pointed us to a new way.  But the tutor, the law, did not lift a finger to help us see anything than our own sinful condition ...  yes,  "Thank you, tutor, your work is done."
> And so is that Mans work as well, who we saw at our "Adamic" destruction, who, graciously, gave us what the law could not.  If we entered His Life in this way of grace thru faith, why not continue this way?  Why add Moses when the Christ did it perfectly and sealed the deal by His Spirit - (who lives within, just in case we haven't heard).
> 
> We will see and understand nothing apart from His revelation, and that by faith (trust) and grace (the unalterable-ness of that one loving Provision).
> 
> What I think we are doing here is beating ourselves up with some 'standard' that will never bring us Life.  A Life  which we now in Christ live out of - by the gift of redemption from that One, and out to that new man, you and I.
> 
> Is it so impossible to trust that one will make choices out of his/her focus on that One Provider?  Will we ever NOT be judged by a former perfect written standard?
> 
> A little leaven leavens the whole message.
> 
> Nearly everything I hear in Church-ianity today are efforts to put redeemed men under the curse of the law again, as if they had returned back to the old covenant in the first place.  It is no wonder so many walk with a blanket of self-condemnation, the focus is the letter and not the Perfect who brings permanent Life and with it - the letting out of that Life by free choices in all things.
> 
> This says it best ...
> "It’s actually very easy to identify the difference between the old and new covenant teachings. Just ask yourself if the teaching is putting the emphasis on what you have to do or what Jesus has done. Does it make you introspective, always looking to yourself and how you fared or failed? Or does it turn your eyes away from yourself to look upon Jesus?"



This^^^.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

hummerpoo said:


> I don't understand what you mean by "a different story".
> Paul seems consist in all three chapters — the law is not to be ignored, but always applied from the "new heart" given by God through the Spirit.



Before on GON there was only the "Spiritual" discussion forum and I witnessed the very worst of Christianity at play on here. I lobbied mightily for the Admin to provide forums and sub-forums for believers of other faiths and more importantly believers of no religions or faiths. 

It is easy for the human trait of self righteousness to overcome us and use the power of the keyboard commando to slay others in His name on an internet forum, especially when you feel that you are justified by the fact that there is only a forum recognizing only one truth. 

But when all parties are included in their own beliefs the shortcomings of all are exposed to debate, interpretation and discussion. 

Quoting part of a scripture, but not all of it, putting it into context exposes a "different story" to how it may be interpreted by all. 

At the end of the day one man's truth may not actually be "The Truth" when only partially exposed.


----------



## hummerpoo

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Before on GON there was only the "Spiritual" discussion forum and I witnessed the very worst of Christianity at play on here. I lobbied mightily for the Admin to provide forums and sub-forums for believers of other faiths and more importantly believers of no religions or faiths.
> 
> It is easy for the human trait of self righteousness to overcome us and use the power of the keyboard commando to slay others in His name on an internet forum, especially when you feel that you are justified by the fact that there is only a forum recognizing only one truth.
> 
> But when all parties are included in their own beliefs the shortcomings of all are exposed to debate, interpretation and discussion.



And I extend my heartfelt thanks for you efforts, although I continue to be gravely disappointed in the vastly underused Christianity and Judaism subforum.



> Quoting part of a scripture, but not all of it, putting it into context exposes a "different story" to how it may be interpreted by all.



Which is exactly the reason for bringing in the back-story (context).



> At the end of the day one man's truth may not actually be "The Truth" when only partially exposed.



Are we are saying the same thing; that 2 Cor. 3 can not be understood when viewed alone?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

hummerpoo said:


> Are we are saying the same thing; that 2 Cor. 3 can not be understood when viewed alone?



Perhaps, but contrary to who Paul was addressing back in the day, it seems more Christians need to hear his words in context today than others do. 

The "stinging indictment" on todays Church is not due to other religions or non-religions progress in society, but due to Christianities failure to act as instructed, even to this day. 

The people of "the church", the congregation, not so much the corporate body, have put all of their moral fears before the Greatest Commandment of all, out of a show of human shortcoming and lack of faith contrary to what they profess. 

If our job were to build a bridge, but we were constantly being distracted by ants and mosquito's, snakes and other critters and concentrating our efforts on fighting them as a perceived threat, instead of building that bridge, what have we accomplished in the eyes of all that are observing us as Christians? The bridge shall forever remain unfinished, and the struggle shall forever continue.


----------



## hummerpoo

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Perhaps, but contrary to who Paul was addressing back in the day, it seems more Christians need to hear his words in context today than others do.
> 
> The "stinging indictment" on todays Church is not due to other religions or non-religions progress in society, but due to Christianities failure to act as instructed, even to this day.
> 
> The people of "the church", the congregation, not so much the corporate body, have put all of their moral fears before the Greatest Commandment of all, out of a show of human shortcoming and lack of faith contrary to what they profess.
> 
> If our job were to build a bridge, but we were constantly being distracted by ants and mosquito's, snakes and other critters and concentrating our efforts on fighting them as a perceived threat, instead of building that bridge, what have we accomplished in the eyes of all that are observing us as Christians? The bridge shall forever remain unfinished, and the struggle shall forever continue.



I think that we are both saying "neither to the right nor to the left", while your experience has shown your more excesses to the right, and my experience has shown me more excesses to the left.  Both can be avoided when, and only when, all of God's revelation, both written and imbued, is trusted with complete faith in His perfect providence.


----------



## gordon 2

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Perhaps, but contrary to who Paul was addressing back in the day, it seems more Christians need to hear his words in context today than others do.
> 
> The "stinging indictment" on todays Church is not due to other religions or non-religions progress in society, but due to Christianities failure to act as instructed, even to this day.
> 
> The people of "the church", the congregation, not so much the corporate body, have put all of their moral fears before the Greatest Commandment of all, out of a show of human shortcoming and lack of faith contrary to what they profess.
> 
> If our job were to build a bridge, but we were constantly being distracted by ants and mosquito's, snakes and other critters and concentrating our efforts on fighting them as a perceived threat, instead of building that bridge, what have we accomplished in the eyes of all that are observing us as Christians? The bridge shall forever remain unfinished, and the struggle shall forever continue.


 

 The problem in the algorithm here  is agreement on what " To act as instructed" means.

Some Christians who seem to need to follow a recipe might view the instruction for God's people as when the priests were livitical.-- Yet, this priesthood was a priesthood for a time meant for a people that was not yet spiritually freed and to eternal life.

 Other  Christians  might view the instruction for God's people as before an eternal priesthood-- melchizedek. The instruction for these God's people freed from the curse of sin is very different so these say. The instruction is more free hand for lack of a better term: that is, it is directed from within the believer ( from the heart of the believer) and not from recipe.

So if our job is to build bridges... I can bring a shovel to empty the bog. How many here are really willing to take the time to dig until we hit solid footing? Hum? ( Oh and biting insects are usually accompanied with the work of building bridges... unless your over the sea... Tampa Bay for example.)


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> I think that we are both saying "neither to the right nor to the left", while your experience has shown your more excesses to the right, and my experience has shown me more excesses to the left.  Both can be avoided when, and only when, all of God's revelation, both written and imbued, is trusted with complete faith in His perfect providence.



I wonder if I can trust this as a permanent bridge? How can I trust the written and the imbued? What do you mean by "complete faith in His perfect providence"? Is this some kind of iron work in the concrete?


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> I wonder if I can trust this as a permanent bridge? How can I trust the written and the imbued? What do you mean by "complete faith in His perfect providence"? Is this some kind of iron work in the concrete?



You can trust that which is from God.  Anything "for a time meant for a people that was not yet spiritually freed and to eternal life" would not be trustworthy (Mal 3:6ff).

"iron work in the concrete"?  In that it has no tensile strength without it, is not openly visible, and facilitates spans transverse to the force of gravity ... could be.


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> You can trust that which is from God.  Anything "for a time meant for a people that was not yet spiritually freed and to eternal life" would not be trustworthy (Mal 3:6ff).
> 
> "iron work in the concrete"?  In that it has no tensile strength without it, is not openly visible, and facilitates spans transverse to the force of gravity ... could be.




Thanks for the Malachi reference 3:6ff. It sort of makes one think.

  Jesus said : Matt 9:13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

 Jesus said: Matt 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Rev 20:15 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Rev 13:8  and all who dwell on earth will worship it*, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

*the beast


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

But what of the modern day churches desire/MOS to fill more seats, build bigger buildings to fill yet more seats. 

What is their true motive? Would not putting their focus on God and doing what is actually commanded automatically yield these results without making them the focus of their mission?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Saw this and it struck me as analogous to how apparently most here feel about tithing.

http://babylonbee.com/news/jesus-never-said-anything-felony-home-invasion/


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> Thanks for the Malachi reference 3:6ff. It sort of makes one think.
> 
> Jesus said : Matt 9:13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
> 
> Jesus said: Matt 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
> 
> Rev 20:15 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
> 
> Rev 13:8  and all who dwell on earth will worship it*, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
> 
> *the beast



I am assuming that you desired no response, but I did.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

I love the satirical form of this publication.

Though there is a foundation of truth behind their satire. 

http://babylonbee.com/news/church-cease-references-god-effort-boost-attendance/



> “Talking about God has been an important part of our church’s fifteen year history, but look, we have to stay true to our mission statement—Get butts in the seats and keep them there,” Teaching Pastor Mark Davidson told reporters, noting that the debt acquired just five years ago from a building and property beautification isn’t going to pay itself off.



Then on something related to tithing they posted this piece. Priceless. 

http://babylonbee.com/news/oakland-churches-scramble-recruit-derek-carr-tithing-comment/


----------



## hobbs27

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I love the satirical form of this publication.
> 
> Though there is a foundation of truth behind their satire.
> 
> http://babylonbee.com/news/church-cease-references-god-effort-boost-attendance/
> 
> 
> 
> Then on something related to tithing they posted this piece. Priceless.
> 
> http://babylonbee.com/news/oakland-churches-scramble-recruit-derek-carr-tithing-comment/



 The members that give the most have the most say in many churches. I can't verify if this is true,  but Ive been told,  there's a large Methodist Church in north GA  that can only play traditional hymns during worship service because a very wealthy man left a lot of money in a trust to them on the condition that they never change the style of music.  If they play anything else.. They lose the trust money... He's controlling with money after his death... Amazing.


----------



## gordon 2

SemperFiDawg said:


> Saw this and it struck me as analogous to how apparently most here feel about tithing.
> 
> http://babylonbee.com/news/jesus-never-said-anything-felony-home-invasion/



About judging.  Judging and being judgmental becomes evident  to social scientists in early school age children--age six to 11.

Some of the fears of this age group include: school, being alone at night, catastrophes, physical harm, failure in school, ghosts and witches, being caught in a lie, divorce or separation of parents, being a crime victim, pain, evil persons...

Source: Elaine Polan, Daphne Taylor. Journey Across the life Span, Human Development and health Promotion

If I understood correctly judging others is a very early ability in individual human development. It is established in the individual before puberty.  And I suspect it is forged partly due to the fears of this age group. In other words it is not very adult in makeup.

 Personally I tithe so that the gospel is preached and the body built up. As for charity, I donate.

 I try to reward the threshing mule the best I can, but no more than a carpenter's wages. As for charity, I give half the carpenter's wages and sometimes ten times this amount-- or, I have no fixed amount.  I don't expect my home church to do social work or carry the poor, but I expect its members according to their abilities to advocate for the poor, or for those who suffer injustice, to those who have as their mission or task the maintenance of peace and freedom in the land.

To be fair to  medium-large congregations, it is my understanding that some of them are the result of amalgamating smaller churches in order to lessen expenses for the saints. I was reading this week that half the working population (millions) is/are paycheck to paycheck...


----------



## SemperFiDawg

gordon 2 said:


> About judging.  Judging and being judgmental becomes evident  to social scientists in early school age children--age six to 11.
> 
> Some of the fears of this age group include: school, being alone at night, catastrophes, physical harm, failure in school, ghosts and witches, being caught in a lie, divorce or separation of parents, being a crime victim, pain, evil persons...
> 
> Source: Elaine Polan, Daphne Taylor. Journey Across the life Span, Human Development and health Promotion
> 
> If I understood correctly judging others is a very early ability in individual human development. It is established in the individual before puberty.  And I suspect it is forged partly due to the fears of this age group. In other words it is not very adult in makeup.
> 
> Personally I tithe so that the gospel is preached and the body built up. As for charity, I donate.
> 
> I try to reward the threshing mule the best I can, but no more than a carpenter's wages. As for charity, I give half the carpenter's wages and sometimes ten times this amount-- or, I have no fixed amount.  I don't expect my home church to do social work or carry the poor, but I expect its members according to their abilities to advocate for the poor, or for those who suffer injustice, to those who have as their mission or task the maintenance of peace and freedom in the land.
> 
> To be fair to  medium-large congregations, it is my understanding that some of them are the result of amalgamating smaller churches in order to lessen expenses for the saints. I was reading this week that half the working population (millions) is/are paycheck to paycheck...



How dat "advocate" taste?    

Just kidding


I don't doubt that regarding the paycheck.  A wise old lady told me something onetime,  way back.  " I don't care how much you make, it takes all of it."  It's true for most, but why?  To a large degree it's due to our choices.  I know many who you could give a million dollars to and they would be right back where they were in a year, just because of the choices they make.


----------



## gordon 2

SemperFiDawg said:


> How dat "advocate" taste?
> 
> Just kidding
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that regarding the paycheck.  A wise old lady told me something onetime,  way back.  " I don't care how much you make, it takes all of it."  It's true for most, but why?  To a large degree it's due to our choices.  I know many who you could give a million dollars to and they would be right back where they were in a year, just because of the choices they make.




Yea, one of the choices in this life it that choice " for better and for worse" choice which is really a stab in the unknown to where two become one flesh. Like many choices made some are hard to unmake especially when those choices have fathered children.

Would our Lord favor percentage of our labors or that which Malachi calls offerings in righteousness--as of old.


3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.

4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years.

When I pray on that which Abraham offered to Melchizedek the king of Salem and to another king his people and goods I have to ask, " What was his motives?" To which I find in the whole account was to do what was right for its own sake.

Far for me to preach, but Abraham did not have to go hunting for his dispossessed kin and risk his own liberty. Once he had taken hold of the captives, he returned some of them who were not of his kin with their treasure to their former king. Abraham did not have to do this as the king said that Abraham was in his right to keep the people and their treasure. Yet Abraham returned what the robbers had stolen to the original lord. 

When Abraham sat before Melchizedek he had returned his kin to his former fortunes and lands and had reestablished a people to their king... for no other reason that it was the right thing to do.

What I assume he tithed with was that which he kept from the robber's own purse or of his own  resources. If he himself had been guided by robbery at this point having learned evil from his brother's enemy and poisoned by his success when Abraham sat with Melchizedek he could have "relieved" all the bread from him, instead of taking his share of its breaking.

So was Abraham's tithe an offering in righteousness? I think so. I think also that, "as in the former years" refers to righteousness as was Abraham's. The percentage here seems less important to me than the motive for giving.

The motive stems for what Abraham knew was right according to what he understood contributed to freedom and peace as opposed to commanded convention. And I suspect that this was part of the reason why Abraham was a man favored in God's heart... they were at least in part like minded.

In some ways, and this is very superficial, Abraham was like our fathers and mothers who went to war in the 2ed WW. They did not go for personal gain and not out of convention, they did not go to take away people from their homelands--but just the opposite they fought at considerable risk and gave of themselves what was right so that people could return to their own homeland in peace and that generations to follow would break bread in peace where the rule of law was right and just not unlike the hope they had and saw in the heart of their redeemer.

---------------

Now all this aside, I have difficulty in seeing that it is the role of the church to provide social services in lieu or to relieve the taxpayer's purse or in fact to steer a people away from insolvency, or to shore up a prized political way of life... But I'm still trying to understand.... so not all is clear...yet. I am certain that we have bridges to build in our world, but I'm not sure what they should carry and that which they should link....? I seem to have learned ( perhaps incorrectly) that a church with too much fat can sin to watch its people be carried away in this "here old world" and the only service they return is to point out that to suffer now is due that "our home is in the world to come". So I still have questions... And when I tithe I have all these questions in my heart. I cleave to God and know I'm just a man amongst many.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

So how are Old Testament rules and examples relevant in todays New Testament society, where the law has been fulfilled and boundaries on tithing no longer apply?

Either you tithe out of OT duty to do so, or you tithe out of NT faith, that it is not required but you freely and willingly do so as a show of that same faith. 

Modern day tithing should be between you and God, not you and the corporate structure of the church.


----------



## Israel

They only asked us to be mindful of the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, because he stood to be condemned.  For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself, for fear of those in the circumcision group.…


----------



## gordon 2

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So how are Old Testament rules and examples relevant in todays New Testament society, where the law has been fulfilled and boundaries on tithing no longer apply?
> 
> Either you tithe out of OT duty to do so, or you tithe out of NT faith, that it is not required but you freely and willingly do so as a show of that same faith.
> 
> Modern day tithing should be between you and God, not you and the corporate structure of the church.





If modern day tithing should be between you and God why do you intervene to teach others to tithe according to your relationship with God?


 Joseph Hart  1712-1768 

Hart's motto after this time was: "Pharasaic zeel and Antinomian security are the two engines of Satan, with which he grinds the church in all ages, as betwixt [between] the upper and the nether [lower] millstone. The space between them is much narrower and harder to find than most men imagine. It is a path which the vulture's eye hath not seen; and none can show it us but the Holy Ghost."[3] Source wiki on Joseph Hart, minister.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

gordon 2 said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> If modern day tithing should be between you and God why do you intervene to teach others to tithe according to your relationship with God?



You mean when someone says it is scriptural and insists on that being backed up by old testament law, while claiming salvation through Jesus Christ who gave His life to free them from that law and cover their sins for all eternity?

Did not Jesus himself set an example for us how we are to live? Did Jesus himself not intervene by fulfilling those OT laws and covering our sins for all eternity?

Was his sacrifice not enough?


----------



## gordon 2

Miguel Cervantes said:


> You mean when someone says it is scriptural and insists on that being backed up by old testament law, while claiming salvation through Jesus Christ who gave His life to free them from that law and cover their sins for all eternity?
> 
> Did not Jesus himself set an example for us how we are to live? Did Jesus himself not intervene by fulfilling those OT laws and covering our sins for all eternity?
> 
> Was his sacrifice not enough?



I don't wish to rehash this but my understanding is that what was fulfilled in those laws was not a sure cleavage to the letter of the law, but a sincerity towards the spirituality of the law. ( Not a motive of sacrifice towards the fulfillment of  the law, but now one sounded from righteousness as this is God's will from the get go-- or the foundations of the world.)

I personally don't think fixed percentages apply...  especially that a saint's heart is tempered initially, but also progressively, by our Lord's sacrifice and his continuing ministry. A few stabs at the wrong place will dull the heart... and a return to the stone often is in order. Therefore the law of tithing ( if there is such a thing) cannot be  fixed as it takes time to learn of one's  freedom to learn from God and from man not so much. But from this freedom saints tithe lean and fat for many reasons...

Some say there have been changes from this to this:

 --From this: Do not have any other god before God.
Do not make yourself an idol.

 -- To this: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

   And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

And how great is the supposed law of tithing compared to the greater commandments of Christianity? I know that I often wonder if to love the self is not the same as loving one's neighbor? Or that I am my neighbor? And if this is not all upside down thinking? Do Christians today rob God by preferring to pay 10% to the church in lieu of 35% to governments.  Is the motivation from their wallet or from their relationship with their creator ?


 Acts 6:2“It is not desirable that we neglect the word of God to serve tables. 3 So, brothers, select from among you seven men of good reputation,[h] full of the Spirit and wisdom, whom we will put in charge of this need. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5

What was the motivation behind what the church decided in this case? That the word of God be neglected to serve tables? "Men of good reputation ...we will put in charge of this need*" *to feed the widows. Do the men of good reputation need to minister to this need from the church today?  Is the church still to devote itself to prayers and the ministry of the word...especially before works of charity?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

gordon 2 said:


> I don't wish to rehash this but my understanding is that what was fulfilled in those laws was not a sure cleavage to the letter of the law, but a sincerity towards the spirituality of the law.
> 
> I personally don't think fixed percentages apply...  especially that a saint's heart is tempered initially, but also progressively, by our Lord's sacrifice and his continuing ministry. A few stabs at the wrong place will dull the heart... and a return to the stone often is in order. Therefore the law of tithing ( if there is such a thing) cannot be a fixed as it takes time to learn of one's  freedom to learn from God and man not so much.



Exactly correct, as I have stated previously in not so many words, or perhaps more.


----------



## hummerpoo

I have yet to understand how Antinomianism, in any of it's many distortions of Christ's relationship with the Law, can come from scripture.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> I have yet to understand how Antinomianism, in any of it's many distortions of Christ's relationship with the Law, can come from scripture.




I don't think it does,  but I haven't seen anyone suggest Christians are to behave in a manner that would not support the moral laws.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> I don't think it does,  but I haven't seen anyone suggest Christians are to behave in a manner that would not support the moral laws.



Having gone through your posts in this thread, we would have to discuss the following (on which we appear to disagree) before we could reasonably discuss my post:

What is the law?
How is the law to be interpreted?
What is the Old Covenant?
What is the New Covenant?
How did Christ fulfill the law?
What is the tithe?
To what does antinomian refer?

The chances of getting around to Antinomianism this year, or in this life, seem minimal.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Having gone through your posts in this thread, we would have to discuss the following (on which we appear to disagree) before we could reasonably discuss my post:
> 
> What is the law?
> How is the law to be interpreted?
> What is the Old Covenant?
> What is the New Covenant?
> How did Christ fulfill the law?
> What is the tithe?
> To what does antinomian refer?
> 
> The chances of getting around to Antinomianism this year, or in this life, seem minimal.



Would you accept this definition?  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism

And this: https://www.gotquestions.org/antinomianism.html

 And this?  https://www.theopedia.com/antinomianism


Tithing is not a moral law.  It was a law given to the Jewish tribes of land to support the Levites which had no land but were given the duties of priesthood.


----------



## gordon 2

Moving right along....

Thus, classic Methodist commentator Adam Clarke held, "The Gospel proclaims liberty from the ceremonial law, but binds you still faster under the moral law. To be freed from the ceremonial law is the Gospel liberty; to pretend freedom from the moral law is Antinomianism."[7] Contemporary Evangelical theologian J. I. Packer states that Antinomianism, "which means being anti-law, is a name for several views." [8]

Source Wiki, Antinomianism.


----------



## gordon 2

hobbs27 said:


> Would you accept this definition?  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism
> 
> And this: https://www.gotquestions.org/antinomianism.html
> 
> And this?  https://www.theopedia.com/antinomianism
> 
> 
> Tithing is not a moral law.  It was a law given to the Jewish tribes of land to support the Levites which had no land but were given the duties of priesthood.



Yes but to be fair it was also a way to feed the poor... Or in other words the items of sacrifice ( tithing?) were not only for the priests but also for the poor.


Nehemiah, 8: 2 2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.

Nehemiah, 8:10 Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the Lord is your strength.


----------



## hobbs27

gordon 2 said:


> Yes but to be fair it was also a way to feed the poor ... Or in other words the items of sacrifice were not only for the priests but also for the poor.
> 
> 
> Nehemiah, 8: 2 2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.
> 
> Nehemiah, 8:10 Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the Lord is your strength.



Gordon... My eyes are burning and swollen with sleeplessness due to my recent work schedule.  I'll be gone to sleep by the time you can respond to this hopefully,  but my question is. 
 Is Nehemiah 8 concerning tithes or a feast Sabbath?


----------



## gordon 2

hobbs27 said:


> Gordon... My eyes are burning and swollen with sleeplessness due to my recent work schedule.  I'll be gone to sleep by the time you can respond to this hopefully,  but my question is.
> Is Nehemiah 8 concerning tithes or a feast Sabbath?



Well I asked a Rabbi once if the ancient temple sacrifice was only for the priest and he told me that it was common tradition to share it with the poor. So Nehemiah 8 is definitely a feast, but from what I understand not out of place as to sharing with the poor: " send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared:". So if you understand that the temple items of sacrifice are tithes to upkeep the temple and the priesthood, then I would understand and agree that it is a tithe-- but also it was used to help the poor. I'm not certain what the relationship is between helping the poor and tithing...? Someone?


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> Would you accept this definition?  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism
> 
> And this: https://www.gotquestions.org/antinomianism.html
> 
> And this?  https://www.theopedia.com/antinomianism



We are not there.




> Tithing is not a moral law.  It was a law given to the Jewish tribes of land to support the Levites which had no land but were given the duties of priesthood.



If we don't agree on what the law is, there is no point is discussing it subdivision.


----------



## Israel

If we have "pinned" our hopes to Jesus as the all in all of spiritual understanding (whatever that means) and as given to and among men, that they might understand...then we must concede, of all, He _alone_ understands...the law.

A man could feel (in whatever measure) satisfied..."I have never slept with my neighbor's wife"...that is...if the law is given that a man might be (in whatever measure)..."satisfied with himself".


I hear heavenly laughter.


How cruel of Jesus! To steal even that!   
"But I tell you..."

But I tell you what? This thing you've turned of TRUTH into a thing whereby you seek to establish your own righteousness "I never laid a hand on her!"...well....do you think the author of truth, (who is Himself all Truth) is a blind fool? You think all of creation is given as a stage on which you are to play act...to demonstrate a thing about He (who is no blind fool)...already knows? That thing of "your righteousness"?

(Am I the only one who hears....laughter?)

Every place mud can hide (or foolishly thinks it can)...is so plainly exposed through Christ.

But it seemed such a fun game. "you show me your righteousness, I'll show you mine".


Till Jesus showed up. Game's over.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> We are not there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't agree on what the law is, there is no point is discussing it subdivision.



In defining " The Law" , I think the best overall definition is the entire Old testament. 

The Pentateuch 
The Decalogue 
The Psalms
The Prophets
The Law of Blessings and Cursing. 

That is the law of the Bible.


----------



## Artfuldodger

What was the purpose of the Law?


----------



## Israel

Artfuldodger said:


> What was the purpose of the Law?


 As all things given by God to man...as help.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Artfuldodger said:


> What was the purpose of the Law?



the purpose of the law was to impute a death sentence. To make man know that regardless of how hard he tried, all he could conceive to try, and all he could purpose in his heart 
( or maybe I should say mind, to satisfy some on here that thought processes don't happen in a blood pumping muscle) mankind is not capable of redeeming himself or making himself holy.

Unless you have a standard to measure with, you can't know if you are meeting the goal.  The law was the standard ( or the measuring stick) and was given so that mankind would know, that falling short, he deserved the death sentence appropriate for the sin he committed.


----------



## welderguy

NE GA Pappy said:


> the purpose of the law was to impute a death sentence. To make man know that regardless of how hard he tried, all he could conceive to try, and all he could purpose in his heart
> ( or maybe I should say mind, to satisfy some on here that thought processes don't happen in a blood pumping muscle) mankind is not capable of redeeming himself or making himself holy.
> 
> Unless you have a standard to measure with, you can't know if you are meeting the goal.  The law was the standard ( or the measuring stick) and was given so that mankind would know, that falling short, he deserved the death sentence appropriate for the sin he committed.



Well said.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> In defining " The Law" , I think the best overall definition is the entire Old testament.
> 
> The Pentateuch
> The Decalogue
> The Psalms
> The Prophets
> The Law of Blessings and Cursing.
> 
> That is the law of the Bible.



I have found the correction given in Jeremiah 7:22,23 to be useful, and consistent throughout scripture, in understanding both The Covenant and The Law.

“22 For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.’

The Law is the description of God’s People. (in obedience)

	The Moral Law describes the actions, words, and thoughts of God’s People, 	and reveals that which underlies those actions, words, and thoughts.

	The Civil Law describes interpersonal relations among God’s People, and 	reveals that which underlies those relations.

	The Ceremonial Law is a temporal reflection of His People’s spiritual 	relationship with their God, and reveals that which underlies that 	relationship.


----------



## hummerpoo

Israel said:


> As all things given by God to man...as help.



Amen.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> I have found the correction given in Jeremiah 7:22,23 to be useful, and consistent throughout scripture, in understanding both The Covenant and The Law.
> 
> “22 For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.’
> 
> The Law is the description of God’s People. (in obedience)
> 
> The Moral Law describes the actions, words, and thoughts of God’s People, 	and reveals that which underlies those actions, words, and thoughts.
> 
> The Civil Law describes interpersonal relations among God’s People, and 	reveals that which underlies those relations.
> 
> The Ceremonial Law is a temporal reflection of His People’s spiritual 	relationship with their God, and reveals that which underlies that 	relationship.




I'm not sure I follow you on the Law being God's people in obedience. 


Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. (Gal. 4:21-26).


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> I'm not sure I follow you on the Law being [a description of] God's people in obedience.



I know.



> Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. (Gal. 4:21-26).


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> I know.



With responses like this,  I think you underestimated the time this discussion would take,  when you suggested a year.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> With responses like this,  I think you underestimated the time this discussion would take,  when you suggested a year.



I simply responded to what I was given?


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> I have found the correction given in Jeremiah 7:22,23 to be useful, and consistent throughout scripture, in understanding both The Covenant and The Law.
> 
> “22 For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.’
> 
> The Law is the description of God’s People. (in obedience)
> 
> The Moral Law describes the actions, words, and thoughts of God’s People, 	and reveals that which underlies those actions, words, and thoughts.
> 
> The Civil Law describes interpersonal relations among God’s People, and 	reveals that which underlies those relations.
> 
> The Ceremonial Law is a temporal reflection of His People’s spiritual 	relationship with their God, and reveals that which underlies that 	relationship.



Call me a questioning mind, call me ackward, but how is the ceremonial Law a temporal reflection of His people's spiritual relationship with their God and that it reveals that which underlies that relationship?

Also what would be other than a temporal reflection? What does/is this?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Wow! I didn't know the "Law" had that many parts.
How do we tie in Jesus fulfilling the Law to all of those various layers/dimensions of the Law?


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> the purpose of the law was to impute a death sentence. To make man know that regardless of how hard he tried, all he could conceive to try, and all he could purpose in his heart
> ( or maybe I should say mind, to satisfy some on here that thought processes don't happen in a blood pumping muscle) mankind is not capable of redeeming himself or making himself holy.
> 
> Unless you have a standard to measure with, you can't know if you are meeting the goal.  The law was the standard ( or the measuring stick) and was given so that mankind would know, that falling short, he deserved the death sentence appropriate for the sin he committed.



Sorta something to show that we could never measure up and therefore needed another way?

For some reason Romans 11 popped into my head about the Jews stumble. They didn't stumble beyond recovery.
Their stumble was a trespass. It was needed for a purpose.

I'm wondering if the Law was a stumble. A trespass. Presented to show us that we could never be righteous. It was needed for a purpose.


----------



## Israel

Artfuldodger said:


> Sorta something to show that we could never measure up and therefore needed another way?
> 
> For some reason Romans 11 popped into my head about the Jews stumble. They didn't stumble beyond recovery.
> Their stumble was a trespass. It was needed for a purpose.
> 
> I'm wondering if the Law was a stumble. A trespass. Presented to show us that we could never be righteous. It was needed for a purpose.



It's all that the "measuring up" thing needs, deserves, merits. It's the perfect gift.


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> Wow! I didn't know the "Law" had that many parts.
> How do we tie in Jesus fulfilling the Law to all of those various layers/dimensions of the Law?



Well Jesus was without sin or perfectly in covenant...maybe... and it is from this reality that He took on all our sin so that we could all have and live in a relationship of eternal life with the Father. To know Jesus as having fulfilled the law or as perfect in covenant is to know the Father because in Jesus the Father is the one and only God that the covenant was meant to make man understand to be the one and only God. So we know Jesus, we know God. Begs the question, " Know a Christian, know Jesus." ?


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> Call me a questioning mind, call me ackward, but how is the ceremonial Law a temporal reflection of His people's spiritual relationship with their God and that it reveals that which underlies that relationship?
> 
> Also what would be other than a temporal reflection? What does/is this?



If this were a lecture rather than a discussion this would not be my first point.
Going backwards
God is Creator and Provider—Man is created and provisioned
God rules that which He created with lovingkindness—man owes gratitude through loving obedience to God

The burnt offering is a temporal reflection of man’s spiritual desire to heal the relationship, which has been broken by his failure in obedience, by atonement. (propitiation) 

The sin offering is a temporal reflection of man’s heartfelt desire that his failure in obedience be forgiven and forgotten. (expiation)

The grain offering is temporal (physical) expression of the spiritual (heartfelt) gratitude for His provision. 
Note: This offering is given to the “clergy” for their use, but a portion, which is salted but must be free of leaven and honey, is sacrificed to God.

The peace offering is a temporal reflection of man’s heartfelt gratitude for particular or exceptional grace, i.e., deliverance from danger, exceptional generosity, answered prayer, etc.

It is noteworthy that the burnt offering is offered first.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Sorta something to show that we could never measure up and therefore needed another way?
> 
> For some reason Romans 11 popped into my head about the Jews stumble. They didn't stumble beyond recovery.
> Their stumble was a trespass. It was needed for a purpose.
> 
> I'm wondering if the Law was a stumble. A trespass. Presented to show us that we could never be righteous. It was needed for a purpose.



Gal. 3:24 (progressive revelation)


----------



## Israel

hummerpoo said:


> If this were a lecture rather than a discussion this would not be my first point.
> Going backwards
> God is Creator and Provider—Man is created and provisioned
> God rule’s that which He created with lovingkindness—man owes gratitude through obedience to God
> 
> The burnt offering is a temporal reflection of man’s spiritual desire to heal the relationship, which has been broken by his failure in obedience, by atonement. (propitiation)
> 
> The sin offering is a temporal reflection of man’s heartfelt desire that his failure in obedience be forgiven and forgotten. (expiation)
> 
> The grain offering is temporal (physical) expression of the spiritual (heartfelt) gratitude for His provision.
> Note: This offering is given to the “clergy” for their use, but a portion, which is salted but must be free of leaven and honey, is sacrificed to God.
> 
> The peace offering is a temporal reflection of man’s heartfelt gratitude for particular or exceptional grace, i.e., deliverance from danger, exceptional generosity, answered prayer, etc.
> 
> It is noteworthy that the burnt offering is offered first.



That's beautiful.
And all done now (as always and only is to be) in God's temple.

"For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin."

Yes, at one time a very foreign language. Completely alien...to us. Till the key came.


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> If this were a lecture rather than a discussion this would not be my first point.
> Going backwards
> God is Creator and Provider—Man is created and provisioned
> God rule’s that which He created with lovingkindness—man owes gratitude through obedience to God
> 
> The burnt offering is a temporal reflection of man’s spiritual desire to heal the relationship, which has been broken by his failure in obedience, by atonement. (propitiation)
> 
> The sin offering is a temporal reflection of man’s heartfelt desire that his failure in obedience be forgiven and forgotten. (expiation)
> 
> The grain offering is temporal (physical) expression of the spiritual (heartfelt) gratitude for His provision.
> Note: This offering is given to the “clergy” for their use, but a portion, which is salted but must be free of leaven and honey, is sacrificed to God.
> 
> The peace offering is a temporal reflection of man’s heartfelt gratitude for particular or exceptional grace, i.e., deliverance from danger, exceptional generosity, answered prayer, etc.
> 
> It is noteworthy that the burnt offering is offered first.



Wow! thanks for this. I should of asked on all the list! Yet there is much in this point alone to feed me for a while... Thanks again.

One last question(s) on this perhaps:  The offerings are they directed from God to man, that is, are they directives from God or are they directives from man to men in order to express man's heartfelt reflection towards God?

Or in other words are these "laws" given to man from Moses or from God? Jeremiah 7:22-23 which you quoted earlier would seem to indicate that it was from Moses?

And noted yes...  the desire to heal the relationship with God for the individual and for the people as a whole is a significant theme of the Old Covenant scripture writers.


----------



## hobbs27

The first two demonstrate the Psalms as The Law.. I think I can demonstrate fairly easily with scripture that The Law was the entire Old testament. 


 John 10:34-36New King James Version (NKJV)

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Psalm 82:6New King James Version (NKJV)

6 I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High


..............................

John 15:25New King James Version (NKJV)

25 But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.

Psalm 69:4New King James Version (NKJV)

4 Those who hate me without a cause
Are more than the hairs of my head;
They are mighty who would destroy me,
Being my enemies wrongfully;
Though I have stolen nothing,
I still must restore it.

...................................

Romans 3:19-20New King James Version (NKJV)

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> The first two demonstrate the Psalms as The Law.. I think I can demonstrate fairly easily with scripture that The Law was the entire Old testament.
> 
> 
> John 10:34-36New King James Version (NKJV)
> 
> 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
> 
> Psalm 82:6New King James Version (NKJV)
> 
> 6 I said, “You are gods,
> And all of you are children of the Most High
> 
> 
> ..............................



"The Law"
"your law"




> John 15:25New King James Version (NKJV)
> 
> 25 But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.
> 
> Psalm 69:4New King James Version (NKJV)
> 
> 4 Those who hate me without a cause
> Are more than the hairs of my head;
> They are mighty who would destroy me,
> Being my enemies wrongfully;
> Though I have stolen nothing,
> I still must restore it.
> 
> ...................................



"The Law"
"their law"

elsewhere "the law of ..."

I like the capitalization, but not all translators use it;
and, it is only an expression of the translators opinion.




> Romans 3:19-20New King James Version (NKJV)
> 
> 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.



???


----------



## Israel

for the law through Moses was given, the grace and the truth through Jesus Christ did come;
YLT

A receiver simply not of the frequency of Jesus Christ. 

for of more glory than Moses hath this one been counted worthy, inasmuch as more honour than the house hath he who doth build it,

Yet still worthy of honor to the measure of making known the builder.

'A prophet out of thy midst, out of thy brethren, like to me, doth Jehovah thy God raise up to thee -- unto him ye hearken; Deut 18:15 (Because the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he likewise partook of the same...)

Nevertheless, Jesus is bold.

for I say to you, a greater prophet, among those born of women, than John the Baptist there is not; but the least in the reign of God is greater than he.'
YLT

The magnificence of the law's glory pales in this instruction:

The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him, and said, Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> If this were a lecture rather than a discussion this would not be my first point.
> Going backwards
> God is Creator and Provider—Man is created and provisioned
> God rule’s that which He created with lovingkindness—man owes gratitude through obedience to God
> 
> The burnt offering is a temporal reflection of man’s spiritual desire to heal the relationship, which has been broken by his failure in obedience, by atonement. (propitiation)
> 
> The sin offering is a temporal reflection of man’s heartfelt desire that his failure in obedience be forgiven and forgotten. (expiation)
> 
> The grain offering is temporal (physical) expression of the spiritual (heartfelt) gratitude for His provision.
> Note: This offering is given to the “clergy” for their use, but a portion, which is salted but must be free of leaven and honey, is sacrificed to God.
> 
> The peace offering is a temporal reflection of man’s heartfelt gratitude for particular or exceptional grace, i.e., deliverance from danger, exceptional generosity, answered prayer, etc.
> 
> It is noteworthy that the burnt offering is offered first.




Quote: {The grain offering is temporal (physical) expression of the spiritual (heartfelt) gratitude for His provision. 
Note: This offering is given to the “clergy” for their use, but a portion, which is salted but must be free of leaven and honey, is sacrificed to God.} end quote.

This is especially interesting, especially that this tread was, still is, about tithing in that  meager tithing is used as an indictment of the Church in America.

I'm thinking about this part of what Hammerpoo writes that  the salted portion  was for the "clergy" for their use... and a portion sacrificed to God.

The portion sacrificed to God and the portion for the use of the clergy, now which of these portions was shared with the poor? The jews tell me that the sacrifice was shared not only with the priests but the poor...in practice. What part was distributed to the poor, God's or the priests or both? I'm thinking of the tithe while asking these questions. Which portion of the tithe should go for the poor? And who should administer it?


----------



## gordon 2

Israel said:


> for the law through Moses was given, the grace and the truth through Jesus Christ did come;
> YLT
> 
> A receiver simply not of the frequency of Jesus Christ.
> 
> for of more glory than Moses hath this one been counted worthy, inasmuch as more honour than the house hath he who doth build it,
> 
> Yet still worthy of honor to the measure of making known the builder.
> 
> 'A prophet out of thy midst, out of thy brethren, like to me, doth Jehovah thy God raise up to thee -- unto him ye hearken; Deut 18:15 (Because the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he likewise partook of the same...)
> 
> Nevertheless, Jesus is bold.
> 
> for I say to you, a greater prophet, among those born of women, than John the Baptist there is not; but the least in the reign of God is greater than he.'
> YLT
> 
> The magnificence of the law's glory pales in this instruction:
> 
> The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him, and said, Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.



Interesting.Thanks.


----------



## Israel

The very harshest of disciplines:

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.


Makes way for the gentlest:

Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> Wow! thanks for this. I should of asked on all the list! Yet there is much in this point alone to feed me for a while... Thanks again..


Your quite welcome, BUT, if you have benefited from my meager words I am not responsible for that benefit; "God provides the increase".



> One last question(s) on this perhaps:  The offerings are they directed from God to man, that is, are they directives from God or are they directives from man to men in order to express man's heartfelt reflection towards God?
> 
> Or in other words are these "laws" given to man from Moses or from God? Jeremiah 7:22-23 which you quoted earlier would seem to indicate that it was from Moses?


They are from God through His servant, Moses.
The point that I glean from Jer. 7:22 is that the primary issue is The Covenant — in its most brief expression "I will be your God, and you shall be my people".  The Law is an addendum to "you shall be my people"; or as expressed in vs. 23, "And walk in all the way that I command you".  Thus comes; the Law is a description of God's People.





> And noted yes...  the desire to heal the relationship with God for the individual and for the people as a whole is a significant theme of the Old Covenant scripture writers


And the source of that desire is? ... for later consideration.


----------



## hummerpoo

Israel said:


> for the law through Moses was given, the grace and the truth through Jesus Christ did come;
> YLT
> 
> A receiver simply not of the frequency of Jesus Christ.
> 
> for of more glory than Moses hath this one been counted worthy, inasmuch as more honour than the house hath he who doth build it,
> 
> Yet still worthy of honor to the measure of making known the builder.
> 
> 'A prophet out of thy midst, out of thy brethren, like to me, doth Jehovah thy God raise up to thee -- unto him ye hearken; Deut 18:15 (Because the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he likewise partook of the same...)
> 
> Nevertheless, Jesus is bold.
> 
> for I say to you, a greater prophet, among those born of women, than John the Baptist there is not; but the least in the reign of God is greater than he.'
> YLT
> 
> The magnificence of the law's glory pales in this instruction:
> 
> The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him, and said, Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.


â†‘â†‘â†‘â†‘â†‘ this â†‘â†‘â†‘â†‘â†‘



Israel said:


> The very harshest of disciplines:
> 
> Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
> 
> 
> Makes way for the gentlest:
> 
> Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”


â†‘â†‘â†‘â†‘â†‘ and this too â†‘â†‘â†‘â†‘â†‘


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

Israel said:


> The very harshest of disciplines:
> 
> Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
> 
> 
> Makes way for the gentlest:
> 
> Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”



For all whom have become weary and burdened by the over bearing, oppressive laws of the Pharisees. Even the prostitute saw the way, truth and the light in Jesus' way and it made her infinitely wiser than the Pharisees in the end. 

The law cannot provide Salvation.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> elsewhere "the law of ..."
> 
> I like the capitalization, but not all translators use it;
> and, it is only an expression of the translators opinion.



Ah, yes.  The Law of...  Moses and The book of the law Deuteronomy 28-31

Interesting isn't it,  that the law of Moses was not required for Abel or Noah to know animal sacrifice?


----------



## hobbs27

Miguel Cervantes said:


> The law cannot provide Salvation.



Amen!!


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> Ah, yes.  The Law of...  Moses and The book of the law Deuteronomy 28-31
> 
> Interesting isn't it,  that the law of Moses was not required for Abel or Noah to know animal sacrifice?



Yes it is.  With God, things just don't change, Deu. 29:14,15


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Yes it is.  With God, things just don't change, Deu. 29:14,15



But not with those that weren't there.. Gentiles.  This is the reason Paul pointed to that in explaining why they,  ( Gentiles)  were not to be circumcised. 


Also while that covenant still stood well after the Cross for the Jew... It was about to vanish. 
Hebrews 8:13


----------



## hummerpoo

> Deu. 29
> 15but both with those who stand here with us today in the presence of the Lord our God and with those who are not with us here today





hobbs27 said:


> But not with those that weren't there..



But not me!

We are a little sideways of the topic, but that's my fault; I could have ignored your post.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> But not me!
> 
> We are a little sideways of the topic, but that's my fault; I could have ignored your post.



Right,  not you or me. 

Acts 15: 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

The Jerusalem Council
6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

hobbs27 said:


> Acts 15: 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”



Our modern day Christianity is loaded down with self-righteous Pharisees. The evidence is easy to find, even on some internet forums.

Not calling anyone out. Merely an observation.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> Right,  not you or me.
> 
> Acts 15: 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
> 
> The Jerusalem Council
> 6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?



Totally irrelevant to any statement made recently in this thread.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Totally irrelevant to any statement made recently in this thread.



I think it is.  If the law = the Old Testament as I have suggested then the Law is no more...Not destroyed,  not torn out of the book and cast away,  but it is no more because it is fulfilled in Christ. 

Galatians 4 demonstrates this the best. 

Abraham had two sons... His first born,  Ishmael should have been the receiver of the inheritance.  His mother Hagar is representative of the Old covenant... Ishmael is representative of the children of the Old covenant. 

Then Sarah gives birth to Isaac.  Sarah is representative of the New Covenant.. Isaac a child of the New Covenant... IE the first century Jews and Gentiles.. And us today that by faith live in the inheritance. Those first century Jew's that did not accept Christ by faith were cast out and did not receive the inheritance. 

God is the same God He has always been,  but the contract between man and God has changed.


----------



## hobbs27

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Our modern day Christianity is loaded down with self-righteous Pharisees. The evidence is easy to find, even on some internet forums.
> 
> Not calling anyone out. Merely an observation.



 I agree,  not sure I would call anyone out on an internet forum,  but the churches I have been involved with in my life are full of them...


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> I think it is.


What statement is it?



> If the law = the Old Testament as I have suggested


Suggested is not shown.



> then the Law is no more...Not destroyed,  not torn out of the book and cast away,  but it is no more because it is fulfilled in Christ.


You need to “show”, not suggest, how “is no more” is different from  καταλυσαι (Strong’s G2647, destroy, dissolve,…, come to nought, overthrow, throw down).



> Mat. 5:
> 17 “Do not think that I came to abolish(G23647) the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.





> G2647
> From G2596 and G3089; to loosen down (disintegrate), that is, (by implication) to demolish (literally or figuratively); specifically (compare G2646) to halt for the night: - destroy, dissolve, be guest, lodge, come to nought, overthrow, throw down.



And “show”, not suggest, that Christ’s 7 examples of fulfillment (Mat. 5:21-48) are not sufficient to show that πληρωσαι(G4137), in Mat. 5:17, is intended to mean  “to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence),… “, or my favorite “fully preach, perfect”; rather than another meaning.



> Mat. 5:
> 17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill(G4137).





> G4137
> From G4134; to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.: - accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.



You might also want to look at your position along side of some of the several types of antinomianism.
http://www.geocities.ws/gary_bee_za/packer/antinomianism.htm


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> What statement is it?
> 
> 
> Suggested is not shown.
> 
> 
> You need to â€œshowâ€�, not suggest, how â€œis no moreâ€� is different from  ÎºÎ±Ï„Î±Î»Ï…ÏƒÎ±Î¹ (Strongâ€™s G2647, destroy, dissolve,â€¦, come to nought, overthrow, throw down).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And â€œshowâ€�, not suggest, that Christâ€™s 7 examples of fulfillment (Mat. 5:21-48) are not sufficient to show that Ï€Î»Î·Ï�Ï‰ÏƒÎ±Î¹(G4137), in Mat. 5:17, is intended to mean  â€œto make replete, that is, (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence),â€¦ â€œ, or my favorite â€œfully preach, perfectâ€�; rather than another meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might also want to look at your position along side of some of the several types of antinomianism.
> http://www.geocities.ws/gary_bee_za/packer/antinomianism.htm




 Easy little task there.. Fulfill! 






Bible > Strong's > Greek > 4137

â—„ 4137. pléroó â–º
Strong's Concordance
pléroó: to make full, to complete
Original Word: Ï€Î»Î·Ï�ÏŒÏ‰
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: pléroó
Phonetic Spelling: (play-ro'-o)
Short Definition: I fill, fulfill, complete
Definition: I fill, fulfill, complete.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 4137 plÄ“róÅ� (from plÄ“rÄ“s, "be full," see 4130 /plá¸—thÅ�) â€“ properly, fill to individual capacity, i.e. to the extent it is "meet" (appropriate). See 4130 (plÄ“thÅ�).


NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from plérés
Definition
to make full, to complete
NASB Translation
accomplish (1), accomplished (1), amply supplied (1), approaching (1), complete (1), completed (3), completing (1), elapsed (1), fill (3), filled (16), fills (1), finished (1), fulfill (20), fulfilled (20), fully carry (1), fully come (1), fully preached (1), increasing (1), made complete (2), made full (5), make...full (1), make...complete (1), passed (2), supply (1).


Now that we can agree the Law is "no more"   it is filled... Completed... Passed.. Etc. 

We can move on... And stop this nonsense of saying someone believes in antinomianism...very few people do.  I've never claimed it,  so....


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> Easy little task there.. F
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bible > Strong's > Greek > 4137
> 
> â—„ 4137. pléroó â–º
> Strong's Concordance
> pléroó: to make full, to complete
> Original Word: Ï€Î»Î·Ï�ÏŒÏ‰
> Part of Speech: Verb
> Transliteration: pléroó
> Phonetic Spelling: (play-ro'-o)
> Short Definition: I fill, fulfill, complete
> Definition: I fill, fulfill, complete.
> HELPS Word-studies
> Cognate: 4137 plÄ“róÅ� (from plÄ“rÄ“s, "be full," see 4130 /plá¸—thÅ�) – properly, fill to individual capacity, i.e. to the extent it is "meet" (appropriate). See 4130 (plÄ“thÅ�).
> 
> 
> NAS Exhaustive Concordance
> Word Origin
> from plérés
> Definition
> to make full, to complete
> NASB Translation
> accomplish (1), accomplished (1), amply supplied (1), approaching (1), complete (1), completed (3), completing (1), elapsed (1), fill (3), filled (16), fills (1), finished (1), fulfill (20), fulfilled (20), fully carry (1), fully come (1), fully preached (1), increasing (1), made complete (2), made full (5), make...full (1), make...complete (1), passed (2), supply (1).




Can anyone tell me what this means relative to my post?


----------



## hummerpoo

Oops, I guess I caught it before you had completed it


hobbs27 said:


> Easy little task there.. Fulfill!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bible > Strong's > Greek > 4137
> 
> â—„ 4137. pléroó â–º
> Strong's Concordance
> pléroó: to make full, to complete
> Original Word: Ï€Î»Î·Ï�ÏŒÏ‰
> Part of Speech: Verb
> Transliteration: pléroó
> Phonetic Spelling: (play-ro'-o)
> Short Definition: I fill, fulfill, complete
> Definition: I fill, fulfill, complete.
> HELPS Word-studies
> Cognate: 4137 plÄ“róÅ� (from plÄ“rÄ“s, "be full," see 4130 /plá¸—thÅ�) – properly, fill to individual capacity, i.e. to the extent it is "meet" (appropriate). See 4130 (plÄ“thÅ�).
> 
> 
> NAS Exhaustive Concordance
> Word Origin
> from plérés
> Definition
> to make full, to complete
> NASB Translation
> accomplish (1), accomplished (1), amply supplied (1), approaching (1), complete (1), completed (3), completing (1), elapsed (1), fill (3), filled (16), fills (1), finished (1), fulfill (20), fulfilled (20), fully carry (1), fully come (1), fully preached (1), increasing (1), made complete (2), made full (5), make...full (1), make...complete (1), passed (2), supply (1).
> 
> 
> Now that we can agree the Law is "no more"   it is filled... Completed... Passed.. Etc.


Where did you get that idea?
Did you read my post?



> We can move on... And stop this nonsense of saying someone believes in antinomianism...very few people do.  I've never claimed it,  so....


Maybe you can stop putting words in my mouth.
I don't know you thoughts, only what you say.  That's why I made a suggestion, not a declaration.
Did you read my post?


----------



## gordon 2

hobbs27 said:


> I agree,  not sure I would call anyone out on an internet forum,  but the churches I have been involved with in my life are full of them...



Not singling you out hobbs, but I've heard this said in other forms as well... for a looong time regards "self-righteous Pharisees."

 I'm wondering if it is not a coverall blanket statement to describe negatively successful "establishment" ministries or saints running their race the best they can versus more unorthodox ones, eccentrically by compulsions running their  own, sometimes unique races, who's laments are due in part to envy and in part to judging "establishment ministry" as a sell out and therefore in league with the beast, sons of the deceiver, thus judged unrighteous...

I question the judgement or the source of this judgement. This judgement seems to me to be due to the weakness of human nature as a source.

The reason I say this is that I have seen this judging spirit  not only as an obsession in the religious but also in the artists. For example the great, poor and misunderstood romantic, unorthodox, possibly in the autistic spectrum, eccentric and common poet-painter William Blake 1757 – 1827),  waxed on the "unrighteousness*"([* my word] for his disgust), of the great, rich,  highly successful and understood, possibly very methodical, prized and classic painter Sir Joshua Reynolds 1723-92.

I think there is something not right in the state of _man____ about labeling someone an unrighteous Pharisee. It is not right because it might be evil, it is not right because it does not hit the nail on the head regards with what is bothersome to the accuser. Rather it is a blanket pile driving ram that shakes at the whole structure where a hammer and punch might do to set a nail. It is a judgement that might just end up being as a false witness.

Also I have a friend that would label the outlooks of other Christians as being " in the law" "Pharisees" and " Self-righteous" and therefore labeling them not Christians at all, and implying that  he was at least Christian enough ( in Christ enought) to see the log in the other's eye, only that many yrs later my friend-accuser is now denying Christ, God, the Holy Spirit and his salvation which he once claimed informed him with his insights!


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Oops, I guess I caught it before you had completed it
> 
> Where did you get that idea?
> Did you read my post?
> 
> 
> Maybe you can stop putting words in my mouth.
> I don't know you thoughts, only what you say.  That's why I made a suggestion, not a declaration.
> Did you read my post?



 You leaned on the word abolish.. Which Jesus did not come to do to the law.. He came to fulfill it...  By fulfilling it,  He completed it.. It reached its fullness... It is,  as I said "no more", not because it was abolished, but because it is fulfilled! 

Because the Law is the entire Old testament, 
The prophets too. Jesus brought it to its completion .
 It is no more per " Jesus came to fulfill it"

Now,  did He do what He came to do or did He fail?  I say He did it,  you have suggested He did not.


----------



## hobbs27

Gordon.. I'll give you one example , and I have more if you need them.

A dear friend of mine approached the deacons of our church and asked permission to use the church van to pick up kids in the community to bring to Sunday school. 

It was approved.  He went knocking on doors at every house he saw toys in the yard.. Bicycles,  swing sets,  etc. 

Soon he had a van full.  Then it kept growing,  so much so that he bought a used school bus out of his own pocket to bring the kids to Sunday school. 

Many of the kids were from broken homes,  very poor,  and lacked church clothes.  The very Deacons that approved his ministry approached him and said,  " We really love your zeal for getting these kids to Sunday school,  but we think you should start looking at the quality of kids your bringing and not so much the quantity ".. 

 Now...is this not being a self righteous Pharisee?


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> You leaned on the word abolish.. Which Jesus did not come to do to the law.. He came to fulfill it...  By fulfilling it,  He completed it.. It reached its fullness... It is,  as I said "no more", not because it was abolished, but because it is fulfilled!
> 
> Because the Law is the entire Old testament,
> The prophets too. Jesus brought it to its completion .
> It is no more per " Jesus came to fulfill it"


This is not responsive to the detailed points in my post.



> Now,  did He do what He came to do or did He fail?  I say He did it,  you have suggested He did not.


No; I have shown/proven what Christ clearly said He came to do and did; and you have failed to bring forth anything, other than your statement, to show He came to do or did otherwise.


----------



## gordon 2

hobbs27 said:


> Gordon.. I'll give you one example , and I have more if you need them.
> 
> A dear friend of mine approached the deacons of our church and asked permission to use the church van to pick up kids in the community to bring to Sunday school.
> 
> It was approved.  He went knocking on doors at every house he saw toys in the yard.. Bicycles,  swing sets,  etc.
> 
> Soon he had a van full.  Then it kept growing,  so much so that he bought a used school bus out of his own pocket to bring the kids to Sunday school.
> 
> Many of the kids were from broken homes,  very poor,  and lacked church clothes.  The very Deacons that approved his ministry approached him and said,  " We really love your zeal for getting these kids to Sunday school,  but we think you should start looking at the quality of kids your bringing and not so much the quantity "..
> 
> Now...is this not being a self righteous Pharisee?



Well if I was a Philadelphia lawyer for  any side on this matter, I could spin what was said with what was meant to all possibilities to make my client win his case.

Now let's say such a lawyer took the case on the side of a deemed unrighteous low quality kid bigot... that what the statement meant was that we don't have resources nor insurance for every kid in the city... from those families letting the church raise their children, especially they are not of the church community and are even indifferent, even antagonistic to its ministry... and in some cases at risk of being sued by some no respect for the bible or church parents.


----------



## hobbs27

gordon 2 said:


> Well if I was a Philadelphia lawyer for  any side on this matter, I could spin what was said with what was meant to all possibilities to make my client win his case.
> 
> Now let's say such a lawyer took the case on the side of a deemed unrighteous low quality kid bigot... that what the statement meant was that we don't have resources nor insurance for every kid in the city... from those families letting the church raise their children, especially they are not of the church community and are even indifferent, even antagonistic to its ministry... and in some cases at risk of being sued by some no respect for the bible or church parents.



 You assume their clothing equals their behavior?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> You assume their clothing equals their behavior?



I have seen what happens in churches like this, when you have one or two guys that want to really practice their beliefs, and the framework for handling the people who come in is not in place.  You get rowdy, unruly children, without enough leadership or structure to make sure they are supervised.  The service dissolves into chaos and no one receives or learns in this environment.

What should have happened is the deacons worked to make sure that the structure was in place to teach those children before the situation got out of hand.  By that time, people were viewing the children as a problem instead of souls in need of a savior.  

We as a church have become to comfortable watching people pass into eternity lost and CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoreded.  God help us all.


----------



## gordon 2

hobbs27 said:


> You assume their clothing equals their behavior?


 I just can't judge like this anymore... it is too easy to run another's business.


----------



## gordon 2

NE GA Pappy said:


> I have seen what happens in churches like this, when you have one or two guys that want to really practice their beliefs, and the framework for handling the people who come in is not in place.  You get rowdy, unruly children, without enough leadership or structure to make sure they are supervised.  The service dissolves into chaos and no one receives or learns in this environment.
> 
> What should have happened is the deacons worked to make sure that the structure was in place to teach those children before the situation got out of hand.  By that time, people were viewing the children as a problem instead of souls in need of a savior.
> 
> We as a church have become to comfortable watching people pass into eternity lost and CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoreded.  God help us all.



Sometimes submission to authority is a wise course. I personally believe that individual congregations have specific gifts and if some individuals, even if they are called individually or are full of zeal for whatever reason,  draw the body away from that gift the whole body will suffer.  I think there need to be order in the bliss of being in Christ and sometimes individuals need to be reminded of the roles deemed appropriate for a specific congregation.

I don't think this makes the leaders self-righteous Pharisees. If anything it might make them realistic. On the other hand, if the leaders don't submit to the authority above them... they have no right to demand submission of the sheep.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

me either gordon.  What I was trying to say is the entire church as to be sold on the mission. For one or two to attempt to reach a community, without the backing and support of others, creates a mess.  There has to be some organization behind the attempt, or it will be chaos.  My experience is that it is easy to get leadership to say go pick up the kids.  It is a whole nother thing for them to commit the $ and volunteer the time to truly disciple those children.  We have become to comfortable in the American church. We can't be bothered with witnessing,  and helping to disciple others. Even the small children are to much of a bother to us.  God will hold us accountable for our "its someone elses job" mentality.


----------



## gordon 2

NE GA Pappy said:


> me either gordon.  What I was trying to say is the entire church as to be sold on the mission. For one or two to attempt to reach a community, without the backing and support of others, creates a mess.  There has to be some organization behind the attempt, or it will be chaos.  My experience is that it is easy to get leadership to say go pick up the kids.  It is a whole nother thing for them to commit the $ and volunteer the time to truly disciple those children.  We have become to comfortable in the American church. We can't be bothered with witnessing,  and helping to disciple others. Even the small children are to much of a bother to us.  God will hold us accountable for our "its someone elses job" mentality.



I see your point... I think there is a lot more anxiety and insecurity in society than people are willing to admit right now... it is hard to witness perhaps when the wolfs are always at the door and zapping all the energy. I would like to think that a lot of people want to witness, but once it was that the muscles were sore after a days work, today it is the muscles and the brain.


----------



## Israel

gordon 2 said:


> Not singling you out hobbs, but I've heard this said in other forms as well... for a looong time regards "self-righteous Pharisees."
> 
> I'm wondering if it is not a coverall blanket statement to describe negatively successful "establishment" ministries or saints running their race the best they can versus more unorthodox ones, eccentrically by compulsions running their  own, sometimes unique races, who's laments are due in part to envy and in part to judging "establishment ministry" as a sell out and therefore in league with the beast, sons of the deceiver, thus judged unrighteous...
> 
> I question the judgement or the source of this judgement. This judgement seems to me to be due to the weakness of human nature as a source.
> 
> The reason I say this is that I have seen this judging spirit  not only as an obsession in the religious but also in the artists. For example the great, poor and misunderstood romantic, unorthodox, possibly in the autistic spectrum, eccentric and common poet-painter William Blake 1757 – 1827),  waxed on the "unrighteousness*"([* my word] for his disgust), of the great, rich,  highly successful and understood, possibly very methodical, prized and classic painter Sir Joshua Reynolds 1723-92.
> 
> I think there is something not right in the state of _man____ about labeling someone an unrighteous Pharisee. It is not right because it might be evil, it is not right because it does not hit the nail on the head regards with what is bothersome to the accuser. Rather it is a blanket pile driving ram that shakes at the whole structure where a hammer and punch might do to set a nail. It is a judgement that might just end up being as a false witness.
> 
> Also I have a friend that would label the outlooks of other Christians as being " in the law" "Pharisees" and " Self-righteous" and therefore labeling them not Christians at all, and implying that  he was at least Christian enough ( in Christ enought) to see the log in the other's eye, only that many yrs later my friend-accuser is now denying Christ, God, the Holy Spirit and his salvation which he once claimed informed him with his insights!



You speak of Jesus the surgeon as opposed to man the euthanizer.

Were we able to deny, as Peter put it, the wholesome words of our Lord..."Beware the leaven of the Pharisees" to _disciples_, we could easily think the sword is for the slaying "out there". But the two edged sword must move cleanly through first, our own self, before there be any hope of seeing others set at liberty.

It is not as though we are not warned..."Beware" as in those other places where our Lord has graciously told us "see, I tell you these things before they happen, so that when they do you shall not be offended". Yes, the leaven and its tempting is always ready to man. But if we think we are prepared to meet it in anything but the word of the Lord...even, and specifically that word to each "Beware", we will easily imagine ourselves somehow made magically immune to such. No, the word that preserves us is the word we either receive...or do not, first to ourselves. "Beware".

The strength of that leaven cannot be unknown to the disciple...unless in truth, he be not a disciple. For the word to "beware" is to the disciple, and it is as wholesome in warning, as any other word the disciple's soul might cling to for life. Yes, there is a religious morass to be navigated, a jungle to be hacked through...in the interior. If a disciple knows nothing of the strong temptation to "make a show" of what he knows is _to be plain_ (that is the reality of Jesus as Lord) he simply undercuts his own faith if failing to acknowledge such warning.

Your mention of beam and mote must never be far from us in the esteem of our seeing. Yes, man as artist, man as scientist, man as politician, man as carpenter, bricklayer, plumber and neurosurgeon...to each the leaven is always ready "I see clearest, my method is all there is to know" 


"Go and make disciples" Jesus tells us. "Go and preach"  Jesus says. And ha! We are caught. Caught in a thing we could have never imagined was used to catch us...our own presumption. Where once we may have thought "Ahhh, Jesus tells me this for I am one made fit now, complete as instructor and guide" 
And we learn. 

No, it is to _my benefit _first and chiefly that I am instructed, so that in the going, I may learn to stay and abide, in the seeking to teach, I may come under instruction, if in the hope of seeing _some soul_ saved...I may find my own...saved.

It is in the sharing of the gospel...we learn the gospel. But if it is not learned as first and foremost to us the very best of good news we could have_ never _imagined, then we must be sent to those who will "see right through us" into all our own vain imaginations, picking us apart as though the most hostile of enemies flaying us, when in truth they are dearest of friends doing a service we are loathe to do "upon ourselves".


Paul said he was debtor, in debt to the Greeks and Barbarians. Obligated, as it were. Thanks be to God we are given to "see" those who still need to hear! For it is in seeking cure for their deafness, a remedy to ignorance, our own ears....are opened, our hearts, informed.


----------



## grizzlyblake

I don't know if it's just me but this thread is very difficult for me to follow. 

So what does the bible REALLY say about tithing? A few pages back there was some good discussion about tithing not biblically being about paying the bills for the multimedia equipment for worship service, yet most churches seem to call for it in that fashion. 

That or financing cool youth mission trips to South America, rather than helping those in need in the same town. 

I'm struggling very hard with this right now. From what I understand the Bible tells me to give back to the Lord what is already his and trust him to handle it. So do I just give over 10% to the church to help pay the utilities bills? Or what if I went and spent 10% on a bunch of food for a soup kitchen? 

I grew up learning that church was where you made it and was about the people; it wasn't about a big building, and certainly not about how big of a production worship was. That's why I have a hitch about tithing to church to basically pay the bills and payroll for the staff because I don't see it as necessary or biblically called for.


----------



## Israel

grizzlyblake said:


> I don't know if it's just me but this thread is very difficult for me to follow.
> 
> So what does the bible REALLY say about tithing? A few pages back there was some good discussion about tithing not biblically being about paying the bills for the multimedia equipment for worship service, yet most churches seem to call for it in that fashion.
> 
> That or financing cool youth mission trips to South America, rather than helping those in need in the same town.
> 
> I'm struggling very hard with this right now. From what I understand the Bible tells me to give back to the Lord what is already his and trust him to handle it. So do I just give over 10% to the church to help pay the utilities bills? Or what if I went and spent 10% on a bunch of food for a soup kitchen?
> 
> I grew up learning that church was where you made it and was about the people; it wasn't about a big building, and certainly not about how big of a production worship was. That's why I have a hitch about tithing to church to basically pay the bills and payroll for the staff because I don't see it as necessary or biblically called for.



I have been to congregations where I could spit to the back row from the pulpit. Maybe we all have. And yet...there it is...a sound system. Odd, what we believe is expedient sometimes...and yet, who knows? Perhaps if I had asked the elder "why do you have a sound system"...he might have scratched his head and said "I really don't know, the Lord told me to get one"...and said it with such conviction I couldn't help but believe him.

I guess it's easier for us to talk to each other about a third party...what the "they" do...than, if we have an honest matter or issue to go to the source. I am no longer surprised Jesus told us to "go to your brother"...cause we find out sometimes the easier thing is to not do what we obviously need to be told to do.

It's up there with some of the things Gordon's been speaking of, a way of man endemic to him...that is not at all expedient to growth in the Kingdom.

But there's another thing about which Jesus speaks...whether we see the matter of giving as alms, "outreach" to the poor, or support of the gospel in some fashion...and it could be that we may all be tempted to be too aware of our giving. And in that...not so much as earning reproof for abnegating an instruction...but subject our own selves to a poverty the Lord would never have for us...in a success of observance of a "one thing" that occludes a glory far more salubrious to behold. And a provision of wonder.


----------



## gordon 2

grizzlyblake said:


> I don't know if it's just me but this thread is very difficult for me to follow.
> 
> So what does the bible REALLY say about tithing? A few pages back there was some good discussion about tithing not biblically being about paying the bills for the multimedia equipment for worship service, yet most churches seem to call for it in that fashion.
> 
> That or financing cool youth mission trips to South America, rather than helping those in need in the same town.
> 
> I'm struggling very hard with this right now. From what I understand the Bible tells me to give back to the Lord what is already his and trust him to handle it. So do I just give over 10% to the church to help pay the utilities bills? Or what if I went and spent 10% on a bunch of food for a soup kitchen?
> 
> I grew up learning that church was where you made it and was about the people; it wasn't about a big building, and certainly not about how big of a production worship was. That's why I have a hitch about tithing to church to basically pay the bills and payroll for the staff because I don't see it as necessary or biblically called for.



I agree with you, we might return to the direct topic. I think everyone has a "hitch" today with what anything says, due to the spins from politics, from business, social institutions, media down to  what some say "the bible says"... not to mention that intelligence is going artificial .... It is like we live in a world that communicates on possible faux news about possible faux news, about possible faux issues of possible faux people, with possible faux understanding about the possible faux world and its possible faux pivots....

 I'm not sure what will make the "hitch" go away. Do we tithe to every house of cards or do we tithe to Melchizedek as Abraham did?

 Personally I read the bible saying it is good to tithe to Melchizedek even today. And as to amounts they are mostly between me and him-- prayed out from each other, from our truths, from our conversations.

What is wholesome bread today? How long do we keep it? Where do we go stale? ( Topics have a way of running away from me.... )


----------



## MudDucker

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Via translation in the interlinear scripture, by fulfill the literal meaning is they are complete, they have been satisfied. By His sacrifice we are no longer bound to live by those laws but ARE to respect them as to what their purpose was for.



You got it.  When Christ came to earth, the Church was controlled by a sect of Jews other than the tribe of Levi, unto whom the priesthood was assigned.  In hard times, the right of priesthood was sold and taken over by a wicked group.  Jesus rebuked the then Church and started his own, releasing believers from the rules made by those "priest" to control the people.

Giving is of the heart and not necessarily to the organized Church, but instead, in the furtherance of the ministry of Christ.


----------



## Israel




----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> me either gordon.  What I was trying to say is the entire church as to be sold on the mission. For one or two to attempt to reach a community, without the backing and support of others, creates a mess.  There has to be some organization behind the attempt, or it will be chaos.  My experience is that it is easy to get leadership to say go pick up the kids.  It is a whole nother thing for them to commit the $ and volunteer the time to truly disciple those children.  We have become to comfortable in the American church. We can't be bothered with witnessing,  and helping to disciple others. Even the small children are to much of a bother to us.  God will hold us accountable for our "its someone elses job" mentality.




 I agree with you,  and while I point to this one situation that I was not involved in,  there's others I could point to and only say,  "oh me". 

 I picture the Pharisee as being a comfortable group.  They had prestige,  power,  and wealth. What they didn't keep for themselves they gave to Caesar,  as a trade off of sorts. 

Jesus came along and threatened their comfort zone... Much as the man I know.  He came along and threatened the comfort zone of many members and the leaders of the church.. He was about God's business,  they were about the churches business.  Shouldn't they be one in the same?  I guess that depends on who the head of that individual church is.


----------



## centerpin fan

grizzlyblake said:


> That's why I have a hitch about tithing to church to basically pay the bills and payroll for the staff because I don't see it as necessary or biblically called for.



IMO, if you attend a church, you should at least give _something_.  The bills gotta get paid, and the staff have families to feed, too.  

The 80/20 rule (Pareto Principle) works for the church, too.  That is, about 80% of church revenue comes from about 20% of the people.  (Often, the split is more like 90/10.)  If everybody pitched in, it would be much easier on local churches.


----------



## gordon 2

centerpin fan said:


> IMO, if you attend a church, you should at least give _something_.  The bills gotta get paid, and the staff have families to feed, too.
> 
> The 80/20 rule (Pareto Principle) works for the church, too.  That is, about 80% of church revenue comes from about 20% of the people.  (Often, the split is more like 90/10.)  If everybody pitched in, it would be much easier on local churches.



Interesting. I never looked at it this way.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> This is not responsive to the detailed points in my post.
> 
> 
> No; I have shown/proven what Christ clearly said He came to do and did; and you have failed to bring forth anything, other than your statement, to show He came to do or did otherwise.



Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.


Jesus clearly says,  He came to fulfill the law.. I showed strongs definition of fulfil and how it equates with my previous statement that the law is no more.  It's a very simple text,  but maybe you are struggling with this one because of what it implies? 

Matt. 5:18 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.

Heaven and Earth must pass away first, but a true study of the meaning of" heaven and earth ", will show,  this is not the literal heaven and earth.


----------



## hummerpoo

Hobbs,
If you ever decide to address what I have said, please send me a PM so that I don't miss it.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Hobbs,
> If you ever decide to address what I have said, please send me a PM so that I don't miss it.


 
As soon as I can figure out what I have not addressed,  I will be sure to let you know.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> As soon as I can figure out what I have not addressed,  I will be sure to let you know.



Maybe this will help.
First we need to recognize that the Reader’s Digest version of Strong’s definition (if that’s what you posted; I found it on Biblehub but I don’t know where they got it), is inadequate for the job — see my post. (same for the condensed NAS).




hobbs27 said:


> I showed strongs definition of fulfil and how it equates with my previous statement that the law is no more.



Yes you posted, but gave no indication why you posted it.

The problem here is that the definition of Ï€Î»Î·Ï�Ï‰ÏƒÎ±Î¹(G4137), fulfill, is the wrong word — read my post.  “Is no more” is as foreign to Ï€Î»Î·Ï�Ï‰ÏƒÎ±Î¹(G4137), fulfill, as chocolate chip cookie is to horse dung.  However, “Is no more” is an adequate expression of ÎºÎ±Ï„Î±Î»Ï…ÏƒÎ±Î¹(Strong’s G2647), abolish,—see my post— which, as we know, Christ clearly stated He did not come to do.(See “show, not suggest” 2 locations in my post)  

Going back to Ï€Î»Î·Ï�Ï‰ÏƒÎ±Î¹(G4137), fulfill; beyond what it means to fulfill something, it appears that you may be drawing from the use of complete in the definition.  When I fill a glass of milk to within 3/8” of the top, the glass is fully filled —from the definition you posted: “…properly, fill to individual capacity, to the extent it is “meet” (appropriate)”—,the job I set out to do is complete; neither the milk nor the glass goes away as the result of my having completed the job which I set out to do, rather, it is now in its optimal useful condition.  If I set out to make a batch of my oatmeal molasses cookies, they do not become “no more” when they come out of the oven (that happens a little later), rather they are in their best condition for their intended purpose.

When Jesus fulfilled the Law He topped off the glass, He baked the cookies.  When the milk was in the cow, and the cookies were individual components sitting on the counter, the milk and cookies were there; when the milk was in the refrigerator, and the cookie components had been portioned and mixed in the bowl they were indeed milk and cookies.  At all three stages the nutritional value was available to sustain the body.  The Law, as it is expressed in Eternal law, the law of Moses, and the Law of Christ each have the capacity to give eternal life.  But it is only understood in steps, and each step must be completed before the next is taken, and the components of each step are maintained in the next. A cow, oats, etc. do not explain a glass of milk and jar of cookies, but if you see the cow milked and the cookie components mixed, understanding is there, but still somewhat fuzzy.  You can live if you have a gallon of milk and cookie dough.

Christ poured the milk and baked the cookies, but nothing went away and nothing can go away; just as nothing was taken away when He explained fulfilled Law immediately after He said He came to fulfill it.

Please read #162 carefully before responding.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

The Rabbinical Law had requirements of fulfillment in order to satisfy the regulations of man. 

The Mosaic Law has boundaries to stay in good favor in the eyes of God.

Given the requirements of the Rabbinical Law, Jesus fulfilled those for all. Now I eat shrimp and enjoy it very much, and no longer have to offer a living sacrifice to God, because Jesus made it so.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Maybe this will help.
> First we need to recognize that the Reader’s Digest version of Strong’s definition (if that’s what you posted; I found it on Biblehub but I don’t know where they got it), is inadequate for the job — see my post. (same for the condensed NAS).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you posted, but gave no indication why you posted it.
> 
> The problem here is that the definition of πληρωσαι(G4137), fulfill, is the wrong word — read my post.  “Is no more” is as foreign to πληρωσαι(G4137), fulfill, as chocolate chip cookie is to horse dung.  However, “Is no more” is an adequate expression of καταλυσαι(Strong’s G2647), abolish,—see my post— which, as we know, Christ clearly stated He did not come to do.(See “show, not suggest” 2 locations in my post)
> 
> Going back to πληρωσαι(G4137), fulfill; beyond what it means to fulfill something, it appears that you may be drawing from the use of complete in the definition.  When I fill a glass of milk to within 3/8” of the top, the glass is fully filled —from the definition you posted: “…properly, fill to individual capacity, to the extent it is “meet” (appropriate)”—,the job I set out to do is complete; neither the milk nor the glass goes away as the result of my having completed the job which I set out to do, rather, it is now in its optimal useful condition.  If I set out to make a batch of my oatmeal molasses cookies, they do not become “no more” when they come out of the oven (that happens a little later), rather they are in their best condition for their intended purpose.
> 
> When Jesus fulfilled the Law He topped off the glass, He baked the cookies.  When the milk was in the cow, and the cookies were individual components sitting on the counter, the milk and cookies were there; when the milk was in the refrigerator, and the cookie components had been portioned and mixed in the bowl they were indeed milk and cookies.  At all three stages the nutritional value was available to sustain the body.  The Law, as it is expressed in Eternal law, the law of Moses, and the Law of Christ each have the capacity to give eternal life.  But it is only understood in steps, and each step must be completed before the next is taken, and the components of each step are maintained in the next. A cow, oats, etc. do not explain a glass of milk and jar of cookies, but if you see the cow milked and the cookie components mixed, understanding is there, but still somewhat fuzzy.  You can live if you have a gallon of milk and cookie dough.
> 
> Christ poured the milk and baked the cookies, but nothing went away and nothing can go away; just as nothing was taken away when He explained fulfilled Law immediately after He said He came to fulfill it.
> 
> Please read #162 carefully before responding.



When Christ fulfilled the Law it became no more because it had served its purpose. 

The Law being the old testament Hebrew scriptures,  and all the prophets.  If we look back to old testament prophecy all of its fulfillment is in Jesus Christ... It is finished.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

hobbs27 said:


> When Christ fulfilled the Law it became no more because it had served its purpose.
> 
> The Law being the the old testament Hebrew scriptures,  and all the prophets.  If we look back to old testament prophecy all of its fulfillment is in Jesus Christ... It is finished.



I agree with you, while mildly disagreeing. Allow me to explain. To start with, finished is a subjective term in that our free will allows us to ignore many of the regs and rules in the old Hebrew law that kept us safe and healthy. 

For instance, what to eat. Most of the laws of the Hebrews were, and many still are (for them) put in place as guidelines for healthy living. Were we to still follow them we might be healthier for doing that. They were common sense laws from observance over eons of knowing what is good for you and what is not. They didn't have cholesterol testing, diabetes strips, blood pressure cuffs or modern science, but they did have the power of observation and good common sense. 

Most of the moral laws were put in place merely to reinforce the Mosaic Law, and were common sense, but carried a penalty that may be more harsh than we are willing to sacrifice now days, as I'm sure most people back then were the same. 

Both laws combined required a sacrifice of sorts for absolution from our infractions. Those sacrifices and punishments are absolved under the crucifixion of Christ. He bore those punishments for all mankind. He was / IS the final sacrificial Lamb of God, to atone for all of our sins. What we are left with is to only ask Him for forgiveness, but are still under the requirement to live a healthy, sin free lifestyle. But God, knowing that man cannot live sin free gave us, through Mercy and Grace, his very own son to pay for those sins. 

It is impossible to cling to the Rabbinical Laws and all of their punishments and claim to be a follower of Jesus. The laws of the Old Testament were laws of persecution. The laws of the New Testament are laws of conviction and prosecution. We still have to answer to man, just as to Caesar, for what we owe for our crimes on another man, but regardless of that penalty, we have the sacrifice and forgiveness of Jesus available to us as believers that free our souls for all eternity. 

Even the thief on the cross, under Rabbinical Law, was given eternal life by Jesus at the time of his death. It was done, it was finished / completed / fulfilled at that very moment in time and for all time moving forward until He returns. 

To say otherwise is to live a dichotomous life that will only torture ones soul.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> When Christ fulfilled the Law it became no more because it had served its purpose.
> 
> The Law being the the old testament Hebrew scriptures,  and all the prophets.  If we look back to old testament prophecy all of its fulfillment is in Jesus Christ... It is finished.



And once again you have nothing but >>>unsubstantiated<<< Preterist male bovine defecation.  It really stinks more than that, but you have fun with it.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

hummerpoo said:


> And once again you have nothing but >>>unsubstantiated<<< Preterist male bovine defecation.  It really stinks more than that, but you have fun with it.



Do you believe in God?


----------



## hummerpoo

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Do you believe in God?



I believe in Christ and I understand "speak the truth in love", and the man I just spoke to is in my prayers, and I hope yours.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

hummerpoo said:


> And once again you have nothing but >>>unsubstantiated<<< Preterist male bovine defecation.  It really stinks more than that, but you have fun with it.





hummerpoo said:


> I believe in Christ and I understand "speak the truth in love", and the man I just spoke to is in my prayers, and I hope yours.



Pray as I may and do for others, I strive more to find common ground among all faiths and beliefs, or non-beliefs as it may be in order for His light to shine through me. 

So often words fail us and our intent.


----------



## hummerpoo

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Pray as I may and do for others, I strive more to find common ground among all faiths and beliefs, or non-beliefs as it may be in order for His light to shine through me.
> 
> So often words fail us and our intent.



I am less than a water boy in their ball game, but Christ used a whip and Paul threatened emasculation with love.  God alone knows if my attempt was effective, but He will be glorified in either case.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

hummerpoo said:


> I am less than a water boy in their ball game, but Christ used a whip and Paul threatened emasculation with love.  God alone knows if my attempt was effective, but He will be glorified in either case.



Both Jesus (Eshu) and Paul were speaking in context to the people of their day, under their conditions. 

Given the societal extremes of our time I would think it would behoove us to be extreme in the opposite direction in order to achieve more of what we were commanded. 

I could be wrong, but the older I get, the more patience and wisdom I am granted. Time will tell, His, not mine.


----------



## hummerpoo

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Both Jesus (Eshu) and Paul were speaking in context to the people of their day, under their conditions.
> 
> Given the societal extremes of our time I would think it would behoove us to be extreme in the opposite direction in order to achieve more of what we were commanded.
> 
> I could be wrong, but the older I get, the more patience and wisdom I am granted. Time will tell, His, not mine.



Sometimes we must shake off the dust, sometimes we must dig in our heals; we must always be prepared to give an account, and always we must pray.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

hummerpoo said:


> Sometimes we must shake off the dust, sometimes we must dig in our heals; we must always be prepared to give an account, and always we must pray.



It is "giving an account" that is ever present in the back of my mind. Will Jesus ask me; "how many did you bludgeon into being a Christian, or a better Christian?" or will he merely state; "Well done my child?".

His life, and the manner in which he lived it is not attainable by us, but that does not mean we stop trying. The manner in which he delivered His message is attainable.


----------



## hummerpoo

Miguel Cervantes said:


> It is "giving an account" that is ever present in the back of my mind. Will Jesus ask me; "how many did you bludgeon into being a Christian, or a better Christian?" or will he merely state; "Well done my child?".



"giving an account" is always near the front of my mind.



> His life, and the manner in which he lived it is not attainable by us, but that does not mean we stop trying. The manner in which he delivered His message is attainable.



"brood of vipers"?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

hummerpoo said:


> "brood of vipers"?



You choose your path. I'll choose mine. 

I do not joust with Pharisees. Windmills are sufficient for me.


----------



## hummerpoo

Miguel Cervantes said:


> You choose your path. I'll choose mine.
> 
> I do not joust with Pharisees. Windmills are sufficient for me.



May your path lead to glory in Christ.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> And once again you have nothing but >>>unsubstantiated<<< Preterist male bovine defecation.  It really stinks more than that, but you have fun with it.



Your blindness does not equal unsubstantiated.  We are to feast on the word,  so go chew on this a while and see if you are mature enough to handle the meat... I will pray God opens your eyes. 

Like 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled


----------



## hummerpoo

Notwithstanding that I can always be wrong, I don't foresee a beneficial end at this time.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

I read this today and have thought of it several times today.

How does it fit with this conversation

Romans 14.12-13

12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> I read this today and have thought of it several times today.
> 
> How does it fit with this conversation
> 
> Romans 14.12-13
> 
> 12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.



Yes. 
 I think we all reach a Berean moment in our Christianity.. If not,  we should.  Maybe what we have been taught is not so.. Maybe it is... But search the scriptures to examine.  Be Berean minded. 

Acts 17:10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed,


----------



## NE GA Pappy

none is so blind as he who will not see


----------



## NE GA Pappy

I have been thinking also, which of the other laws went away at Jesus death, since they are all fulfilled?


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> I have been thinking also, which of the other laws went away at Jesus death, since they are all fulfilled?



 It is an all or none text.  Either all is fulfilled or none is.  

 Matthew 5:18 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.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> It is an all or none text.  Either all is fulfilled or none is.
> 
> Matthew 5:18 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.



The law has not gone away. It is the standard by which sin is measured. Sin is still being measured by it today.  The thing that is very much different is that Jesus satisfied the law's condemnation over our sins, at the cross.  God's law is eternal(Psalm 119).


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> The law has not gone away. It is the standard by which sin is measured. Sin is still being measured by it today.  The thing that is very much different is that Jesus satisfied the law's condemnation over our sins, at the cross.  God's law is eternal(Psalm 119).



 Then you don't think Jesus accomplished what He said He came to do... Fulfil the law?  Evey jot and tittle?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> Then you don't think Jesus accomplished what He said He came to do... Fulfil the law?  Evey jot and tittle?



yes, He fulfilled the law, every bit of it,but He didn't destroy it, or do away with it.  Again and again, it has been stated that the law is the yardstick against which we are measured.  It was not destroyed, done away with, or abandoned. It is still there, pointing the way to right living, and condemning us because we can't make the standard.

For some reason you think fulfilled means destroyed.   it doesn't.  

Which of the 10 commandants has been destroyed because of Jesus death?

Can we now murder without punishment?  Steal?  Can we worship other gods without heaping condemnation on our heads?  No.  Jesus said he didn't come to destroy that law. The law still stands. Jesus came to make a pathway back to God when we couldn't measure up to the standard. (read as the law)

Some want think they can live as they please, that there is no punishment coming, and that they won't have to answer for their sins.  But God is the same. He will cull the goats from the sheep, and the culling pen He uses will be the law.  Our only hope, our only salvation is the sacrifice that Jesus completed for us.

The law was not destroyed, but the penalty for disobeying the law has been paid by the perfect sacrifice.  That is what is meant by fulfilling the law. He was the sacrifice demanded as payment of the sins we have committed.  The penalty is paid.


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> yes, He fulfilled the law, every bit of it,but He didn't destroy it, or do away with it.  Again and again, it has been stated that the law is the yardstick against which we are measured.  It was destroyed, done away with, or abandoned. It is still there, pointing the way to right living, and condemning us because we can't make the standard.
> 
> For some reason you think fulfilled means destroyed.   it doesn't.
> 
> Which of the 10 commandants has been destroyed because of Jesus death?
> 
> Can we now murder without punishment?  Steal?  Can we worship other gods without heaping condemnation on our heads?  No.  Jesus said he didn't come to destroy that law. The law still stands. Jesus came to make a pathway back to God when we couldn't measure up to the standard. (read as the law)
> 
> Some want think they can live as they please, that there is no punishment coming, and that they won't have to answer for their sins.  But God is the same. He will cull the goats from the sheep, and the culling pen He uses will be the law.  Our only hope, our only salvation is the sacrifice that Jesus completed for us.
> 
> The law was not destroyed, but the penalty for disobeying the law has been paid by the perfect sacrifice.  That is what is meant by fulfilling the law. He was the sacrifice demanded as payment of the sins we have committed.  The penalty is paid.



I have not said the Law was destroyed, but it does not exist today... Not because it is destroyed, but because  Christ fulfilled it. 

 The Law condemned man for sin. 
Christ forgives man for sin.. Understand? 

 As for the ten commandments.. Do you violate the fourth or are you a Sabbath worshipper?  The rest are moral laws and any man knows that violation of those are not representative of Christ... Therefore we do not violate them out of love for our brethren... There's even more than those nine,  but they aren't law as a written commandment. 

Man is no longer under the law.. The Law is no more..  Christ has fulfilled it and it's purpose. We need no measuring stick for sin.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Then you don't think Jesus accomplished what He said He came to do... Fulfil the law?  Evey jot and tittle?



Hobbs, please read this very carefully, and especially verse 31.



Romans 3:28-31

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Hobbs, please read this very carefully, and especially verse 31.
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 3:28-31
> 
> 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
> 
> 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
> 
> 30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
> 
> 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.



 I understand those verses well.  Has Jesus fulfilled the Law... Every jot and tittle?


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> I understand those verses well.  Has Jesus fulfilled the Law... Every jot and tittle?



Yes He has. But somehow I think you are interpreting the fulfilling wrong.

He fulfilled the requirements of the law, for His people, because we could not.
The law still stands, but stands satisfied now.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> Man is no longer under the law.. The Law is no more..  Christ has fulfilled it and it's purpose. We need no measuring stick for sin.



Yes, the law still exist. If we don't need the law to tell us where we fall short, then how do we know what sin really is?

Just because the law has  been fulfilled ( law = death, Death = defeated in Christ) doesn't mean it still doesn't exist.  The law says the penalty of sin is death, and that was fulfilled by Christ's perfect sacrifice. 

Or what do you think fulfillment of the law means?


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Yes He has. But somehow I think you are interpreting the fulfilling wrong.
> 
> He fulfilled the requirements of the law, for His people, because we could not.
> The law still stands, but stands satisfied now.




 So,  now we are in agreement the Law is fulfilled,  we just aren't seeing eye to eye on the definition of fulfillment. 

Can you tell me what is meant by heaven and earth passing.... Since the Law is fulfilled,  heaven and earth had to pass.  If we come to agreement on this meaning,  we'll be closer to agreement on the other. 

Matthew 5:18 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> So,  now we are in agreement the Law is fulfilled,  we just aren't seeing eye to eye on the definition of fulfillment.
> 
> Can you tell me what is meant by heaven and earth passing.... Since the Law is fulfilled,  heaven and earth had to pass.  If we come to agreement on this meaning,  we'll be closer to agreement on the other.
> 
> Matthew 5:18 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled



Because of what Paul explains later in Rom.3, well after Jesus' Matt.5:18 quote, we must conclude that the "til all is fulfilled" is not referring to the law, but rather, til all things collectively are fulfilled. As in, the literal destruction of the physical heavens and earth, which has not taken place yet.

There's no other way to interpret the two texts without contradiction, as I see it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Maybe Jesus became the penalty of the Law;

Galatians 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole."


----------



## Artfuldodger

Somehow related is that this curse had to be removed from those under the Law  so that the blessing promised to Abraham would come to the Gentiles as well;

Galatians 3:14
He redeemed us so that the blessing promised to Abraham would come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Galatians 4:4-5
But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 to redeem those under the Law, that we might receive our adoption as sons. 

Romans 10:4
Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 7 explains it pretty good. A man is under the Law until he dies. Unless the Law dies first. When Jesus died, the power of the Law died for those who died with Christ. 

In the marriage analogy, you were married to the Law. The only way out was for the Law to die so that you could marry another, which was Christ.

Again the power of the Law died with Christ.


----------



## hummerpoo

> Mat. 5:
> 21 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery he!! 23 Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. 25 Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.


The sixth commandment of the Decalogue was not abolished, demolished, destroyed, dissolved, overthrown, or thrown down; it did not come to naught or become “no more”. 


> From G2596 and G3089; to loosen down (disintegrate), that is, (by implication) to demolish (literally or figuratively); specifically (compare G2646) to halt for the night: - destroy, dissolve, be guest, lodge, come to naught, overthrow, throw down.


The sixth commandment of the Decalogue was made replete, it was crammed full, and made level full, its revelation and its application are satisfied and finished; it is now complete, its end (goal) has been revealed, the time of its expiration has been established, it has been fully preached, all that is needed by God’s People has been supplied in the perfected (completed) form.  In short, it was fulfilled.


> From G4134; to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.: - accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.


----------



## Israel

as to zeal, persecuting the church; as to righteousness under the Law, faultless

One could ask "What did that man see that made that thing in purple as so very meaningless to himself?"

Like you all, perhaps, I have struggled to understand his words. Wrestled with them, as another brother had put it. With this I have certainly wrestled in my mind as to God's purpose in having any man (if I be "any man") understand:

The Law, however, is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The one who does these things will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” 

I have listened to men explain that, tried to explain that...to myself. Sought in any way to make a sense of that, that made any sense, at all. It has, no doubt, fueled a thousand ascents to a thousand different pulpits, perhaps tens of thousands, or millions.
But I never heard this, never saw this in conclusion, in all the sermons, explanations, opportunities men have made to put on whatever suit fits them for ascent to podiums and pulpits. Robes, cloaks, tattered jeans or shirts and ties. Each wise enough to teach. Or told so, by something, somewhere...or someone. But only One has ever told me to look and keep looking, search and keep searching...find the man in agreement with me, even as I am in agreement with God, our Father.

So, to the law, as my brother Paul referred, to the law in which it is written,"cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree".

And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is to be put to death, and you hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God; ) that your land be not defiled, which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance.
Deut 21:22-23

(To me)There is only one place in which the law's power to condemn is disanulled, only one man in which it is. I am convinced it is to the man who knows he is guilty of every transgression against it. 

"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness...so must the son of man be lifted up..." Till then the law must hold its place, does hold its place, will hold its place for "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."


Guilty before God. Who then is trying to prove their innocence? What then is striving to prove its innocence?

I find only one man in a place prepared and reserved to him, alone. I find only one man promised of a thing for "today". I find only one man who sees what none other confesses "in truth" and then hears a thing in promise. The law has finished its work in this man and brought him to the place of none of his own choosing to find all that has been chosen for him. This man does not condemn the world for its "work" upon him, but his sight does. He alone is the man who agrees with God, seeing Christ. He is the man admitting to being the serpent, lifted.

"We are punished justly, because we're getting back what we deserve for the things we did, but this man has done nothing wrong."

Only one man receives the promise of "today".

And all law invites to only one place. And the diligent "making show" of removing the body from the tree can never undo the conspiracy of lie that put it there. For only to the one hanging is this shown. Only to the one hanging, can it be. In perfect justice only, a perfect friend is shown. And only in this sight lies all the world condemned. "This man has done nothing wrong".


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Because of what Paul explains later in Rom.3, well after Jesus' Matt.5:18 quote, we must conclude that the "til all is fulfilled" is not referring to the law, but rather, til all things collectively are fulfilled. As in, the literal destruction of the physical heavens and earth, which has not taken place yet.
> 
> There's no other way to interpret the two texts without contradiction, as I see it.



 That is a contradiction in itself.  First you agreed that Jesus has fulfilled the Law.... But Jesus said not a jot or tittle would in no wise pass until all is fulfilled. 

 So either the entire law was fulfilled or none of it... You can't make this text work in any other way,  besides,  there is no literal destruction of the world foretold in the Bible.. Not even in Peter. 

The heaven and earth that has passed was not the literal heaven and earth.  The heaven and earth that passed was the old covenant order.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> The sixth commandment of the Decalogue was not abolished, demolished, destroyed, dissolved, overthrown, or thrown down; it did not come to naught or become “no more”.
> The sixth commandment of the Decalogue was made replete, it was crammed full, and made level full, its revelation and its application are satisfied and finished; it is now complete, its end (goal) has been revealed, the time of its expiration has been established, it has been fully preached, all that is needed by God’s People has been supplied in the perfected (completed) form.  In short, it was fulfilled.



 To say murder is only a sin because it is written in the Law is to deny murder a sin before Moses law. 

 Sin entered the world before the law,  therefore the Law can be  No More,  just as it was Not Yet in Cain's day... And Cain sinned by killing Abel.

If we murder today it is sin,  but not because of the sixth commandment.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> To say murder is only a sin because it is written in the Law is to deny murder a sin before Moses law.
> 
> Sin entered the world before the law,  therefore the Law can be  No More,  just as it was Not Yet in Cain's day... And Cain sinned by killing Abel.
> 
> If we murder today it is sin,  but not because of the sixth commandment.



Did Jesus say that?  I certainly didn't.
Oh, that's right, you have to have a straw man.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Did Jesus say that?  I certainly didn't.
> Oh, that's right, you have to have a straw man.



No.. I don't need a straw man. So we can get it from your words, was murder a sin before the sixth commandment?  Can murder be a sin today if the sixth commandment is no more?


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> No.. I don't need a straw man. So we can get it from your words, was murder a sin before the sixth commandment?  Can murder be a sin today if the sixth commandment is no more?



Here we go off on another tangent, no thanks.

Don't worry though, you have plenty of company.  I recently read, what could be characterized as an academic essay of +/- 2500 words, in which the author cited many, many sources (as academics feel they must do to show that they have done due diligence in their research).  Trouble is, he never once responded to what the source had said; instead, responding to what he said the source had said.


----------



## hobbs27

Romans 13: 8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NE GA Pappy said:


> Yes, the law still exist. If we don't need the law to tell us where we fall short, then how do we know what sin really is?
> 
> Just because the law has  been fulfilled ( law = death, Death = defeated in Christ) doesn't mean it still doesn't exist.  The law says the penalty of sin is death, and that was fulfilled by Christ's perfect sacrifice.
> 
> Or what do you think fulfillment of the law means?



This oughtabe an interesting answer.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

This is appropriate.  Courtesy Bab Bee
http://babylonbee.com/news/frustrated-churchgoer-to-stop-tipping-unless-service-improves/


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> Romans 13: 8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.





> Situationist antinomianism says that a motive and intention of love is all that God now requires of Christians, and the commands of the Decalogue and other ethical parts of Scripture, for all that they are ascribed to God directly, are mere rules of thumb for loving, rules that love may at any time disregard. But Romans 13:8-10, to which this view appeals, teaches that without love as a motive these specific commands cannot be fulfilled. Once more an unacceptably weak view of Scripture surfaces.



Just a reminder of a previous suggestion (post #162).
http://www.geocities.ws/gary_bee_za/packer/antinomianism.htm


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Just a reminder of a previous suggestion (post #162).
> http://www.geocities.ws/gary_bee_za/packer/antinomianism.htm



 Yeah... You can keep trying but you are not going to nail that false claim on me.  As I pointed out previously. Cain sinned in murder without the Decalogue ....We can sin in murder today without the Decalogue. 

Also.. The Law was not fulfilled at the time Roman's was written.. 
While believers in Christ could fulfill the law in law,  and were made free from the bondage of Law,  Israelites that rejected Christ were still under the law,  until all was fulfilled.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> Yeah... You can keep trying but you are not going to nail that false claim on me.


Which I could never do.  I do, however, hope that you would look seriously at the question.
What concerns me here is what you purport to declare, or teach, to others.



> As I pointed out previously. Cain sinned in murder without the Decalogue ....We can sin in murder today without the Decalogue.



Which ignores that God's Law is "spiritual"/eternal (Rm. 7).



> Also.. The Law was not fulfilled at the time Roman's was written..


Again, Preterist talking point.



> While believers in Christ could fulfill the law in law,  and were made free from the bondage of Law,  Israelites that rejected Christ were still under the law,  until all was fulfilled.


Which is grounded upon the assumed correctness of Pharisaical doctrine, not Scripture.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Which ignores that God's Law is "spiritual"/eternal (Rm. 7).



Considering your view of how everything is out of the time sequence with God, do you view the Law being eternal just as you view the work on the Cross as being eternal?

Therefore every man, Jew or Gentile, during any age, has been/is under the Law of Moses which is God's Law.

What is your summation of what Jesus did to this eternal and always existing Law?  If the salvation has always existed and the Law has always existed, I'm back to the confusing element of time.(in my mind)

So the Law has always existed and the salvation from it's penalty has always existed.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Artfuldodger said:


> Somehow related is that this curse had to be removed from those under the Law  so that the blessing promised to Abraham would come to the Gentiles as well;
> 
> Galatians 3:14
> He redeemed us so that the blessing promised to Abraham would come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
> 
> Galatians 4:4-5
> But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 to redeem those under the Law, that we might receive our adoption as sons.
> 
> Romans 10:4
> Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.



Yes but the Law and the Cross have always existed. Christ redeemed the Gentiles from the Cross before he died on the cross. The promise to Abraham that would come to the Gentiles came even before the Cross.

The Gentiles and the Jews have, and always will, be under the Law because the Law is eternal, yet so was the Cross so it matters not if you believe. 

The Law was given to show us that we needed salvation in the form of the Cross which was here all along to save us from the Law which existed to show us the way to the Cross.

Paul just came along to let all of us Gentiles know that we had always been under the Law and had always been able to receive salvation from this eternal Law.

I think I'm beginning to understand the "Reformed" view a little better. I'd place it right along with the Preterist view in straightening the line.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Ephesians 2:12-13 
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

Romans 11:11
Did God's people stumble and fall beyond recovery? Of course not! They were disobedient, so God made salvation available to the Gentiles. But he wanted his own people to become jealous and claim it for themselves.

Yet the Law and the work of the Cross has always existed for Gentiles. Paul was having a little trouble conveying this message in his letters.

Israel the nation was chosen to show us that God had always chosen those of faith. Somehow though Romans 11 tells us otherwise. Anyway God chooses by Grace through election.

God also wants to make the nation of Israel jealous by giving salvation to the Gentiles although he already had since day 1.

Acts 28:28
"Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

Romans 11:14
in the hope that I may provoke my own people to jealousy and save some of them.

Come on Paul, we know who God's people are.


----------



## hummerpoo

I will apologize in advance for cutting up you post; but I'm a little dubious of some of the implications, and too lazy to provide all the nuance necessary to make me comfortable.



Artfuldodger said:


> Therefore every man, Jew or Gentile, during any age, has been/is under the Law of Moses which is God's Law.


How about: Every man, Jew or Gentile, during any age, has been/is/will be under God's Law, which is revealed through Moses.




> What is your summation of what Jesus did to this eternal and always existing Law?


He fulfilled it.  A really short definition of fulfilled might be: revealed it in its full potentiality.  (See the seven examples in Mat. 5.)



> So the Law has always existed and the salvation from it's penalty has always existed.


Simple answer: Yes.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Ephesians 2:12-13
> remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
> 
> Romans 11:11
> Did God's people stumble and fall beyond recovery? Of course not! They were disobedient, so God made salvation available to the Gentiles. But he wanted his own people to become jealous and claim it for themselves.



Doesn't this speak to God's means of revelation and providence?



> Acts 28:28
> "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"
> 
> Romans 11:14
> in the hope that I may provoke my own people to jealousy and save some of them.
> 
> Come on Paul, we know who God's people are.



If you mean those individuals whom God has redeem, I think Paul would be quite surprised by your revelation.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> I will apologize in advance for cutting up you post; but I'm a little dubious of some of the implications, and too lazy to provide all the nuance necessary to make me comfortable.
> 
> How about: Every man, Jew or Gentile, during any age, has been/is/will be under God's Law, which is revealed through Moses.
> 
> He fulfilled it.  A really short definition of fulfilled might be: revealed it in its full potentiality.  (See the seven examples in Mat. 5.)
> 
> Simple answer: Yes.



OK, I did go off on a bit of tangent, perhaps it's somewhat related, perhaps it wasn't.

I do get the view that nothing with God changes and therefore  the Law and salvation have always been.

I'm still having trouble seeing your view of Christ fulfilling the Law. Christ "revealed it in its full potentiality?"
I read Matthew 5 and it didn't explain the fulfilling as a revealing. It really didn't explain it at all. 

Now back to the way you see this fulfilling. Since the Law has always existed and the work of the Cross has always existed, the fulfilling was more or less a revealing of the Law's full potential?

The confusing part to me about Christianity is that I thought the whole purpose of Christ dying on a Cross was because I could never keep the Law. Now you are saying he died on a Cross to reveal the full potential of the Law?

I must be reading you wrong. What am I missing about Christianity and Christ dying on a Cross for my inability to not keep Law?

If the Law is eternal and everyone has always had to keep it, then what was Christ's purpose to die on a cross? 
Hopefully to at least pay my penalty for my inability to keep Law.

There has to be something big and great about why Jesus came to earth and died on a cross. Even if it's purpose is out of time. I'm not too concern with the timing as I am it's purpose. 

Somehow Christ fulfilled the Law. I think I might have to look elsewhere than Matthew 5.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

SemperFiDawg said:


> This oughtabe an interesting answer.



I thought so too, but my questions are not answered very often, so I go on wondering what the answer would be.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Now saying what I just said, I will admit Matthew is confusing for someone like me who believes Jesus died for my inability to keep Law.

Matthew 5:19-20
So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:48
But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.

I'm gonna need some help on this one from the grace only group.


----------



## Artfuldodger

John 15:10
"If you love me, keep my commands.

John 15:10
If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commands and remain in his love.

First, why did Jesus have different commandments than his Father?

Second, why did he die on a Cross for me knowing full well that I'm not capable of keeping his commandments?

I thought it was either grace or legalism, now it is beginning to look confusing again. Help, I don't want to board the Religious Roller coaster again!

It's free grace or lordship salvation re-visited.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Acts 15:10-17
Now then, why do you test God by placing on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe it is through the grace of the Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” 12 The whole assembly fell silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul describing the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.13 When they had finished speaking, James declared, “Brothers, listen to me! 14 Simon has told us how God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people to be His own.15 The words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written: 16 ‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17  so that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear My name, says the Lord who does these things.

Something else I don't understand. This council? I can see why we don't understand but these men are writing the Word of God.
They are arguing over free grace vs lordship salvation for Gentiles. Why didn't they "see?" Like no great mass of folks had ever been adopted from the Gentile nation until "now" at the time of this council.

Then there is mention of God first visiting the Gentiles to take from them a people to be his own and  that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear My name. It's like before Paul, the Gentiles never saw the greatness of God or felt the salvation of the promise of the Cross.
I'm not saying it didn't exist to the Gentiles but if it did, wouldn't they have known and felt it? True a few individuals did but I'm talking the whole elect of the Gentiles which may be way more than the Jewish elect.

This council makes it seem like salvation to the Gentiles is some knew thing just revealed and that they don't understand how it is suppose to work. Thus the council to figure it all out. My point is that if salvation has always been for the Gentiles, why the confusion and thus a need for a council?

This even though the elect has always been the Elect. Salvation has always existed to every single elected soul in the whole wide world. Even folks who have never heard the gospel message. From day 1 even. The South Pacific Islands even.

Did the council not get the memo?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Art, are you familiar with the rabbinical teaching about the giving of the law?

They say the rumbling and thunders that were heard from the mountian was actually God proclaiming his law in every language, and that it was heard around the entire world at that proclamation.

Really interesting.


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> Art, are you familiar with the rabbinical teaching about the giving of the law?
> 
> They say the rumbling and thunders that were heard from the mountian was actually God proclaiming his law in every language, and that it was heard around the entire world at that proclamation.
> 
> Really interesting.



Was it retro-active so that every person heard it before it was given in every language? Was the salvation from not being able to keep this law also made available retro-active to every person in every language even before the act of salvation was given on the Cross?

If not then none of it seems to matter much to the people living before the Law was given or the salvation was offered.

I would think that if God was going to give his Law to every person in the whole world that he would also offer his salvation plan to every person in the world. I would also think that he would also give and offer his Law and his plan for salvation from it to every person who ever lived even if the events of giving the Law and salvation from it came later in time than when they lived.

The only way I can see this happening is either some form of universal salvation or some form of election by God himself. 

The Reformed way is to just remove "time" from the salvation equation. Makes it simpler that way. Makes people like me see God saving whomever he wants to based on grace and not the works of man reaching lost souls in a time before the Law and salvation existed.

The Law and salvation from it, existing even before it existed in "time."
Just like the Word has always existed even before it did in "time."

"Time" that nasty thing that some say gets in the way of salvation when actually it never has or can.


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> Art, are you familiar with the rabbinical teaching about the giving of the law?
> 
> They say the rumbling and thunders that were heard from the mountian was actually God proclaiming his law in every language, and that it was heard around the entire world at that proclamation.
> 
> Really interesting.



I'm not too familiar with many rabbinical teachings about anything. A few years ago we had a few members of Messianic Christian believers on the forum. 

I am interested in the connection to Israel as related to Romans 11 and the Gentiles being grafted in by the blinding of the Jews after a Remnant was elected.

I'm having trouble trying to separate Christianity from Israel as it relates to Romans 11. It's like we as Gentiles were grafted into the nation of Israel in some strange way instead of the Church becoming Israel.

Then there are some that say there never was a Israel connection. That it's always been about the elect who were neither Jew nor Gentile. 

Me, I see some type of connection or God would have never chosen Israel to either fail or prosper. God himself would have never made his plan so Jewish if he never intended it to be Jewish. He would have presented it neither Jewish nor Gentile from the get-go.
The whole Jewish lineage of Jesus would never have been presented as such. Jesus would have been ethnicity neutral.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Now you are saying he died on a Cross to reveal the full potential of the Law?


WHOA!!  Where did I say that?  I need to fix it.

We can get to the following after that is fixed:



> I read Matthew 5 and it didn't explain the fulfilling as a revealing. It really didn't explain it at all.



I must have done a really poor job with my #224.  Did Christ not reveal the full potential of "You shall not murder."



> Somehow Christ fulfilled the Law. I think I might have to look elsewhere than Matthew 5.


Why ... What do you think fulfill means?  How have I fallen short in #162, #189, and #224?


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Which I could never do.  I do, however, hope that you would look seriously at the question.
> What concerns me here is what you purport to declare, or teach, to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Which ignores that God's Law is "spiritual"/eternal (Rm. 7).
> 
> 
> Again, Preterist talking point.
> 
> 
> Which is grounded upon the assumed correctness of Pharisaical doctrine, not Scripture.




 Possibly a preterist talking point,  but a point proven in scripture.  To that day,  the Law was still there for the Jew that rejected Christ... But it was fading away v. 11

2Corinthians 3 6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.


----------



## hobbs27

2Corinthians 3:7 The old way,* with laws etched in stone, led to death, though it began with such glory that the people of Israel could not bear to look at Moses’ face. For his face shone with the glory of God, even though the brightness was already fading away. 8 Shouldn’t we expect far greater glory under the new way, now that the Holy Spirit is giving life? 9 If the old way, which brings condemnation, was glorious, how much more glorious is the new way, which makes us right with God! 10 In fact, that first glory was not glorious at all compared with the overwhelming glory of the new way. 11 So if the old way, which has been replaced, was glorious, how much more glorious is the new, which remains forever!

 Contrast of the two covenants.. The Old that brought death and had no life in it... IE no Salvation. 

The New that is a better covenant... Gives life!*


----------



## Artfuldodger

Yet there was salvation before the New way arrived, right? There was neither Jew nor Gentile even before Paul revealed that there was neither Jew nor Gentile, right?

Unless "time" is important which is what dispensations are, right?
Meaning things were a certain way before the cross, from the cross to 70AD, and then from 70AD until eternity?

Ephesians 2:12 
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

How do we explain this verse?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

Artfuldodger said:


> Yet there was salvation before the New way arrived, right?



Wrong.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Yet there was salvation before the New way arrived, right? There was neither Jew nor Gentile even before Paul revealed that there was neither Jew nor Gentile, right?
> 
> Unless "time" is important which is what dispensations are, right?
> Meaning things were a certain way before the cross, from the cross to 70AD, and then from 70AD until eternity?
> 
> Ephesians 2:12
> remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.
> 
> How do we explain this verse?



In my opinion it's more about covenants than dispensations. We can't avoid prophecies though.  A prophecy foretold was not yet,  a prophecy fulfilled is past,  so timing in that sense is an issue.  The Old Testament saints looked to Jesus coming and the new covenant  age when they would be raised to life.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> Also.. The Law was not fulfilled at the time Roman's was written..



HUH?  Man! The hits just keep on coming.   Don't bother. I don't want to know.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hummerpoo said:


> What concerns me here is what you purport to declare, or teach, to others.



Teach others?  Let's hope not.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has torn down the dividing wall of hostility. 15 by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace 16 and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility.

Ephesians 2:15-17
by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace 16and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility.  17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.

Ephesians makes it appear something changed about how salvation was presented to the Gentiles. By abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments. This event in time did something. It brought this Good News of peace to the Gentiles who were far away from him, and peace to the Jews who were near.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Yet another "time" event;

John 4:22-23
You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But a time is coming and has now come when the true  worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him.

John 5:24-26
Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment. Indeed, he has crossed over from death to life. 25Truly, truly, I tell you, the hour is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

Again it appears there was a time when there were people living places on the earth that had never heard. They did not know. But there was a time coming and has now come when even the dead would hear his voice. I'm asking, how was salvation given to those who never heard? Before this "revealing" in time that John is presenting?

Especially if the Law was eternal and salvation from this Law is also eternal. Especially if the whole world was under this Law from day 1.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> HUH?  Man! The hits just keep on coming.   Don't bother. I don't want to know.



It's scripture.  Do you believe the word of God is infallible?  I do. 

2Corinthians 3:
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.


----------



## welderguy

Let's peel back this law onion a little further.

Adam and Eve saw laws immediately after they ate the forbidden fruit. How else did they suddenly see their nakedness and shame? Their eyes were opened to it and it condemned them. They thought they could remedy it with fig leaves, but God showed them that it would take bloodshed to satisfy their need of covering.

My point is there has always been the law(the defining of good and evil), it just has not always been seen. It is eternal, with no beginning or end.
It just needed satisfying(fulfilled), by blood sacrifice.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Covenants instead of dispensation, OK but still they were presented in or as certain eras in time. We have certain eras where it appears the Law came before salvation from the Law.

I also see an era in time where it was more about the nation of Israel and another era in time where it appears to change to be about all Jews and grafted in Gentiles as well. I can read scripture about this difference of eras and I can read prophesy as well about these eras.

So does the prophesy about the coming era of salvation to the Gentiles and Judaism morphing into Christianity make it so at the time of the prophesy or when it actually happened in time?
Let's say we read in Isaiah that the chosen were always believing Jews and grafted in believing Gentiles. Do we read this as a coming prophesy or do we read it as the way it was at the time of prophesy? 

Can we take a prophesy out of the Old Testament, out of time, and make it happen before the event happened in time, such as the Cross?

Example;
Christ was the Lamb slain at the foundation of the world. The Word was with God. Do we look at this as a prophesy of the cross in an era to come or do we look at it out of time and Gentiles always being grafted in?

Only if we can take prophesy out of time can we say that the Law and salvation to every soul in the whole world has been available.

The  "satisfying(fulfilled), by blood" of the Law was an event that came later in time but Christ was actually slain at the foundation, right?
Or was this just a prophesy?


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> Yet there was salvation before the New way arrived, right?
> 
> Ephesians 2:12
> remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.
> 
> How do we explain this verse?



By this:

Colossians 1:21
21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled


Notice it was in THEIR MIND, not God's. He loved them before He created them.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> It's scripture.  Do you believe the word of God is infallible?  I do.



Isn't it odd when challenged you offer up the possiblility of the Word of God as fallible, before your interpretation of it (which is what everyone here is telling you).  Points out which you really believe is infallible, does it not.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Covenants instead of dispensation, OK but still they were presented in or as certain eras in time. We have certain eras where it appears the Law came before salvation from the Law.
> 
> I also see an era in time where it was more about the nation of Israel and another era in time where it appears to change to be about all Jews and grafted in Gentiles as well. I can read scripture about this difference of eras and I can read prophesy as well about these eras.
> 
> So does the prophesy about the coming era of salvation to the Gentiles and Judaism morphing into Christianity make it so at the time of the prophesy or when it actually happened in time?
> Let's say we read in Isaiah that the chosen were always believing Jews and grafted in believing Gentiles. Do we read this as a coming prophesy or do we read it as the way it was at the time of prophesy?
> 
> Can we take a prophesy out of the Old Testament, out of time, and make it happen before the event happened in time, such as the Cross?
> 
> Example;
> Christ was the Lamb slain at the foundation of the world. The Word was with God. Do we look at this as a prophesy of the cross in an era to come or do we look at it out of time and Gentiles always being grafted in?
> 
> Only if we can take prophesy out of time can we say that the Law and salvation to every soul in the whole world has been available.
> 
> The  "satisfying(fulfilled), by blood" of the Law was an event that came later in time but Christ was actually slain at the foundation, right?
> Or was this just a prophesy?




 Jesus was crucified at a predetermined time.  I don't know anyway that anyone can claim folks were saved by the Law.. I don't know anyway folks can say eternal life was granted before the lamb was sacrificed.  It's just not biblical.  Its a made up theory to promote predestination is my only guess.


----------



## hobbs27

SemperFiDawg said:


> Isn't it odd when challenged you offer up the Word of God as fallible, but not your interpretation of it (which is what everyone here is telling you).  Points out which you really believe is infallible, does it not.



What I notice is people are quick to anger and grab their pitchforks when I make a statement that doesn't fit their belief system... But then they don't want to discuss all the scriptures I use to back it up. 

you care to explain in a brotherly way how these verses do not support the Law existed in the first century to Jew's that rejected Christ? 


2Corinthians 3:
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hobbs27 said:


> What I notice is people are quick to anger and grab their pitchforks when I make a statement that doesn't fit their belief system... But then they don't want to discuss all the scriptures I use to back it up.



Oh. I don't see that at all.  What I see is a man who believes he can not be wrong, and a man who has built his own personal religion around his interpretation of eschatology.  Christ is secondary to you and your interpretation.  Every point you make in some way points back to your eschatology and and not Christ, and that is precisely why no one can reason with you.  You are the head of your religion and Scripture, the Church, etc. is subservient.  THAT is why no one (in your opion) can stand up to your interpretation of scripture.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> What I notice is people are quick to anger and grab their pitchforks when I make a statement that doesn't fit their belief system... But then they don't want to discuss all the scriptures I use to back it up.
> 
> you care to explain in a brotherly way how these verses do not support the Law existed in the first century to Jew's that rejected Christ?
> 
> 
> 2Corinthians 3:
> 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
> 
> 16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.



Because the subject, "in context", is not the Law, but the glory ascribed to the Law, which was going away because it was out-shown by the glory of Christ. (just like a 1000w lightbulb makes the light from a 10w lightbulb indiscernible by the human eye).


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Jesus was crucified at a predetermined time.  I don't know anyway that anyone can claim folks were saved by the Law.. I don't know anyway folks can say eternal life was granted before the lamb was sacrificed.  It's just not biblical.  Its a made up theory to promote predestination is my only guess.



Not saved by the Law, but by grace through faith.
Abraham was a saved man...by faith. The Spirit gave him that faith the same way He does today, by regenerating. Faith is one of the fruits of the Spirit.
He was able to "see" the promise(Jesus) afar off. The same way Peter did. "Simon Barjonas, flesh and blood has not revealed this unto you but my Father which is in heaven".

This text tells us Abraham had faith by grace. He was a saved(regenerated)man:

Romans 4:16
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

In effect, Abraham was "looking" through time to the brazen serpent that was raised up on the pole(Jesus). Remember that type in the OT that represented Jesus on the cross?
He saw it afar off.


----------



## hobbs27

you care to explain in a brotherly way how these verses do not support the Law existed in the first century to Jew's that rejected Christ? 

]





SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh. I don't see that at all.  What I see is a man who believes he can not be wrong, and a man who has built his own personal religion around his interpretation of eschatology.  Christ is secondary to you and your interpretation.  Every point you make in some way points back to your eschatology and and not Christ, and that is precisely why no one can reason with you.  You are the head of your religion and Scripture, the Church, etc. is subservient.  THAT is why no one (in your opion) can stand up to your interpretation of scripture.




I'm confident you did your best,  and for that I am thankful.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Because the subject, "in context", is not the Law, but the glory ascribed to the Law, which was going away because it was out-shown by the glory of Christ. (just like a 1000w lightbulb makes the light from a 10w lightbulb indiscernible by the human eye).



I think we are in agreement on this... The context anyway. 
 I think the context is the glory of the New Covenant and Christ as the mediator.  It also demonstrates though... That the Jew's in the old covenant and under law at that very day,  were still being called into the church. 

Hebrews 8:13 also shows an existing but vanishing old covenant... It is gone now.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If the Law was a 10w light and Christ was a 1,000w light, then as mentioned the Law was going away because of the glory of Christ's light.

Why do we keep agreeing that the Law was going away yet somehow saying it wasn't?
With a light as bright as Christ and a light as dim as the Law, it might as well have been going away having been out shown by Christ.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I would say every point any of us makes points back to our own eschatology. When we read scripture, we read it with our own eschatological goggles be they Preterist, Futurist, Reformed, or whatever. 
It's kind of hard not to. It's not really us as individuals trying to promote ourselves over Christ. It just sometimes comes across that way. I can see the believers of predestination doing it just as much as the Preterist.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Not saved by the Law, but by grace through faith.
> Abraham was a saved man...by faith. The Spirit gave him that faith the same way He does today, by regenerating. Faith is one of the fruits of the Spirit.
> He was able to "see" the promise(Jesus) afar off. The same way Peter did. "Simon Barjonas, flesh and blood has not revealed this unto you but my Father which is in heaven".
> 
> This text tells us Abraham had faith by grace. He was a saved(regenerated)man:
> 
> Romans 4:16
> 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
> 
> In effect, Abraham was "looking" through time to the brazen serpent that was raised up on the pole(Jesus). Remember that type in the OT that represented Jesus on the cross?
> He saw it afar off.



 I agree Abraham saw Jesus... He looked to the days of Jesus and was glad. 

" Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."

Job knew his Redeemer liveth. 

But they were not and could not be redeemed of sin until Jesus made a way,  by the cross,  shed blood,  burial,  and resurrection.  

 This has been my concern with the predestination doctrine all along , it claims Abraham didn't need the cross... And in actuality it claims no one needs the cross. Forgive me if I misrepresented what you believe,  but it just doesn't add up in scripture that old covenant saints were being saved by the blood that had never been shed.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> Possibly a preterist talking point,  but a point proven in scripture.  To that day,  the Law was still there for the Jew that rejected Christ... But it was fading away v. 11






hummerpoo said:


> Because the subject, "in context", is not the Law, but the glory ascribed to the Law, which was going away because it was out-shown by the glory of Christ. (just like a 1000w lightbulb makes the light from a 10w lightbulb indiscernible by the human eye).





hobbs27 said:


> I think we are in agreement on this... The context anyway.
> I think the context is the glory of the New Covenant and Christ as the mediator.  It also demonstrates though... That the Jew's in the old covenant and under law at that very day,  were still being called into the church.
> 
> Hebrews 8:13 also shows an existing but vanishing old covenant  ... It is gone now.


RED
No, we are not even close to being in agreement.

PURPLE
You treat 
—Old Covenant and Law
—New Covenant and No Law
as though they were interchangeable

No there is a lot to be bridged before we are in agreement about almost anything because:



hummerpoo said:


> Having gone through your posts in this thread, we would have to discuss the following (on which we appear to disagree) before we could reasonably discuss my post:
> 
> What is the law?
> How is the law to be interpreted?
> What is the Old Covenant?
> What is the New Covenant?
> How did Christ fulfill the law?
> What is the tithe?
> To what does antinomian refer?
> 
> The chances of getting around to Antinomianism this year, or in this life, seem minimal.


----------



## hummerpoo

hummerpoo said:


> Because the subject, "in context", is not the Law, but the glory ascribed to the Law, which was going away because it was out-shown by the glory of Christ. (just like a 1000w lightbulb makes the light from a 10w lightbulb indiscernible by the human eye).





Artfuldodger said:


> If the Law was a 10w light and Christ was a 1,000w light, then as mentioned the Law was going away because of the glory of Christ's light.
> 
> Why do we keep agreeing that the Law was going away yet somehow saying it wasn't?
> With a light as bright as Christ and a light as dim as the Law, it might as well have been going away having been out shown by Christ.



Because what is written is not read.

I am sorely tempted to give up.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> I agree Abraham saw Jesus... He looked to the days of Jesus and was glad.
> 
> " Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."
> 
> Job knew his Redeemer liveth.
> 
> But they were not and could not be redeemed of sin until Jesus made a way,  by the cross,  shed blood,  burial,  and resurrection.
> 
> This has been my concern with the predestination doctrine all along , it claims Abraham didn't need the cross... And in actuality it claims no one needs the cross. Forgive me if I misrepresented what you believe,  but it just doesn't add up in scripture that old covenant saints were being saved by the blood that had never been shed.



According to John 3:36, both Abraham and Job were in possession of eternal life the very moment they believed.

John 3:36
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.


The temporal timing of the manifestation of the cross had no restraint on the eternal timeless-ness of salvation. 

BTW, Jesus said this BEFORE He even went to the cross.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> By this:
> 
> Colossians 1:21
> 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
> 
> Notice it was in THEIR MIND, not God's. He loved them before He created them.



Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has torn down the dividing wall of hostility. 15 by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace 16 and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility.

Ephesians 2:15-17
by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace 16and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.

I could understand individuals being alienated from God in their minds only as individuals but not a whole group without hope based on their race. If it was or had been all about individuals as the Reformed believe then yes. The Reformed view doesn't see this change of salvation from national Israel to national Israel to include grafted in Gentiles. 
They see it as always being based on the election of individuals which takes out a whole lot of the way things used to be vs the way they changed from the old way to the new way. They take "time" away as never meaning anything important.

Reading Ephesians where a whole race or group were without hope and God is a bit different than individuals blinded by their own minds that they were the true chosen ones.

Romans 11:15
For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

Romans 11:25
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,

Putting aside the Reformed view, if I may, it appears it took the rejection by Israel to bring salvation to the world. We're not talking individuals here. We're talking how and when, as prescribed by Paul himself, that salvation finally came to the Gentiles.

Now maybe you can read Romans 11 through your Reformed glasses and get something different than I have. I want even fuss at you for doing so. I want even say that you are placing your eschatology above Christ if you do so. I just roll that way.


----------



## Artfuldodger

In the Reformed view, why not just take "time" away as being important or changing anything about the 2nd coming of Christ? 

Remember God never changes so I'm assuming when Christ comes it doesn't change anything. In that respect it could be as the Preterest view that it's already happened in time.

So even though it hasn't happened in time as an event, we could look at as already happened as more than prophesy like ya'll do about everything else.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Because the subject, "in context", is not the Law, but the glory ascribed to the Law, which was going away because it was out-shown by the glory of Christ. (just like a 1000w lightbulb makes the light from a 10w lightbulb indiscernible by the human eye).



When you state the Law was going away, what do you expect us to believe you are saying?

Why do so many interpretations use the word "abolished" instead of "fulfilled?" Yet you stated "the Law, which was going away." 

Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups.

having annulled in His flesh the law of commandments in ordinances, so that He might create in Himself the two into one new man, making peace,



Romans 10:4
Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Christ is the end of the Law, in order to bring righteousness to everyone who believes.

For The Messiah is the consummation of The Written Law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

culmination, end, consummation

Maybe for only those who believe and non-believers are still under the Law.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Quote:
What is your summation of what Jesus did to this eternal and always existing Law? 



hummerpoo said:


> He fulfilled it.  A really short definition of fulfilled might be: revealed it in its full potentiality.  (See the seven examples in Mat. 5.)



Oh, so what you meant by fulfilling is the Law being revealed to it's full potentiality was the way Christ explained the Law.

Christ fulfilled the Law by revelation. Example; Mat. 5.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> Ephesians 2:12
> remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has torn down the dividing wall of hostility. 15 by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace 16 and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility.
> 
> Ephesians 2:15-17
> by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace 16and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.
> 
> I could understand individuals being alienated from God in their minds only as individuals but not a whole group without hope based on their race. If it was or had been all about individuals as the Reformed believe then yes. The Reformed view doesn't see this change of salvation from national Israel to national Israel to include grafted in Gentiles.
> They see it as always being based on the election of individuals which takes out a whole lot of the way things used to be vs the way they changed from the old way to the new way. They take "time" away as never meaning anything important.
> 
> Reading Ephesians where a whole race or group were without hope and God is a bit different than individuals blinded by their own minds that they were the true chosen ones.
> 
> Romans 11:15
> For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
> 
> Romans 11:25
> I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,
> 
> Putting aside the Reformed view, if I may, it appears it took the rejection by Israel to bring salvation to the world. We're not talking individuals here. We're talking how and when, as prescribed by Paul himself, that salvation finally came to the Gentiles.
> 
> Now maybe you can read Romans 11 through your Reformed glasses and get something different than I have. I want even fuss at you for doing so. I want even say that you are placing your eschatology above Christ if you do so. I just roll that way.



Who said I was reformed?


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Who said I was reformed?



You interject their beliefs in as many posts as Hobbs interjects the Preterist beliefs.

I don't think you are hardcore so I'll say a Lite-Reformed? You at least gave Adam free will. 

I guess I'm somewhere in between to believing in free will and predestination. Hard to do knowing God is Omniscient though.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Who said I was reformed?



But in reading Ephesians, Romans, and well the whole Bible, you don't get anything remotely Jewish out of it? You don't see where it was all about the nation of Israel and something changing say around the Pentecost?

Suddenly Paul coming along and telling us a remnant was chosen from national Israel and the rest was hardened. This being done to offer salvation to the Gentiles to make national Israel jealous. This being done to bring salvation to the Gentiles. Israel's rejection bringing reconciliation to the world.

It doesn't sound like Paul is taking the event out of time and saying because of prophesy, we can look ahead to the prophesied event as already happening and thus apply what the future event did as though it already has.

Was it possible for Gentiles to read the prophesy hundreds of years before Paul came to personally reveal it to the Gentiles and apply it to themselves as presented in Ephesians and Romans 11?

If so then look ahead and know that Jesus is coming and apply that event as though it has already happened. Then we can believe as the Preterist and quit arguing about it.


----------



## centerpin fan

welderguy said:


> Who said I was reformed?



Dude ... did you type that with a straight face?


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> By this:
> 
> Colossians 1:21
> 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
> 
> 
> Notice it was in THEIR MIND, not God's. He loved them before He created them.



This is your answer to Paul revealing in Romans 11 that a remnant was chosen from national Israel and the rest being hardened until the full number of Gentiles coming in?

This is your answer to Gentiles being "at that time" separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world?

That they actually had salvation but were blinded to it in their own minds? It's that out of time game going on. If they could have just been able to look ahead they would have known they would receive salvation in the future and that prophesy is retro-active.

They had always "had" salvation but couldn't look ahead at the prophesy because they were blinded by their wicked works. 
So Paul comes along and tells them they have been blinded to their salvation by their wicked works. 
This is what Romans 11 is telling us. This is what Ephesians 2:12 is telling us.

Well I must say somebody missed the boat on this revelation. We'd better hope election is true otherwise Paul came a bit late to reveal anything. 

Then again if prophesy is as good as the event, it didn't matter anyway as to when it happened. I'm not even sure why God needed Paul. Now I'm not even sure why we needed the Gospel, we had it's prophesy.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> You interject their beliefs in as many posts as Hobbs interjects the Preterist beliefs.
> 
> I don't think you are hardcore so I'll say a Lite-Reformed? You at least gave Adam free will.
> 
> I guess I'm somewhere in between to believing in free will and predestination. Hard to do knowing God is Omniscient though.



Never said Adam had freewill. Said he was the closest thing to freewill there ever was, but even he was subject to God's purpose.

I've said several times I belong to a Primitive Baptist Church.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Never said Adam had freewill. Said he was the closest thing to freewill there ever was, but even he was subject to God's purpose.
> 
> I've said several times I belong to a Primitive Baptist Church.



My bad, ya'll do share this '"out of time" belief though, right?

Anyway ya'll believe in election from grace alone and the Reformed believe in election from faith alone. Ya'll both believe in election to salvation about the same but not about the ones left over. Ya'll try to word it so that God hasn't predestined the rest where as the Reformed realize that by electing some to salvation God is electing the rest to eternal death. Not much of a difference to me.

Maybe ya'll see predestination more about certain events/people and not every event such as daily events.

I'm not sure on how you differ on covenants as they relate in or out of time. Do you see things prophesied as good as being revealed? Does the event actually have to happen to make it so or is a promise as good as a revelation that it has finally happened?

If one believes that in the future God would choose a remnant from Israel and harden the rest to allow salvation to the Gentiles, then would you say that this future event has brought salvation to the Gentiles even before it happened in the form of a prophesy/promise?

Does the reveal, administer the event or is it just revealing the event? Did Paul as suggested just reveal an event(salvation) in Romans 11 that was being withheld as he suggested in Ephesians 2:12? Again could Gentiles look ahead and accept Jesus as being revealed by Paul before he actually revealed that it was available?


Ephesians 2:15-17
by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace 16and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.

Aha, abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments!
This is obviously about the Gentiles being grafting into the Commonwealth of Israel. That there is neither Jew nor Gentile. So could the foreign Gentile receive salvation years before it was preached? Years before when they were excluded from the commonwealth? Years before the reconciliation?

Is this a hard question to answer?


----------



## Artfuldodger

In those days you were living apart from Christ. You were excluded from citizenship among the people of Israel, and you did not know the covenant promises God had made to them.

(This appears to be different than the Reformed view of it never being about Israel.)

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

(If we stay in the context of Ephesians 2, this is referring to Gentiles. We'll see this as we continue.)

For Christ himself has brought peace to us. He united Jews and Gentiles into one people when, in his own body on the cross, he broke down the wall of hostility that separated us.

(It took the work on the Cross to make this unification possible. Was it retro-active? Possibly)

He brought an end to the commandments and demands found in Moses' Teachings so that he could take Jewish and non-Jewish people and create one new humanity in himself. So he made peace.

(Wow, I'm having an epiphany. Part of Christ's trip to the Earth was to make the two groups one. To make the one group that was far away close. I"m seeing an event make changes to the way things used to be. At least in time. Maybe not so if we can live out of the time restraint thingy.)

Together as one body, Christ reconciled both groups to God by means of his death on the cross, and our hostility toward each other was put to death.

(Again just showing how Christ's death reconciled both groups.)

He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through Him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

(We continue with the context of Ephesians that showed this separation and "now in time" unification caused by the event of the Cross.)

So now you Gentiles are no longer strangers and foreigners. You are citizens along with all of God's holy people. You are members of God's family.

(If I'm missing something about my epiphany let me know. Is Paul saying in Ephesians 2 that part of the reason of the Cross was to bring salvation to the Gentiles through adoption as Jews as mentioned in Romans 11 as well?)

That he made the two groups one by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees?

Jesus abolished, annulled, made of no effect, rendered inoperative, brought an end to, made void, the Law to unify the Jews and Gentiles?

Well no wonder the Reformed don't see it this way. Unless the Gentiles could take a prophesy and make it just as viable as the actual event. But wait, they couldn't, they were blinded by their own wicked ways so they had to wait for the event. They had to wait for the revelation from Paul. Why? Well they were blinded by their own wicked ways. They couldn't look to the future event prophesied. 

Ephesians 2:15
by setting aside the Law with its commandments, expressed, as they were, in definite decrees. His design was to unite the two sections of humanity in Himself so as to form one new man,


----------



## Artfuldodger

Ephesians 2:18-19
because it is through Him that Jews and Gentiles alike have access through one Spirit to the Father. 19 So now you Gentiles are no longer strangers and foreigners. You are citizens along with all of God's holy people. You are members of God's family.

Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Ephesians 2:7
in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

(Whoa, "in the coming ages?" What the unification of Jews and Gentiles by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations?
"In the coming ages" an event in time? A "change, phase, covenant?"
Brought forth in time by bringing an end to the commandments and demands found in Moses' Teachings?)


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> When you state the Law was going away, what do you expect us to believe you are saying?


----------



## Israel

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

For sin, seizing its opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? Certainly not! But in order that sin might be exposed as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful

The law was "contrary...to us", not because the law is contrary, but we were.
Contrarians...all. 

So all order _appeared_ as unwelcome invasion, there was no plea for lovers of chaos, sold under it, and to it. And so to make plain the relentless (if you can) Holiness of the law it is given for some to see the end of it there...upon the tree...man naked, dead, hung high to all visibility as a sign. "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:" What made the Law weak through sins opportunity to do so "in the flesh" is rightly demonstrated in its end manifest upon the tree. The end of all thought "good" in flesh, the end of all flesh's manifest compulsion to offer _a thing_ of sacrifice to preserve to itself its own "goodness" before God, all ground cut away from man upon which he might stand. There is no sufficient offering for sin but this man, this clean and pure soul that submitted to being...a sign. (When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin...)

If one has not "met the Law" as it is in its unrelenting righteousness and demand, and not found himself frantically shuffling through his own soul trying to find place to make appeal against the death warrant it so rightly carries, looking for plea in every nook and cranny, indeed so abysmally terrified it is no matter of choice (no, not one iota), regardless of what one might think of Paul and his word, one could say that such a one is singularly blind in and deaf to "Knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men". 

A man grievously torn by a lion needs little beyond his own person and appearance to convince another something real...and terrible waits around the corner, unseen...yet to the other. The Law stands, always doing its work, for the soul satisfied it can meet its righteous demand..._of itself _ boasting of what it has and knows....all its seeming hiding places must be exposed as tissue before the onlsaught of tooth and claw. Until it is able to receive what is freely given, and all, and only, not of itself...a soul for offering...not its own. "I am not 'the man'!" that is life to anything. In the gaping maw of law this is made abundantly clear. But, to an end (O! so!) rightly purposed...that someone else might appear Who alone is fit meat for all. Only the man brought to this knows this. The humiliation of self, scrambling to lay hold of a goodness for implication to be presented for inference.

But now, just a thing to be made into a sign.

And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?

Who can keep a soul, safe, for the return past this?

So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way of the tree of life.


----------



## hummerpoo

Israel said:


> And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
> 
> For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
> 
> For sin, seizing its opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? Certainly not! But in order that sin might be exposed as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful



Blessed by The Gracious God is the man given to see the holiness of the commandment, and thereby his own utter sinfulness, because that recognition necessarily leaves him prostrate before Holy God, the giver of sight.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> According to John 3:36, both Abraham and Job were in possession of eternal life the very moment they believed.
> 
> John 3:36
> 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
> 
> 
> The temporal timing of the manifestation of the cross had no restraint on the eternal timeless-ness of salvation.
> 
> BTW, Jesus said this BEFORE He even went to the cross.



I understand they were receiving eternal life at the time of Christ's ministry. ,
and even though they were receiving the promise,  it had not been manifested yet. 

 Christ's ministry and the first century Christians during the time the epistles were written by the apostles, is a time in which Ishmael and Isaac were still living together. 

 Ishmael represents the children of the Old covenant. Isaac a child of the New covenant..  

Ishmael was carnal and produced death

Isaac was spiritual and produces life. 

For the Old covenant saints and the Israelites of the first century to enter into the new covenant and receive the inheritance,  they had to have faith in Christ.

Galatians 4
. Abraham’s Two Children
21 Tell me, you who want to live under the law, do you know what the law actually says? 22 The Scriptures say that Abraham had two sons, one from his slave wife and one from his freeborn wife. 23 The son of the slave wife was born in a human attempt to bring about the fulfillment of God’s promise. But the son of the freeborn wife was born as God’s own fulfillment of his promise.

24 These two women serve as an illustration of God’s two covenants. The first woman, Hagar, represents Mount Sinai where people received the law that enslaved them. 25 And now Jerusalem is just like Mount Sinai in Arabia, because she and her children live in slavery to the law. 26 But the other woman, Sarah, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. She is the free woman, and she is our mother. 27 As Isaiah said,

“Rejoice, O childless woman,
    you who have never given birth!
Break into a joyful shout,
    you who have never been in labor!
For the desolate woman now has more children
    than the woman who lives with her husband!”
28 And you, dear brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, just like Isaac. 29 But you are now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law, just as Ishmael, the child born by human effort, persecuted Isaac, the child born by the power of the Spirit.

30 But what do the Scriptures say about that? “Get rid of the slave and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not share the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”31 So, dear brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman; we are children of the free woman.

We all know when the slave woman and her son were got rid of.. I don't even have to say it.


----------



## centerpin fan

Can someone write a brief summary explaining what this thread is currently about?


----------



## hummerpoo

centerpin fan said:


> Can someone write a brief summary explaining what this thread is currently about?



God.


----------



## Artfuldodger

centerpin fan said:


> Can someone write a brief summary explaining what this thread is currently about?



How the Law affected the unconverted elect from Moses to Paul's day. That covenants made between God and man were in time but the time restraints weren't important. That we should look beyond the time or era to find the true meaning.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

centerpin fan said:


> Can someone write a brief summary explaining what this thread is currently about?



70 ad + afd's irrelevant Freudian questions + a dash of strick determinism.  Same as always.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> I understand they were receiving eternal life at the time of Christ's ministry. ,
> and even though they were receiving the promise,  it had not been manifested yet.
> 
> Christ's ministry and the first century Christians during the time the epistles were written by the apostles, is a time in which Ishmael and Isaac were still living together.
> 
> Ishmael represents the children of the Old covenant. Isaac a child of the New covenant..
> 
> Ishmael was carnal and produced death
> 
> Isaac was spiritual and produces life.
> 
> For the Old covenant saints and the Israelites of the first century to enter into the new covenant and receive the inheritance,  they had to have faith in Christ.
> 
> Galatians 4
> . Abraham’s Two Children
> 21 Tell me, you who want to live under the law, do you know what the law actually says? 22 The Scriptures say that Abraham had two sons, one from his slave wife and one from his freeborn wife. 23 The son of the slave wife was born in a human attempt to bring about the fulfillment of God’s promise. But the son of the freeborn wife was born as God’s own fulfillment of his promise.
> 
> 24 These two women serve as an illustration of God’s two covenants. The first woman, Hagar, represents Mount Sinai where people received the law that enslaved them. 25 And now Jerusalem is just like Mount Sinai in Arabia, because she and her children live in slavery to the law. 26 But the other woman, Sarah, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. She is the free woman, and she is our mother. 27 As Isaiah said,
> 
> “Rejoice, O childless woman,
> you who have never given birth!
> Break into a joyful shout,
> you who have never been in labor!
> For the desolate woman now has more children
> than the woman who lives with her husband!”
> 28 And you, dear brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, just like Isaac. 29 But you are now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law, just as Ishmael, the child born by human effort, persecuted Isaac, the child born by the power of the Spirit.
> 
> 30 But what do the Scriptures say about that? “Get rid of the slave and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not share the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”31 So, dear brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman; we are children of the free woman.
> 
> We all know when the slave woman and her son were got rid of.. I don't even have to say it.



If I may point out something to you that I think you are missing in your reply.
When someone is brought out of a state of spiritual death to a state of spiritual life, it is an instantaneous thing.(quickening)
When this happens, you have eternal life abiding in you. This is the manifestation.

You say this was "in the process" of happening, but this concept is wrong, because, as I said, it's an instantaneous thing. One second you're dead, the next you are alive. There is no half-dead/ half-alive.

Abraham was quickened instantaneously the same way. How do I know? Because the Bible says he believed, and that he had faith. Faith is a fruit of the Spirit so that's sure evidence of a work done in him by the Holy Spirit. Dead trees do not produce fruit.Abraham had eternal life abiding in him as shown in John 3:36.

Abraham was proclaimed righteous by God. How? He was washed by regeneration. There's no other way.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> If I may point out something to you that I think you are missing in your reply.
> When someone is brought out of a state of spiritual death to a state of spiritual life, it is an instantaneous thing.(quickening)
> When this happens, you have eternal life abiding in you. This is the manifestation.
> 
> You say this was "in the process" of happening, but this concept is wrong, because, as I said, it's an instantaneous thing. One second you're dead, the next you are alive. There is no half-dead/ half-alive.
> 
> Abraham was quickened instantaneously the same way. How do I know? Because the Bible says he believed, and that he had faith. Faith is a fruit of the Spirit so that's sure evidence of a work done in him by the Holy Spirit. Dead trees do not produce fruit.Abraham had eternal life abiding in him as shown in John 3:36.
> 
> Abraham was proclaimed righteous by God. How? He was washed by regeneration. There's no other way.




Hebrews 11:10 Abraham was confidently looking forward to a city with eternal foundations, a city designed and built by God.

11 It was by faith that even Sarah was able to have a child, though she was barren and was too old. She believed* that God would keep his promise. 12 And so a whole nation came from this one man who was as good as dead—a nation with so many people that, like the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore, there is no way to count them.

13 All these people died still believing what God had promised them. They did not receive what was promised, but they saw it all from a distance and welcomed it. They agreed that they were foreigners and nomads here on earth. 14 Obviously people who say such things are looking forward to a country they can call their own. 15 If they had longed for the country they came from, they could have gone back. 16 But they were looking for a better place, a heavenly homeland. That is why God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.*


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Hebrews 11:10 Abraham was confidently looking forward to a city with eternal foundations, a city designed and built by God.
> 
> 11 It was by faith that even Sarah was able to have a child, though she was barren and was too old. She believed* that God would keep his promise. 12 And so a whole nation came from this one man who was as good as dead—a nation with so many people that, like the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore, there is no way to count them.
> 
> 13 All these people died still believing what God had promised them. They did not receive what was promised, but they saw it all from a distance and welcomed it. They agreed that they were foreigners and nomads here on earth. 14 Obviously people who say such things are looking forward to a country they can call their own. 15 If they had longed for the country they came from, they could have gone back. 16 But they were looking for a better place, a heavenly homeland. That is why God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.*


*

I am, and I trust you also, are looking by faith for this heavenly homeland.
We're not there yet. It's in the future.*


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> I am, and I trust you also, are looking by faith for this heavenly homeland.
> We're not there yet. It's in the future.



 I know you don't believe the promise has come yet,  so we are probably at an impasse. I am glad that at least you realize time and timing does make a difference.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> I know you don't believe the promise has come yet,  so we are probably at an impasse. I am glad that at least you realize time and timing does make a difference.



But you must understand that things that are eternal are without time restraints. Heaven is eternal. Salvation is eternal. Even the laws of God are eternal.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> But you must understand that things that are eternal are without time restraints. Heaven is eternal. Salvation is eternal. Even the laws of God are eternal.



If God's laws are eternal,  then why do you worship on Sunday?  Why is animal sacrifice no longer required?  Why do we not make pilgrimages to Jerusalem?  Why do we eat pork?


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> If God's laws are eternal,  then why do you worship on Sunday?  Why is animal sacrifice no longer required?  Why do we not make pilgrimages to Jerusalem?  Why do we eat pork?



Grace man! Grace!
The penalty for our inability to keep every one of God's laws perfectly had to be paid. Jesus did that so we could be free from the law. How can you read Romans without understanding that? 

I think your inability to see this is the root cause of your thinking you must do something for your salvation. That's not a salvation by grace, it's of works, as the law was. Paul labors tirelessly with this concept, and it's more widespread today than ever.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Yes Abraham died looking forward to the promise.  The promise of heaven, the promise of eternal life, the promise of a savior sent to the world.  Abraham saw none of that while he lived, but he did see it eventually.


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> Yes Abraham died looking forward to the promise.  The promise of heaven, the promise of eternal life, the promise of a savior sent to the world.  Abraham saw none of that while he lived, but he did see it eventually.



Yes!!!  He died looking forward to eternal life!


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> Yes Abraham died looking forward to the promise.  The promise of heaven, the promise of eternal life, the promise of a savior sent to the world.  Abraham saw none of that while he lived, but he did see it eventually.



When do you think he saw it?


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Hebrews 11:10 Abraham was confidently looking forward to a city with eternal foundations, a city designed and built by God.
> 
> 11 It was by faith that even Sarah was able to have a child, though she was barren and was too old. She believed* that God would keep his promise. 12 And so a whole nation came from this one man who was as good as dead—a nation with so many people that, like the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore, there is no way to count them.
> 
> 13 All these people died still believing what God had promised them. They did not receive what was promised, but they saw it all from a distance and welcomed it. They agreed that they were foreigners and nomads here on earth. 14 Obviously people who say such things are looking forward to a country they can call their own. 15 If they had longed for the country they came from, they could have gone back. 16 But they were looking for a better place, a heavenly homeland. That is why God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.*


*

The place Abraham was looking for was forward in time. It was within the restraint of time. Even a Futurist must see this place as within the restraint of time. I would think they are looking ahead for the return of Christ. This is an important event in time for Futurist. I'm not sure why though. I don't know what happens then that will change their path if they are already dead. Maybe if they are still alive it will change things.

Anyway I would like your views and the others as well, what does this verse mean?

13 All these people died still believing what God had promised them. They did not receive what was promised, but they saw it all from a distance and welcomed it.*


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Artfuldodger said:


> When do you think he saw it?



he saw it when the sacrifice was made. When Jesus travel to hades and set the captive free.  

Abraham and all the others that were justified prior to Christs death were held in paradise until Jesus took back the keys to death, hades and the grave.  They were set free at that time, and saw the promise then


----------



## Israel

hobbs27 said:


> If God's laws are eternal,  then why do you worship on Sunday?  Why is animal sacrifice no longer required?  Why do we not make pilgrimages to Jerusalem?  Why do we eat pork?



Those questions are found interesting in this light:

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."


We could ask ourselves "Is Jesus here...adding to the law?"

"Is Jesus of a purpose to make something 'more burdensome'?"

Or, if it be of faith:

"Is Jesus the only One who has walked with full understanding of these matters...(and neither adding nor changing for burden)...but clearly seeing and speaking of a matter assumed on man's part that is wholly irrelevant to the truth in the Law?"

A man might find some place to "take a stand" if never found in his neighbor's bed. But God, seeing the heart's inclination to a thing and deepest thoughts of those things is making plain through Christ it is not only far more than once thought...but entirely different in truth. 

The law is spiritual...but a carnal thing receives it...it is very much as though it is of an entirely different language that all men have assumed they understood. It discloses, really, two things at the very least...adultery to God is different than man's understanding of not "doing the act" _physically_...but also, the removal (dare I say most assuredly?) of a man to say he has in any way not been a guilty participant. That "standing" place is quite removed.
Is Jesus seeking to _shame man_...or simply speaking in reality of how things _truly are?_

We have examples of David eating the shewbread, and also words given through him pointing to an understanding that seems, again, totally foreign to what appears a thing said in the law according to man's understanding.

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Man's relationship _to law_, and _in law_ would seem set askew by a viewing of a heavenly thing, a spiritual thing, a truly Holy and righteous thing when interpreted by a mind not formed of faith. It will take opportunity in the "doing" for only appearance sake before men:

you, then, who teach others, do you do not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the Law, do you dishonor God by breaking the Law?

It is interesting to note that before condemning Jesus, Caiaphas rent his robes. This is a forbidden thing "in the law"...and yet in making a show of upholding the condemnation of Jesus as blasphemer (according to his own/_Caipahas' understanding_, notwithstanding the presentation of false witnesses "And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.") Yes, the law in the hands of carnal man is always handled to his own demise, so rightly...so.

The law also says that he who is hung on a tree is cursed of God. But not without saying this...first:

And if a man _has committed a sin worthy of death_, and he is to be put to death, and you hang him on a tree:

The question then becomes "has Jesus done anything worthy of death?" Isn't it interesting that (despite what may have been taking place in the disciple's minds) there was a man who testified to Jesus complete innocence in the matter? I am not surprised it was the "man hanging next to Him", with Him on a pole who both declared his complete deserving of all that might be done to him, but nevertheless proclaimed "this man has done nothing wrong". Could be the only one that day that found a fellowship to salvation, declaring plainly his own guilt, but nevertheless maintaining the innocence of the One he now found himself "with". And he received a promise, there. I am persuaded that is where all the promises are made...and heard. He found there a fellowship that so outstripped his care for himself to present himself as anything other than guilty "as charged"...even if the chargers...themselves manifestly display total disregard for the law they have "used" to exalt themselves to position of adequacy to condemn an innocent man.

And so the world pierces its own self in thinking it understands what is only seen and understood clearly by Jesus...and revealed to the one _hanging_ with him.

What man "in his (own) right mind" would not choose to offer a few bulls, or goats...than heed this:

"If any man come to me and not take up his cross..."...unless he was quite mistaken...about everything in "his own mind", and his understanding of it? And made to be shown...so.

I used to think how profoundly Saul's own understanding was demolished on that road to Damascus. I am not at all unconvinced _that_ was just the beginning. From man "with letters" to man awaiting in a dungeon, almost shunned, declaring "I am not lying" in the matter of being an apostle of Jesus Christ. Does he laugh now...at all the temples that bear his name? All those that "think" they would roll out a red carpet...if they could only know HE, somehow... was coming to town?

"What went ye out, then, to see?" Or read?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Artfuldodger said:


> Ephesians 2:12
> remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has torn down the dividing wall of hostility. 15 by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace 16 and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility.
> 
> Ephesians 2:15-17
> by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace 16and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.
> 
> Romans 11:15
> For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
> 
> Romans 11:25
> I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,



I was reading this last night where Christ abolished in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees to reconcile both the Jew and Gentile to God in one body through the cross. 

Should I read this as Jesus abolishing the Law in order to do away with his covenant with Israel in order for the hostility between the two to be over so that the Gentiles could finally be grafted in to Israel? If Jesus abolished this Covenant/Law with Israel then it would remove the wall between the two and let the Gentile be grafted in.

In other words just a long way to say, there is neither Jew nor Gentile. But in order for this to happen this Law had to be done away with to allow this grafting in.
God wanted one new man out of the two. No longer the Jew and the Gentile. 

Somehow we've got to tie in to what we are discussing concerning the Law. It's in Ephesians 2:15-17. How do we fit it into our discussion? Is Ephesians 2:15-17 a good explanation  of what the Cross did?


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> he saw it when the sacrifice was made. When Jesus travel to hades and set the captive free.
> 
> Abraham and all the others that were justified prior to Christs death were held in paradise until Jesus took back the keys to death, hades and the grave.  They were set free at that time, and saw the promise then



I'm still a bit confused, they saw the promises(plural) at the time of the cross or the actual "things" that was promised.

Another question, what was the "things" that was actually promised?


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> he saw it when the sacrifice was made. When Jesus travel to hades and set the captive free.
> 
> Abraham and all the others that were justified prior to Christs death were held in paradise until Jesus took back the keys to death, hades and the grave.  They were set free at that time, and saw the promise then



Amen!!!


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> I was reading this last night where Christ abolished in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees to reconcile both the Jew and Gentile to God in one body through the cross.
> 
> Should I read this as Jesus abolishing the Law in order to do away with his covenant with Israel in order for the hostility between the two to be over so that the Gentiles could finally be grafted in to Israel? If Jesus abolished this Covenant/Law with Israel then it would remove the wall between the two and let the Gentile be grafted in.
> 
> In other words just a long way to say, there is neither Jew nor Gentile. But in order for this to happen this Law had to be done away with to allow this grafting in.
> God wanted one new man out of the two. No longer the Jew and the Gentile.
> 
> Somehow we've got to tie in to what we are discussing concerning the Law. It's in Ephesians 2:15-17. How do we fit it into our discussion? Is Ephesians 2:15-17 a good explanation  of what the Cross did?



Art this deserves more than I'm going to give you tonight.  I've been working many hours and bout to hit the hay,  but what I see,  and others seem to avoid  is.  The Jew's did accept Christ.  Many,  many of them made up the first century church. The prophesy of Christ coming as the Messiah was old Testament prophecy... So the true Jewish believers accepted Him,  the apostates rejected. 

The church didn't replace Israel.  The church is Israel.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm still a bit confused, they saw the promises(plural) at the time of the cross or the actual "things" that was promised.
> 
> Another question, what was the "things" that was actually promised?



the promise was eternal reconciliation with God.  There were several promises made to Abraham, but they all converge at the reconciliation with God. 

The promise of a child in his old age, the promise of a great nation from this child,  the promise of a messiah coming from his lineage, the promise of reconciliation with God.  Abraham looked forward to all these promises, and only saw a couple of them fulfilled before he died.

At the time of Christ sacrifice, Abraham witnessed all those promises.  

I wonder if people in heaven are bound by the limits of time as we are now.  I have my doubts that they are.  The  Bible says we will know as we are known.  God knows everything about us, our beginning, our now, our future.  I wonder if we will know what will be future to persons still living in this world when we are living in heaven.

That might make an interesting discussion at some point.


----------



## Artfuldodger

One of the promises God made to Abraham was his seed(Christ).
Later in time came the Law which in Galatians 3 tells us could not replace the promise of the Seed. The Law was like this interim thing. Between the promise of the Seed and the Seed actually coming.

The Law did not replace the Seed. Galatians 3 tells us the Law was given because of transgressions until the Seed came. The law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised.

The law was our guardian until Christ came.  Now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian.

This Seed is one of the promises made to Abraham. Another promise made to Abraham was that this Seed would expand the Nation of Israel by dying for Gentiles as well. This allowed the Gentiles to be grafted in. At that point in time, all believing Jews and Gentiles tremendously increased the real true offspring of Abraham.

Ephesians 2:15-17
by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace 16and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.

John 4:22-23
You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> Amen!!!



WHAT???  we agree on something totally?

lol


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Art this deserves more than I'm going to give you tonight.  I've been working many hours and bout to hit the hay,  but what I see,  and others seem to avoid  is.  The Jew's did accept Christ.  Many,  many of them made up the first century church. The prophesy of Christ coming as the Messiah was old Testament prophecy... So the true Jewish believers accepted Him,  the apostates rejected.
> 
> The church didn't replace Israel.  The church is Israel.



Amen! Sleep well my friend.


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> the promise was eternal reconciliation with God.  There were several promises made to Abraham, but they all converge at the reconciliation with God.
> 
> The promise of a child in his old age, the promise of a great nation from this child,  the promise of a messiah coming from his lineage, the promise of reconciliation with God.  Abraham looked forward to all these promises, and only saw a couple of them fulfilled before he died.
> 
> At the time of Christ sacrifice, Abraham witnessed all those promises.
> 
> I wonder if people in heaven are bound by the limits of time as we are now.  I have my doubts that they are.  The  Bible says we will know as we are known.  God knows everything about us, our beginning, our now, our future.  I wonder if we will know what will be future to persons still living in this world when we are living in heaven.
> 
> That might make an interesting discussion at some point.



I've heard Welder talk about this "time" thing in Heaven or at our physical death. It's like at that moment we are no longer restrained by time and we experience  everything even in the future. 

I would think Abraham saw all of his promises at that time. Even if some were still future to him at the time fo the Cross. 
That is interesting. I welcome your input to the discussions lately.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

I have had a bit more free time in the evenings lately.  I am traveling back and forth to CTCA for some chemo/radiation treatment before I have surgery in October.  I have often read the comments in here, but didn't have the time to ponder much on it, much less reply.

I was going to Israel again in October, but since this came up, I have had to cancel that trip.  /bummer


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> I have had a bit more free time in the evenings lately.  I am traveling back and forth to CTCA for some chemo/radiation treatment before I have surgery in October.  I have often read the comments in here, but didn't have the time to ponder much on it, much less reply.
> 
> I was going to Israel again in October, but since this came up, I have had to cancel that trip.  /bummer



Sorry to hear about that, hope your surgery goes well, I'll be praying and hoping.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Artfuldodger said:


> Sorry to hear about that, hope your surgery goes well, I'll be praying and hoping.



I am not worried.  My trust is in God.  As David said in Psalms 63..

You are my God, earnestly I seek for you.

I do appreciate the prayers.  As an old man once told me, I need the prayer, and you need the practice


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> I am not worried.  My trust is in God.  As David said in Psalms 63..
> 
> You are my God, earnestly I seek for you.
> 
> I do appreciate the prayers.  As an old man once told me, I need the prayer, and you need the practice



I like that old man's truth and your trust.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Galatians 3:13-14
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” 14 He redeemed us so that the blessing promised to Abraham would come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. 

Gentiles were part of the promises made to Abraham but it took the death of Christ on the Cross to bring this redemption to the Gentiles. It took the Cross to end this division of the Jews and Gentiles. Jesus had to remove the Law from the Jews in order for the Gentiles to become heirs to the promises. In order for the Gentile to be grafted in.

If this division never existed then why does Paul keep preaching about it in his epistles? Why did it take Christ dying on the Cross to abolish the Law and allow the promises made to Abraham to come to the Gentiles?

Ephesians 2:15-17
by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace 16and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.


----------



## hobbs27

Israel said:


> Those questions are found interesting in this light:
> 
> "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
> 
> 
> We could ask ourselves "Is Jesus here...adding to the law?"
> 
> "Is Jesus of a purpose to make something 'more burdensome'?"
> 
> Or, if it be of faith:
> 
> "Is Jesus the only One who has walked with full understanding of these matters...(and neither adding nor changing for burden)...but clearly seeing and speaking of a matter assumed on man's part that is wholly irrelevant to the truth in the Law?"
> 
> A man might find some place to "take a stand" if never found in his neighbor's bed. But God, seeing the heart's inclination to a thing and deepest thoughts of those things is making plain through Christ it is not only far more than once thought...but entirely different in truth.
> 
> The law is spiritual...but a carnal thing receives it...




Yet.. in this message Jesus was speaking to Jews. Not that this message isn't for us,  but as this message is delivered to those Jew's,  Jesus is also saying Keep The Law.  Till all is fulfilled keep every jot and tittle of the Law. 

Today it is not so.


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> WHAT???  we agree on something totally?
> 
> lol



On this we do.  He that ascended first descended. 

 Without the shed blood of Christ to redeem man... Man could not be in the Father.  From Adam on down the line in the old covenant death reigned,  and man was put in Hades upon death because of the sin charge imputed to them.  Many died in hope of a coming Messiah.  I often think of those,  I wonder if they spoke with one another.. Could you imagine if a large group were together waiting on the slain lamb of God to come release them from this prison?  Imagine the joy they would have had when John the Baptist entered in.. Proclaiming to them as he did the world... The Kingdom is at hand!   The Messiah is come!  He will be here soon! 
 I don't know if it happened like that,  but it makes my spirit joyful thinking about it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

We were discussing how the "time" concept might end at our physical death when we enter Heaven. We'll experience everything future as if it has already happened.
Now using this same concept is kinda the way some people view time on earth or God working out of the time restraints. 

Starting with Abraham and God's promises such as the Seed/Christ and Abraham's offspring and Paul's teaching of salvation  to the Gentiles, can we see as God did and know God operated out of time as well? We now know through prophesy and Paul's teachings what God's plan was all along. So did we have to wait to the Cross and Paul for it to actually be placed into play or did everything start at the promise?

Galatians 3:13-14
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” 14 He redeemed us so that the blessing promised to Abraham would come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. 

Ephesians 2:15-17
by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace 16and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 

We read from Paul that part of what Christ did on the Cross was remove the Law which allowed Gentiles to be grafted in. So can we say that since this was promised to Abraham and prophesied as well, that it actually happened back in time or perhaps from Creation?
Or do we have to wait for the Cross, Pentecost, Paul, etc.? Remembering that Paul says in Ephesians that Gentiles were without God and hope, strangers to the Commonwealth of Israel.
Paul tells us that on the Cross Jesus made one man out of the two by removing the Law. This put an end to the Jewish/Gentile division. But in God's eyes and plan, this division never was. 

So can we think as God and remove what Christ did on the Cross from the time equation and say that what ever is, was?


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> We were discussing how the "time" concept might end at our physical death when we enter Heaven. We'll experience everything future as if it has already happened.
> Now using this same concept is kinda the way some people view time on earth or God working out of the time restraints.
> 
> Starting with Abraham and God's promises such as the Seed/Christ and Abraham's offspring and Paul's teaching of salvation  to the Gentiles, can we see as God did and know God operated out of time as well? We now know through prophesy and Paul's teachings what God's plan was all along. So did we have to wait to the Cross and Paul for it to actually be placed into play or did everything start at the promise?
> 
> Galatians 3:13-14
> Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” 14 He redeemed us so that the blessing promised to Abraham would come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
> 
> Ephesians 2:15-17
> by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace 16and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.
> 
> We read from Paul that part of what Christ did on the Cross was remove the Law which allowed Gentiles to be grafted in. So can we say that since this was promised to Abraham and prophesied as well, that it actually happened back in time or perhaps from Creation?
> Or do we have to wait for the Cross, Pentecost, Paul, etc.? Remembering that Paul says in Ephesians that Gentiles were without God and hope, strangers to the Commonwealth of Israel.
> Paul tells us that on the Cross Jesus made one man out of the two by removing the Law. This put an end to the Jewish/Gentile division. But in God's eyes and plan, this division never was.
> 
> So can we think as God and remove what Christ did on the Cross from the time equation and say that what ever is, was?



You guys speak as if God didn't start loving His people until the moment in time that Jesus died. That's backwards thinking, because He loved His people before creation. That is the very reason He sent His Son.

You're letting this time thing compromise very important fundamental truths, in your mind.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> This put an end to the Jewish/Gentile division. But in God's eyes and plan, this division never was.



I think you just said that the Jewish/Gentile division is a creation of men — How 'bout that.  Men read in the Law that God commands a degree of separation of His People from those who are not His People and substitute, or misapply, Jew and Gentile — How 'bout that.  God using the foolishness of men to demonstrate His own righteousness — surprise, surprise.


----------



## welderguy

hummerpoo said:


> I think you just said that the Jewish/Gentile division is a creation of men — How 'bout that.  Men read in the Law that God commands a degree of separation of His People from those who are not His People and substitute, or misapply, Jew and Gentile — How 'bout that.  God using the foolishness of men to demonstrate His own righteousness — surprise, surprise.



Well said Hummer.
If I might add, the Israelites had strangers living with them that became part of them out of the conquered cities. They were Gentile and ,guess what?, were included by God as citizens of their nation.


----------



## hummerpoo

welderguy said:


> Well said Hummer.
> If I might add, the Israelites had strangers living with them that became part of them out of the conquered cities. They were Gentile and ,guess what?, were included by God as citizens of their nation.



I posted this list a couple of weeks ago in a somewhat different context.
(Num 15:13-16; Deu 31:12,13; Jos 8:33; 1 Kings 8:41-43; Isa 2:1-5; Isa 49:6; Eze 39:7,21-23; Eze 47:21-23; more)


----------



## Israel

hobbs27 said:


> Yet.. in this message Jesus was speaking to Jews. Not that this message isn't for us,  but as this message is delivered to those Jew's,  Jesus is also saying Keep The Law.  Till all is fulfilled keep every jot and tittle of the Law.
> 
> Today it is not so.



I can only say what I hear...as a man hearing that. I do not hear "keep" the Law in the manner of, let's say "_do it_ to a maximum extent". But I do hear "keep it" in the sense of don't let go of it...even when it becomes plain the "doing of it" is impossible. It is given for sight...not for "a performance"...so to speak.  (There is a work it is about being done to an end of a thing... a"thing" appointed to an end, that something else come into view)

Now, one man may hear a bit differently...he may be able to say within himself "OK, Jesus has told me I got this a bit wrong in my thinking...it's not only that I gotta keep my hands off that woman who just walked by in the short skirt, I gotta keep my mind off her, too" Maybe that man is able to tell himself (and God knows...even find a way to do some mental stuff that will somehow "get him outta that fix" of being guilty before the truth)

Me? I hear only this "the thing you are, the man you are...is wrong". No, it's not Jesus doing anything other than speaking the truth...but me, as hearer, am found immediately guilty. If there is "no other way" to be, nothing extended of any hope to be a "different" (yes, a very _different sort_ of man...so much so as would appear as a distinct species) I am surely lost. 

Do all men know this...this thing that comes up unbidden...(but its unbidden-ness is of no consequence.... I cannot plead "better intentions") because it is so very plainly there. No, to me a something must be found to imply a man can be, from foundation to roof...changed.
I find that only in One. The same who let me know I am already slain in this thing "of truth".

Jesus didn't judge me...He didn't say "I know what you're thinking when you look _at her_!" He really didn't have to. Nor did He judge the law "Look fellas, this thing is a lot worse for you than you even thought!"


He simply speaks...truth.

And each man discovers where he falls...relative to it.

But I only know One who is both man...and in all His keeping, did not abandon the Law. He has allowed me to see what must happen to the man who "keeps it"...while His father has shown what He does with the One who finds delight in it...even to his own death.

A very distinct _species_...He. Keeping in love what is given of love, and from love...and seeing only the love of the Father...in it. A man of the earth has many fathers...all the way back to Adam. This man, one. Very distinct.

(If any find my use of the word species an offense, be assured, I find all of myself...equally so...as it is shown in a light "I" cannot bear, of myself)


I think that apostle says it well...

We are pressed on all sides, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed. We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.

It must be that "thing" of faith that can keep both death...and life from that death...so manifestly plain in sight. Even _at once_. If I seek to merely escape the law, I am trapped as lawbreaker. If I seek to "do it"..."it" makes plain to me...I am simply not the thing fit to it. There must be _a _someone else to look to for life.


----------



## welderguy

hummerpoo said:


> I posted this list a couple of weeks ago in a somewhat different context.
> (Num 15:13-16; Deu 31:12,13; Jos 8:33; 1 Kings 8:41-43; Isa 2:1-5; Isa 49:6; Eze 39:7,21-23; Eze 47:21-23; more)



Good work.


----------



## Israel

I discovered this while rummaging through some old posts to find a dream I'd had to share with Ambush. I find my thinking much the same as it was. At least in this matter.

October 3, 2010 at 10:16am
I have often used this analogy, and please bear with me in a little foolishness. The law is spiritual and perfect. Like a broadcast from God. Actually, it is a broadcast from God. But the receiver is faulty, unable to understand "spirit".

It is not unlike trying to interpret a foreign language...but worse, much worse...for it reveals the fault in the receiver perfectly. We think we understand. And then go about trying to "do" it...and get as far from the intent as we could possibly be. But this serves the purpose to show us we understand nothing. (Sin, that it might be exceedingly sinful)

A rich and powerful Australian man employed me for a while. He was great to work for, and very awesome. Kind to me in every way.

One day he told me to put the "billy on the boil" and I was puzzled. I didn't know why he would do this, but I did my best to obey. I didn't want to show how ignorant I was, so I set out to do what I thought he wanted. I found a young man named William, hogtied him, found a huge pot, filled it with water, put plenty of heat under it till it was roiling and threw Billy in. Then I called the boss and proudly told him it was ready. I had done everything he had asked, even though it took a lot of effort, and, as weird as it seemed to me, he'd surely appreciate all my efforts.

He was horrified. Wept bitterly at what I had done. For he was a good and kind man.

Had I simply stopped...had I simply said... "what do you mean by all this..." I wouldn't have broken his heart. Instead, it was far more important for me to show I do right by the boss man.

David understood something. David touched something of God that made him a man after "his own heart"...and because of this the psalms are replete with magnificent revelations, which, even if David did not quite grasp all their significance in total, still knew the joy of the intimacy that birthed them.

And David ate the shewbread. And was held blameless. And David wrote "happy is the man whose sins are forgiven, to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity"

He who is forgiven much, loves much. David loved much.

The law is not given so we can talk to one another about how we try to keep it. Or worse, like pharisees, make a show of it.

The law is given to show us the One who never stole, never committed adultery, never bore false witness, had no strange God, keeps the sabbath perfectly, and is deliriously content with his own wife so he never dreams of coveting another...etc.

The law, as everything that has ever issued from God's mouth is not to get us to "do" something...but to see something. In the seeing is contained all the doing God has ever wanted. God has always wanted us to see him as he is...the "trying to do" came in after we had rejected his image and likeness as being sufficient for us. So he sent another in his image and likeness...but who this time did not listen to the lie..."You shall not surely die", but instead said, "I have come to die...and I will"﻿


----------



## Artfuldodger

I think God came up the Jewish Gentile division. At least this is the way it was presented by Paul. 
Then the Cross removed the Law which was part of the division and then made the to men one.

Ephesians 2:12
remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Ephesians 2:15
He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups.

Ephesians 2:19
Therefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens of the saints and members of God's household,

Romans 9:4
the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory and the covenants; theirs the giving of the Law, the temple worship, and the promises.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If there never was to be this Jewish Gentile division, why did God himself make such a big deal about doing it starting with Abraham?

In Romans 11 a remnant was elected by grace and the rest of Israel was hardened. Because of Israel's trespass, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel jealous. Natural branches were broken off and the Gentiles were grafted in.

This just doesn't sound like something man came up with. It's just way too involved for a man to come up with something so complicated. Regardless it was taught by Paul.


----------



## hummerpoo

Num 15:13-16; 
Deu 31:12,13; 
Jos 8:33; 
1 Kings 8:41-43; 
Isa 2:1-5; Isa 49:6; 
Eze 39:7,21-23; 
Eze 47:21-23;


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Num 15:13-16;
> Deu 31:12,13;
> Jos 8:33;
> 1 Kings 8:41-43;
> Isa 2:1-5; Isa 49:6;
> Eze 39:7,21-23;
> Eze 47:21-23;



The first three talk about foreigners living among the Jews. I can see the point you are making though. Also in Eze 47:22  "aliens who stay in your midst"
"strangers that sojourn among you"

There is no mention of the foreigners in the South Pacific. Just strangers living amongst.
The next verses actually show separation with future events coming;

1 King 8:41
"In the future, foreigners who do not belong to your people Israel will hear of you. They will come from distant lands because of your name,

Ezekiel 39:7
"'I will make known my holy name among my people Israel."
"the nations, too, will know that I am the LORD, the Holy One of Israel."

Ezekiel 39:21
"I will display my glory among the nations, and all the nations will see the punishment I inflict and the hand I lay on them.
Ezekiel 39:23
The nations will then know why Israel was sent away to exile--it was punishment for sin, for they were unfaithful to their God. Therefore, I turned away from them and let their enemies destroy them.

Wasn't  this temporary "turning away" by God a future event in time? It was a prophesy that Paul tells us about in Romans 11. During this temporary hardening of Israel, Gentiles were grafted in. 

Ephesians tells us they were stranger to the Commonwealth of Israel. Paul also tells us Christ died on the Cross to break down this division.

You are trying to paint a picture that it was never there as designed by God but men by showing verses where Gentiles lived among some of the Jews. This is completely different that Gentiles being in the same covenant with God. It would be like me going to a different Church. I would abide by their sacraments. 

Romans 2:14
Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it.

I'm not trying to show that these future events such as the Cross, Pentecost, and Paul's teaching of Christ setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace didn't happen because of God's plan. I'm not trying to say the Gentile/Jewish separation was man's plan.

I'm just asking that can we take these future events, regardless of why they happened, regardless of if they were God's plan or man's doings with God countering, and apply them from the beginning of time?

Can we take prophesy such as who the actual offspring of Abraham would become when Christ died on the cross setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, in the future, and apply it to the Gentiles before it actually happened in time?


----------



## Artfuldodger

I think why we see differently is since Election believers see Christ as actually being slain at Creation, and God electing men at Creation, it would also mean everything else happened or was written at Creation. Thus this takes the whole Bible story of the future events out of time.
So when you read about Abraham's true offspring, you see it as the way it would become in the future as having already happened.

I can see where you are coming from and believe me I'm close to thinking as you do being God is omni-everything.

Still though it makes me wonder why God went to the trouble and created this elaborate story of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, David, Jesus, etc. Also creating and making a certain Jewish lineage of separation if he never wanted this separation to begin with. Now maybe it was like the Law, given to show that eventually he would remove this separation with Christ dying on the Cross. God made this division. I can't deny that. Yet he did it for a reason. Perhaps to show us who the real offspring of Abraham was but I still see it as having to wait on a timed event. We had to wait on the timed event of the Law being removed by the Cross for it to be so. 

My question is; Is it retro-retro active? Your answer is yes because God has already elected the recipients of the timed event. 

The two were divided until Christ removed the Law on the Cross and made the two one. 

I'm not sure we can do as the Elect believers do and just say since God made the elect before time, nothing else matters. Prophesy is as good as the events prophesied are when they happen.

Maybe we still have to play the story out. Even though it's already written. At least I think that is what God is doing. If not then he would have just wrote about one page worth of something like;

Adam sinned, I chose an elect to accept the death of sin through my Son and the rest of man will perish. The elect will not have to experience time and will not have to wait for my Son to die because in my mind, he already has. Thus the elect will now go straight to Heaven and the rest of you can go on to everlasting death. I know who you are, your souls haven't been made yet but are created in my mind thus you are actually here already.

So we've got some folks who believe we must live within the restraints of time placed on us and we've got some that say we don't because God works outside of time. The Jews and Gentiles were unified by the Lamb slain at Creation thus allowing God to choose his Elect.

Wait, maybe it did happen at Creation. Otherwise how did God choose his elect?
You know, you guys might be correct after all. Wow, that is a big mystery.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Leviticus 20:24&26
But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people.
26You must be holy because I, the LORD, am holy. I have set you apart from all other people to be my very own.

Exodus 33:16
How will anyone know that you look favorably on me--on me and on your people--if you don't go with us? For your presence among us sets your people and me apart from all other people on the earth."

1 Chronicles 17:21
What other nation on earth is like your people Israel? What other nation, O God, have you redeemed from slavery to be your own people? You made a great name for yourself when you redeemed your people from Egypt. You performed awesome miracles and drove out the nations that stood in their way.

(I wonder if the Jews being slaves to Egypt was the reason God chose Israel? To use their slavery as an example of the child of the free woman. The slave to the Law, etc.)

1 Chronicles 17:22
You made your people Israel your very own forever, and you, LORD, have become their God.

(There is no other way around it. We, as Gentiles, must be grafted in to this commonwealth. We must become adopted Jews.)

Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

1 Corinthians 10:32
Do not become a stumbling block, whether to Jews or Greeks or the church of God,

Ephesians 2:13
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

(every interpretation uses the phrase "but now" or "and now" as if took the time event of the Cross to be so.)

Deuteronomy 4:8
And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

(I'm thinking, Israel. With a tad of Greek thrown in.)

Psalm 147:19-20
He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel.
20 He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws. Praise the LORD.

(It's looking like it started out a Jewish thing after all. The Law that is.)

Psalm 89:34-36
"My covenant I will not violate, Nor will I alter the utterance of My lips. 35"Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David. 36His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.

(This covenant being the Seed himself. The covenant that replaced the Law)

Galatians 3:16& 17
Brothers, let me put this in human terms. Even a human covenant, once it is ratified, cannot be canceled or amended. 
17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

(The Law didn't replace the promised covenant of the Seed. The Seed covenant was promised first. The Law was interim and temporary.)


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 3:20-22
Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin. 21But now, apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, as attested by the Law and the Prophets. 22And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no distinction. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile.

(verse 33 is another where all interpretations use "but now.")

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago.

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested.

But now, apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been revealed.

"But now" makes it an event in time. A prophesy/promise that finally came forth in time.
Simple question, hard answer? Did man have to wait for this revelation or manifestation for it to be so?
Remember it was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago.

There was definitely as division yet there was a promise that the division would be removed by the Cross in the future. Their was a  revelation that it would be removed by the Seed and the real offspring of Abraham would be revealed.

Yet since we know God's true plan "now", can we look beyond what we know now by revelation and say that it was always about the true offspring even before it took the Seed to die on the Cross to make it so?


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Did man have to wait for this revelation or manifestation for it to be so?



The Law is spiritual.
Jesus fulfillment (perfection) is spiritual.
The implementation ("to be so") is spiritual.
Your question "to wait" is temporal;
just as "But now" is temporal.
(revelation of the spiritual is temporal)
We have to sort the apples and oranges (spirit and flesh);
then the question for each of us is,
 "Which is our reality, spirit or flesh?"


----------



## Israel

Investment is in an interesting term whose common usage is better understood when looking at its roots.

late 14c., "to clothe in the official robes of an office," from Latin investire "to clothe in, cover, surround," from in "in, into" (from PIE root *en "in") + vestire "to dress, clothe," from PIE *wes- (2) "to clothe," extended form of root *eu- "to dress." 

I don't know that anything God has said, in any form, at any time, to any man (whether recorded or not) does not come in any deniable fashion with a seal testifying to this "I, the Lord, have an interest in what man is".

The god of the philosopher, or better, the god of philosophy may have granted to him (_that_ god) certain attributes. Among these we (the _christian_) may find ourselves in mostly agreement, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence. The philosopher might even approach some understanding of unity, of oneness, what we commonly call a monotheistic apprehension. In other words "there must be _a one_...over all...who is alone (sole) prime cause, prime mover. A philosopher might then, even if so understanding of these attributes, (that he, himself has attributed) be moved to accept that as this is so (to himself) there is now found a _pressing toward_, if only in reason...to seek to live, somehow, in accord to this "being". It is, after all, all powerful, sole source of _reason for_ anything and everything he knows, and knower...of all. In that sense at the very least, philosophy appears to be able to take a man "pretty far" in some understanding...of God.

But it is found woefully incomplete in a thing that _we the christian_ say is apprehended "in the faith". Mercy. Philosophy cannot come to this, it is always the thing beyond reason and man's reasonings, the thing that most undercuts what appears rational thought if one is strict to it...for in that form, and strictest discipline of reason there is a manifest rejection of any concretion that says "a thing must be because I want it to be so".


No, mercy cannot be arrived at in any of man's deepest considerations, most noble (ha!) thoughts and pursuits of mind. For the mind will inevitably be lead, in that strict reasoning to know a "need" for it...but that strictest of discipline can never allow for "just because I know I need it, it must be there". So, even the mightiest "god of philospophy" or man's reason can never know what is first and foremost revealed only by God to any man, and we know, only found through Christ, mercy.

For the philosopher must accept, if approaching with reason, "I  may have some intellectual sense of what this form of the "most real" takes, but because my understanding is so incomplete, I can never know presently if I am "in accord with it (him)" This is where the knowledge of need for mercy may come, but the mind, under that discipline must, again reject..."I cannot fabricate/postulate upon my personal _need_ (that seemingly weakest of all intellectual motive)...and then curiously finds itself forswearing the very thing, the chiefest of things God would manifest...in His investment...to man.

This is where what we call the _foolishness of God_ so far outstrips man's greatest wisdom. In this thing manifest through Jesus Christ, mercy. Here our God shows his investment is never less than total and complete to man "knowing Him". He invests in that one sense of "putting on flesh" (Because the children were partakers of flesh and blood he likewise partook of the same...) And also the spending in toto of Himself in that. The "all in" God.
To see Christ is to never see anything less than this, other than this.
The philosopher may muse "how much could _this god_ be interested in my knowing him?" For _the christian_ this must be first knowing....even in what may remain of all unknowing in fullness, even to what may remain of errors of ignorance...and even a willfulness that might later be revealed as disobedience. Or a presumption to be countered, and refuted...by mercy.

And lastly investment is made in some understanding of hope for a return on what is invested. And hope...maketh not ashamed.


----------



## Artfuldodger

1 Corinthians 10:32
Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God.

Why is Paul still making a distinction between the three?


----------



## Israel

In Christ...being the only place the middle wall of partition is seen to be torn down...must be carried in the consciousness, always...not to emphasize the distinction...but lest we, even "in Christ" begin to think of ourselves in a distinction that gives birth to pride, which begets a treating of "others" with despite.

It almost seems a paradox, no? To be "in Christ" (who is most _distinct_) is the place where we discover that toward man...we are to indulge no separation of superiority.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

Israel said:


> In Christ...being the only place the middle wall of partition is seen to be torn down...must be carried in the consciousness, always...not to emphasize the distinction...but lest we, even "in Christ" begin to think of ourselves in a distinction that gives birth to pride, which begets a treating of "others" with despite.
> 
> It almost seems a paradox, no? To be "in Christ" (who is most _distinct_) is the place where we discover that toward man...we are to indulge no separation of superiority.



A lesson most fail to learn, living in the midst of their humanity.


----------



## hobbs27

John 14: “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many mansions;if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And where I go you know, and the way you know.”

5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?”

6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

The Father Revealed
7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”

8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”

9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? 

Jesus went to prepare a place for His disciples and us.  So they and us could be where He was... Where was He that He wanted us to be also? 
V. 10....In the Father!

Jesus redeemed man from sin.  Sin prevented man from being in the Father,  until Christ went to the cross and ( prepared a place)  , all men were doomed to the grave..Sheol... Hades. 

But now a place is made,  and we being in Christ and He in us,  are in the Father and He in us... This is a New Covenant phenomenon... Not possible in the old covenant because Christ had not prepared a place that we could be where He was also.


----------



## gordon 2

hobbs27 said:


> John 14: “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many mansions;if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And where I go you know, and the way you know.”
> 
> 5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?”
> 
> 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
> 
> The Father Revealed
> 7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
> 
> 8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
> 
> 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?
> 
> Jesus went to prepare a place for His disciples and us.  So they and us could be where He was... Where was He that He wanted us to be also?
> V. 10....In the Father!
> 
> Jesus redeemed man from sin.  Sin prevented man from being in the Father,  until Christ went to the cross and ( prepared a place)  , all men were doomed to the grave..Sheol... Hades.
> 
> But now a place is made,  and we being in Christ and He in us,  are in the Father and He in us... This is a New Covenant phenomenon... Not possible in the old covenant because Christ had not prepared a place that we could be where He was also.



How can you be sure of this? How do you know that mansions apply to covenants and not something else?

Did people in former covenants have eternal life? If they did they were they not "in God"? And if they were "in God" were they not in Christ whom I know to be God?

Does  Moses have a mansion, a house, with God? Why did Moses and Elijah show up at the transfiguration if they are doomed to Hades? Now about Noah? Does Noah have a mansion with God today? Did he have eternal life when he valued God's counsels enough to weather the storm? Or is he to Hades, doomed not being in our covenant phenomenon?

God never said to Moses for example he would prepare a place for his people? A rest?

I must confess, the way I understand scripture people have always been able to have eternal life, that is a close one on one relationship with God, the father, the son due the Holy Spirit.  What is different now is that through Christ gentiles  especially but also Jews are called to eternal life and not just a few good people who still have God as a companion despite a world of sin and sorrow. Despite  the severe destruction of man as the glory of God due to living for a looooong time in a world of sin  making man a creature of cowardice and inglorious, we are afforded the opportunity of a mansion with God one of many. Let us not waste the opportunity. Eternal life never made cowards of those who walk with God. To say it (x) is not possible because of this or that as I walk with God...seems something misspoken perhaps?


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> In Christ...being the only place the middle wall of partition is seen to be torn down...must be carried in the consciousness, always...not to emphasize the distinction...but lest we, even "in Christ" begin to think of ourselves in a distinction that gives birth to pride, which begets a treating of "others" with despite.
> 
> It almost seems a paradox, no? To be "in Christ" (who is most _distinct_) is the place where we discover that toward man...we are to indulge no separation of superiority.


Being "in Christ" is the superior position.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> John 14: “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many mansions;if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And where I go you know, and the way you know.”
> 
> 5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?”
> 
> 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
> 
> The Father Revealed
> 7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
> 
> 8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
> 
> 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?
> 
> Jesus went to prepare a place for His disciples and us.  So they and us could be where He was... Where was He that He wanted us to be also?
> V. 10....In the Father!
> 
> Jesus redeemed man from sin.  Sin prevented man from being in the Father,  until Christ went to the cross and ( prepared a place)  , all men were doomed to the grave..Sheol... Hades.
> 
> But now a place is made,  and we being in Christ and He in us,  are in the Father and He in us... This is a New Covenant phenomenon... Not possible in the old covenant because Christ had not prepared a place that we could be where He was also.



According to John 17, we are one with Jesus and the Father(like you said), but also will be where He is( two separate things). We are not where He is yet, because we are not yet able to behold His glory, as He describes....yet

John 17:23-24
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> Being "in Christ" is the superior position.


 Amen.
Precisely. 
Which is why there is no need for indulging ourselves to matters of seeking to make a display.


----------



## hobbs27

gordon 2 said:


> How can you be sure of this? How do you know that mansions apply to covenants and not something else?


  I didn't say mansions were covenants.  I don't believe they are. 



gordon 2 said:


> Did people in former covenants have eternal life? If they did they were they not "in God"? And if they were "in God" were they not in Christ whom I know to be God?



In the old covenant people went to the grave.. Sheol or Hades.  A holding place for the dead.  If I'm not mistaken the Epistles refer to the Old Testament dead as the dead ones... But when referring to the dead that accepted Christ in the New Covenant they were called the dead in Christ... And they slept. I don't think old Testament dead ones had eternal life but would be raised to life. 


gordon 2 said:


> Does  Moses have a mansion, a house, with God? Why did Moses and Elijah show up at the transfiguration if they are doomed to Hades? Now about Noah? Does Noah have a mansion with God today? Did he have eternal life when he valued God's counsels enough to weather the storm? Or is he to Hades, doomed not being in our covenant phenomenon?



Moses and Elijah were there in a vision.. What of Solomon that was raised by the witch of endor,  he wasn't in Christ or heaven,  but a place of rest.  Sheol..   We know none of these people could be with the Father because Jesus said no man had been to heaven. 



gordon 2 said:


> I must confess, the way I understand scripture people have always been able to have eternal life, that is a close one on one relationship with God, the father, the son due the Holy Spirit.  What is different now is that through Christ gentiles  especially but also Jews are called to eternal life and not just a few good people who still have God as a companion despite a world of sin and sorrow. Despite  the severe destruction of man as the glory of God due to living for a looooong time in a world of sin  making man a creature of cowardice and inglorious, we are afforded the opportunity of a mansion with God one of many. Let us not waste the opportunity. Eternal life never made cowards of those who walk with God. To say it (x) is not possible because of this or that as I walk with God...seems something misspoken perhaps?



 Perhaps.... I always thought eternal life through the forgiveness of sin was the good news.. But if nothing changed at the cross,  then there was no good news at all... Was there?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> Moses and Elijah were there in a vision..



hmmm..  a group vision, at the same time, seeing the same thing.  Enough that they discuss building temples to Moses, Elijah, and Jesus.

Tell me more about these group visions......


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> hmmm..  a group vision, at the same time, seeing the same thing.  Enough that they discuss building temples to Moses, Elijah, and Jesus.
> 
> Tell me more about these group visions......



Hmm.  Maybe you should be telling me more.  What did Moses and Elijah have to say about building a temple?


----------



## hobbs27

Hey Pappy! 

 After seeing Jesus (Grace)  , Elijah(prophets) and Moses (The Law) talking together, The Prophets and The Law faded away and the disciples entered a cloud in which a voice came out... "This is my beloved Son: hear him."

They saw a vision of the passing of Law and prophets,  and the rise of a new world order.. Grace. They.. We need to hear Him!


----------



## Israel

In the matter of Moses and Elijah.
Both faithful servants who bore the testimony of God's ineluctable power and righteousness. Both chosen to an end fulfilled in glory.
And no saint dare speak a word against them without reproof.

But we are left with a testimony that is, in all things written given as our brother Paul has said:

Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

We are given to see things in the testimonies of both Moses and Elijah. Again, none can deny their use by God, nor their benefit to us. Yet in that we are given also to see, for our admonition, at least those in Christ, of the places where we are _allowed_ to see a departure with consequences, in the smiting of the rock and the complaint that Elijah alone "stood" for God.
One had to bear not entering into the "promised land", the other a reproof, and the passing of his mantle.
None of us is unable to identify, there. Or, if we cannot, perhaps we have yet to learn.

One pressed beyond his measure by a people he saw as unwilling to obey, and acting and speaking unadvisedly; the other carrying the self pity of a man believing he alone remained in obedience.

Of course none of us is fit to rebuke them, or even find a fault, for if we are honest (are we honest men?), that buckling seen in them, _allowed _to be seen in them we might admit...and therefore_ allowed _to be seen in us, is a bit closer to home than a written page. But no matter to that, unless we care to deny it.

This winepress in which we see our Lord's victory in salvation is as much a revelation of our _commonality as man_ as it is the exceeding glory of His triumph. He did not buckle nor waver, with face set like flint, without complaint nor whimper, through and past all test where others may have seemed to fall short.

He steadfastly held man and His Father, all of earthy, and all of Heavenly together in himself, never scorning the one, nor complaining_ to the One_ of all He had been given to do, in what He was, a man.

How far we go to distance ourselves, _to distinguish ourselves_ never goes unseen. A sheep before its shearers, remaining dumb, simply appears as all other sheep. But we are given to see a different way. We are given to see the only One ever fit to utter a word, there, in complete and total righteousness both to resist the shearing as completely unmerited and the righteous rebuke against sheep for being so dumb.

But smiting of rock is never seen in Him, with attendant scornful words toward what appears rebellious. No whining of "why must this all fall only upon me...?" Instead we hear "of all you have given me I have lost none"...and "what shall I say then 'Father save me from this hour?' but it is for this very hour I have come"

Yes, there were things to be spoken of by Moses and Elijah to Jesus Christ of pressures to be faced "in his upcoming demise", pitfalls made plain. 

Who appeared in glory, and spoke of his death which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

In Christ there is no failure to enter. No passing of mantle for another to fulfill. Not one impulse in that Most Distinguished One, to distinguish himself from His brothers by scorn, nor betray the calling of His Father by complaint. We too may learn through Christ, of all things written for our admonition. We may learn to pay heed.

If you were of the world, it would love you as its own. Instead, the world hates you, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. Remember the word that I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’’ If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they kept My word, they will keep yours as well. But they will treat you like this on account of My name, because they do not know the One who sent Me.


----------



## gordon 2

NE GA Pappy said:


> hmmm..  a group vision, at the same time, seeing the same thing.  Enough that they discuss building temples to Moses, Elijah, and Jesus.
> 
> Tell me more about these group visions......



Exactly...  I never considered it a vision... but can see why some would...


----------



## NE GA Pappy

I have never heard of a group of men having the same vision at the same time.  I doubt this was a vision either.  I think it was the real thing.  I see no reason to think it was anything but an actual appearance of Moses and Elijah to minister to Jesus.  Why wouldn't it be?


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Perhaps.... I always thought eternal life through the forgiveness of sin was the good news.. But if nothing changed at the cross,  then there was no good news at all... Was there?



I don't think Paul got the memo either. If everything worked out of the time sequence, then why did God go to the trouble to place it within time?
He could have said, "hey, it's in the script, that's close enough for me. No need to look forward to the promises."


----------



## gordon 2

Luke 5;32

I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

So now... there were righteous individuals... before there were Christians. And I think the reference to the righteous was to people living when our Lord Jesus was about his ministry that would begin with the Wedding at Canaan and would end with the sending of the Holy Spirit to His disciples. It also suggests to me that there were righteous people before this time, as well.



 Genesis 16:6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

I submit that Abram believed the Lord to the extent that he acted on this belief. If Abram acted on this belief, then he walked with God. I personally find it difficult to not say that if Abram acted on God's will, he was not a participant in eternal life. And therefore the righteous in our Lord's days of ministry as indicated previously are equally to eternal life, even but especially before the jaw dropping sacrifice of the cross.

For some reason some people still had it in their makeup to walk with God, despite that the world about them which was filled with the lost in the fog of the curse-- the cumulative effects of original sin over the time spans of history.

 Duet 9:5 It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 (I personally think the gentiles are the driven out people... the lost people... He called you to his eternal glory.)


John 17:3


And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

(Did Moses not know the only true God, and Elijah and countless more!)



John 5: 24

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

I submit that the words of Jesus are God's word and God's word is already know to man before Jesus provides the Holy Spirit to his disciples-- the saints...

1st Cor 2:11

For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

( The thoughts of God were made know to man long before there were Christians. Abraham is perhaps our greatest example of this. There are many more examples. The righteous have always heard and believed our Creator.)

 Jesus did not come for them ( the righteous), he came for the not so righteous so that they-we like our now spiritual heroes, we-they who were unrighteous, lost, unable to hear, unable to see ( unable to live with eternal life), sick  and living with evil spirits  can now live with faith as the righteous live, as our spiritual heroes live and lived even before Jesus and since his loving ministry... as Messiah ( Saver-Savior), and Good Shepard to the lost. Us.


----------



## hobbs27

gordon 2 said:


> Exactly...  I never considered it a vision... but can see why some would...


Matthew 17:9

As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Do not tell anyone about this vision until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." 

It's scriptural.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Mark 9:9    And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> Mark 9:9    And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.



Does Mark contradict Matthew,  or does Matthew compliment Mark? 

http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/17-9.htm


----------



## gordon 2

hobbs27 said:


> Matthew 17:9
> 
> As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Do not tell anyone about this vision until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."
> 
> It's scriptural.



Ok... I said I understand why some would think this a vision, yes it is scriptural. 

However the transfiguration for me is akin to Jesus appearing ( not as a vision) to the disciples after he was layed in the tomb.

There is something about the transfiguration which might have been said to be a vision to the disciples seeing Jesus become radiant with light and Moses and Elijah equally present with our Lord that seems akin to the reality of  the resurrected, or the heavenly at least which is as real (reality) for us. Where exactly is reality most true, most real, between the graduations from life in this here old world of satanic mills  and life rich in the love of God? For me there is something about the transfiguration that is more true about reality, then the reality that  people ( disciples) who witnessed this event. For their inner make ups  it might have been perceived as a vision, but the event was a finer reality than their capacity to see it then. Perhaps. Maybe. Kinda...


----------



## Artfuldodger

gordon 2 said:


> Luke 5;32
> 
> I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
> 
> So now... there were righteous individuals... before there were Christians. And I think the reference to the righteous was to people living when our Lord Jesus was about his ministry that would begin with the Wedding at Canaan and would end with the sending of the Holy Spirit to His disciples. It also suggests to me that there were righteous people before this time, as well.



For some reason I have always thought what set Christianity aside from Judaism was a belief in Christ, not righteousness. 

John 14:16
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

That just being righteous wasn't ever good enough because the penalty imposed by sin would still be present. 
Maybe a belief in the promise of Christ would suffice. Maybe if one knows God they know Jesus and vice-versa. Therefore it say a Pacific Islander knew God by nature and was righteous, he would know Jesus as well. He could have known Jesus as God by election instead of hearing the Word even before the gospel came in the form presented by Paul.

If this is true then the Reformed view is correct. People knowing God. A time when teaching would not be needed. God himself will make them aware.


----------



## hobbs27

gordon 2 said:


> Ok... I said I understand why some would think this a vision, yes it is scriptural.
> 
> However the transfiguration for me is akin to Jesus appearing ( not as a vision) to the disciples after he was layed in the tomb.
> 
> There is something about the transfiguration which might have been said to be a vision to the disciples seeing Jesus become radiant with light and Moses and Elijah equally present with our Lord that seems akin to the reality of  the resurrected, or the heavenly at least which is as real (reality) for us.



It was a vision of Christ coming. The Parousia.


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> For some reason I have always thought what set Christianity aside from Judaism was a belief in Christ, not righteousness.
> 
> John 14:16
> Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> That just being righteous wasn't ever good enough because the penalty imposed by sin would still be present.
> Maybe a belief in the promise of Christ would suffice. Maybe if one knows God they know Jesus and vice-versa. Therefore it say a Pacific Islander knew God by nature and was righteous, he would know Jesus as well. He could have known Jesus as God by election instead of hearing the Word even before the gospel came in the form presented by Paul.
> 
> If this is true then the Reformed view is correct. People knowing God. A time when teaching would not be needed. God himself will make them aware.



I think your on to something here. Did not Paul say somewhere that all knew God but some just dismissed the relationship? 

God being the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit...equal... I find it hard to not comprehend that the God which was in Abraham's heart was not Jesus in the Father. But hey that's just one way of looking at it.


----------



## gordon 2

hobbs27 said:


> It was a vision of Christ coming. The Parousia.



What I understand of it is that Jesus for reasons God knows gathered Moses and Elijah just ahead of his taking on the sins of the world for all who would believe.

I know that Moses begged God that He spare the people who were rank sinners. I'm not sure Elijah did likewise or failed to do this. I'm told other prophets begged God to spare sinners. Somehow Jesus was aligning Himself with those prophets plea to God-- that even people who could not be faithful should be spared and saved. Jesus was going to answer their prayers--- like only God could!  I bet Elijah and Moses were awed!

So this was not a vision for me. It was more like a confident general pointing out and pointing to a map concerning how an enemy was going to be roundly defeated. And that general was " a other prophet like me" and that general was God-- the God of eternal life, the author of that which the prophets prophecy.


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> Mark 9:9    And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.



What is the importance or difference in the disciples seeing them as a vision or otherwise? Regardless did they see them as spirit beings or flesh? Were they resurrected men? They saw them as men but we know that part of being a man is spiritual. We know they both had died a physical death. Is it impossible to see a spirit? Did they see them with their eyes and hear them converse with their ears?
Why would one way or the other be that important?

To me the question would be why did Jesus tell them not to tell anyone what they had seen until he had risen from the dead.


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> What is the importance or difference in the disciples seeing them as a vision or otherwise? Regardless did they see them as spirit beings or flesh? Were they resurrected men?
> 
> To me the question would be why did Jesus tell them not to tell anyone what they had seen until he had risen from the dead.



Maybe because it would get everyone in a tangle... and things were going to get tangled up real good as it was... 

It is the light of the resurrection, the grace of God through Jesus, the patience of the Holy Spirit that makes the Transfiguration minister to me-- not as a vision but---as a reality not unlike declaring you my brother, that we are to His kingdom, that it is just to love and foolish to hate from "born again eyes" and seeing not from the subject gazed-contemplated at, but at least in part from God's will which is in part at least now know to me and as a friend practiced.

Now I will shut up and let the person addressed answer....

Col 3:4  When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> Does Mark contradict Matthew,  or does Matthew compliment Mark?
> 
> http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/17-9.htm



since I am not a greek scholar, I looked up the actual words in my interlinear greek/english New Testament.

The actual greek word used in Matt 17-9 means a vision or a supernatural appearance.  

I reckon it was...

Seeing Moses and Elijah standing next to Jesus and ministering to him would certainly fall under the heading of supernatural appearance.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Gordon, there was a host of things Jesus told people not to talk about.  I wonder why all the time.  When he healed the blind man, he told him not to tell anyone.  You reckon nobody would notice if he didn't tell them he could see??? lol


----------



## Israel

I believe we can get things backward. We think what we see in the natural is the real, and the true. In that manner what we hear of visions become something less than _the real_. They can , in our mind then, take on a sort of imaginary property, as though they are something less, or, at the very least, less than true substance. The rock we hold in our hand may be to us the true, the substantial...but we know this is not the end of the matter.

Faith delivers us to something else.

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

The above would be all of confusion were it not true. How can such a statement be made? Indeed, apart from faith it is all nonsense to a man. "Not look at what is seen?" But "we look at what is unseen"?

Visions "of God" are always a view into what is the real, and true. Here, the temporal, which at best may serve as a pointer, a_ hint_(if you will) at what is not seen, even in their beholding, must give way for the true. 

One man may say "this is rock, this is nothing more than what I attribute to it in being" (and we may see man has been very busy in forming all sorts of attributes of definition, mass, size, compositions...has "come up" with a myriad of words for description...thinking in descriptions he has captured all the essence of rock's being) We are oh so easily given to declare the end of a thing in our definitions. Words we make up to describe the "what is", and then by implication even those words take on an immutability of finality...to us. Potassium, silicate minerals, or traces of selenium, chromium... This is all of what is...of rock! This is all  there is to know "of rock!"

Faith, of course, sees quite differently.


----------



## gordon 2

NE GA Pappy said:


> Gordon, there was a host of things Jesus told people not to talk about.  I wonder why all the time.  When he healed the blind man, he told him not to tell anyone.  You reckon nobody would notice if he didn't tell them he could see??? lol



Well to what, to who, would-could people testify that they were healed? or that supernatural events were accomplished by our Lord? Of Jesus the son of Mary and Joseph? A new prophet? A Rabbi in the spirit? A healer? The Messiah? A wise man from Gallilee? A disciple of John?

I think Jesus explains at some point that his miracles are signs... of the Messiah. I personally think they are signs for all times and all of mankind. They are signs for those who have faith alone and they are signs for those who need to check with scripture what the signs of the Messiah would be. And they are signs of recognition for those who have and had the Father in their hearts to being with and what they recognize is God present and with us.


----------



## gordon 2

Israel said:


> I believe we can get things backward. We think what we see in the natural is the real, and the true. In that manner what we hear of visions become something less than _the real_. They can , in our mind then, take on a sort of imaginary property, as though they are something less, or, at the very least, less than true substance. The rock we hold in our hand may be to us the true, the substantial...but we know this is not the end of the matter.
> 
> Faith delivers us to something else.
> 
> While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
> 
> The above would be all of confusion were it not true. How can such a statement be made? Indeed, apart from faith it is all nonsense to a man. "Not look at what is seen?" But "we look at what is unseen"?
> 
> Visions "of God" are always a view into what is the real, and true. Here, the temporal, which at best may serve as a pointer, a_ hint_(if you will) at what is not seen, even in their beholding, must give way for the true.
> 
> One man may say "this is rock, this is nothing more than what I attribute to it in being" (and we may see man has been very busy in forming all sorts of attributes of definition, mass, size, compositions...has "come up" with a myriad of words for description...thinking in descriptions he has captured all the essence of rock's being) We are oh so easily given to declare the end of a thing in our definitions. Words we make up to describe the "what is", and then by implication even those words take on an immutability of finality...to us. Potassium, silicate minerals, or traces of selenium, chromium... This is all of what is...of rock! This is all  there is to know "of rock!"
> 
> Faith, of course, sees quite differently.



 I think I get what you mean here. The transfiguration is more real from an in Christ perspective than the talk back from my wife which I love dearly. LOL.... And sometimes her talk back can get real real in a New York minute.  To see in Christ is not just a refection of the sun's radiation on objects which are picked up by the eye and processed by the brain. To see in Christ is to experience eternal life or life active as it is meant to be. It is to experience the will of God and many other things... in God. The old bromide" I  was blind but now I see" does not speak of eye function, but of a transformation of the whole soul vis a vis its assessments of realities often never suspected previous.


----------



## Israel

gordon 2 said:


> I think I get what you mean here. The transfiguration is more real from an in Christ perspective than the talk back from my wife which I love dearly. LOL.... And that talk back can get real real in a New York minute.



Amen!

Yes!


----------



## Israel

gordon 2 said:


> I think I get what you mean here. The transfiguration is more real from an in Christ perspective than the talk back from my wife which I love dearly. LOL.... And sometimes her talk back can get real real in a New York minute.  To see in Christ is not just a refection of the sun's radiation on objects which are picked up by the eye and processed by the brain. To see in Christ is to experience eternal life or life active as it is meant to be. It is to experience the will of God and many other things... in God. The old bromide" I  was blind but now I see" does not speak of eye function, but of a transformation of the whole soul vis a vis its assessments of realities often never suspected previous.


Yes! And then, in and from that place...to be found sent into the world.


----------



## gordon 2

Israel said:


> Yes! And then, in and from that place...to be found sent into the world.



The derail topics of this tread still haunt me--the subject of the Transfiguration especially. 

What haunt's me especially is that of a reported or believed vision of Christ before his  ascension.

To my mind if the Transfiguration is a vision then it is a Christophany highly unusual. 

The traditional definition of a Christophany is that it is a non-physical  and therefore supernatural manifestation of Jesus.

The context of the transfiguration is that a physically present Jesus transforms into a non-physical presence to mingle with two non-physically present individuals, these are Moses and Elijah.

So this is what I see:

Jesus physically present.
Jesus' friends physically present.

Jesus non-physically present.
Elijah non-physically present.
Moses non physically present.

What I find haunting is that the Transfiguration is were two spiritual realities meet and mingle. Why is this event important that the Gospel writers would include it in their  gospels?  It is a theophany-christophany both "mount to mouth" or physically present and yet of an unusual and  striking visual nature more common to spiritual visions of the holy... 

For me the  transfiguration scene is so real that the description of the disciples at the event seems to be the vision!

So some find it a vision and some a miracle, I read. It is highly uncommon as a christophany where Christ is transformed as if non-physical while He is yet physical or not with his glorified body, ( that is prior the ascension.)

Hobbs indicates that it is a vision of Christ coming.

I read today that Thomas Aquinas said that it showed the perfection of life in heaven.

 I read in Wiki that the Transfiguration is said by some to be a pivot point of the gospels-- where heaven and earth meet, it is where " human nature and God meet" : 


"In Christian teachings, the Transfiguration is a pivotal moment, and the setting on the mountain is presented as the point where human nature meets God: the meeting place of the temporal and the eternal, with Jesus himself as the connecting point, acting as the bridge between heaven and earth.[10] Moreover, Christians consider the Transfiguration to fulfill an Old Testament messianic prophecy that Elijah would return again after his ascension (Malachi 4:5-6). 

Gardner (2015, p. 218) states... ( source Wiki)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfiguration_of_Jesus


----------



## Artfuldodger

I'm not sure what to make of it as if it was physical or spiritual. Perhaps Jesus' first return to the spiritual realm or first return to God the Father.

Some say that the presence of Moses and Elijah represented the "Law and the Prophets", as God saying about Jesus, "listen to him."

Like the old going away and the new coming in. Just one of those mysteries man has always pondered.


Jesus physically present.
Jesus' friends physically present.

Jesus non-physically present.
Elijah non-physically present.
Moses non physically present.

This reads like Jesus and his friends were physically watching three spirits gather together. Which is believable but places  physical Jesus watching spiritual Jesus as a separate entity.


----------



## Israel

But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what God said to you: ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?’ He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” 

Of course Jesus Christ could be found in communication with all living.


----------



## hobbs27

Jesus replied, “Your mistake is that you don’t know the Scriptures, and you don’t know the power of God. For when the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. In this respect they will be like the angels in heaven.


----------



## gordon 2

hobbs27 said:


> Jesus replied, “Your mistake is that you don’t know the Scriptures, and you don’t know the power of God. For when the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. In this respect they will be like the angels in heaven.



Yet does this say they will not be married? Why would any marry or be given in marriage when the dead rise? Are the blessings which is and goes forth from the spiritual union of the two sexes  and into one flesh not determined this side of the resurrection. When Peter is raised, will he be raised without his mate?  ---- which bases was never pejoratively carnal but a gift from God? 
"
Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD."

Can I suggest that at the resurrection it will be plainly settled beforehand from the first riser of the great event that the one who lived with many had but one mate or none at all. Like angels in this respect, man will be of fully formed integrity. The judgement will not be on it, but on the love of God in the life? Maybe...?


----------



## hobbs27

gordon 2 said:


> Yet does this say they will not be married? Why would any marry or be given in marriage when the dead rise? Are the blessings which is and goes forth from the spiritual union of the two sexes  and into one flesh not determined this side of the resurrection. When Peter is raised, will he be raised without his mate?  ---- which bases was never pejoratively carnal but a gift from God?
> "
> Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD."
> 
> Can I suggest that at the resurrection it will be plainly settled beforehand from the first riser of the great event that the one who lived with many had but one mate or none at all. Like angels in this respect, man will be of fully formed integrity. The judgement will not be on it, but on the love of God in the life? Maybe...?



I don't think it's so much about marriage or not,  but an example of a spiritual kingdom. The sadducee were unable to think spiritually because they were so fixated on their present physical life. 

 I don't know for sure though,  it's just how it appears to me.


----------

