Christian Laws

quote:

---

One is not justified unto eternal life through works of the law.

---

Never said we were. We've been over this before.My issue is with Christians who make comments like Peg and Richh. We aren't discussing justification, we are discussing acceptable behavior. Even you said God cares about how we behave. Justification may be by faith, but right behavior is still expected. That's what Jesus taught and that's what Paul taught.As Richh provided in Message 301 and you've alluded to in this thread. Paul clearly states that those who practice the deeds he listed would not inherit the kingdom of God. So while there are no laws prohibiting us from practicing the fruit of the spirit, he implies that there are laws against the deeds of the flesh.So from Paul's statement in Galations, even though one may be justified by faith, one can still lose their spot due to wrong behavior, which is essentially what Peg said in the quote above and Richh implied in his post listed above.So if we can lose justification from wrong behavior, one needs to know what constitutes wrong behavior outside of our current legal system and where God deems it wrong.

quote:

---

Those exhortations to live righteously after being redeemed would included both exhortations of Jesus and of the letter writing apostles.

---

I haven't disagreed that right behavior is expected.

Again, you're not addressing the point of Message 311.Paul didn't have the authority to change any of the Jewish Laws and Paul didn't change any of the Jewish laws.Circumcision was part of the Abrahamic covenant.Paul was correct that circumcision is not a means to salvation. So one should not get circumcised for that reason.He did not have a problem with those circumcising for the sake of tradition or to make evangelizing easier as mentioned by the unknown author of Acts. What Paul was teaching against was the same thing you keep babbling about, but he didn't change any laws for the Jews (or the Greeks) and he didn't have the authority to do so.

quote:

---

As expected, total evasion of the issue of whether you regard Christ as having authority either, let alone His apostles, including Paul.

---

Authority to what?

quote:

---

Some may regard that as changing. Some may not. The point I make is that Christ is Paul's total focus, for Christ is the end of the law.

---

End of a law means it is no longer followed at all. So Christians should not be pulling anything out of the Jewish laws as a behavioral requirement. (Still not talking about justification or salvation.)As you and others have shown, right behavior is required and wrong behavior or lack of specific right behaviors may prevent one from the final inheritance.If following one's current legal system is not enough, then right and wrong need to be clearly stated so all can be held accountable to the same criteria.

You talk about we are not talking about this and we are not talking about that. Seems we are "not talking" about so many things, it is hard to follow what you are talking about.I'm not going back to the beginning of this thread to read all the entries. I see you allude to some points that I had to make clear to you, which you now seem to have added to your arsenal, to prove, I'm not sure what. "Lose their spot" .... the phrase is kind of vague. If you mean lose eternal redemption, no, the saved cannot "lose their spot" in that regard.But let me see if I can find a point here. I haven't said the redeemed can "lose justification from wrong behavior". And if I elaborate you will probably complain that we are not talking about that. But to make myself clear I have to talk about that because, evidently, you don't understand.I HAVE said that one could lose the "reward" through something like that. But if I try to elaborate on the distinction between the gift of eternal redemption and the reward in the coming kingdom, I suspect that you will object - "But we are not talking about Justification".Part of the problem may be here that in order (for me at least) to clarify something by drawing up distinctions, I have to talk about it. You may have a knee jerk reaction that "But we are not talking about that." But for my purposes we HAVE to talk about that to make the matter make sense.But moving on, let's see what else you say here. Okay. I follow you here. Somehow this is suppose to be related to "Christian Laws".At this point I may not answer these posts in order. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

In Christ's case to accomplish God's eternal redemption and build the church, establish the kingdom, inherit the universe, be Lord of all.In Paul's case it includes authority to preach to define and preach the gospel, define doctrines for the Christian church, establish churches, and complete the word of God. That sounds like what I have been saying. I do NOT vouch that that is what Peg is saying. It appears what Rich was saying. I know that there are light years of difference between Peg's theology and Rich's.I might not put it the same way though. Christians should not be putting each other under the bondage of legality. Christians, if they intend to preach the gospel, should not be instructing people to follow the law of Moses to be reconciled to God.Christians involved in political activity to see that a country passes good laws which they deem are reflective or reminiscient of even identical to laws of Moses, is their personal business, IMO.I do not consider that Gospel preaching. And I know that some people are mad that Christians would be telling them not to do this or that in accordance to the law of Moses.I think there is a distinction betweem what a Christian, or any other faith based practitioner, does as a political or social activism and their teaching the basic tenets of their faith.If I as a Christian instruct my neighber's kid not to steal my kid's bicycle that is not Gospel preaching per se. And it is stupid for you to react to that, scolding me "Christians should not be pulling 'thou shalt not steal' out of the law of Moses' as a behavior requirement."The same applies the other way around. I made my kid go back to the store and return some candy that he stole. He should not steal. Yes, the law of Moses says it. And other documents say it.You can't say "But as a Christian you should not take from the law of Moses and tell your kid not to steal." Sure I can. Law is a schoolmaster leading us to grace anyway.Check the scope of your criticism. Don't stretch it out too far as to be absurd. Once again, for me at least, I HAVE to talk about Justification in order to help you understand the difference between the "final inheritance" and a temporary reward, which can be lost.I think I did this in posts past. I don't think you understand or you would not use (with me at least) the phrase "lose final inheritance".And if I continue to explain and go over it again, then you say I'm babbling.If I thought it got through then probably I wouldn't have to babble. The issue for the disciple is not right and wrong but spiritual life or spiritual death.And that requires much discussion. Paul said "the mind set on the spirit is life and peace". The standard for the one walking in the Spirit is life and peace. The goal is conformatity to the image of Christ. The failure may result in the lose of temporary reward and not the lose of "final inheritance".I am saying nothing new that I have no elaborated on before.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I don't follow you at all. The crack about babbling is disrespectful.And I already pointed out the historical transition that the apostles went through. Paul did circumcize someone to facilitate gospel preaching. True. But his strongest letters against circucision occured after he learned some lessons in the blow up at Jerusalem.He saw it did not pay to have one foot in the law of Moses like James. Can you point out ANYTHING in Galatians, written after this event, that Paul cared anything about the practice ?And Luke wrote Acts.That's part of your problem. You just don't take what the New Testament says. It says something. But you just don't accept it. Or you take it selectively submitting it to some volume unknown to me, that you are measuring everything by.Is Prof. Eardman your main enfluence ??I think that that is part of your problem. You don't believe what it says. Okay, the strong evidence is that Luke wrote it - Acts 1:1,2), and other indications of the accompanying of Paul in his journeys.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

"Lose their spot" .... the phrase is kind of vague. If you mean lose eternal redemption, no, the saved cannot "lose their spot" in that regard.

---

Then tell that to Peg, not me. I'm not claiming anyone can lose their spot.

quote:

---

I haven't said the redeemed can "lose justification from wrong behavior".

---

I didn't say you did.

quote:

---

"But we are not talking about Justification".

---

Exactly!

quote:

---

Somehow this is suppose to be related to "Christian Laws".

---

This thread is based on something Peg and I discussed in another thread. See Message 6. I made it clear in Message 316 that my issue is with Christians who make comments like Peg and Richh, which I quoted in Message 316.My contention is that there are no Christian Laws.Like Hillel before him, Jesus brought a more humane and universal notion of Torah interpretation. The spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law. If one gets the spirit right, the details will take care of themselves.We look at what the authors are trying to tell their audience and bring that spirit forward when obeying the laws of our own individual nations all the way down to our communities and families.There are no Christian laws, there are only Christian principles derived from the spirit of the ancient writings and the experiences of people who have gone before. Message 114If you believe there are Christian laws, then list them; if not, then why are you babbling at me?

Thank you for the exchange brutha jay.
Hope things have been well for you ... You have asserted that the main issue for a disciple of Joshua's is not 'right or wrong', but rather 'spiritual life or spiritual death'.It seems that one of the things sista dawn continually expresses is that attaining this 'spiritual life or spiritual death' may be contingent upon knowing, matter of factly, exactly what is 'right or wrong' through our Father's eyes and within our Father's heart.I am not exactly sure why you would disagree with such a notion when taking into consideration the words attributed to Joshua in ...

quote:

---

Matisyahu 7:21

​

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven —

​

Only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

​

22 ~ On that day, many will say to me,

​

‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’

​

23 ~ Then I will declare to them,

​

‘I never knew you.

​

Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’

---

I understand that you are a disciple of uncle Paul, but can you clarify what you mean by your statement above in light of Joshua's prophetic statement.Thank you for this courtesy brutha jay.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

quote:

---

Christians, if they intend to preach the gospel, should not be instructing people to follow the law of Moses to be reconciled to God.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

If I as a Christian instruct my neighber's kid not to steal my kid's bicycle that is not Gospel preaching per se. And it is stupid for you to react to that, scolding me "Christians should not be pulling 'thou shalt not steal' out of the law of Moses' as a behavior requirement."

---

I didn't specify any specific Mosaic Law. Not stealing is part of current local laws in the US. One doesn't have to reach back to Moses for that one.

quote:

---

The same applies the other way around. I made my kid go back to the store and return some candy that he stole. He should not steal. Yes, the law of Moses says it. And other documents say it.

​

You can't say "But as a Christian you should not take from the law of Moses and tell your kid not to steal." Sure I can. Law is a schoolmaster leading us to grace anyway.

---

As I said in Message 114: We look at what the authors are trying to tell their audience and bring that spirit forward when obeying the laws of our own individual nations all the way down to our communities and families.

quote:

---

The issue for the disciple is not right and wrong but spiritual life or spiritual death.

---

Then tell that to Peg and Richh, not me.

quote:

---

I am saying nothing new that I have no elaborated on before.

---

I know. I was actually trying to engage Richh in discussion since he is relatively new.

quote:

---

I don't follow you at all.

---

Justification. You know, faith not works etc., etc.

quote:

---

He saw it did not pay to have one foot in the law of Moses like James. Can you point out ANYTHING in Galatians, written after this event, that Paul cared anything about the practice ?

---

It doesn't matter whether he cared about the practice or not. The point is he didn't change any laws for the Jews and had no authority to change any laws for the Jews or the Greeks. The Greeks weren't under Mosaic law anyway.

quote:

---

And Luke wrote Acts.

---

I agree, the author of Luke wrote Acts.

quote:

---

That's part of your problem. You just don't take what the New Testament says. It says something. But you just don't accept it. Or you take it selectively submitting it to some volume unknown to me, that you are measuring everything by.

---

Actually I just don't necessarily take your version of what the NT says or other dogma that rears its head.

quote:

---

Is Prof. Eardman your main enfluence ??

---

I don't know who that is.

quote:

---

I think that that is part of your problem. You don't believe what it says. Okay, the strong evidence is that Luke wrote it - Acts 1:1,2), and other indications of the accompanying of Paul in his journeys.

---

The author of Luke is also unknown.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I think this is largely rhetoric. Many people who simply do not believe the clear statements of the Bible rear the "dogma" excuse to reject what is written.Watch.John 1:1 aays "the Word was God." John 1:14 says the Word became flesh. Do you believe that Jesus is God come in the flesh ?Yes or No?Is Jesus God?Yes or No ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

As opposed to the words attributed to the Anointed One Thanks for the exchange.
Hope things are well ... If I may borrow one of your lines brutha jay, I think this is largely rhetoric.It seems that there is a certain propensity on behalf of some who simply do not believe the clear statements attributed to brother Joshua the Anointed One, wherein these ones consistently decide to, perhaps inadvertently or otherwise, manipulate a latter form of platonic greek poetry in a feeble attempt to reject what the Anointed One has plainly stated.While the concept of the 'logos' is matter of factly not of Jewish origin, as the Anointed One and his disciples certainly were, the Johannine 'logos' does, however, bear an interesting relation to early Hellenistic thought. So then, the author of John appears to use familiar concepts as points of contact to capture the attention of the people of his day; with one of these points being this usage of 'logos', which would have been quite familiar to those within earshot. Heraclitus (6th century BCE) was the first philosopher to express belief in this concept.While failing to represent god in any specific way, which the concept did not intend to accomplich to begin with, it did serve as a principle of reason at work in the cosmic order of the universe ¹ that seems, within his extant fragmentary writings, to have been connected with the image of fire ². Heraclitus was to prepare the way for logos philosophy in the minds of later Greek thinkers such as the philosophers Plato (429-347 BCE), as well as, Aristotle (384-322 BCE), both of whom used the word logos in a most complex manner throughout their various writings.The concept's philosophical rhetoric often denoted discourse and, more specifically, rational explanation ³. Plato identified thinking (dianoia) with what was formed in the mind and discourse (logos) with that which became expressed rationally through the lips ⁴. According to Plato, the visible universe itself is a perfect reflection of invisible ideas ⁵.Aristotle then employed the term logos when referring to speech and thought, but also described it as 'definition', 'proportion', or 'ratio' ⁶. Plato and Aristotle certainly had a great influence on later ideas about the logos, although their particular type of philosophy is noticeably distinct from the latter ⁷, such as variant apologetic schools of thought.These notions of discourse, speech and thought expressed rationally through the lips seem to fit nicely with these words attributed to the Anointed One ...

quote:

---

John 8:28

​

Then Joshua said, When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he,

​

And I do nothing on my own initiative, but just as the Father taught me, these things I speak.

​

29 ~ And the One who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, because I always do those things that please him.

​

30 ~ While he was saying these things, many people believed in him.

---

In context, there is the sense John 1:1 may easily suggest that, 'In the beginning was the {Father's} discourse, and the {Father's} discourse was with {the Father}, and the discourse was {the Father}.'. So then, John 1:14 may as easily affirm that, 'Now the {Father's} discourse became flesh and took up residence among {Joshua's disciples}. {They} saw {the Anointed One's} glory — the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.'.As far as whether One may believe brother Joshua was the Father 'come in the flesh' ...Watch.

quote:

---

Matisyahu 19:16

​

Now someone came up to him and said,

​

Teacher, what good thing must I do to gain eternal life?

​

17 ~ Joshua said to him, Why do you ask me about what is good?

​

There is only one who is good.

​

But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

---

quote:

---

Mark 10:17

​

Now as Joshua was starting out on his way, someone ran up to him, fell on his knees, and said,

​

Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?

​

18 ~ Joshua said to him, Why do you call me good?

​

No one is good except God alone.

---

quote:

---

Luke 18:18

​

Now a certain ruler asked him,

​

Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?

​

19 ~ Joshua said to him, Why do you call me good?

​

No one is good except God alone.

---

In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.One Love

​

¹ Hastings, J. (1909). Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (Vol. 2), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, pp.50.

​

² Freedman, D.N. (1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Vol. 4), New York: Doubleday, pp.438.

​

³ Ibid.

​

⁴ Ibid.

​

⁵ Lightfoot, R.H. (1960). St. John's Gospel, London: Oxford University Press, pp.53.

​

⁶ Freedman, D.N. (1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Vol. 4), New York: Doubleday, pp.438.

​

⁷ Hastings, J. (1909). Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (Vol. 2), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, pp.50.
Edited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : pnct.Edited by Bailey, : grammarEdited by Bailey, : grammarEdited by Bailey, : grammar

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Peg wrote (in Post #7):""Hi bluejay, you wrote:"I'm curious. In your opinion, what does this mean for the 10 Commandments?Do they still stand as a code of conduct for Christians to follow? Or, are they outdated now"-as you know, the Mosaic Law was given only to the isrealites and no other nation. according to Paul it had a special purpose..."To make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made ... Consequently the Law has become our tutor [or, teacher] leading to Christ." Galatians 3:19-24Once the Christ had appeard, he fulfilled the requirements of the Law and sacrificed himself for the salvation of all mankind. When God accepted Jesus sacrifice Paul could say at Gal 3:10 "Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law," and at Rom 10.4 Christ is the end of the Law"Regarding the 10 commandments, Paul showed that christians were no longer required to observe even them.Rom 7:6-7 "Now we have been discharged from the Law...Really I would not have come to know sin if it had not been for the Law; and, for example, I would not have known covetousness if the Law had not said: 'You must not covet.'"You probably recognize that law as the last of the Ten Commandments. This shows the whole law including the sabbaths, festivals, sacrifices and all that went along with it was no longer relevant.""-I don't think it is right to say that "the whole law...is no longer relevant." The law is called the testimony of God in the Old Testament. As such, the law describes what kind of God He is. The law has two aspects, a ceremonial aspect and a moral aspect.I agree with you that the ceremonial aspects of the law, such as circiumcision, and the priestly and Levital service, were given to the Jews as the people of God. But I also think that all people can learn something about God by the ceremonial law - that God is holy, righteous and yet still wants to be approached by man.The Bible teaches that no one, Jew or Gentile, can ignore the moral aspect of the law and be right with God. When Paul mentioned coveting in Romans 7, he followed by saying, "Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from the body of this death" (Rom. 7:24). He did not condone coveting, nor was he happy with his coveting. The law had caused him to recognize sin in himself.In the next chapter he describes how the 'righteous requirement of the law' can be fulfilled in those who walk according to the spirit (Rom. 8:4). The point in Romans 7 is regarding the means of fulfilling God's requirement, not the requirement itself.Jesus said (Matt 5:17-19) that He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. He did fulfill the law. He did live a perfect life and offered Himself to redeem men from the curse of the law.But God also desires many to be "conformed to the images of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers" (Rom 8:29). These many sons should also live like the firstborn Son.Edited by Richh, : No reason given.Edited by Richh, : No reason given.Edited by Richh, : No reason given.

My reply to this post (if I find time to reply) will be transfered to the thread entitled "Divinity of Jesus". Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Bailey writes:you do realize that in these instances, Jesus is actually claiming divinity, again. By making these statements,he is saying to the person, you are calling me "good", do you understand what your statement implies. Jesus was in effect saying to him, you have implied that I am God. At another time, he said, "Before Abraham was I AM". In both instances he is claiming divinityEAM