Under Law

[8thdaypriest]

19 hours ago, Gustave said:

Claiming the 7th day is a moral or natural commandment would be the same as claiming the 2300 SDA prophecy was moral or natural.

The "moral" aspect of the 7th Day Rest, is in the command to "obey the LORD your God" because He IS God. 

It is "moral" to obey God - whatever He commands.

The prophetic aspect of the 7th Day Rest is obvious.  This sin war will take 6000 years.  Then the earth will "rest" for 1000 years. 

Because the 7th Day is prophetic (or as you call it - "ceremonial") does not automatically certify that it has ended fully, for all people of God, and is no longer necessary to be "remembered".  

It will again be celebrated in the New Earth, when "all flesh" will go up to worship before the LORD.  WHY declare it null and void, or only for the Jews?  I don't get that.  

And it certainly doesn't justify setting up Sunday (the day of the sun) - something the LORD never commanded anywhere, for anyone. 

So what if it was "ceremonial" or prophetic.  Everything prophetic was not ended forever at the death of Christ.  Passover wasn't.  And the Fall Feasts have not even seen their first fulfillment yet. 

Christ Himself said the Passover would be "fulfilled in the Kingdom of God".   Which means that Passover was not completely and forever fulfilled at His death.  It will have another future fulfillment (Luke 22:16). 

So what if God spoke/wrote His commands to Israel (not to other nations).  Jesus also revealed Himself only to the Jews.  Everyone else heard about Him second hand.  We don't reject Jesus as "ceremonial", or His death as purely "ceremonial". 

The only thing "changed" was "the priesthood" - back to "the firstborn".  With the priesthood goes the animal sacrifices. 

Everything else remains. 

And yes.  Circumcision was a type of sacrifice (instead of sacrificing the whole child).   Interesting that the excised foreskins were buried.  A type for sure, of our "flesh" that is buried at death. 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/25/2019 at 2:52 PM, Gustave said:

No one, to date, has explained how something, by it's definition, is ceremonial suddenly becomes moral.

No one has shown from Scripture a definition for the man-made category called "ceremonial" law.  Such a category is non-existent in Scripture.

No one has shown from Scripture that the so-called "ceremonial" laws are valid for a shorter time-span than God's other laws.

No one has shown from Scripture that humans are authorized to categorize God's instructions into man-made categories such as "ceremonial" and "moral" in order to set aside some of God's instructions.

No one has shown from Scripture in context that God himself has determined or declared that the so-called "ceremonial" instructions should no longer be followed.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/23/2019 at 12:26 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Timothy would be traveling with Paul, and would encounter new "congregations" of Jews.  Timothy might even be traveling to Jerusalem.  Lot of conservatives there.

Yes, exactly.  If the supposed "end of circumcision" had occurred and was of any significance in the gospel Paul was teaching in the congregations, an un-circumcized Timothy would have been the ideal poster-boy to represent both Jews and Gentiles to show that a new era had commenced.  Especially since Paul was traveling to those very congregations for the expressed purpose of delivering the decision of the Jerusalem council. 

If the decision of the Jerusalem council had anything to do with ending circumcision as a widespread practice among Jewish babies or Gentile converts, the circumcision of Timothy would have been counterproductive.

[Ron Amnsn]

If the Jerusalem council had decided something different, something like, "it is no longer necessary for men to shave their faces in order to be part of the congregation" and Paul traveled to the congregations to deliver that message, would he intentionally shave a co-traveler who had never previously shaved?  No. 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/23/2019 at 12:26 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Lot of conservatives there.

Do we know what exactly those conservatives would have been interested in conserving?

Would they want to preserve --

• obedience to the Old Testament Scriptures that were available?
• cultural norms based totally on OT Scripture?
• cultural norms based partly on OT Scripture and partly on man-made tradition?
• cultural norms based totally on man-made tradition and not contrary to OT Scripture?
• cultural norms that were contrary to OT Scripture?

Which of the above options was Paul opposed to?

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/23/2019 at 12:53 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

In your view Ron, what did Paul mean when he said, "

Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace." (NAS)

Romans 6:16 --  "Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?"

Romans chapter 6 (and the first part of chapter 7) is talking about how believers have been freed from the rule of sin, because in Christ they have died to sin and are freed from the mastery of sin over themselves and have a new Master named Jesus.  When Paul says in verse 14 "you are not under law", he is talking about the natural law that causes slavery and death to those who obey sin.

[Gustave]

7 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

No one has shown from Scripture a definition for the man-made category called "ceremonial" law.  Such a category is non-existent in Scripture.

No one has shown from Scripture that the so-called "ceremonial" laws are valid for a shorter time-span than God's other laws.

No one has shown from Scripture that humans are authorized to categorize God's instructions into man-made categories such as "ceremonial" and "moral" in order to set aside some of God's instructions.

No one has shown from Scripture in context that God himself has determined or declared that the so-called "ceremonial" instructions should no longer be followed.

Is it reasonable in your view that St. Paul would rebuke Christians for following the Moral Law of God? Or to say it another way do you believe that St. Paul worked against the other Apostles by trying to get Christians to violate the moral law of God? 

[8thdaypriest]

21 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

If the Jerusalem council had decided something different, something like, "it is no longer necessary for men to shave their faces in order to be part of the congregation" and Paul traveled to the congregations to deliver that message, would he intentionally shave a co-traveler who had never previously shaved?  No. 

Yes.  He would shave himself and his co-traveler.  They would demonstrate that shaving was no longer necessary. 

Paul did not compel Titus to be circumcised, even for a trip to Jerusalem.  Guess Titus was not going to enter the Temple court. 

[8thdaypriest]

21 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Yes, exactly.  If the supposed "end of circumcision" had occurred and was of any significance in the gospel Paul was teaching in the congregations, an un-circumcized Timothy would have been the ideal poster-boy to represent both Jews and Gentiles to show that a new era had commenced.  Especially since Paul was traveling to those very congregations for the expressed purpose of delivering the decision of the Jerusalem council. 

If the decision of the Jerusalem council had anything to do with ending circumcision as a widespread practice among Jewish babies or Gentile converts, the circumcision of Timothy would have been counterproductive.

The letter from the Jerusalem council was sent mostly to congregations in areas with large numbers of converted Gentiles.  If the letter was intended to change the behavior of believing Jews,  the letter should have been sent also to those areas with larger numbers of Jews. 

[8thdaypriest]

14 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Romans 6:16 --  "Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?"

Romans chapter 6 (and the first part of chapter 7) is talking about how believers have been freed from the rule of sin, because in Christ they have died to sin and are freed from the mastery of sin over themselves and have a new Master named Jesus.  When Paul says in verse 14 "you are not under law", he is talking about the natural law that causes slavery and death to those who obey sin.

"The law of the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ has set me free from the law of sin and death"  (Romans 8:2). 

So one law   sets us free from   another law.   Does that say there is more than one law? 

The blessings and curses in Deuteronomy, where Moses pleads "Choose life."   It's the same principle. 

Stephen said the "fathers" resisted the Holy Spirit.  That's the Spirit that could have given them life, thus setting them free from "the law of sin and death".   The fact that a few from that wilderness time, will be in the forever Kingdom of God, shows that those few were "set free from from the law of sin and (eternal) death." 

  Isaiah 63:11 "Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people, saying: "Where is He who brought them up out of the sea With the shepherd of His flock? Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within them,"  (NKJ)

Just shows that the infilling/anointing with the Spirit, is not something exclusively post resurrection. 

[8thdaypriest]

22 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

No one has shown from Scripture that humans are authorized to categorize God's instructions into man-made categories such as "ceremonial" and "moral" in order to set aside some of God's instructions.

I don't think most folks are identifying some of the actions commanded by God, as "prophetic" - "in order to set aside some of God's instructions".  I don't think folks today  set out to "set aside" commands, just cause they don't like them.   I believe folks today genuinely want to understand what the LORD wants of us now - presently.   Also to understand how Jesus (a Jew) could become High Priest of God's "true Tabernacle" .  (The one on earth was only a "copy"). 

Maybe Emperor Constantine "set out to set aside some of God's instructions".  He saw them as "Jewish".  He was a flaming anti-Semitic, so he hated everything "Jewish".  He did want to carve out everything "Christian" from everything "Jewish".  

To my thinking, one either accepts the Letter to the Hebrews as authentic and inspired, or not.  The writer to the Hebrews said in so many words "the priesthood being changed, there is also a change of the law"  (Heb 7:12). 

Doesn't say "the law" has been completely done away with (Ten Commandments unchanged).  Says some part of it has been changed - by God Himself (not any person), and the part that was "changed" especially concerned/applied to  "the priesthood".  
 

[8thdaypriest]

Paul wrote, "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters." (1Co 7:19 NKJ)

Paul said,  “Therefore, if an uncircumcised man [a Gentile convert to the gospel] keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?"   Romans 2:26-29

So what "law" (which "commandments") was Paul referring to, when he said that an uncircumcised man could "keep" the requirements of that law (those commandments)? 

If that Gentile believer is not circumcised, does not travel to Jerusalem for moed, does not offer any animal sacrifices - what "law of God" is he keeping?  It must be recognizable as the "law of God".  It must be covenant law. 

A man can keep every one of the Ten Commandments, without being circumcised - especially if the LORD writes that law on his heart.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/28/2019 at 5:51 PM, Gustave said:

Is it reasonable in your view that St. Paul would rebuke Christians for following the Moral Law of God? Or to say it another way do you believe that St. Paul worked against the other Apostles by trying to get Christians to violate the moral law of God? 

It would be reasonable only if Paul were a false teacher.
On what basis are you thinking that Paul rebuked people for following God's law rather than for following man-made religious traditions?  Which of the several passages that are commonly taken out-of-context do you have in mind?
I definitely do not believe that the apostle Paul tried to get believers to violate any of the law of God.

[8thdaypriest]

Many blessings for Rosh Hashanna. 

Rachel

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/29/2019 at 8:06 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

Yes.  He would shave himself and his co-traveler.  They would demonstrate that shaving was no longer necessary.

Your statements seem contradictory.  Please explain.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/29/2019 at 8:06 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

Paul did not compel Titus to be circumcised, even for a trip to Jerusalem.  Guess Titus was not going to enter the Temple court. 

Indeed.  I didn't think that was a question.  As far as I can find, Paul didn't compel any Gentiles to become circumcised. 

However, if after reading the Scriptures (the Old Testament was all that was available) and hearing the gospel, it is quite possible that a Gentile man would request to be circumcised as Abraham was.  I have seen an interview where a Gentile man tells how he wanted so much to be circumcised after reading the Scriptures that he circumcised himself.  He was not compelled by anyone.  After being circumcised in the manner of Abraham, a Gentile would still be considered to be "uncircumcised" by the Pharisees in Paul's day and by Orthodox Jews today because such a circumcision does not meet the man-made requirements for Gentile circumcision.  In order to be considered properly "circumcised" in the eyes of a Pharisee or an Orthodox Jew, the circumcision has to be done according to additional man-made traditions, which include extensive instruction in the man-made traditional laws about how to obey Torah, and a life-long commitment to obey those additional man-made traditions.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/29/2019 at 8:25 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

"The law of the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ has set me free from the law of sin and death"  (Romans 8:2). 

So one law   sets us free from   another law.   Does that say there is more than one law?

There is undoubtedly more than one type of law mentioned in the New Testament.  The Greek word that has been translated as "the law" in English is very non-specific.  The meaning depends on context.  It can refer to many things including a particular law from Scripture being discussed, the whole body of God's Law in Scripture, the man-made laws of Jews or Gentiles, principles, customs, or what was normally done. 

While reading Paul, people tend to make unfounded assumptions about what is meant by "law" to suit their own theology.  That's why our interpretations of Paul need to be guided by the whole context of what Paul wrote and by what the book of Acts records, and by the Scriptures that Paul endorsed and testified his own agreement with.

[Ron Amnsn]

For example, at the end of Romans 7:2 "the law of marriage" or "the law of her husband" that the woman is released from is not a law found in God's law.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/29/2019 at 8:52 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

To my thinking, one either accepts the Letter to the Hebrews as authentic and inspired, or not.  The writer to the Hebrews said in so many words "the priesthood being changed, there is also a change of the law"  (Heb 7:12). 

We've been over this too many times.  You still insist on removing Hebrews 7:12 from it's context.  The verse goes on to say that the change was one that was "necessary", so if we're being honest we can't just choose whatever "change" fits our theology and say that part of God's law has changed.  It has to be a necessary change.  The author of Hebrews does not leave us in the dark about what kind of change was necessary.  In Hebrews 8:4 the author explicitly states what change is necessary.   Speaking of Jesus it says "Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law." Obviously, the author is stating that the laws regarding the Levitical priesthood are still valid, not changed.  That means if Jesus is going to be a Priest at all, it is going to require a change to a location that is not earth.  The Greek text confirms that is the kind of change that is necessary because the primary connotation of the Greek word used in Heb 7:12 denotes a change of location.  When a person changes location, they often fall under the jurisdiction of different laws, but that doesn't change at all the laws that pertained to the previous location.

[B/W Photodude]

On 9/25/2019 at 12:00 AM, B/W Photodude said:

While this topic continues, and the Biblical excuse continues to be used to mutilate the bodies of children, it should be considered that the early church forbad the practice of circumcision and it largely was not done except in Jewish and Muslim communities for nearly 2000 years. Then, this practice was reintroduced in the masturbation hysterias of the 1800s. While it was largely debunked, the cutters were bound and determined to continue this practice and have looked from one "medical" excuse after another to justify the mutilation of the genitals of children.

One of the problems of using circumcision to "cure" masturbation is you actually need to know it is happening to believe your child is engaging in this "soul destroying vice." So, consider what Kellogg dreamed up for parents to do to validate the practice of this vice in their children:

The Cure

Kellogg advised that a child must first be caught in the act. He wanted parents to see them masturbating. The best way to do that, he says, is to sneak up on the child soon after they have gone to bed, throw off their blankets “under some pretense” and examine the child’s genitalia for sexually excited characteristics. This is the only “evidence” he ever suggests gathering, and it’s optional.

Boys will of course have an erection. That can be judged visually, perhaps. As for girls: “If the same course is pursued with girls, under the same circumstances, the clitoris will be found congested, with the other genital organs, which will also be moist from increased secretion.” That may require a physical inspection.

Here Kellogg was instructing adults to charge into a child’s room, rip off their blankets and nightclothes to expose their privates, and then to thoroughly inspect a girl’s (or teenager’s) vulva for an engorged clitoris and sexual lubrication. He is guiding an adult through a very particular course of sexual abuse of their own child.

Do you understand that this is seriously a sexual violation of a child and even teenager to conduct this sort of examination. Ask yourself, "How invasive of an exam must a parent make to determine if a teenage daughter has too much "lubrication"?" And if a parent would actually even consent to such a practice, do you see the potential for sexual abuse beyond just "the exam"?

One would wonder how many young children and teenagers were so violated by their parents in this manner and how many simply left the church and God after such a violation of their privacy. 

The sickness continues today. People get bent out of shape if a pedophile "plays" with their child, but will hand them over to a doctor and say, "Here, mutilate my child and I will pay you!" For some doctors this is a double win. Nurses have reported seeing physicians in a state of sexual excitement as they cut a boy and they got paid for it!

Shame was one of Kellogg’s least destructive tools. There was hope that a single occurrence of this “morally justified” violation would be enough to stop the habit by shame alone. But it might not. More drastic measure may be needed. For those children Kellogg advised:

“Bandaging the parts has been practiced with success. Tying the hands is also successful in some cases; but this will not always succeed, for they will often contrive to continue the habit in other ways, as by working the limbs, or lying upon the abdomen. Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success.” (Are you aware they still sell these "cages" to the BDSM crowd?)

This still isn’t the reason I consider Kellogg irredeemable. Because sometimes those cages and tied hands weren’t enough to control a child. Occasionally, a child’s disturbance ran so deep, there was only one recourse. Little boys were to be circumcised, an operation seldom performed in the 19th century outside of religious reasons. Without painkillers of any sort.

“The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed.”

Pain is necessary. It confirms to the child that he is being punished.

As for little girls, Kellogg recommended a more permanent solution, as related in the following “case study.”

“A Desperate Case.—A little girl about ten years of age was brought to us by her father, who came with his daughter to have her broken of the vile habit of self-abuse into which she had fallen. Having read an early copy of this work, the father had speedily detected the habit, and had adopted every measure which he could devise to break his child of the destructive vice which she had acquired, but in vain… it finally became necessary to resort to a surgical operation, by which it is hoped that she was permanently cured, as we have heard nothing to the contrary since, and as the remedy seemed to be effectual.” (Apparently this "father" had made many invasions of this daughter's privacy. )

He never even looked in on the child after the operation. It would seem a common courtesy to follow up on a patient after you’ve cut off her clitoris and labia minora, or perhaps not to cut off her genitals altogether. But it was that or the carbolic acid, Kellogg’s other final cure.

Treatment-… the application of blisters [carbolic acid] and other irritants to the sensitive parts of the sexual organs, the removal of the clitoris and nymphaea, [labia minora] constitute the most proper treatment.

https://pictorial.jezebel.com/john-harvey-kelloggs-legacy-of-cereal-sociopathy-and-1777402050

They taught this stuff in Seventh-day Adventist communites and to the world at large.

I will not apologize for defending children from heinous cruel acts of adults.

[B/W Photodude]

57 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

However, if after reading the Scriptures (the Old Testament was all that was available) and hearing the gospel, it is quite possible that a Gentile man would request to be circumcised as Abraham was.

So, pray tell, exactly how was Abraham circumcised? Truth is, no one today knows.

[BlessedMan]

On 9/28/2019 at 6:33 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

When Paul says in verse 14 "you are not under law", he is talking about the natural law that causes slavery and death to those who obey sin.

HOW would you explain "natural" law, from the Bible?

[8thdaypriest]

15 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

it is quite possible that a Gentile man would request to be circumcised as Abraham was.

Galatians 5:2  "Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing."

I understand that accepted Pharisaic circumcision, involved more than the simple circumcision that Abraham experienced. 

But the Gentile converts probably would not have understood that.  How would Gentile converts have understood Paul's warning.  Wasn't Paul warning them not to become involved with such as "those of the circumcision" - even though those men were "Pharisees who believed" in Jesus as Messiah. 

In telling them not to receive circumcision, is Paul not also telling them NOT to go up to the Temple at Jerusalem to offer animal sacrifices.  He is telling them such is not necessary.  They were already justified by Christ, by faith.  The Gentile converts did not need to perform "works of the law" (circumcision and animal sacrifices), to receive something they had already received in Christ.   They were already counted as "seed of Abraham" because they were Christ's.  

To offer a sacrifice and expect an Aaronic priest to "make atonement for you", is the same as saying "I need this because I have not yet received it."  That's the same as saying "I did not receive this through Christ".  Such is to deny Christ. 

THAT is why I believe it was a grave mistake for Paul to go to the Temple to offer sacrifice.  I believe that is why the LORD tried repeatedly to stop Paul from doing that.  I believe that is why the LORD allowed Paul to be arrested in the process of doing it. 

The LORD said it to Peter, "What God has cleansed, call not unclean." 

You seem to want "works of the law" to include ONLY the added Oral Torah laws.  I've heard that argument from Messianics and Hebrew Roots for years.  It is the reason I have not joined them.  I believe that God Himself has "changed" His own Law.  

The exclusive Aaronic priesthood is "obsolete".   All blood sacrifices are obsolete - including the blood sacrifice of circumcision. 

 Jesus is the High Priest and Mediator of the New Covenant.  "New" - not simply renewed.   Under the New Covenant,  those of us who belong to Him are consecrated as "priests of God and of Christ". 

[8thdaypriest]

16 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

As far as I can find, Paul didn't compel any Gentiles to become circumcised. 

Circumcision was the "sign" that one was "seed of Abraham" and partaker of the covenant God made with Abraham. 

Galatians 3:29 "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."  

Paul's statement applies to everyone - Jew AND Gentile. 

For BOTH Jews and Gentiles, belief and faith in Christ is now the "sign" that one is "seed of Abraham".  

Those Jews who reject Christ will not partake of the covenant with Abraham, no matter how much DNA from Abraham they carry, and no matter if they are circumcised.  They are "broken off".  (Though they can be "grafted in again".) 

 

[8thdaypriest]

15 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

We've been over this too many times.  You still insist on removing Hebrews 7:12 from it's context.  The verse goes on to say that the change was one that was "necessary", so if we're being honest we can't just choose whatever "change" fits our theology and say that part of God's law has changed.  It has to be a necessary change.  The author of Hebrews does not leave us in the dark about what kind of change was necessary.  In Hebrews 8:4 the author explicitly states what change is necessary.   Speaking of Jesus it says "Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law." Obviously, the author is stating that the laws regarding the Levitical priesthood are still valid, not changed.  That means if Jesus is going to be a Priest at all, it is going to require a change to a location that is not earth.  The Greek text confirms that is the kind of change that is necessary because the primary connotation of the Greek word used in Heb 7:12 denotes a change of location.  When a person changes location, they often fall under the jurisdiction of different laws, but that doesn't change at all the laws that pertained to the previous location.

Yes Ron.  We've been over this soooooo many times.  

Christ was made "a priest forever".  Which means that He will be both priest and king when He reigns on this earth.   His priesthood does not stop when He becomes "King". 

I believe that is the symbolism of Zechariah 4.   The anointing oil - poured over priest, and poured over king - the two olive branches, meets in the one golden bowl, and then flows out to the churches.  Christ is that one golden bowl. 

"Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law." 

Hebrews 8:13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. 

The writer of Hebrews also said that system was "ready to pass away".  It did pass away.  The Romans obliterated it.