Under Law

[8thdaypriest]

27 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

How would that motivation be different than the motivation of the Gentile believers in Galatia who wanted to fit in to that congregation but were so emphatically counseled to not be "circumcised"?   It seems that in Galatia there was more than just the factor of wanting to avoid confrontation or wanting to fit in.

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

[8thdaypriest]

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)

Jesus was "born under the law".  (Gal 4:4)  (Which incidentally means that if He had sinned, He would have died eternally.)  

Romans 6:15 "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? May it never be!" (NAS)

Galatians 5:18 "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law." (NAS)

I believe I'm "under grace" and that I'm "led by the Spirit", which means that I'm not "under" the Law.   Paul cannot be saying that we are free to violate any and every "law" written in the Scriptures.   So what did Paul mean?  I'm looking for a really good explanation, easy to understand, easy to communicate - not long and complicated.   

[8thdaypriest]

Romans 3:19 "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God." (NET)

I think this is a good one.   Here "the law" is speaking to "the whole world", so that every mouth may be silenced.  That makes this "law" way more than something spoken only to "Jews" or Ancient Hebrews.  This one makes "the law" = the standard in God's judgment of mankind.

[B/W Photodude]

On September 20, 2019 at 11:04 AM, Ron Amnsn said:

  It would also be "wrong" to get a haircut, trim one's fingernails, perform any kind of surgery, or to break or displace the female hymen.  It seems obvious that at least some of these activities should not be considered "wrong", so it should be safe to disregard the amazement that some have expressed regarding those who desire to follow God's instructions regarding circumcision.

There is a world of difference between cutting your hair and making a significant alteration in the function of another human being without their consent.  Way past time to stop carving religion into the bodies of babies.

It is up to any individual to do with his body as he wishes. Timothy had the choice of what happened to him and was able to make his own decision. 

[B/W Photodude]

On September 19, 2019 at 11:44 PM, B/W Photodude said:

Seems you were the one who brought it up as something to be considered to be done today! I can show you many many reasons not to do it and any reason you can come up with to justify it can be quickly knocked down.

On September 20, 2019 at 1:54 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

I was NOT justifying circumcision for believers today.

Problem is, there are people attempting to bring this back as a requirement. There is one person publishing papers suggesting that it be a fundamental belief that men be circumcised. She carried on further in her comments in the comment section that any man who advocated that baby boys not be circumcised not be allowed to teach in a Seventh-day Adventist church (guess I will have to give up gteaching Sabbath school!). Considering that the vast majority of men in the SDA church are likely intact, let the bloodshed begin.

Unfortunately, this person is unethical in her suggestion, as her daughter profits by the mutilation of baby boys.

So, I am obligated to work to knock this down wherever it rears its ugly unethical head. As I noted, the cutters are coming for the little girls now.

[8thdaypriest]

1 Corinthians 9:20 "And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law;" (NAS).

In this verse, it seems that unbelieving Jews - who were without Christ, were "under the Law".   It would seem to mean "under the condemnation of the Law" - under the "curse" that said "You sin, you die".  That's what they were "under".  Also under the domination of Satan and sin.

Galatians 4:21 "Tell me, you who want to be under the law, do you not understand the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 But one, the son by the slave woman, was born by natural descent, while the other, the son by the free woman, was born through the promise. 24 These things may be treated as an allegory, for these women represent two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar represents Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

"You who want to be under the law" - would be those who wanted to seek salvation through law keeping.  Right?

Paul calls that "slavery" - like pushing a rock uphill.  It's impossible.  Can't be done. 

Paul calls the Sinai covenant "Hagar" (the bond woman) and says that covenant bore "children for slavery" BECAUSE that Law cannot be kept perfectly without the indwelling Spirit of Christ, which they (the children of slavery) refused and resisted. 

The New Covenant - "Spirit within you",  is freedom (is "our mother" because in Christ we are Abraham's seed). 

The New Covenant has the same requirements (The Ten, love God, love others).  The children of "the free woman" just keep them by a different means - Spirit within, rather than self effort.  It is the added promise of the Spirit within, that makes the New Covenant - "new". 

[B/W Photodude]

In the course of human history, God has had to deal with perverse human beings on a regular basis. Even what would be consider "good men", ugly deeds are their history. God also seems to have had to "cooperate" with the perverseness of human beings as they wanted to go on their own selfish ways. 

Consider the fact that God's design for Israel was to be a theocracy, but the people wanted a king. They rejected God's leadership in favor of having a human leader like the other nations. So, He instructed Samuel to anoint two different humans as the leader of His nation. He participated in Israel's disobedience.

The Middle East and African nations have been in a virtual war against the foreskin forever, going back to in Egypt before Abraham. And not just the mutilation of boys but the genital mutilation of baby girls. Today, 90% of baby girls in Egypt are cut. Their cut is no more devastating than the cut of boys. And they use the same excuses they use to cut boys and are today even beginning to "medicalize" the cutting of girls. (Only a small percent of girls are cut in the radical cut, known as infindibulation, that is often used as the reason to do no cutting of girls.) What in the world is wrong with people anyway!

Given that the people were likely to engage in the same practices of the nations around them, as they did, it seems likely that God in His mercy gave Abraham a "cut" that was less damaging than what the Egyptians were doing and as such may not have been as barbaric as what is done today. As previously noted, this cut was so minor that Jewish boys could pass as intact (uncircumcised) in the Greek Olympics. You can read some of this in the book of the Maccabees. But the "sages" upset at this assimilation of the youth came up with a more radical cut resembling the cut of practiced by the Egyptians who were worshippers of the baboon. The baboon was often observed in an excited state which they wished to copy. So, today, we are cutting boys like the ancient worshippers of false gods. There are some who doubt that any flesh was cut off of the men. Circumcision as a word may be a bad translation of the Hebrew word "milah."

Some will dismiss that there is any damage from cutting as practiced in the US today, however, even nearly a thousand years ago, Maimonides, a Jewish rabbi noted the effects of cutting. He even said to not let your women be with an intact man because you won't get them back! Some strange practices continue in the very Orthodox Jewish community today, including the practice of Metzitzah B'Peh. One Jewish man, who is an intactivist, discusses this in the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DRsJXJop5I

Unfortunately, this practice continues today and therefore must be discussed. It should never have occurred and at best should have died out 2000 years ago. It is way past time to end the barbaric torture of babies. Fortunately, it is declining. Less than 30% of boys in California are cut today, versus still about 90% in some eastern states. Guess why it declined out west … medicaid stopped paying for it! Seems it is just a money making adventure for unethical doctors. Then they blame it on the parents who "wanted" it as they cry all the way to the bank.

Paul had it right when he compared cutters to dogs.

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/15/2019 at 11:37 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

Yes, when Jesus cried out "It is finished." he had completed everything that was necessary for him to do up until that point.  There were other things that were necessary for him to do after that point, like be resurrected, ascend to his Father, explain the Scriptures concerning himself to the men on the road to Emmaus, tell Peter to "Feed my sheep", and give the Holy Spirit to the disciples on the day of the Old Testament feast of "Pentecost", a feast that many assign to the so-called "ceremonial" laws which were supposedly all "fulfilled" before the crucifixion.  When Jesus came to earth 2000 years ago he "fulfilled" all of God's feasts that occur in the springtime with significant events that occurred on the very day of the feast, like dying on Passover and resurrecting on the day of the wave sheaf.  However, Jesus has not yet "fulfilled" the Autumn feasts in that manner.   And Jesus indicated that the Passover will be eaten again at some future date, so even though it had been "fulfilled" once when YHWH brought the Israelites out of Egypt and was "fulfilled" again when Jesus died at Passover, there is apparently more fulfilling that must be done for Passover in the future kingdom of heaven.

I understand Jesus' prophecy concerning the Law to have been a duel prophecy. 

"Not a jot or a tittle shall pass from the Law", (1) "til heaven and earth pass" AND (2)"til all be fulfilled".

When Christ died He fulfilled His earthly mission.  His earthly part of the atonement was complete. He had "fulfilled" the Law (obeyed it perfectly-thus fulfilling the conditions of the covenant), and the prophecies concerning His human earthly mission were fulfilled.   

When Christ died the Temple veil was torn (the one with the depiction of the heavens and earth).  Thus one type of "heaven and earth" did pass away - literally. 

At the glorious return, this prophecy will be fulfilled once again.  Heaven and earth will literally pass away, and all the prophecies of a glorious Messiah will be fulfilled. 

But there are other prophecies that will take eternity to fulfill.  Which would mean that nothing of the Law could "pass from the Law" for eternity.  I know that's how some people read it.

But what if certain things do not "pass from the Law" - rather - they are "changed" in form.  

We still have priests, but they are "the firstborn" rather than descendants of Aaron.  We still have a High Priest.  Jesus - the "firstborn over all creation".  We still have sacrifices - spiritual ones.  We will still have a Temple.  "God and the Lamb are the Temple thereof."  We will still have the City, "where the LORD chooses to put His name there".   It's called "the New Jerusalem".   We still have "the Covenant" - The Ten.  They're just written on the heart, instead of stones.

[Gustave]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Say I invited you and everyone else to MY birthday party.  It's the anniversary of MY birthday.  Always will be, whether or not you decide to honor that day with me.  Right? 

In the same way, it's the LORD's Sabbath.  Because some decline to honor His Day, does not make it no longer His Sabbath.  Jesus is STILL "Lord of the Sabbath".   When He appeared to John on "the Lord's Day",  it was still His special Day. 

Revelation 1:10  "On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet" (NIV).

I wonder where John got the idea to call it "the Lord's Day".  Where?  From the LORD.  He called that day, "My Sabbath". 

Exactly, you needed to 'invite" people for them to be aware of it - & furthermore if after only inviting "certain people" to your birthday party you tell them their attendance will be a sign between you and "them" that sort of precludes others. 

[8thdaypriest]

47 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Exactly, you needed to 'invite" people for them to be aware of it - & furthermore if after only inviting "certain people" to your birthday party you tell them their attendance will be a sign between you and "them" that sort of precludes others. 

Not if I invited everyone.  lol

God has invited everyone.

 

[8thdaypriest]

I had a thought about the whole circumcision thing. 

    Exodus 12:48  “And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.”

We eat "the bread" of the Passover Seder, and we ARE partaking of Christ ("our Passover" who was slain for us).  Right?

[I'm not talking transubstitution here.  I'm talking symbolism.]

But how can we uncircumcised Gentiles legally partake of Christ?  He IS "our Passover.  No uncircumcised person is to eat it.  That's the law.   

We can partake because we have been "circumcised" in heart - by Christ Himself.  We HAVE been circumcised. 

This is the physical form of the law, being "changed" into the spiritual form, in the fulfillment.  It is a "change of the law" without taking anything away from the law.  Nothing has passed from the Law.  But it has been "changed" in form. 

[8thdaypriest]

Was thinking about the Passover.  I remembered that Christ said that Passover would not be "fulfilled" until "the Kingdom of God".

Jesus said, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it UNTIL it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Luke 22:15-16).

So Passover was not full-filled with the death of Jesus.  Not completely. 

Once again, no "jot or tittle" can pass from the Law, but there can be "a change of the law" from prophetic physical form to New Covenant spiritual form.  Physical circumcision becomes "circumcision of the heart".   Passover eating lamb, becomes Passover eating "the bread". 

 

[Gustave]

13 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Not if I invited everyone.  lol

God has invited everyone.

 

When did God invite everyone to Observe the Gregorian Saturday and start that observance on the evening of a Gregorian Friday? When did God invite everyone to practice circumcision? 

[8thdaypriest]

You say that God did not "make known" His Sabbath, and His Law to nations other than Israel.  I would differ.  The nations living around Israel, knew about Israel's God.  Pharaoh knew about Israel's God.  There are many stories in the Scripture of persons coming from "the nations", to worship Israel's God - even to becoming citizens of Israel. 

Jeremiah 6:19 "Hear, O earth: behold, I am bringing disaster on this people, the fruit of their plans, Because they have not listened to My words, And as for My law, they have rejected it also." (NAS) 

 1 Corinthians 10:11 "Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." (NAS)

The Law spoken to Israel, and written on stones was "written for our instruction". 

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,

Do we teach them only the Gospels?  Don't they need some background and history from the OT also?  If we teach them the Psalms, they would need to know who David was, and why he was important.  They would need to know what "sin" is, and why we needed a Savior.  That all starts with Adam. 

There are millions of people who have lived on this earth, to whom the Gospel was never spoken.  Does that mean the Gospel was not for them, because it was not "given" or "revealed" to them?  Of course not. 

Because something is not revealed first-hand, does not mean it was not revealed at all.  God left us His word. 

You and I did not literally walk with Jesus for three years.  Does that mean we cannot receive the truths He taught?  Of course not.  

My ancestors did not stand at the foot of Mount Sinai.  Does that mean I cannot receive the truths there revealed, and receive into my own heart the Law spoken there?  
 

 

[8thdaypriest]

Christ began with one man - Abraham, to build a nation for himself- Israel, "the people of God".  Tribes and clans and individuals were "broken off" (cut off) because of unbelief,   and millions of believing non-Hebrews were "grafted in".   At this point, there are far more non-Hebraic citizens of "Israel", betrothed to Christ, than those of Hebraic ancestry.   That does not change the nature of the nation.   All are one nation - "a people for God's own possession". 

Deuteronomy 14:2 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth." (NAS)

Are we not a people for God's own possession?

Ezekiel 37:22  "And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:"

I know.  This was written about "Israel" (the Ten Northern Tribes) who were broken off for idolatry.  But it has equal application to Jews and Gentiles. 

Ephesians 2:14 For he is our peace, the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility, 15 when he nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees. He did this to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace,  (NET)

When we get to the Kingdom someday,  do you think the LORD will explain to saved OT Israelites, that the Sabbath is no longer part of the worship experience?  Or do you think the LORD will need to explain to Catholic and Evangelical Christians that His Sabbath is still "the LORD's Day" ?

Personally, I'll go with Isaiah 66:22-23. 

I know.  Now you want to discuss just what "the law of commandments in decrees" was, in Ephesians 2:14-15, that Christ "nullified in his flesh". 

[phkrause]

On 9/22/2019 at 8:08 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

I am likely to limit my time on the Internet.

I broke my left hand today.  I expect that it will require surgery.  

Sorry to hear this GM. Praying that all heals right!!

[phkrause]

On 9/22/2019 at 11:51 PM, Gustave said:

Are you familiar with Greek writer Homer and what he attributed the cause of the Battle of Troy? What does this do to your logic chain?

I have no idea what your talking about?????

[8thdaypriest]

28 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

There are millions of people who have lived on this earth, to whom the Gospel was never spoken.  Does that mean the Gospel was not for them, because it was not "given" or "revealed" to them?  Of course not. 

This is why I believe "the rest of the dead" will be all of those who lived and died in ignorance of God and His Son.  It would not be just to leave them out, because of ignorance which they could not help. 

I know, Mrs White said "the rest" would be all of the wicked, but I don't agree.  The wicked will be judged and consumed at the Glorious Return.  It makes no sense to wake them up again, to judge them again, to execute them again. 

The Gog/Magog army will arise out of "the rest" during the 8th millennium.  They are not the same as those "raised to shame and everlasting contempt at the Glorious Return (Daniel 12:2-3). 

"The rest" will "live again" at the 8th millennium.  They will be taught by those saved at the Glorious Return, who have become "priests of God and of Christ". 

But this is a whole different topic.  . . .

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/22/2019 at 10:51 PM, Gustave said:

On 9/21/2019 at 6:30 PM, phkrause said:

Also lets not forget that when Joseph was tempted by Potiphar's wife he knew what Adultery was!! Yet as was mentioned by Gustave, the 10 Commandments were not even spoken of!! Obviously they were!!

Are you familiar with Greek writer Homer and what he attributed the cause of the Battle of Troy? What does this do to your logic chain? 

Because two males battle over a woman (who is already married to one of them), does not automatically say that either of them know about the Ten Commandments.  I think this is what Gustave is saying.  Male contests over females are natural.  What is un-natural, is to respect the vows of marriage.   Contests over kingdoms are repeated through history.  The winner takes the females of the loosing male. 

The LORD even allowed some of this.  When Israel conquered certain tribes, the Israelite men were allowed to take captive the virgin females of the peoples they conquered.  They could even marry them.  If they did, they could not later turn them into slaves. 

Consider Solomon's son Absalom.  

2 Samuel 16:21-22 "And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father's concubines, which he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then shall the hands of all that are with thee be strong. So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel."

This was ancient Middle Eastern custom.  The ruling male got his pick of females.  The LORD (because of His law) judged David for taking Bathsheba, and He judged the ruling Pharaoh for taking Sarah.   

[phkrause]

8thdaypriest, the reason I said that about Gustave's post was in reply as to the 10 Commandments not being known before Sinai! It's obvious to me that even though there not mentioned before that, that everyone seemed to know them!!

[Gustave]

30 minutes ago, phkrause said:

I have no idea what your talking about?????

It seems to be a common theme here that God gave the 10 Commandments to Adam and Eve with particular emphasis on the Sabbath. The historic Christian answer to this question is that all the 10 Commandments are moral (AKA Natural) to humans with the commandment of the Sabbath also having a ceremonial element to it. 

Because EVERY culture (except the extreme outliers) established laws or traditions against murder, theft, Adultery, having a god or god's they worship we can conclude literally all humans have these things written on their hearts. The Sabbath Commandment obligated the Jews to observe every "seventh day" as a Sabbath - this specific information was relayed by "special revelation" to the Children of Israel. 

Homer was either an ancient Greek Poet or a collection of ancient Greek Traditions (from around 1100 BC). According to the ancient legend the Battle was attributed to the son of the King of Troy having an affair with the wife of the Greek King & sneaking her back to Troy. If I'm understanding the logic several people here have put forward its that any example of someone observing any of the other 9 Commandments is held up as proof God gave the 10 commandment law (literally) to everyone on the planet. 

So, are you saying that Agamemnon, Achilles, Paris and Helen had somewhere been presented with the 10 Commandments? 

 

[B/W Photodude]

On 9/19/2019 at 9:33 PM, B/W Photodude said:

... It revived during the hysteria of the practice of masturbation. Today, most intactivists (those fighting against this barbaric practice) consider John Harvey Kellogg the father of the  circumcision cure of masturbation. Fortunately, few connect Kellogg with the Adventist church. Kellogg had some very serious personality disturbances and it showed in his treatment of children.

It seems the intactivists have found the grave of Kellogg!

You can follow or view the timeline for the "Bloodstained Men & Their Friends" on Facebook.

Another article on the injury to a baby boy is discussed on this page:

http://www.savingsons.org/2018/01/from-peaceful-birth-to-circumcision.html

"I was never to see those beautiful, mystic, Leboyer newborn-baby smiles again."

Do my posts on circumcision make you uncomfortable? Imagine how little baby boys feel.

This would all be unnecessary if people would quit trying to justify their actions by claiming it is something God still wants. People of other civilized nations are appalled at what we do to babies in this country.

 

[phkrause]

17 hours ago, Gustave said:

If I'm understanding the logic several people here have put forward its that any example of someone observing any of the other 9 Commandments is held up as proof God gave the 10 commandment law (literally) to everyone on the planet.

LOL, sometimes I get the feeling your playing dumb!! At least I'm saying that when God created Adam and Eve on the sixth day, the Commandments were already intact. The Commandments are who God is, they are his character!! Anyway the reason I mentioned Joseph was because he obviously knew the Commandments including the center of them which is the 4th. God gave this day to all not just the Hebrew Nation. He personally didn't give them to each person.

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, phkrause said:

LOL, sometimes I get the feeling your playing dumb!! At least I'm saying that when God created Adam and Eve on the sixth day, the Commandments were already intact. The Commandments are who God is, they are his character!! Anyway the reason I mentioned Joseph was because he obviously knew the Commandments including the center of them which is the 4th. God gave this day to all not just the Hebrew Nation. He personally didn't give them to each person.

I agree with that, the Catholic Church has always taught that we obey the Commandments because God is Moral therefore the commandments are moral - it was the ritual (ceremonial) elements that were subject to change and in fact did change. No one, to date, has explained how something, by it's definition, is ceremonial suddenly becomes moral.  

The MORAL or Natural command that man was to set aside some time for what he understood was over his head is observed in EVERY culture and at every period of earths history. That part of it is MORAL or Natural - the specific timing is not moral, it's ceremonial or ritualistic and requires special revelation.

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

[Gustave]

21 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

It seems the intactivists have found the grave of Kellogg!

You can follow or view the timeline for the "Bloodstained Men & Their Friends" on Facebook.

Another article on the injury to a baby boy is discussed on this page:

http://www.savingsons.org/2018/01/from-peaceful-birth-to-circumcision.html

"I was never to see those beautiful, mystic, Leboyer newborn-baby smiles again."

Do my posts on circumcision make you uncomfortable? Imagine how little baby boys feel.

This would all be unnecessary if people would quit trying to justify their actions by claiming it is something God still wants. People of other civilized nations are appalled at what we do to babies in this country.

 

I agree with you B/W