The prodigal son

[Ingat]

The parable of the prodigal son represents a person’s journey back to reconciliation with one’s conscience (God)


As is the story, the journey back can be painful. Put yourself in the story and imagine you had done some bad things, left home and sometime later decide to go make amends with your family.


On the way home you feel ashamed, guilty of what you have done. You have uncertainty of facing your father again and at one point on your journey, you consider changing your mind.
As you get closer, the realization and awareness of your past errors intensifies. You start to reflect on your past and wonder if there will be forgiveness when you arrive.

After a long journey, you can finally see your family’s house in the distance. At this point, guilt and shame are almost overwhelming but just then your father looks and see’s you coming. He cheerfully races towards you, surrounding you with his love.
The guilt and shame, gone, as the entire family rejoices in your return.


The moral of the story: feeling guilty, ashamed of past deeds is not a bad thing.
God awaits at the end of your journey.

[Christian Voter]

When I read or think about the story, I remember that the story was told to the Jewish leaders to let them know that the ones that leave and return are valued more than those that never stray - not that leaving and returning just to get attention is ok. Well, maybe not valued more, but rejoice at their return, certainly.

[Semi-Sweet]

When I read or think about the story, I remember that the story was told to the Jewish leaders to let them know that the ones that leave and return are valued more than those that never stray - not that leaving and returning just to get attention is ok. Well, maybe not valued more, but rejoice at their return, certainly.

Interesting. Something to think about.

[Jacob_Rising]

The parable of the prodigal son represents a person’s journey back to reconciliation with one’s conscience (God)


As is the story, the journey back can be painful. Put yourself in the story and imagine you had done some bad things, left home and sometime later decide to go make amends with your family.


On the way home you feel ashamed, guilty of what you have done. You have uncertainty of facing your father again and at one point on your journey, you consider changing your mind.
As you get closer, the realization and awareness of your past errors intensifies. You start to reflect on your past and wonder if there will be forgiveness when you arrive.

After a long journey, you can finally see your family’s house in the distance. At this point, guilt and shame are almost overwhelming but just then your father looks and see’s you coming. He cheerfully races towards you, surrounding you with his love.
The guilt and shame, gone, as the entire family rejoices in your return.


The moral of the story: feeling guilty, ashamed of past deeds is not a bad thing.
God awaits at the end of your journey.The prodigal son is the northern kingdom of Israel called Ephraim.

The meaning of this story is that one of the two kingdoms of Israel became gentiles and God accepted them back as gentiles.

God has two sons, the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Ephraim, Ephraim became this prodigal nation and left God's ways.

They have been mixed with gentiles for 2700 years but all the end time prophecies claim that Ephraim will return and become one with Judah.

Judah is the son who stayed home and never left the father or his ways.

Romans 9:24 says that gentiles are grafted through the promises made to Ephraim and his return, that gentiles who believe in the God of Israel are this returning prodigal son.

But just like the first lost tribes, Christianity became the prodigal again when Christianity left and abandoned God's ways.

When Christians come back to the Torah they will become one with Judah.

My opinions.

[hben]

The parable of the prodigal son represents a person’s journey back to reconciliation with one’s conscience (God)


As is the story, the journey back can be painful. Put yourself in the story and imagine you had done some bad things, left home and sometime later decide to go make amends with your family.


On the way home you feel ashamed, guilty of what you have done. You have uncertainty of facing your father again and at one point on your journey, you consider changing your mind.
As you get closer, the realization and awareness of your past errors intensifies. You start to reflect on your past and wonder if there will be forgiveness when you arrive.

After a long journey, you can finally see your family’s house in the distance. At this point, guilt and shame are almost overwhelming but just then your father looks and see’s you coming. He cheerfully races towards you, surrounding you with his love.
The guilt and shame, gone, as the entire family rejoices in your return.


The moral of the story: feeling guilty, ashamed of past deeds is not a bad thing.
God awaits at the end of your journey.

But the "entire" family didn't really rejoice, did they? What about big brother? He didn't seem to be in a rejoicing mood.

[Koushi Shinigami]

But the "entire" family didn't really rejoice, did they? What about big brother? He didn't seem to be in a rejoicing mood.

Apparently, his opinion wasn't all that important.



:think: Hmmmm.

If God is the father, and we are all God's wayward children, seems that would make Jesus the faithful, non-rejoicing, older brother....

[BobB]

I think the Prodigal son represents the sinners that feel remorse and come back to G-d and ask forgiveness.

[BillBrown]

I think the parable speaks for itself and doesn't need very much analysis.

[hben]

Apparently, his opinion wasn't all that important.



:think: Hmmmm.

If God is the father, and we are all God's wayward children, seems that would make Jesus the faithful, non-rejoicing, older brother....

You think so, huh? I don't think Jesus ever needed an attitude adjustment like the older brother did. I am inclined to say that you're off base a little...like say maybe base running out in left field somewhere. :think:

[Koushi Shinigami]

You think so, huh? I don't think Jesus ever needed an attitude adjustment like the older brother did. I am inclined to say that you're off base a little...like say maybe base running out in left field somewhere. :think:

Just examining the parable.

Who would you say is the grumpy brother? The sanctimonious, self-riteous believer?

[smyrna]

The moral of the story: feeling guilty, ashamed of past deeds is not a bad thing. God awaits at the end of your journey.


It can be a good thing. There is a time to be ashamed and repent for your sins. There is a time also to move on. If it starts to hinder your running the good race, it becomes a bad thing.

[smyrna]

When I read or think about the story, I remember that the story was told to the Jewish leaders to let them know that the ones that leave and return are valued more than those that never stray - not that leaving and returning just to get attention is ok. Well, maybe not valued more, but rejoice at their return, certainly.

The Father told the son that stayed that all that he(the father) had was the son's that stayed. If we are the son that stayed, it sometimes may seem unfair, the love for the child that left, may now get. This can be a stepping stone for a faithful christian. The holy spirit with in you though should be rejoicing with all of heaven for the one that was lost is now found.

By the love for your brother you will be known as a desciple of the Lord.

[Dancer]

Just examining the parable.

Who would you say is the grumpy brother? The sanctimonious, self-riteous believer?Seems like the older brother was not being as forgiving as the father. Perhaps the lesson in forgiveness is that we should be as forgiving of our brother's sins against the father as the father is?

[hben]

Just examining the parable.

Who would you say is the grumpy brother? The sanctimonious, self-riteous believer?

I think that is a fair assumption.

[bobfisher]

Jesus told all three of the parables in that chapter to reprove the pharisees. The elder son reperesents the pharisees who in turn typify anyone who follows a form of godliness while looking down on their brothers and thinking themselves more righteous by their own merits.

These verses lead into to those three parables:

Luke 15:1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. 3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying...

The publicans and sinners were coming to hear Christ. They are the lost sons being found. But the pharisees & scribes did not like that! They murmered and complained like the elder son.

The younger son typifies God's elect while the elder son does not.

[smyrna]

Seems like the older brother was not being as forgiving as the father. Perhaps the lesson in forgiveness is that we should be as forgiving of our brother's sins against the father as the father is?

Each parable IMO has many lessons. The one you just mentioned is an excellent one. To try our best to model Christ.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I think that is a fair assumption.

Well then, if mankind is totally depraved, and if they can do no good unless God is in them, and if ALL must choose to return to God and be saved, then who is the son that stayed?

[bobfisher]

Well then, if mankind is totally depraved, and if they can do no good unless God is in them, and if ALL must choose to return to God and be saved, then who is the son that stayed?

The elder son stayed only outwardly. Inwardly he did not "stay" because he had no mercy & forgiveness towards his brother.

[Koushi Shinigami]

:think: I wonder how the rest of the story went.

"The next morning, after the party....."

[5thIDSoldier]

I think the parable speaks for itself and doesn't need very much analysis.

Indeed.

[hben]

Well then, if mankind is totally depraved, and if they can do no good unless God is in them, and if ALL must choose to return to God and be saved, then who is the son that stayed?

The brother that needed an attitiude adjustment.

[Koushi Shinigami]

The brother that needed an attitiude adjustment.

Couldn't have been a member of mankind. All of mankind has strayed.

[hben]

Couldn't have been a member of mankind. All of mankind has strayed.

Yes, I'd say so, but the older brother was resentful and jealous, and those too are traits of mankind. So I think it is safe to say that he strayed mentally which makes him a member of mankind in good standing or should I say bad standing? :cool:

[Jacob_Rising]

I think the parable speaks for itself and doesn't need very much analysis.All the parables speak for themselves to the general public but they all mean something else to somebody that does analize them more.

I get a different meaning from them than most people do.

Jesus spoke in parables to speak to some people in secret so that the general public would not understand them.

You can draw a common sense lesson from all of them but you can also find out the secrets to all of them if you try hard enough.

'' A man had two sons''

Why does everyone believe that this story is talking about christians who backslide?

That's the obvious conclusion that everyone comes to.

But this man is no man, it's talking about two sons of God, Jews and gentiles.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Yes, I'd say so, but the older brother was resentful and jealous, and those too are traits of mankind. So I think it is safe to say that he strayed mentally which makes him a member of mankind in good standing or should I say bad standing? :cool:


He should definitely appologize and ask forgiveness from his father and brother.

[hben]

He should definitely appologize and ask forgiveness from his father and brother.

It is too late. It's been 2,000 years or so, and he's probably already lost his salvation by now. :( :cry: :((

[Koushi Shinigami]

So it would seem.


What did the prodigal son get on the next day?

[hben]

So it would seem.


What did the prodigal son get on the next day?

He probably went back to work after the holiday was over like the rest of us. The older brother was probably still sulking and bad mouthing his brother like some of the co-workers we've all had to deal with over the years.

[Jacob_Rising]

So it would seem.


What did the prodigal son get on the next day?He gets a wedding when he returns.

The entire outcome and goal of the bible is the return of this prodigal son, when Ephraim returns to the Torah and returns to the father and is reunited with the brother.

The son who stayed home doesn't owe anybody an apology. He was upset because he had never departed from the commandments but he had never had a wedding party.

This lame son who mingled with swine{abandoning Torah} became a gentile with riotous living and he became as a dead man. He gets the wedding party when he returns. He gets rewarded for doing wrong and he gets a wedding between him and the bridegroom.

He is fitted with the best robe{wedding Garment}

Jeremiah 31;18 I have surely heard Ephraim Bemoaning himself,'' You have chastized me, and I was chastized like an untrained bull: Restore me, AND I WILL RETURN.

He gets a wedding ring Jeremiah 31 20 -Is Ephraim my dear son? Is he a pleasent child? Therefore my heart yearns for him, I will surely have mercy on him.......Turn back o virgin of Israel, turn back to these your cities, How long will you gad about, oh you backsliding daughter?

For God has created a new thing in the Earth, a woman shall encopass a man{Israel embracing God}.

This wedding will take place when Christianity repents for abandoning the ways of God and returns to the Torah.

This story shows the history of Israel and the future of Israel. In just about every bible I have the northern kingdom is called the prodigal son.

The history proves who the prodigal is, the Northern kingdom who refused to obey the commandments, who went into the far nations and became gentiles.

[5thIDSoldier]

All the parables speak for themselves to the general public but they all mean something else to somebody that does analize them more.

I get a different meaning from them than most people do.

Jesus spoke in parables to speak to some people in secret so that the general public would not understand them.

You can draw a common sense lesson from all of them but you can also find out the secrets to all of them if you try hard enough.

'' A man had two sons''

Why does everyone believe that this story is talking about christians who backslide?

That's the obvious conclusion that everyone comes to.

But this man is no man, it's talking about two sons of God, Jews and gentiles.

So are you saying that the one who returns is symbolic of the gentiles then? Not criticizing, just asking...

[bobfisher]

Jesus spoke in parables to speak to some people in secret so that the general public would not understand them.

Yes, Jesus said exactly that.

All the parables speak for themselves to the general public but they all mean something else to somebody that does analize them more.

I get a different meaning from them than most people do.

You can draw a common sense lesson from all of them but you can also find out the secrets to all of them if you try hard enough.

Were the disciples chosen by God to know the secrets because they tried hard enough and analyzed enough? Or was it simply given to them? Paul said that being chosen does not depend on man's running (Romans 9). Wouldn't "analzsing" and "trying hard" fall under "running"?

'' A man had two sons'' Why does everyone believe that this story is talking about christians who backslide? That's the obvious conclusion that everyone comes to.

I don't believe that parable is about backslidden Christians either. It's about the same thing all the parables are about: many are called, few are chosen.

But this man is no man, it's talking about two sons of God, Jews and gentiles.
<snip>
This wedding will take place when Christianity repents for abandoning the ways of God and returns to the Torah.


It doesn't seem like Paul got the same message as you from the parable regarding Christian's returning to the letter of the Torah.

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

[Gem]

I think the Prodigal son represents the sinners that feel remorse and come back to G-d and ask forgiveness.

I agree.

[Jacob_Rising]

Yes, Jesus said exactly that.



Were the disciples chosen by God to know the secrets because they tried hard enough and analyzed enough? Or was it simply given to them? Paul said that being chosen does not depend on man's running (Romans 9). Wouldn't "analzsing" and "trying hard" fall under "running"?



I don't believe that parable is about backslidden Christians either. It's about the same thing all the parables are about: many are called, few are chosen.



It doesn't seem like Paul got the same message as you from the parable regarding Christian's returning to the letter of the Torah.

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.The desciples proved over and over that they didn't understand the secrets even when the secrets were explained to them.

They had no idea Jesus was going to be resurected and they all mourned for him even though he told them beforehand what would happen.

Mathew 19:21 '' If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor'' This is another example of the desciples not understanding what Christ said.

You say,'' Many are called, but few are chosen''

That's exactly my point, all the parables are about these two different kind of people who believe in God, and Jesus gives us many examples of this in all the stories he tells but the general public do not understand them.

Jesus said, '' Whoever keeps the least of the commandments and teaches other men to do so will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.''

People don't understand this saying because they fail to recognize who the greatest in the kingdom of heaven means.

When a man asked Jesus how to obtain eternal salvation, Jesus replied,'' Did you keep the laws of Moses?''

The man said he had done that all his life but when Jesus told him how to be perfect the man was upset and the desciples were also upset saying,'' who then can be saved?''

'' Many are called but few are chosen''

Let's look at who these chosen people are because all the parables are about them, '' The kingdom of heaven is like''

Mathew 7:14 '' Because narrow is the gate: for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction and there are many who go in by it.''

22: '' Many will say to me in that day,'' Lord, Lord, have we not prophecied in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name?

'' And then I will declare to them, '' I NEVER KNEW YOU, DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS''

So who are these people who have entered the broad gate that Jesus says that he doesn't know?

Two ways, two gates,two professions,two builders,two trees

Why were they cast into the shade,outer darkness?

The answer is right there isn't it{lawlessness}?

These people who Jesus says he never knew don't go to burn in hell for eternity, they just havn't reached the level of perfection and are denied the highest platue of heaven.

These levels are expressed in just about all the parables of Jesus and most every story and they do have name, and they do pertain to 2 people.

These two people are Ephraim and Judah.

All the prophecies of future Messianic rule are about Ephraim and Judah expressly , we are told this over and over.

You have to be a part of one of these people to become part of Israel because Israel is only these two kingdoms.

But there are special people in both of these kingdoms that form a tribe themselves, just as the land is divided between 3 tribes.

To become perfect would be to become Benjamin, Jerusalem is in Benjamin and Benjamin was a part of both kingdoms, it's what united all Israel.

Romans 9;11 Gentiles are grafted through the promise of Ephraim's return.

But if a gentile takes on the religion of the Messiah{Judaism} and if he acts, walks, and does accordingly this gentile could be considered a true Jew.

And if this true Jew walks accordingly, he can become true Jerusalem by becoming part of Benjaimin.

Jerusalem is Benajmin and Jerusalem is the true bride of the Messiah.

Benjamin is the highest platue of heaven, he is the zoe life, the true bride of Christ.

[Jacob_Rising]

The Prodigal son is everyone who comes to the God of Israel who says, '' yes''

They say yes before they even hear the conditions.

They say yes but they refuse to follow any of the ways of God, They call the Torah, '' a strange thing''

Ephraim is the prodigal nation who did this, and Christianity did the same thing in my opinion.

Christians say,'' we will walk in the paths of Jesus''

But few do, Jesus walked in Judaism and not many follow.

But when the person who thows off the Torah comes back to respecting God's ways and Holidays, then they are the returning prodigal.

We sit here and wait on one prodigal to return, The Orthodox Jews will tell you the same thing.

Ephraim must return, he must return to the Torah and become one with the Jews.

The bible and the Jews will tell us all that the prodigal Ephraim will return in the days of the coming Messiah.

[Jacob_Rising]

So are you saying that the one who returns is symbolic of the gentiles then? Not criticizing, just asking...Yes, the ten tribes of Ephraim became gentiles and even the Talmud will tell you that if a gentile marries a Jew that he could very well be the returning prodigal Ephraim.

Paul explains in Romans 9-11 very clearly stating that the kingdom of Ephraim would become gentiles'' Not his people''

But after they became gentiles, then God would call his son back and be accepted.

Paul says,'' Not of the Jews only, but also of the gentiles as he says also in Hosea: I will call them my people, who were not my people.''

Paul gives us this prophesy to Ephraim saying, '' but also the gentiles as he says in Hosea.

Showing how gentiles are grafted in through Ephraim's promise of the returning prodigal.

[bobfisher]

The desciples proved over and over that they didn't understand the secrets even when the secrets were explained to them.

They had no idea Jesus was going to be resurected and they all mourned for him even though he told them beforehand what would happen.

That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that it was given to them to know the secrets. After all, that's what Jesus said, right? They didn't understnad at the time. But they also were not yet converted. Later they did understnad when Jesus opened thier eyes to understand the scriptures. My point is, it was GIVEN to them to know, not because they worked hard or analyzed well.

Mathew 19:21 '' If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor'' This is another example of the desciples not understanding what Christ said.

You say,'' Many are called, but few are chosen''

That's exactly my point, all the parables are about these two different kind of people who believe in God, and Jesus gives us many examples of this in all the stories he tells but the general public do not understand them.

Jesus said, '' Whoever keeps the least of the commandments and teaches other men to do so will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.''

People don't understand this saying because they fail to recognize who the greatest in the kingdom of heaven means.

When a man asked Jesus how to obtain eternal salvation, Jesus replied,'' Did you keep the laws of Moses?''

The man said he had done that all his life but when Jesus told him how to be perfect the man was upset and the desciples were also upset saying,'' who then can be saved?''

'' Many are called but few are chosen''

Let's look at who these chosen people are because all the parables are about them, '' The kingdom of heaven is like''

Mathew 7:14 '' Because narrow is the gate: for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction and there are many who go in by it.''

22: '' Many will say to me in that day,'' Lord, Lord, have we not prophecied in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name?

'' And then I will declare to them, '' I NEVER KNEW YOU, DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS''

So who are these people who have entered the broad gate that Jesus says that he doesn't know?

Two ways, two gates,two professions,two builders,two trees

Why were they cast into the shade,outer darkness?

The answer is right there isn't it{lawlessness}?

Yes, lawlessness. But not according to the letter of the law. Romans 7:1-6. We are LOOSED from that law.

These people who Jesus says he never knew don't go to burn in hell for eternity...

I agree with you there.

....they just havn't reached the level of perfection and are denied the highest platue of heaven.

These levels are expressed in just about all the parables of Jesus and most every story and they do have name, and they do pertain to 2 people.

These two people are Ephraim and Judah.

The two kinds of people in Jesus parables are like this:
1. Those who say "yes" to Christ, but then don't do what Christ says.
2. Those who say "no" to Christ, but later repent and do His will.

The second group enters the kingdom of God first. They are God's elect.

Maybe Ephraim and Judah correspond to those two groups, but if so then they are types and shadows representing the spiritual truth about those groups. God's word speaks in parables in more than just the parables Christ told.

[hben]

So it would seem.


What did the prodigal son get on the next day?

I have given this a lot of thought since you first asked, and I think maybe it was the Partrige family and a pair of trees. Of course, I have been singing a lot of Christmas carols since you first asked, too. :doh: :think:

[Jacob_Rising]

That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that it was given to them to know the secrets. After all, that's what Jesus said, right? They didn't understnad at the time. But they also were not yet converted. Later they did understnad when Jesus opened thier eyes to understand the scriptures. My point is, it was GIVEN to them to know, not because they worked hard or analyzed well.



Yes, lawlessness. But not according to the letter of the law. Romans 7:1-6. We are LOOSED from that law.



I agree with you there.



The two kinds of people in Jesus parables are like this:
1. Those who say "yes" to Christ, but then don't do what Christ says.
2. Those who say "no" to Christ, but later repent and do His will.

The second group enters the kingdom of God first. They are God's elect.

Maybe Ephraim and Judah correspond to those two groups, but if so then they are types and shadows representing the spiritual truth about those groups. God's word speaks in parables in more than just the parables Christ told.I gave you Mathew 7 showing you two different types of people who are saved, two professions, two ways, two trees, two builders, two gates that show two types of people who are saved.

But this was said after he allready explained the two ways in chapter 5

Mathew 5:19 '' Whoever breaks the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever does them and teaches them will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

For I say to you, that unless your rightousness exceeds the rightousness of the pharasees and scribes, you will by no means enter the Kingdom of heaven.

So Jesus answers the question right here very plainly saying that we had better keep the laws of Moses better than the scribes and pharasees.


You say the word lawlessness has nothing to do with the laws of Moses in this context?

Then what law is he refering to?

Roman law?, Roman law was the law of the land.

By Roman law I could go take part in Orgies and even sleep with my own mother along with a slew of other things.

In my New Testament it says Torahlessness not lawlessness.

Jesus spoke about the law and keeping God's commandments many times, not mans commandments.

1 John 3:4 whoever commits sin also commits Lawlessness, and SIN IS LAWLESSNESS.......whoever abides in him does not sin. whoever sins has not seen him or the father......whoevever practices rightousness is rightous...........He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned since the beginning..............Whoever does not practice rightousness is not of God

1st John 2: 3 '' NOW BY THIS WE KNOW WE KNOW HIM, IF WE KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS. He who says,'' I know him'' and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are those who do his commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life''.

1 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one decieve you by any means: for the day will not come unless the falling away comes first{falling away from keeping the law} , and the man of sin{Torahlessness} is revealed.......who opposes and exalts himself above all the is called God{law}........For the mystery of Lawlessness is allready at work...........Then the lawless one will be revealed.........The coming of the Torahless one is according to the workings of Satan..


You might have found some scripture that leads you to believe the law is passed away or doesn't need to be followed but they would contradict many things Jesus said about the subject.

To my understanding the anti-Christ comes to do away with the law and decieves the multitudes into not keeping the law.

That is the job of Satan, to turn Israel away from keeping the commandments.

[Jacob_Rising]

We are LOOSED from that law.



It is true that we can obtain salvation even if we break the law because of Jesus sacrifice. But it is also true that the people who try hardest to keep the commandments and try to teach keeping the commandments will obtain more heavenly rewards than those who don't keep it.

The Holy spirit was given as a helper to help us keep the law, not to free us from it completely.

Sure, you can blatently not keep the law and try and teach men not to keep the law and Jesus says you can still go to heaven but you will be the least in the kingdom.

[bobfisher]

For I say to you, that unless your rightousness exceeds the rightousness of the pharasees and scribes, you will by no means enter the Kingdom of heaven.

So Jesus answers the question right here very plainly saying that we had better keep the laws of Moses better than the scribes and pharasees.

You say the word lawlessness has nothing to do with the laws of Moses in this context?

Then what law is he refering to?

He IS referring to the law, but not to the LETTER of the law.

Jesus gave examples of how to keep the law better than the pharisees. Christ's examples disagreed with the letter of that law. (see below).

In my New Testament it says Torahlessness not lawlessness.

That's fine, I agree, Torahlessness. How do I keep the Torah?

For he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Compare the letter of the law with Christ's words. They are not the same!

Moses: Vow, and pay unto the LORD your God.
Christ: Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne.

Moses: Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
Christ: For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept...what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

David: I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
Christ: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt...hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you.

So who do I obey? Do I pattern myself after the letter of the law or after Christ's words?

You might have found some scripture that leads you to believe the law is passed away or doesn't need to be followed but they would contradict many things Jesus said about the subject.

The law has not passed away. It continues to speak to those who are under it:

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law...

What does the law say to them?
Romans 3:19 ....that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

So the law only speaks to those under it (Romans 3:19) but is everyone under the law?
Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

How does one become no longer under the law?
Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

So the purpose of the law is
[1] stop every mouth
[2] make eveyone guilty before God
[3] serve as our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ

But once we come to Christ, once faith has come to us (it comes on an individual basis), then we are no longer under the schoolmaster (law). But faith has not come to all yet. So the law remains as a schoolmaster for those under it. Not one jot or tittle will pass till all is fulfilled.

To my understanding the anti-Christ comes to do away with the law and decieves the multitudes into not keeping the law.

That is the job of Satan, to turn Israel away from keeping the commandments.

True, but according to Paul we are to serve the law "NOT in the oldness of the letter." Have you ever considered the possibility that the true meaning of the law is not contained in the letter, just like the parables?

Here are the disciples trying to reenact the letter of the law.

Luke 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw [this], they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? 55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

Where did they go wrong?

[Koushi Shinigami]

I have given this a lot of thought since you first asked, and I think maybe it was the Partrige family and a pair of trees. Of course, I have been singing a lot of Christmas carols since you first asked, too. :doh: :think:

The kid took his share of the inheritance early, went into town and blew it on wine, women, and song. Then he comes back and there's a big party. What happens on the next day?
Does the inheritance get divided again and the loyal son get shafted out of a fourth?
Does the prodigal son go to work for the family farm? Say he does, what happens after pop dies? Does the prodigal son then get some of the increase he helped build after his return?
Looking at his character before he left, would he even be a good employee?
Does this situation set up a Cain and Able situation where the older brother resents the younger so much that the younger brother fails to come back from the fields one day?

[hben]

The kid took his share of the inheritance early, went into town and blew it on wine, women, and song. Then he comes back and there's a big party. What happens on the next day?
Does the inheritance get divided again and the loyal son get shafted out of a fourth?
Does the prodigal son go to work for the family farm? Say he does, what happens after pop dies? Does the prodigal son then get some of the increase he helped build after his return?
Looking at his character before he left, would he even be a good employee?
Does this situation set up a Cain and Able situation where the older brother resents the younger so much that the younger brother fails to come back from the fields one day?

Has anyone ever told you that you worry too much? I don't think any of that negative stuff happens the next day, because Jesus would have told us if it had. But the main thing is that the prodigal was changed and no longer the "character" as you put it. He came back with the attitude that he would gladly be a servant if that is what he had to do to come back. But that didn't happen, because his father treated him like the son that he was, and they all lived happily ever after except for the occasional grumbling of the older son/brother.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Has anyone ever told you that you worry too much? I don't think any of that negative stuff happens the next day, because Jesus would have told us if it had. But the main thing is that the prodigal was changed and no longer the "character" as you put it. He came back with the attitude that he would gladly be a servant if that is what he had to do to come back. But that didn't happen, because his father treated him like the son that he was, and they all lived happily ever after except for the occasional grumbling of the older son/brother.

"Happily ever after" only occurs in a Brothers Grimm fary tale.

[hben]

"Happily ever after" only occurs in a Brothers Grimm fary tale.

I am in a fairy tale then, because I am living happily ever after one day at a time. :cool:

[Koushi Shinigami]

I am in a fairy tale then, because I am living happily ever after one day at a time. :cool:

Then have fun with that.

I'm looking forward to "dying, happily ever after".

[hben]

Then have fun with that.

I'm looking forward to "dying, happily ever after".

I have, I do and I will. Thank you for caring. :))

[Koushi Shinigami]

I have, I do and I will. Thank you for caring. :))

You just made a mistake.

[hben]

You just made a mistake.

It was no mistake. It was an intentional joke.

[StoneScratcher]

Jacob Rising, Interesting, what you have posted. Thanks.

I was wondering, you mentioned "zoe", do you mean when paired with logos?

Also, do you see any significance, intentional or otherwise as written in the Bible, with the correlation of cyclical heavenly references contained in or represented by parables, stories, and tribes (Ephraim, Judah, Benjamin, etc.)?

[Koushi Shinigami]

It was no mistake. It was an intentional joke.

My give-a-damn is busted.

[Jacob_Rising]

Jacob Rising, Interesting, what you have posted. Thanks.

I was wondering, you mentioned "zoe", do you mean when paired with logos?

Also, do you see any significance, intentional or otherwise as written in the Bible, with the correlation of cyclical heavenly references contained in or represented by parables, stories, and tribes (Ephraim, Judah, Benjamin, etc.)?

Genisis 48 is a timetable showing 12 steps of time correlating them with the 12 tribes.

It shows Israel's walk with God with a timetable.

We start out with the firstborns being new to God.

Our beginning is not good from Reuben , Simeon and Levi.

They show a very weak person who is trying to walk with God.

When you get to Judah everything starts to change because you learn that you have to sacrifice yourself for others, and this is exactly how a normal walk with God would procede.

At first your unstable as water but your very enthusiastic.

Simeon and Levi are brothers that I believe represents one person, part priest and part wild. Instruments of cruelty, unforgiving,'' I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel{mixed among the 12}

Judah, You are he whom your brothers shall praise.

Timeline 6A.D Rabbi Rachman exclaims,'' Woe is us for Judah has dropped the sceptor and Shilo has not come''

This was stated by Rabbi Rachman when Herod Archelaus was deposed by Caesar agustus marking the first time Judah was no longer able to kill their own for transgressions of the law and they lost any rule.

Genisis 48:10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shilo comes: And to him shall be the obedience of the people.....He washed his garmentt in Wine{Yeshuah}, And his clothes in the blood of Grapes.

In 6 A.D. Yeshuah was presented at Passover before he became a man{Lamb} at the Age of 12. He was hidden from his mother from the 10th to the 14th and then found teaching to the world{in the temple} for the first time marking his entrance.

Moses also tells the children of Israel at Passover, '' Take the lamb{Hide it} and put it away from the tenth to the 14th. Maybe the Messiah hidden for 4 days, 4000.

After you reach Judah you become Zebulum after the coming of Christ{6 A.D.} The truth goes out to the world{Zebulun is a haven for ships.

Then you become Issachar lying down between two burdens because you havn't made up your mind to fully commit.

Then you are punished by Dan and this one prayer pops in this whole chapter, you bend your knee and say,'' I have waited for your salvation, O Lord!

Then you become Gad strong in the Lord after you are punished.
{ a Troup shall tramp on him , But he shall Triumph at last.

Asher shall be rich{Blessings} Naphtali is a deer let loose!!!

------Here is Ephraim and Mannessah right before the end.

Joseph is a fruitful bough by a well, His branches run over the wall.

The blessings of Joseph is too much to read, and this is the last stage in the prophecy before Benjamin comes.

THE BRIDE OF CHRIST,THE GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN AND THE LAST THING TO HAPPEN ON EARTH.

BENJAMIN IS A RAVENOUS WOLF: IN THE MORNING HE SHALL DEVOUR THE PREY, AND AT NIGHT HE SHALL DIVIDE THE SPOIL.

I believe for example that I am stuck going back and fourth between Issachar and Asher but I keep falling back to Reuben and Simeon at times.

[Jacob_Rising]

I was wondering, you mentioned "zoe", do you mean when paired with logos?
Zoe {2222} means everlasting life, or the highest plateau of life, abundant life.

Jesus always gives us these two kinds of ,{Life} in his stories.

Two kinds of lives which Christians may lead after they have been saved.

The, '' Zoe'' life
The ''Psuche'' life

ZOE Life===Spirit life, abundant life, narrow way, few find it, walking in the light,fruit of the spirit, doing good works, priest of God, no spot or blemish=Bride.

Psuche life===Soulish life, carnel life,Broad gate, Many find it, Walking in Darkness, No fruit, no works, Not priests of God, Spotted and blemished garments, carnel Christians.

I'll have to look the word up again and find Logos and Zoe to see about the logos. I remember something about it.

Mathew 19:25 The rich ruler asked about the Zoe life saying,'' What good thing should I do to gain eternal life''

Yeshua's reply told him how to be perfect, how to obtain the Zoe abundant life and the man walked away.

Many people and the desciples were upset about this because they think that the man has lost his salvation because he didn't sell what he had but Jesus wasn't talking about salvation.

The desciples said,'' Who then can be saved'' because they didn't understand what Jesus was saying.

In the great scheme of things there are 3 levels of heaven though, the outer court, the Holy place and the Holy of Holies.

These correlate to Passover, Pentacost, Tabernacles, or The way, truth, and the life, or Little children, young men, fathers, or 30 fold, 60 fold, 100 fold, or to you, in you, through you, or sins forgiven, know the word, Know him, or Good will, acceptable will, perfect will.

3 kinds of people who believe in God.

People still considered gentiles, Jews and gentiles considered true Israel and the third are gentiles and Jews who have obtained the abundant life.

The pattern of the temple.

[Jacob_Rising]

Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.



Where did they go wrong?God forbid we sin just because we are under grace.

Your reply to me is trying to show salvation by keeping the law but I'm not talking about salvation in the least.

All the explaining of Romans and Galations and everywhere you look concerning the law it's showing you that salvation is not dependant on the keeping of the law.

What I'm talking about are heavenly rewards, not salvation, I'm talking about the difference between the greatest in the kingdom of heaven and the least.

You have Jesus at your defense saying, '' Those who don't keep the law and teach others not to keep the law will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.

They are still in heaven so we aren't talking about salvation.

The book of Acts says tens of thousands{Myriads} of Jews believed and all of them were very Zeallous for the keeping of the Torah just like Paul was.

I wouldn't keep the law because I thought I could be saved from it.

I would keep the law because it's what Jesus did, it's what the desciples did and it's the thing to do if you want to have a better reward. Jesus says so.

Many people have kept the law over the years because God told them to keep it and that's good enough.

But a Jew who believed in Jesus would keep the law because it's the right thing to do and there is no more pressure from it.

Keeping the law is an extra bonus with a smile on your face.

[Koushi Shinigami]

What I'm talking about are heavenly rewards, not salvation, I'm talking about the difference between the greatest in the kingdom of heaven and the least.



If there is a difference, I do not care one whit. Give me the least and that which is required to attain it.

[hben]

My give-a-damn is busted.

Mine was too, once upon a time, but God plugged the "damn", and it's been working pretty good ever since...for the most part.

[hben]

If there is a difference, I do not care one whit. Give me the least and that which is required to attain it.

I think I'll have a little one room log cabin down by some creek at the end of a little dirt road rather than a big mansion facing some street of gold, but I'll be ok with whatever I get.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I'll be ok with whatever I get.

Yup. If there really is no greed, envy, selfishness, or any of the rest of the negative emotions in Heaven, then striving for anything beyond entry is pointless.

[bobfisher]

What I'm talking about are heavenly rewards, not salvation, I'm talking about the difference between the greatest in the kingdom of heaven and the least.
....
They are still in heaven so we aren't talking about salvation.


Here is what you said in an earlier post:

For I say to you, that unless your rightousness exceeds the rightousness of the pharasees and scribes, you will by no means enter the Kingdom of heaven.

So Jesus answers the question right here very plainly saying that we had better keep the laws of Moses better than the scribes and pharasees

By equating the two underlined parts you made exceeding righteousness and entrance into the kingdom of heaven contigent upon keeping the law of Moses better than the scribes & pharisees. Yet now you are saying that those who do not keep the law of Moses WILL enter.

Here is what Paul says about righteousness via keeping the law:

....for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
...by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight

So Jesus could not have been very plainly saying what you think He said. Jesus was not equating exceeding righteousness with keeping the law of Moses (in the letter) at all.

[hben]

Yup. If there really is no greed, envy, selfishness, or any of the rest of the negative emotions in Heaven, then striving for anything beyond entry is pointless.

Seriously, I don't think the striving for brownie points will gain anything for anyone. I think any heavenly brownie points come whenever we least expect them. I believe it is when we do good things for people without having to even stop and think about them, and then we forget about them as soon as we've done them. The times when we strive, plan and think to ourselves "I must do this, this and this, because it is what the Lord wants" are the times that we get our rewards in the here and now.

[Jacob_Rising]

Here is what you said in an earlier post:

For I say to you, that unless your rightousness exceeds the rightousness of the pharasees and scribes, you will by no means enter the Kingdom of heaven.

So Jesus answers the question right here very plainly saying that we had better keep the laws of Moses better than the scribes and pharasees

By equating the two underlined parts you made exceeding righteousness and entrance into the kingdom of heaven contigent upon keeping the law of Moses better than the scribes & pharisees. Yet now you are saying that those who do not keep the law of Moses WILL enter.

Here is what Paul says about righteousness via keeping the law:

....for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
...by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight

So Jesus could not have been very plainly saying what you think He said. Jesus was not equating exceeding righteousness with keeping the law of Moses (in the letter) at all.It only sounds confusing because of the definition of the kingdom of heaven{Zoe Life}

'' Many sons of the kingdom will come and recline in the kingdom of heaven with Abraham,Issac and Jacob, but some of these sons of the kingdom will be asked to leave.''

These people came to the kingdom of heaven but were placed elsewhere, is that hell?

They were placed in the outer court of gentiles that is not a part of the temple proper. They were placed in outer darkness of the outer court where ther e is no menorah lighting.

Like some of the ten virgins, they will grind their teeth and weep because they could have made the Zoe life but didn't.

They walked right up into the marriage supper of the lamb and were not allowed in but they were saved.

Everybody including myself says, '' Well at least I'm in there somewhere'', but somewhere for me is the outer court, I know I'm headed there but it is a type of salvation.

1 Corinthians 3:13 '' Everyones work will be manifest: For the day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire..........IF ANYONE'S WORK IS BURNED, HE WILL SUFFER A LOSS; BUT HE HIMSELF WILL BE SAVED, YET SO AS THROUGH A FIRE.

What your asking me is the difference between somebody who has to go through the fire and die and somebody who goes through the fire and lives.

The keeping of the law is really not about keeping the letter of the law itself as you say.

The keeping of the law is doing justly, loving mercy and walking humbly with your God and the Jews know this also.

Jesus expained that the law is much harder to keep for those who want to keep the true spirit of the law.

A Jew can look at Porn and it's really not a sin to him.

But for the Christian it's a sin of lust, fornication, adultery, and covetness because Jesus took the law much more seriously.

The letter of the law is easyer to keep in that it's just the fleshly rightousness just like Christians say, ''Don't smoke, don't drink, don't steal, don't lie.''

The keeping of the law is just a bonus but the keeping of the spirit of the law is rightousness in loving thy neighbor.

But the keeping of the spirit of the law does not cancel out the rightousness of keeping the letter of the law.

Either one serves one purpose in that it teaches you who God really is. If you really want to know who God is, then you would keep the laws of Moses and even further, you would keep the spirit of the law by not fornicating with your neighbors daughter in your mind.

The kingdom of heaven is like, the kingdom of heaven is like, the kingdom of heaven is like, It was said so many times.

Those virgins who weren't prepared were still in the congregation of believers in Yeshuah, they did miracles in Jesus name, they taught Jesus in the streets , and they were honestly believing in Jesus and trying their best.

But they will wail and be sent to outer darkness.

That outer darkness is the outer court but it's not part of the two sections making up the temple proper.

This place is out of reach of my understanding but it is part of the temple but not part of the temple proper, the kingdom of heaven.

'' But outside are dogs, thieves, those who love a lie, fornicators''

After the wicked are killed, these dogs still exist and there appears to still be hope for them because they are there but not allowed in the city, but they are still saved.

This is some type of salvation but it's not in the actual kingdom of heaven and there are many examples of these people.

I just don't know the difference between them and a person who is not saved at all.

Is the outer court part of the temple?

No, it's not.

But many will argue yes, it is.

[Jacob_Rising]

What's the difference between the prodigal son and the son who stayed home?

The son who stayed home had never left the father, never left the commandments.

The prodigal son is given a great party and accepted.

But the son who stayed home with the commandments inherits everything, this is not true with the prodigal.

I believe a gentile who takes it upon himself to become a Jew and to do as God commanded can be considered the son who stayed home always with the father and the commandments.

A gentile who would have done this after Jesus came would believe in Jesus but he would live as a Jew and in that way he would become a Jew.

As a Jew who followed the law this Christian would have been tortured and killed with Just like the Jews were tortued and killed for not abandoning the law of Moses.

God says in many places that he is coming to defend his people who follow the law and are an example to the world.

There are many more rewards for a people who keep God's laws no matter what, who have died because they wouldn't abandon the law.

They inherit everything, that's the difference between the prodigal and the son who stayed home.

It's his world that the prodigal will be living under, the bride of God.

[StoneScratcher]

Jacob Rising,

Thank you so much for your informative replies. I am thoroughly enjoying reading what you've written, unfortunately, I am pressed for time to respond in the manner I want to. I am looking forward to discussing more with you!

Have a great evening, I'll reply later on, perhaps late tonight, tomorrow morning.

[bobfisher]

It only sounds confusing because of the definition of the kingdom of heaven{Zoe Life}

"Many sons of the kingdom will come and recline in the kingdom of heaven with Abraham,Issac and Jacob, but some of these sons of the kingdom will be asked to leave.''

These people came to the kingdom of heaven but were placed elsewhere, is that hell?

It is gehenna and a "place" of judgment which involves torment, but it is not the Christain hell of everlasting torture. Judgment has a good purpose. It's purpose is not to inflict pain which is sadistic. It's purpose is to cause a person to turn back to God.

This is picutured in the law. Even if one is driven to the "outermost parts of heaven" God can still fetch them.

Deuteronomy 30:1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, 2 And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; 3 That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. 4 If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee.

Even when ALL THE CURSE of the law are upon a person, God is waiting to be merciful. The person sitting in judgment is provoked to CALL TO MIND what's going on, just as the prodigal son did.

They were placed in the outer court of gentiles that is not a part of the temple proper. They were placed in outer darkness of the outer court where ther e is no menorah lighting.

Like some of the ten virgins, they will grind their teeth and weep because they could have made the Zoe life but didn't.

They walked right up into the marriage supper of the lamb and were not allowed in but they were saved.

Everybody including myself says, '' Well at least I'm in there somewhere'', but somewhere for me is the outer court, I know I'm headed there but it is a type of salvation.

1 Corinthians 3:13 '' Everyones work will be manifest: For the day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire..........IF ANYONE'S WORK IS BURNED, HE WILL SUFFER A LOSS; BUT HE HIMSELF WILL BE SAVED, YET SO AS THROUGH A FIRE.

What your asking me is the difference between somebody who has to go through the fire and die and somebody who goes through the fire and lives.

What makes you think that some who gothrough the fire will perish permanently when the scripture you just quoted expressly states that "everyone...will be saved, yet so as by fire."

Going through the fire means being judged by God. Reaping what was sown according to the law. That is the purpose of the law. The law does not just sit there. It judges. It proves one guilty. "My word will judge him in the last day". The purpose of that judgment is to turn a person's heart back to God, to serve as a schoolmaster until faith comes. The fire from heaven is to save men's lives, not destroy them, even though metaphorically it does destroy them.

The keeping of the law is really not about keeping the letter of the law itself as you say.

The keeping of the law is doing justly, loving mercy and walking humbly with your God and the Jews know this also.

Exactly. Doing those things fulfills the law.

Jesus expained that the law is much harder to keep for those who want to keep the true spirit of the law.

A Jew can look at Porn and it's really not a sin to him.

But for the Christian it's a sin of lust, fornication, adultery, and covetness because Jesus took the law much more seriously.

The letter of the law is easyer to keep in that it's just the fleshly rightousness just like Christians say, ''Don't smoke, don't drink, don't steal, don't lie.''

The keeping of the law is just a bonus but the keeping of the spirit of the law is rightousness in loving thy neighbor.

But the keeping of the spirit of the law does not cancel out the rightousness of keeping the letter of the law.

Well that's where we differ. I believe there is no righteouness whatsoever in keeping the letter of the law.

There are logically only four possibilities:
[1] keep neither letter nor spirit ---> not righteous
[2] keep the letter only ---> not righteous
[3] keep the spirit only ---> righteous, fulfills all the law
[4] keep the letter & spirit ---> righteous, fulfills all the law

Paul didn't say to serve the law in newness of spirit AND ALSO in oldness of letter, he said serve in newness of spirit and NOT IN oldness of letter.

The kingdom of heaven is like, the kingdom of heaven is like, the kingdom of heaven is like, It was said so many times.

Those virgins who weren't prepared were still in the congregation of believers in Yeshuah, they did miracles in Jesus name, they taught Jesus in the streets , and they were honestly believing in Jesus and trying their best.

But they will wail and be sent to outer darkness.

That outer darkness is the outer court but it's not part of the two sections making up the temple proper.

This place is out of reach of my understanding but it is part of the temple but not part of the temple proper, the kingdom of heaven.

'' But outside are dogs, thieves, those who love a lie, fornicators''

After the wicked are killed, these dogs still exist and there appears to still be hope for them because they are there but not allowed in the city, but they are still saved.

This is some type of salvation but it's not in the actual kingdom of heaven and there are many examples of these people.

I just don't know the difference between them and a person who is not saved at all.

Those outside the city will be allowed into the city in due time. Why else do you think the gates of the city remain open? Compare Rev 21 with Isaiah 60.

The five virgins will not be better off than the unbeliever. They will have their portion WITH THE unbelievers (whose portion is the lake of fire).

Luke 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

The five virgins knew the Lords will but did not obey it. They will receive MANY stripes. Those who do not know the Lords will receive FEW stripes. Neither receives INFINITE stripes.

Luke 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. 49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

gehenna fire & lake of fire are methaphors for judgment, not torture and not literal fire, and do not mean one can not ever enter the city.

Everyone will be salted by gehenna fire.

[StoneScratcher]

Genisis 48 is a timetable showing 12 steps of time correlating them with the 12 tribes.

It shows Israel's walk with God with a timetable.

We start out with the firstborns being new to God.

Our beginning is not good from Reuben , Simeon and Levi.

They show a very weak person who is trying to walk with God.

When you get to Judah everything starts to change because you learn that you have to sacrifice yourself for others, and this is exactly how a normal walk with God would procede.

At first your unstable as water but your very enthusiastic.

Simeon and Levi are brothers that I believe represents one person, part priest and part wild. Instruments of cruelty, unforgiving,'' I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel{mixed among the 12}

Judah, You are he whom your brothers shall praise.

Timeline 6A.D Rabbi Rachman exclaims,'' Woe is us for Judah has dropped the sceptor and Shilo has not come''

This was stated by Rabbi Rachman when Herod Archelaus was deposed by Caesar agustus marking the first time Judah was no longer able to kill their own for transgressions of the law and they lost any rule.

Genisis 48:10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shilo comes: And to him shall be the obedience of the people.....He washed his garmentt in Wine{Yeshuah}, And his clothes in the blood of Grapes.

In 6 A.D. Yeshuah was presented at Passover before he became a man{Lamb} at the Age of 12. He was hidden from his mother from the 10th to the 14th and then found teaching to the world{in the temple} for the first time marking his entrance.

Moses also tells the children of Israel at Passover, '' Take the lamb{Hide it} and put it away from the tenth to the 14th. Maybe the Messiah hidden for 4 days, 4000.

After you reach Judah you become Zebulum after the coming of Christ{6 A.D.} The truth goes out to the world{Zebulun is a haven for ships.

Then you become Issachar lying down between two burdens because you havn't made up your mind to fully commit.

Then you are punished by Dan and this one prayer pops in this whole chapter, you bend your knee and say,'' I have waited for your salvation, O Lord!

Then you become Gad strong in the Lord after you are punished.
{ a Troup shall tramp on him , But he shall Triumph at last.

Asher shall be rich{Blessings} Naphtali is a deer let loose!!!

------Here is Ephraim and Mannessah right before the end.

Joseph is a fruitful bough by a well, His branches run over the wall.

The blessings of Joseph is too much to read, and this is the last stage in the prophecy before Benjamin comes.

THE BRIDE OF CHRIST,THE GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN AND THE LAST THING TO HAPPEN ON EARTH.

BENJAMIN IS A RAVENOUS WOLF: IN THE MORNING HE SHALL DEVOUR THE PREY, AND AT NIGHT HE SHALL DIVIDE THE SPOIL.

I believe for example that I am stuck going back and fourth between Issachar and Asher but I keep falling back to Reuben and Simeon at times.

Here is a question I've often pondered, I think you might see what I'm trying to show. It is about the twelve.

In Revelations, Ephraim is not mentioned in the 144,000. Is it because Ephraim is part of Joseph's 12,000?

Revelation 7

4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

5 Of the tribe of Juda (a) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben (b) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad (c) were sealed twelve thousand.

6 Of the tribe of Asher (d) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthali (e) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses (f) were sealed twelve thousand.

7 Of the tribe of Simeon (g) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi (h) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar (i) were sealed twelve thousand.

8 Of the tribe of Zabulon (j) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph (k) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin (l) were sealed twelve thousand.

.....

Ephraim, Manasseh, Joseph, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Benjamin equals fourteen in total.

Simeon and Levi were addressed as one by Israel (Jacob), so that would make thirteen. However, in Revelations Simeon and Levi are represented individually (12,000 each).

Ephraim and Manasseh were blessed by Israel (Jacob) with a crossing of Jacob's arms--the blessings of the right hand went to Ephraim, the left to Manasseh. If Manasseh represents 12,000 (of the 144,000) then does this mean Ephraim is also part of Joseph (or all of Joseph) and then makes for the 12 (12 times 12,000, is of course 144,000)?

Genesis 48

14 And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.

20 And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh (f).

Genesis 49

1 And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.

1.) Reuben (b)
2.) Simeon (g) and Levi (h)
3.) Judah (a)
4.) Zebulun (j)
5.) Issachar (i)
6.) Dan
7.) Gad (c)
8.) Asher (d)
9.) Naphtali (e)
10.) Joseph (k)
11.) Benjamin (l)

[Jacob_Rising]

Here is a question I've often pondered, I think you might see what I'm trying to show. It is about the twelve.

In Revelations, Ephraim is not mentioned in the 144,000. Is it because Ephraim is part of Joseph's 12,000?

Revelation 7

4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

5 Of the tribe of Juda (a) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben (b) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad (c) were sealed twelve thousand.

6 Of the tribe of Asher (d) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthali (e) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses (f) were sealed twelve thousand.

7 Of the tribe of Simeon (g) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi (h) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar (i) were sealed twelve thousand.

8 Of the tribe of Zabulon (j) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph (k) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin (l) were sealed twelve thousand.

.....

Ephraim, Manasseh, Joseph, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Benjamin equals fourteen in total.

Simeon and Levi were addressed as one by Israel (Jacob), so that would make thirteen. However, in Revelations Simeon and Levi are represented individually (12,000 each).

Ephraim and Manasseh were blessed by Israel (Jacob) with a crossing of Jacob's arms--the blessings of the right hand went to Ephraim, the left to Manasseh. If Manasseh represents 12,000 (of the 144,000) then does this mean Ephraim is also part of Joseph (or all of Joseph) and then makes for the 12 (12 times 12,000, is of course 144,000)?

Genesis 48

14 And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.

20 And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh (f).

Genesis 49

1 And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.

1.) Reuben (b)
2.) Simeon (g) and Levi (h)
3.) Judah (a)
4.) Zebulun (j)
5.) Issachar (i)
6.) Dan
7.) Gad (c)
8.) Asher (d)
9.) Naphtali (e)
10.) Joseph (k)
11.) Benjamin (l)Ephraim is not listed because at that time in Revelations your either Israel or your not.

Ephraim has always stood for gentiles since the beginning.

There are only two people who crossed over the river Jordan, Joshuah and Caleb.

Caleb is a prince of Judah.
Joshuah is of Ephraim.

'' Ephraim will become a company of nations''

Two kingdoms, Ephraim and Judah.

Hosea prophecied that Ephraim would become gentiles, '' In that place Jezreel, I will call them,'' Not my people''

Romans 9-11 '' Not only to the Jews but of the gentiles also, as he states in Hosea, '' Not my people became my people''

Ephraim went into the nations and became gentiles, They became not his people{gentiles}

When Jesus came he called all of Israel, He called his lost son Ephraim, and gentiles were grafted through this promise to Ephraim.

But when Israel becomes Holy in Revelations Ephraim is taken out of the picture because there will be no more gentiles in Israel.

You either become part of true Israel or your still considered a gentile.



Dan is not listed either because there will be no more punishment stage in Israel after that time.

No punishment , no gentiles, They will all be pure virgins, true Israel, the bride of Christ.

The 144,000 are all Israel, Gentile Christian and Jew.

In the religion of Judaism there are 144,000 people who make up the priesthood. So Revelations is telling us that they all become Priest to the Lord, Everyone who is counted as TRUE Israel.

It's a perfect number meaning that God will leave none of Israel behind, and everyone counted as Israel will be a priest.

Israel has 14 sons, 2 sons were of the adoption.

[Jacob_Rising]

Well that's where we differ. I believe there is no righteouness whatsoever in keeping the letter of the law.

There are logically only four possibilities:
[1] keep neither letter nor spirit ---> not righteous
[2] keep the letter only ---> not righteous
[3] keep the spirit only ---> righteous, fulfills all the law
[4] keep the letter & spirit ---> righteous, fulfills all the law

Paul didn't say to serve the law in newness of spirit AND ALSO in oldness of letter, he said serve in newness of spirit and NOT IN oldness of letter.

The law is the definition of sin , so how is keeping the law not rightousness?

Just because we are saved by faith, this doesn't mean that keeping the law counts for nothing, Faith and action, not just faith.

There was a meeting called forth in Acts to see if gentiles had to continue keeping the law like Jews had to keep keeping the law.

It was decided that Gentiles don't have to keep the law because they were not raised in it and it was almost impossible to keep if your not raised doing it.

But all these Jews who had faith and believed continued in the law because keeping the law is rightousness.

We can say all day that we believe in Jesus but if our actions show us to be out and out sinners, then there is no salvation in faith alone.

Keeping the law is rightous, not only that, when the Messiah comes it states that all Israel will keep all the judgments and all the precepts and God will make Israel walk in his precepts because they are still Holy.

My signature.

[StoneScratcher]

Ephraim is not listed because at that time in Revelations your either Israel or your not.

Ephraim has always stood for gentiles since the beginning.

There are only two people who crossed over the river Jordan, Joshuah and Caleb.

Caleb is a prince of Judah.
Joshuah is of Ephraim.

'' Ephraim will become a company of nations''

Two kingdoms, Ephraim and Judah.

Hosea prophecied that Ephraim would become gentiles, '' In that place Jezreel, I will call them,'' Not my people''

Romans 9-11 '' Not only to the Jews but of the gentiles also, as he states in Hosea, '' Not my people became my people''

Ephraim went into the nations and became gentiles, They became not his people{gentiles}

When Jesus came he called all of Israel, He called his lost son Ephraim, and gentiles were grafted through this promise to Ephraim.

But when Israel becomes Holy in Revelations Ephraim is taken out of the picture because there will be no more gentiles in Israel.

You either become part of true Israel or your still considered a gentile.



Dan is not listed either because there will be no more punishment stage in Israel after that time.

No punishment , no gentiles, They will all be pure virgins, true Israel, the bride of Christ.

The 144,000 are all Israel, Gentile Christian and Jew.

In the religion of Judaism there are 144,000 people who make up the priesthood. So Revelations is telling us that they all become Priest to the Lord, Everyone who is counted as TRUE Israel.

It's a perfect number meaning that God will leave none of Israel behind, and everyone counted as Israel will be a priest.

Israel has 14 sons, 2 sons were of the adoption.

Thank you Jacob Rising, for explaining why Ephraim's not mentioned and why that is.

Do you think the crossing of the Jordan implies more than the geography of the river--and represents something greater and cyclical?

For example, with Jacob (Israel) crossing his arms, whenever there is a crossing of, say, two paths, that is the prime place to put a gate. Symbolically, of course, could this mean something more, as could the crossing of the Jordan? I tend not to lean on literally meanings, and was wondering what your thoughts were on this, because I don't see "generations" as being those measured from wordly clocks on tables, but in a more expansive sense.

[bobfisher]

The law is the definition of sin , so how is keeping the law not rightousness?

The law is the definition of sin only for those it speaks to. 1 Timothy 1:9 says the law is NOT FOR the righteous!

If I decide to leave my wife and serve her with divorce-papers then I have done just fine according to the law of Moses, but according to Christ I have sinned. Therefore keeping the law of Moses does not define sin or righteousness for me.

Just because we are saved by faith, this doesn't mean that keeping the law counts for nothing, Faith and action, not just faith.

That's true. And by faith in God's commandment I must not serve the letter of the law. I must fulfill the law by loving my neighbor which includes my enemy.

There was a meeting called forth in Acts to see if gentiles had to continue keeping the law like Jews had to keep keeping the law.

It was decided that Gentiles don't have to keep the law because they were not raised in it and it was almost impossible to keep if your not raised doing it.

Only a certain sect of pharisees thought that the Gentiles needed to keep the law of Moses. Paul said they were subverting the souls of the Gentiles and that he commanded it not. So the reason the Gentiles were not commanded to keep the law of Moses is that Paul knew they did not need to.

But all these Jews who had faith and believed continued in the law because keeping the law is rightousness.

Keeping the law is righteousness, but keeping the letter of the law is not keeping the law.

Here is the principle:

Romans 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

Notice what it says. The the uncircumcision (law-breaker) can keep the righteousness of the law! So the law does contain the way of righteousness, but the letter of physical circumcision is not that way.

Here is the one and only way to become a true Jew:

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Keeping the (letter of) the law is not righteousness:
"if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
"if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law."
"not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law"

The Jews continued in the law because they believed they should and they were used to it. Suppose a Muslim converted to Christ but continued to pray five times a day on the clock, getting on the ground and bowing to God in a certain way they were accustomed to. Would you tell the to quit being ritualistic in prayer? No, that would be putting a stumbling block in front of them. It would only be a problem if they started insisting that others must do the same or else.

Here is how Paul handled those who were zealous to be under the law:
1 Corinthians 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

Where did Paul ever command anyone, Jew or Gentile, to keep any ritualistic commandment of the law?

We can say all day that we believe in Jesus but if our actions show us to be out and out sinners, then there is no salvation in faith alone.

That's true. But Jesus taught us to clean the inside of the cup so the outside will become clean.

Keeping the law is rightous, not only that, when the Messiah comes it states that all Israel will keep all the judgments and all the precepts and God will make Israel walk in his precepts because they are still Holy.

Yes, for example, they will keep the Sabbath, but not in the manner you think. The physical Sabbath is a picture, a metaphor, a shadow, of true Sabbath keeping, just like a parable is a physical representation of heavenly truth.

Jesus and the Father both worked on the Sabbath without breaking the Sabbath.

[Jacob_Rising]

The law is the definition of sin only for those it speaks to. 1 Timothy 1:9 says the law is NOT FOR the righteous!

If I decide to leave my wife and serve her with divorce-papers then I have done just fine according to the law of Moses, but according to Christ I have sinned. Therefore keeping the law of Moses does not define sin or righteousness for me.



That's true. And by faith in God's commandment I must not serve the letter of the law. I must fulfill the law by loving my neighbor which includes my enemy.



Only a certain sect of pharisees thought that the Gentiles needed to keep the law of Moses. Paul said they were subverting the souls of the Gentiles and that he commanded it not. So the reason the Gentiles were not commanded to keep the law of Moses is that Paul knew they did not need to.



Keeping the law is righteousness, but keeping the letter of the law is not keeping the law.

Here is the principle:

Romans 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

Notice what it says. The the uncircumcision (law-breaker) can keep the righteousness of the law! So the law does contain the way of righteousness, but the letter of physical circumcision is not that way.

Here is the one and only way to become a true Jew:

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Keeping the (letter of) the law is not righteousness:
"if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
"if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law."
"not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law"

The Jews continued in the law because they believed they should and they were used to it. Suppose a Muslim converted to Christ but continued to pray five times a day on the clock, getting on the ground and bowing to God in a certain way they were accustomed to. Would you tell the to quit being ritualistic in prayer? No, that would be putting a stumbling block in front of them. It would only be a problem if they started insisting that others must do the same or else.

Here is how Paul handled those who were zealous to be under the law:
1 Corinthians 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

Where did Paul ever command anyone, Jew or Gentile, to keep any ritualistic commandment of the law?



That's true. But Jesus taught us to clean the inside of the cup so the outside will become clean.



Yes, for example, they will keep the Sabbath, but not in the manner you think. The physical Sabbath is a picture, a metaphor, a shadow, of true Sabbath keeping, just like a parable is a physical representation of heavenly truth.

Jesus and the Father both worked on the Sabbath without breaking the Sabbath.Is loving thy Neighbor rightous?

Is not lying rightous?

Is not stealing rightous?

Is not murdering rightous?

Is keeping the Sabbath rightous?

You want to say that loving your neighbor is rightous and that all the laws come down to loving thy neighbor.

If the laws can all be summed up by loving thy neighbor then why wouldn't keeping the laws equate to loving thy neighbor.

Let me remind you that I'm not talking about salvation, I' m talking about a love affair with God.

People choose to keep the law because they choose a special relationship with God that you do not obtain unless you keep the law.

The reason God is gathering the Jews is because they have kept his heritage not Moses's.

These people have been killed for thousands of years just for keeping God's laws, just because God demands them to do so for eternity.

We say that Jesus is the word and the word is the law, so why do people shun Jesus in this way?

If the law is a shadow for things to come then why wouldn't we still be practicing these things to prepare for this future?

If we say that Jesus is our Passover, our Pentacost then why do we shun these days because it's the law?

When it comes down to it we gentiles don't have much obligations to the law except our Holy days and most of us are ignorant of those.

But what does the law and the prophets say about gentiles and the law?

'' To the gentile who keeps my Sabbaths Holy and chooses to do what pleases me, even them I will bring to my Holy mountains and give them a name better than sons or daughters, and they will be counted in the inheritance of Israel'' Isaiah.

This promise is still a good promise and it shows just what the deal is.

You don't have to do anything extra to get to heaven, sure you will get there and be just fine.

But there are chances to go that extra mile and to become someone greater than just the average mook like me who is saved.

God is not going to gather the whole world to the mountains of Israel, but he is going to gather his chosen people who serve his will and keep his heritage alive because he has told this in all the prophets.

The whole world will celebrate the feast of Tabernacles from the countries they are at, but only Israel will be gathered to the Holy lands to rule with the Messiah, them and gentiles who also keep the Sabbath and also choose to do what pleases God.

Only Israel and gentiles who keep God's heritage are punished for the word of God.

You can point at any other religion and say,'' They were killed for their faith also'' But only true Israel who follows the commandments have been killed trying to keep those commandments alive.

That's why they will be rewarded and they are told many times that God will reward them for doing so. Many promises.

Are those promises null and void now?

[Jacob_Rising]

Yes, for example, they will keep the Sabbath, but not in the manner you think. The physical Sabbath is a picture, a metaphor, a shadow, of true Sabbath keeping, just like a parable is a physical representation of heavenly truth.

Keeping the Sabbath is still rightous whether it points to something else or not.

Do you have any idea how many times God said, '' Keep my Sabbath Holy?''

Bob, You can quote Paul all day long against the keeping of the law, But what Jesus said was very specific and very clear and there is no way to rationalize it.

'' He who keeps the law and teaches men to keep the law will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven''

Why do you choose to debate the words of Jesus with Paul's words?

If what your trying to say is true then what Jesus said was false.

[bobfisher]

Keeping the Sabbath is still rightous whether it points to something else or not.

Do you have any idea how many times God said, '' Keep my Sabbath Holy?''

Bob, You can quote Paul all day long against the keeping of the law, But what Jesus said was very specific and very clear and there is no way to rationalize it.

"He who keeps the law and teaches men to keep the law will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven''

Why do you choose to debate the words of Jesus with Paul's words?

If what your trying to say is true then what Jesus said was false.

This whole debate revolves around what Jesus MEANT by the words "keep the law". Whatever Jesus MEANT we should do, we both agree on that. The question is, what did Christ MEAN. You have made an assumption that "keep the law" means "keep each LITERAL commandment".

I will show you that "keep the law" does not mean "keep each literal commanment". I will use Paul's writings to do so. Paul's writings are scripture. They are TRUE. Both Paul and Jesus are TRUE. Both Paul and Jesus AGREE. Paul only disagrees with YOUR UNDERSTANDING of what Jesus meant.

Romans 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

This scripture shows that:
1. Those who BREAK the LITERAL LAW of circumcision can KEEP THE LAW.
2. Their LITERAL-LAW-BREAKING is counted as LITERAL-LAW-KEEPING due to their SPIRITUAL-LAW-KEEPING.

Therefore your assumption that "he who keeps the law" means "he who keeps each literal commandment" is proven to be false. Your statement that "Jesus must have lied if what I'm saying is true" is proven false because "keep the law" does not mean "keep each literal commandment". Was Jesus lying to the Jews when He said "destroy this temple..."? No, he simply did not MEAN what it SOUNDED like. Paul proves that a person can "keep the law" while breaking the letter.

Jesus also proved the flip side of this: That a person who keeps the letter WILL BREAK THE LAW when he vows and pays or gives his wife a bill of divorcement.

[Jacob_Rising]

This whole debate revolves around what Jesus MEANT by the words "keep the law". Whatever Jesus MEANT we should do, we both agree on that. The question is, what did Christ MEAN. You have made an assumption that "keep the law" means "keep each LITERAL commandment".

I will show you that "keep the law" does not mean "keep each literal commanment". I will use Paul's writings to do so. Paul's writings are scripture. They are TRUE. Both Paul and Jesus are TRUE. Both Paul and Jesus AGREE. Paul only disagrees with YOUR UNDERSTANDING of what Jesus meant.

Romans 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

This scripture shows that:
1. Those who BREAK the LITERAL LAW of circumcision can KEEP THE LAW.
2. Their LITERAL-LAW-BREAKING is counted as LITERAL-LAW-KEEPING due to their SPIRITUAL-LAW-KEEPING.

Therefore your assumption that "he who keeps the law" means "he who keeps each literal commandment" is proven to be false. Your statement that "Jesus must have lied if what I'm saying is true" is proven false because "keep the law" does not mean "keep each literal commandment". Was Jesus lying to the Jews when He said "destroy this temple..."? No, he simply did not MEAN what it SOUNDED like. Paul proves that a person can "keep the law" while breaking the letter.

Jesus also proved the flip side of this: That a person who keeps the letter WILL BREAK THE LAW when he vows and pays or gives his wife a bill of divorcement.
No Bob, Jesus said specifically, the law and the prophets when speaking about the law and he who keeps it.

This isn't like it's the only place giving reward to those who keep the commandments but it is the most specific clear place Jesus talks about it.

'' Do not think that I have come to do away with the law''

And he continues talking about it.

I can quote a slew of quotes from the New Testament but it's hard to deny this place.

There is also good examples of Paul strickly following the law and continueing in Judaism.

But there is no getting past the words of Jesus about the law.

If he meant something else then show me why from his words.

I don't care that much about what Paul said, Paul was just a man and it took decades just to bring a council up saying that gentiles didn't have to keep the law.

That meeting showed that Jews still kept the law and had to keep it, they continued in the law because it had not come null and void.

And then there are all God's promises to those who do keep the law.

If God relents on his promises, then what would make him God?

Why do you think all these promises are false now?

[bobfisher]

No Bob, Jesus said specifically, the law and the prophets when speaking about the law and he who keeps it.

I'm talking about the law and prophets too and so was Paul.

Leviticus 12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Paul said that Gentiles who break the above law can keep the rightouesness of the law, which includes THIS VERY law. Gentiles who break the letter of Lev 12:3 keep the righteosness of Lev 12:3.

''Do not think that I have come to do away with the law'' And he continues talking about it.

You assume that Jesus is talking about keeping the letter if each law. Which in turn means you have to discard Paul.

If he meant something else then show me why from his words.

I have shown you.

Moses said vow and pay. Jesus said do not vow. Jesus told us to not do what Moses told us to do. Is Jesus now least in the kingdom of God?

Moses said you can divorce, just make sure you give a bill of divorcement. Jesus said that is SIN. Is Jesus now least in the kingdom of God for teaching contrary to Moses?

Jesus' made a He point of saying that He and the Father worked on the Sabbath. Jesus taught that his disciples were blameless while picking corn on the Sabbath. Moses said gather twice as much on the sixth day so you won't have to do that.

David speaking by the Spirit of God said He hated his enermies with a perfect hatred. Jesus said DON'T DO THAT.

There is a CLASH between the letter of the law and some of Jesus commandments that he gave in context of saying "he who keeps the law".

You know that Jesus spoke only in similitudes to the multitudes so that only those given to hear would hear. You don't think God is capable of doing the same thing with the law & prophets?

And then there are all God's promises to those who do keep the law. If God relents on his promises, then what would make him God? Why do you think all these promises are false now?

The promises are all true. But maybe the promises don't mean what you think they mean. Did Jesus break His promise about rebuilding the temple in three days?

When God says the Gentiles will come and keep the Sabbath, it is true. But maybe God means something other than what you think he means.

[Jacob_Rising]

I'm talking about the law and prophets too and so was Paul.

Leviticus 12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Paul said that Gentiles who break the above law can keep the rightouesness of the law, which includes THIS VERY law. Gentiles who break the letter of Lev 12:3 keep the righteosness of Lev 12:3.



You assume that Jesus is talking about keeping the letter if each law. Which in turn means you have to discard Paul.



I have shown you.

Moses said vow and pay. Jesus said do not vow. Jesus told us to not do what Moses told us to do. Is Jesus now least in the kingdom of God?

Moses said you can divorce, just make sure you give a bill of divorcement. Jesus said that is SIN. Is Jesus now least in the kingdom of God for teaching contrary to Moses?

Jesus' made a He point of saying that He and the Father worked on the Sabbath. Jesus taught that his disciples were blameless while picking corn on the Sabbath. Moses said gather twice as much on the sixth day so you won't have to do that.

David speaking by the Spirit of God said He hated his enermies with a perfect hatred. Jesus said DON'T DO THAT.

There is a CLASH between the letter of the law and some of Jesus commandments that he gave in context of saying "he who keeps the law".

You know that Jesus spoke only in similitudes to the multitudes so that only those given to hear would hear. You don't think God is capable of doing the same thing with the law & prophets?



The promises are all true. But maybe the promises don't mean what you think they mean. Did Jesus break His promise about rebuilding the temple in three days?

When God says the Gentiles will come and keep the Sabbath, it is true. But maybe God means something other than what you think he means.
Bob , why do you keep saying the scriptures mean something other than they mean.

If scripture does have two meanings, the second or spiritural meaning in no way cancels out the first meaning.

The promises are clear about these things to redundancy, God made the law for Israel to follow forever. Do you know how long forever is?

You keep giving me Paul's words to show how Jesus is wrong and he meant something totally different than he says.

Your the one who knows how to cut and paste, why don't you cut and paste the whole chapter of Mathew 5 because it's all about the law.

Your insinuating that what Jesus says is not true because it doesn't line up with your interpretation of what Paul said.

Why don't you paste it up there and show me where the problem is because I'm not seeing it.

'' Do not think that I have come to destroy the law and the prophets.....Not one Jot or title will fall from it........Whoever therefore breaks the least of these Commandments, and teaches men so will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.''

Where is the problem?

The greatest in the kingdom will be the man who keeps the commandments and teaches men to keep the commandments.

These are rewards, The person who keeps them are rewarded.

Just like Charity or good deeds, people will be rewarded for what they do in this life and the law is all about love and charity.

Mathew 6 starts out showing you people who will be rewarded for what they do in this life, not saved because of it.

Mathew 6'' Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men.''

Rewards.

Jesus said that the greatest rewarded people will be people who follow the law, why do you doubt what he says?

If Paul contradicts this then maybe we should choose who to believe instead of trying to prove Jesus wrong on the matter.

So tell me why was Jesus wrong when he said it?

[bobfisher]

If Paul contradicts this then maybe we should choose who to believe instead of trying to prove Jesus wrong on the matter.

Jesus wasn't wrong and Paul didn't contradict Him. I don't need to copy paste the whole chapter. I've alreadly pointed out parts of it where Christ's words clash with the letter of the law given by Moses.

Suppose I decide to keep Moses' commandment and give my wife a bill of divorcement for reasons other than adultery.

Would I be breaking the law of God or not?

Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Mark 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

[bobfisher]

Bob , why do you keep saying the scriptures mean something other than they mean.

If scripture does have two meanings, the second or spiritural meaning in no way cancels out the first meaning.

According to Paul it does. It's hard to prove anything to you because you don't really believe Paul's writings, which I can understand because they truly do contradict what you believe.

According to Paul the law does have two meanings:
a) the shadow
b) the very image

Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

The "very image" is not actually in the law, but indirectly it is since the law contains the "shadow" so it contains a representation of the "very image".

For example
a) shadow - sacrifices and burnt offerings for sin
b) very image - Christ died to take away the sins of the world

According to Paul, by Christ dying on the cross, He took away the first (shadow) and established the second (very image).

Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

When you read the literal words of the law you are reading about a shadow which is NOT the very image of what is going to come to pass. What this contradicts is your insistance that the the literal words of the law are the very image of what will come to pass. It is just like those who thought "destroy this temple..." must literally come to pass else Christ was lying.

The promises are clear about these things to redundancy, God made the law for Israel to follow forever. Do you know how long forever is?

The very image is forever but the shadow is not. Hebrews 7:12-18, 8:7-9.

[Jacob_Rising]

Jesus wasn't wrong and Paul didn't contradict Him. I don't need to copy paste the whole chapter. I've alreadly pointed out parts of it where Christ's words clash with the letter of the law given by Moses.

Suppose I decide to keep Moses' commandment and give my wife a bill of divorcement for reasons other than adultery.

Would I be breaking the law of God or not?

Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Mark 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.Bob, Both these scriptures show the law rightous and just and they go even farther to point out the spiritural meaning of them.

What Jesus says here is a scricter way in keeping the law just like all those examples are.

[Jacob_Rising]

According to Paul it does. It's hard to prove anything to you because you don't really believe Paul's writings, which I can understand because they truly do contradict what you believe.

According to Paul the law does have two meanings:
a) the shadow
b) the very image

Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

The "very image" is not actually in the law, but indirectly it is since the law contains the "shadow" so it contains a representation of the "very image".

For example
a) shadow - sacrifices and burnt offerings for sin
b) very image - Christ died to take away the sins of the world

According to Paul, by Christ dying on the cross, He took away the first (shadow) and established the second (very image).

Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

When you read the literal words of the law you are reading about a shadow which is NOT the very image of what is going to come to pass. What this contradicts is your insistance that the the literal words of the law are the very image of what will come to pass. It is just like those who thought "destroy this temple..." must literally come to pass else Christ was lying.



The very image is forever but the shadow is not. Hebrews 7:12-18, 8:7-9.Again Bob, Your translation of what Paul is saying obviously contradicts the words of Jesus and you rationalize by choosing Paul's words over the words of Jesus making the excuse saying,'' Jesus meant something else''

No, Your understanding of Paul out right contradicts Jesus and not only that, You have insinuated that Jesus went against the law of Moses. So how then did he fulfill the law?

I can't cut and paster but I'll type out the scripture at hand and let's look at it and just see where Jesus was wrong because you obviously believe that he was, or that he must have meant something else.


MATHEW 5;17 '' DO NOT THINK THAT I CAME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS. I DID NOT COME TO DESTROY BUT TO FULFILL.

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.

'' Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven: but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to ou, that unless your rightousness exceeds the rightousness of the scribes and Pharasees, YOU WIL BY NO MEANS ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN!

You have heard it said to those of old, You shall not murder, and whoever murders SHALL BE IN DANGER OF JUDGEMENT. But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without cause shall BE IN DANGER OF JUDGEMENT.

Bob, If you murder you are in danger of Judgement, But Now even if your angry with your brother, YOU ARE IN DANGER OF JUDGEMENT FOR MURDER.

The whole chapter is showing you that the law is still rightous but now we are held under an even stricter code of the law.

Jesus meant everything he said here and there is no other meaning because he was so obviously specific about what he said.

If your words of Paul contradict what Jesus says here then maybe you should choose.

I choose Jesus and I say that he meant what he said and it can't be rationalized.

If you can rationalize it then explain it to me, show me what else Jesus meant, But I don't need Paul for this, stick with the scripture.

Your saying Jesus is wrong, Or he didn't mean what he said at all.

I'm not buying that, I believe what he said and I'm sticking with that.

[bobfisher]

Again Bob, Your translation of what Paul is saying obviously contradicts the words of Jesus and you rationalize by choosing Paul's words over the words of Jesus making the excuse saying,'' Jesus meant something else''

If Paul contradicted what Jesus meant, then Paul also contradicted what Paul meant. Why? Because Paul said that the uncircumcised can keep the law in their law-breaking. Paul's "keep the law" does not mean what you say it must mean without Paul lying. Why do you rule out that Christ can speak like His apostle?

You have a priori ruled out the possibility that the law speaks with a meaning ABOVE the letter, even though Paul says it does. You knows that Christ deliberately hid truth from the multitudes. So on the one hand you believe Christ can hide truth while speaking with His mouth, but on the other hand you believe Christ must speak plainly and literally when He speaks through the law to the multitudes.

If you start with the assumption that PAUL IS RIGHT then there is NO CONTRADICTION between Paul and Christ any more than there is contadiction between Paul and Paul. So I am not choosing between Christ and Paul.

By Christ's own words I must choose between Christ and the letter of the law. It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to boey BOTH of these:

Resist not evil <---> Eye for an eye
Love your enemy <---> Hate your enemy
Vow not <---> Vow and Pay
Do not divorce <---> Divorce if you want to

~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is the letter of the law:

Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

Leviticus 24:17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.

Here is Saul the blasphemer:

1 Timothy 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

Here is Saul seeking & consenting to murder of innocents:

Acts 22:4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

Acts 9:1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

Acts 22:20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death[/b], and kept the raiment of them that slew him.

Here is Christ NOT implementing the letter of the law:

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for [color=yellow]he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.

Jesus did not always follow the letter of the law, but Jesus NEVER broke the law and always fullilled the righteousness of the law.

[Jacob_Rising]

If Paul contradicted what Jesus meant, then Paul also contradicted what Paul meant. Why? Because Paul said that the uncircumcised can keep the law in their law-breaking. Paul's "keep the law" does not mean what you say it must mean without Paul lying. Why do you rule out that Christ can speak like His apostle?

You have a priori ruled out the possibility that the law speaks with a meaning ABOVE the letter, even though Paul says it does. You knows that Christ deliberately hid truth from the multitudes. So on the one hand you believe Christ can hide truth while speaking with His mouth, but on the other hand you believe Christ must speak plainly and literally when He speaks through the law to the multitudes.

If you start with the assumption that PAUL IS RIGHT then there is NO CONTRADICTION between Paul and Christ any more than there is contadiction between Paul and Paul. So I am not choosing between Christ and Paul.

By Christ's own words I must choose between Christ and the letter of the law. It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to boey BOTH of these:

Resist not evil <---> Eye for an eye
Love your enemy <---> Hate your enemy
Vow not <---> Vow and Pay
Do not divorce <---> Divorce if you want to

~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is the letter of the law:

Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

Leviticus 24:17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.

Here is Saul the blasphemer:

1 Timothy 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

Here is Saul seeking & consenting to murder of innocents:

Acts 22:4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

Acts 9:1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

Acts 22:20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death[/b], and kept the raiment of them that slew him.

Here is Christ NOT implementing the letter of the law:

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for [color=yellow]he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.

Jesus did not always follow the letter of the law, but Jesus NEVER broke the law and always fullilled the righteousness of the law.
That's very sad Bob, You just can't accept Jesus was right, your only option is to say Jesus was wrong, or that he didn't mean anything he said, he has to be wrong.

You wont even address the scripture at hand.

[Jacob_Rising]

Bob, Here is what Paul said after he was falsely accused of speaking against the law.

Bob, Here are men lying about Paul saying that Paul taught against the keeping of the law, His response was to show himself as keeping the law by paying for vows concerning the law, But look what he says.

Acts 21:24 '' Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, AND THAT ALL MAY KNOW THAT THOSE THINGS OF WHICH THEY WERE INFORMED CONCERNING YOU ARE NOTHING, BUT THAT YOU YOURSELF ALSO WALK ORDERLY AND KEEP THE LAW.

Paul must be confused Bob, did he keep the law or accept Jeses and throw the law out the window.

Was Paul putting on a show so that he wouldn't die, was he lying?

I mean if the law is nothing after Christ, why then do all the Jews and Paul continue to follow the law if it is no longer rightous to do so?

He went to alot of trouble to show people that he had never spoke against the law, he had never told any Jew to stop keeping the law.

Is he a liar, because your mentality says that Paul shouldn't have been keeping the law.

[HardHammer]

I think you are all overlooking the turning point for the prodigal son, it is when he "came to himself" when he discovered his condition, the condiftion of all mankind, born in transgression, seperated from God. What did he say when he returned?

Luke 15:21 (New King James Version)

21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

When one comes to Christ, they KNOW they are not worthy of His LOVE. They know they haved sinned and require the Fathers Love. And in typical fashion, the Father gives that Love, unconditionally, to his son, before the son can say anything. The very same way God forgives us with His unconditional Love.

John 3:16 (New King James Version)

16 For God so loved the world (mankind) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

The older brother can be charaterized as any number of things, the Jews, those who have envy and jealously for another, who knows, Jesus didn't get that specific, so anything beyond the parable is speculation on OUR behalf.

What's clear as day is that 'coming to oursleves' to know WHAT we are, and WHO we NEED is the message, IMMHO...

[bobfisher]

That's very sad Bob, You just can't accept Jesus was right, your only option is to say Jesus was wrong, or that he didn't mean anything he said, he has to be wrong.

I have repeatedly said that "Jesus wasn't wrong". Under the new covenant both Paul and Jesus agree, we are to keep the law in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter. Had Jesus wanted us to keep the law in oldness of letter he would have said "ye have heard it said, eye for and eye, so keep it". Throughout the chapter Jesus quotes oldness of letter and expounds newness of spirit. In some cases the spirit is compatible but more strict that the letter, in other cases the spirit is incomatible with the letter.

You wont even address the scripture at hand.

That's why I brought up these comparisons:

eye for an eye <---> resist not evil
hate your enemies <---> love your enemies
vow and pay <---> vow not at all
put her away if you want <---> let man not put asunder what God has put together

These speak to what Jesus meant in the scriptures you wanted me to address. They address whether Jesus wanted us to serve the letter of the law (eye for an eye) or serve the law in newnesss of spirit (resist not evil). I also showed that Jesus' selection of Paul as an apostile does not line up with keeping the letter of the law. But it does exemplfy the heart of the law which is mercy, by picking the chief sinner of his day, and saving him anyway.

As far as the commandment not to murder we both agree. You can not love your neighbor & enemy and murder him.

[bobfisher]

Bob, Here is what Paul said after he was falsely accused of speaking against the law.

Bob, Here are men lying about Paul saying that Paul taught against the keeping of the law, His response was to show himself as keeping the law by paying for vows concerning the law, But look what he says.

Acts 21:24 '' Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, AND THAT ALL MAY KNOW THAT THOSE THINGS OF WHICH THEY WERE INFORMED CONCERNING YOU ARE NOTHING, BUT THAT YOU YOURSELF ALSO WALK ORDERLY AND KEEP THE LAW.

Paul must be confused Bob, did he keep the law or accept Jeses and throw the law out the window.

Was Paul putting on a show so that he wouldn't die, was he lying?

I mean if the law is nothing after Christ, why then do all the Jews and Paul continue to follow the law if it is no longer rightous to do so?

He went to alot of trouble to show people that he had never spoke against the law, he had never told any Jew to stop keeping the law.

Is he a liar, because your mentality says that Paul shouldn't have been keeping the law.

That's not Paul talking. Here is Paul talking:

1 Corinthians 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law.

To those under the law Paul became as if he were under the law. He did not want to put a stumbling block in front of them. If I'm ordering dinner with people who believe eating lobster or pork is a sin against God, am I going to order those things and offend them the whole time?

Paul did not run around telling people to quit keeping the letter of the law. What Paul did do was confront those who tried to put believers back under the law by insisting that they keep the letter of the law. Peter rebuked those who commanded disciples to keep the law of Moses, saying "Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples."

[bobfisher]

The older brother can be charaterized as any number of things, the Jews, those who have envy and jealously for another, who knows, Jesus didn't get that specific, so anything beyond the parable is speculation on OUR behalf.

What's clear as day is that 'coming to oursleves' to know WHAT we are, and WHO we NEED is the message, IMMHO...

The older brother is just as clear to me as the younger and just as important. The older son did not know "what he was and who he needed". He thought he had never transgressed against his Father and he showed no mercy toward his brother. The older son is a "character" throughout the parables, the gospels, and even the whole bible. He is someone we have to watch out for in ourselves. He's there for a reason. The whole story could have been told without him if the younger son was the only point.

[Jacob_Rising]

[list]1 Corinthians 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law.

Bob, This is the same point I keeping bringing home to you, you keep quoting scriptures that are talking about people under the law and that's not what we are talking about.

What does under the law mean to you Bob?

Here's what it means to me------ A person who is under the law is a person who believes they are fulfilling the law for salvation.

I keep telling you that I'm not talking about salvation but you keep showing me scriptures about salvation.

Paul kept the law in Acts and he went out of his way to show the public that he did keep the law, and I showed you somebody saying that Paul kept the law because he did keep it.

People lied about Paul saying that he didn't keep the law but he put on a show to show people what the real truth was, '' He kept the law''.

Acts 21 24 '' And that all may know that those things of which they were informed of concerning you are NOTHING, BUT THAT YOU YOURSELF KEEP THE LAW''.

All the Jews who believed kept keeping the law because it is demanded of the Jews to do so.

Do you really believe that Jews should all stop keeping the law?

Your a gentile Bob, That's fine for you but Jews are Jews Bob.

God demands that the Jews keep his law and that's all there is to it.

Acts 21:20 '' You see, Brother how many Myriads of Jews there are who have believed, AND THEY ARE ALL ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW!.

BUT THEY HAVE BEEN INFORMED ABOUT YOU{LIED ABOUT} THAT YOU TEACH ALL THE JEWS WHO ARE AMONG THE GENTILES TO FORSAKE THE LAW OF MOSES, SAYING THEY OUGHT NOT TO CIRCUMCIZE THEIR CHILDREN NOR TO WALK ACCORDINGLY TO THE CUSTOM.

Paul never said such things, people lied about him saying that he taught Jews not to walk according to the Law.

Are you also going to try and tell us that Paul went around teaching Jews not to follow God's commandments which are forever?

Should Jews follow the law or not Bob?

That's the question.

[Jacob_Rising]

I think you are all overlooking the turning point for the prodigal son, it is when he "came to himself" when he discovered his condition, the condiftion of all mankind, born in transgression, seperated from God. What did he say when he returned?

Luke 15:21 (New King James Version)

21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

When one comes to Christ, they KNOW they are not worthy of His LOVE. They know they haved sinned and require the Fathers Love. And in typical fashion, the Father gives that Love, unconditionally, to his son, before the son can say anything. The very same way God forgives us with His unconditional Love.

John 3:16 (New King James Version)

16 For God so loved the world (mankind) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

The older brother can be charaterized as any number of things, the Jews, those who have envy and jealously for another, who knows, Jesus didn't get that specific, so anything beyond the parable is speculation on OUR behalf.

What's clear as day is that 'coming to oursleves' to know WHAT we are, and WHO we NEED is the message, IMMHO...That's all fine and well Hammer, I have heard a thousand sermons on the prodigal son and there is many lessons to learn from it.

But it still doesn't take away the fact that this story is about the only two sons God has.

Ephraim and Judah, this is their history and the Jewish terminology is there, The history of the prodigal northern kingdom and the Wedding terminology.

Hosea 11: 12 Ephraim has encopassed me with lies, and the house of Israel with deciet: BUT JUDAH STILL WALKS WITH GOD.

Epraim and Judah are God's only sons and all the prophets and the end time prophecies are about just two men, Ephraim and Judah.

All the end time prophecies are about the return of Ephraim, returning to the Torah and being united with the father and the brother.

Hosea 6: 1 Israel's plea.

Come, and let us return to the Lord: for he has Torn, but he will heal us.

MINGLED WITH SWINE.

This is a very specific saying and it means just what it says.

The prodigal threw the Torah away when he mingled with swine.
That's is exactly what this saying means.

Hosea 8:12 I have written for him the great things of my LAW But they were considered a strange thing.

EPHRAIM GAINS HIS INHERITANCE-Hosea 12: 8 And Ephraim said,'' Surely I have become rich, I have found wealth for myself: in all my labors.

Ephraim is the prodigal nation and God called his lost son from the gentiles and the gentiles came, The Messiah called them and accepted them.

But they also threw off the law and called the Torah a strange thing.

Time Magazine posted the ten top ideas currently changing the world and one of those Ideas was, '' The Re-Judaiszing of Jesus.''

This means that so many people are coming back to the roots of Judaism that it's currently changing the world.

So many people are coming back to respecting the Torah that even Time Magazine spoke up about it.

This is the prodigal returning.

And there is jhno lesson to learn about Jealousy here, The saon who stayed home{Judah} has a very good reason for saying what he said because he endured the thousands of years not departing from their commandments.

But they inherit everything, Ephraim might get a party but Judah inherits everything.

I would be mad also if I lived my whole life following God and when everything was just at the end, people come in getting a special party when I did all the work.

But they inherit everything, the prodigal does not.

[bobfisher]

Bob, This is the same point I keeping bringing home to you, you keep quoting scriptures that are talking about people under the law and that's not what we are talking about.

What does under the law mean to you Bob?

Here's what it means to me------ A person who is under the law is a person who believes they are fulfilling the law for salvation.

I keep telling you that I'm not talking about salvation but you keep showing me scriptures about salvation.

Paul kept the law in Acts and he went out of his way to show the public that he did keep the law, and I showed you somebody saying that Paul kept the law because he did keep it.

People lied about Paul saying that he didn't keep the law but he put on a show to show people what the real truth was, '' He kept the law''.

Acts 21 24 '' And that all may know that those things of which they were informed of concerning you are NOTHING, BUT THAT YOU YOURSELF KEEP THE LAW''.

All the Jews who believed kept keeping the law because it is demanded of the Jews to do so.

Do you really believe that Jews should all stop keeping the law?

Your a gentile Bob, That's fine for you but Jews are Jews Bob.

God demands that the Jews keep his law and that's all there is to it.

Acts 21:20 '' You see, Brother how many Myriads of Jews there are who have believed, AND THEY ARE ALL ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW!.

BUT THEY HAVE BEEN INFORMED ABOUT YOU{LIED ABOUT} THAT YOU TEACH ALL THE JEWS WHO ARE AMONG THE GENTILES TO FORSAKE THE LAW OF MOSES, SAYING THEY OUGHT NOT TO CIRCUMCIZE THEIR CHILDREN NOR TO WALK ACCORDINGLY TO THE CUSTOM.

Paul never said such things, people lied about him saying that he taught Jews not to walk according to the Law.

Are you also going to try and tell us that Paul went around teaching Jews not to follow God's commandments which are forever?

Should Jews follow the law or not Bob?

That's the question.

What I'm telling you is that the phrase "keep the law" does not have one meaning. You think it means obey each literal commandment. To you that's the one and only meaning "keep the law".

But Paul said we should serve the law in newness of spirit not in oldness of letter. Therefore there are at least two nuances to "keep the law". And I believe that all that mattered to Paul or Jesus was for us to keep the law in only one of those two nuances. After all, Paul said NOT in oldness of letter.

So it is hard for me to answer your question "should Jews follow the law" with a simple "yes" or "no" because I believe that "follow the law" has two meanings and it matters which one is meant.

These two meanings are evidient in scripture when on the one hand Paul talks about the Gentiles "keeping the righteousness of the law" (which is obviously a good thing) while on the other hand Peter says that commanding the Gentiles to "keep the law of Moses" is tempting God and putting a yoke on their necks (which is obviously a bad thing). How can having Gentiles "keep the law" be both good and bad? Easy. By recognizing in context that "keep the law" in the first instance refers to "newness of spirit" while in the case Peter was talking about it is "oldness of letter".

But to answer your question as I'm sure you meant it. I would never tell any Jew (or non Jew for that matter) to stop keeping the letter of the law if that is what they believe God wants them to do. The only exception to that would be where the letter of the law is contrary to what Christ taught, for example "resist not evil" and "turn the other cheek" rather than "eye for an eye" them. But other than that kind of thing I wouldn't tell them to not keep their law. Nor would I tell a muslim converted to Christianity to quit carrying over Muslim law into their faith. But here is what Paul said an ideal Jew is: "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." IOW it is circumcision of the heart that counts with God.

One more point. This whole topic got raised when you said that the Gentiles will be grafted in through Ephraim (if I'm getting that straight) and that the prodigal son is typifying them, and they presently include Christians who 99% practice torahlessness by not keeping the letter of the law of Moses in every least commandment. So are you not essentially imposing the law of Moses on the Gentiles by saying Christians are doing something wrong (being torahless)? Is this not akin to tempting God and putting a yoke on their backs according to Peters words?

How can both Peter's words and Christ's words be true? Peter said commanding Gentiles to keep the law of Moses is tempting God. Christ said that teaching men (includes Gentiles) to keep each and every commandment makes you greatest in the kingdom. My answer is easy. Jesus was talking about teaching people to keep the law in newness of spirit while Peter was talking about commandments in oldnress of letter.

"Under the law" means being governed by the words of the law, having the words of the law speaking to me. It's just like juristiction in everyday law. I am not under the law of England but I am under the law of the USA. Paul equates being "under the law" with to whom "the law saith". In other words the law speaks to those under the law. The law does not speak to those not under that law. Paul also says that the law is "not for a righteous man". All such passages are referring to oldness of letter. We are fully under newness of spirit, the law of love, on which the whole of law hinges. In that sense everyone should and eventaully will keep the law.

[Jacob_Rising]

What I'm telling you is that the phrase "keep the law" does not have one meaning. You think it means obey each literal commandment. To you that's the one and only meaning "keep the law".

But Paul said we should serve the law in newness of spirit not in oldness of letter. Therefore there are at least two nuances to "keep the law". And I believe that all that mattered to Paul or Jesus was for us to keep the law in only one of those two nuances. After all, Paul said NOT in oldness of letter.

So it is hard for me to answer your question "should Jews follow the law" with a simple "yes" or "no" because I believe that "follow the law" has two meanings and it matters which one is meant.

These two meanings are evidient in scripture when on the one hand Paul talks about the Gentiles "keeping the righteousness of the law" (which is obviously a good thing) while on the other hand Peter says that commanding the Gentiles to "keep the law of Moses" is tempting God and putting a yoke on their necks (which is obviously a bad thing). How can having Gentiles "keep the law" be both good and bad? Easy. By recognizing in context that "keep the law" in the first instance refers to "newness of spirit" while in the case Peter was talking about it is "oldness of letter".

But to answer your question as I'm sure you meant it. I would never tell any Jew (or non Jew for that matter) to stop keeping the letter of the law if that is what they believe God wants them to do. The only exception to that would be where the letter of the law is contrary to what Christ taught, for example "resist not evil" and "turn the other cheek" rather than "eye for an eye" them. But other than that kind of thing I wouldn't tell them to not keep their law. Nor would I tell a muslim converted to Christianity to quit carrying over Muslim law into their faith. But here is what Paul said an ideal Jew is: "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." IOW it is circumcision of the heart that counts with God.

One more point. This whole topic got raised when you said that the Gentiles will be grafted in through Ephraim (if I'm getting that straight) and that the prodigal son is typifying them, and they presently include Christians who 99% practice torahlessness by not keeping the letter of the law of Moses in every least commandment. So are you not essentially imposing the law of Moses on the Gentiles by saying Christians are doing something wrong (being torahless)? Is this not akin to tempting God and putting a yoke on their backs according to Peters words?

How can both Peter's words and Christ's words be true? Peter said commanding Gentiles to keep the law of Moses is tempting God. Christ said that teaching men (includes Gentiles) to keep each and every commandment makes you greatest in the kingdom. My answer is easy. Jesus was talking about teaching people to keep the law in newness of spirit while Peter was talking about commandments in oldnress of letter.

"Under the law" means being governed by the words of the law, having the words of the law speaking to me. It's just like juristiction in everyday law. I am not under the law of England but I am under the law of the USA. Paul equates being "under the law" with to whom "the law saith". In other words the law speaks to those under the law. The law does not speak to those not under that law. Paul also says that the law is "not for a righteous man". All such passages are referring to oldness of letter. We are fully under newness of spirit, the law of love, on which the whole of law hinges. In that sense everyone should and eventaully will keep the law.I don't see how you live with so many contradictions Bob, Everywhere you see Jesus or the desciples following the law and speaking well of following the law, you claim it means something else.

You keep going back to salvation when I keep talking about rewards.

Your mentality says that for gentiles to try and keep the law is a sin, and for a Jew who believes in Jesus to follow the law is a sin.

But Jesus tells you that great rewards come for those that follow the law.

Whether you want to admit it or not, many Christian gentiles are gaining great respect for the law and they are gaining great respect for anyone who follows the laws. This is the great revival that the prophets talk about.

But you are so against this idea and I don't understand why.

You have your freedom as a gentile, you don't have to follow the law but you want to take cradit away from anyone who does.

Whether you want to admit the facts or not, the facts remain that Christianity was a sect of Judaism for over 100 years, gentiles did come up to the gentile court.

Jesus and the desciples did keep the laws written in the Torah.

What you don't know Bob is the unsaid.

The unsaid is it went without saying that the gentiles did keep the Holy days, and they did drop their pagan holidays.

They stuck out because they lived and were raised in Paganism but they gave up any other worship of any God and they followed the true God and they converted to Judaism.

They followed the Noahide laws and respected the Holy days of the Messiah.

You will probably always be against the keeping of the law of Moses, but the multitudes are gaining respect for it and coming back to it.

[trettep]

Hi Jacob_Rising,

God's Law is not abolished and is active in the hearts of His Followers. But what is the law that Moses brought? See it was written in EARTHLY tablets. But was written on by what was HEAVENLY. So we can read those words via TWO very different perspectives. If we view those words from the EARTHLY perspective then those words pertain to what is earthly. What is earthly is that which CATERS to what is earthly (those tangible things of this world). What is HEAVENLY is what caters to God (not seen and intangible).

So when I read those laws of the 10 commandments for example, they mean something to me from the HEAVENLY (Spiritual)perspective but not according to the EARTHLY perspective.

The LAW abounds but NOT according to how it is perceived in the LETTER (Earthly) but rather in the INTENT that established the LETTER (Spiritual). Therefore, by the LETTER could come an understanding of the Spirit, but instead men have given the LETTER the greater weight and instead served the LETTER as their God.



Paul

[Jacob_Rising]

Hi Jacob_Rising,

God's Law is not abolished and is active in the hearts of His Followers. But what is the law that Moses brought? See it was written in EARTHLY tablets. But was written on by what was HEAVENLY. So we can read those words via TWO very different perspectives. If we view those words from the EARTHLY perspective then those words pertain to what is earthly. What is earthly is that which CATERS to what is earthly (those tangible things of this world). What is HEAVENLY is what caters to God (not seen and intangible).

So when I read those laws of the 10 commandments for example, they mean something to me from the HEAVENLY (Spiritual)perspective but not according to the EARTHLY perspective.

The LAW abounds but NOT according to how it is perceived in the LETTER (Earthly) but rather in the INTENT that established the LETTER (Spiritual). Therefore, by the LETTER could come an understanding of the Spirit, but instead men have given the LETTER the greater weight and instead served the LETTER as their God.



PaulThere is nothing wrong with trying to keep the law.

The sacrificial system of the law has been taken out of the way, but the moral and laws of ethics are never in Question.

God's Holy days and Sabbaths are never in question, they are still Holy to keep.

I am fully aware that there is a spiritural meaning for many laws but that's completely beside the point.

Jesus said that whoever doesn't keep the least of the commandments and teaches others not to keep the commandments will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.

I believe what he said here.

Bob doesn't believe it, I doubt you do.

[Jacob_Rising]

I guess I sound like a Jerk so please forgive me but I don't understand the problem here.

I am a gentile Christian, I don't keep dietary laws, I don't even keep the Sabbath Holy and I view that as a very bad thing out of laziness.

I don't sacrifice , and there is no way to sacrifice without a temple.

What laws apply to me?

Laws about moving your neighbor's boundry?

Yes.

Am I free to lie, cheat, steal? NO

All the laws are just and rightous and if they weren't then there is no foundation for Christianity.

I have faith that I am saved because I believe in Jesus and I believe he knows my heart, and he knows that I know that I can't keep the law.

My mind is in conflict with the law just from my evil imaginations.

But as a gentile it's very easy to keep the Noahide laws and it is very rightous for a gentile to do.

Jews on the other hand have much more of an obligation and the New Testament tells us plainly that the Jewish believers kept the law and they said there were rewards in keeping them.

If I feed the hungry and cloth the poor and honour my father and mother all my life, then shouldn't I be rewarded?

If I never steal, and I never lie because of the God of Israel, shouldn't that be rightous to do?

If I want to go a step farther and even dress like the law tells me to, is that a sin because I want to do something that I believe pleases God.

Isaiah and all the prophets say God is pleased with people who do these things.

Isaiah says that the gentile who keeps the Sabbaths and chooses to do what pleases God{keep his commandments} will be brought to Israel and given a name in Israel and counted in the inheritance of Israel.

All the laws come down to loving thy neighbor, if that's true then where is a person wrong in keeping these things?

Jesus says that great rewards comes from following the law, I believe him.

[Jacob_Rising]

How do you guys keep the spirit of the law?

Do you steal?

If you don't , why?

Don't you lie?

Do you sleep with your father's wife?

Do you move your neighbors's boundry line?

When you sell something by weight do you change the scales?

What is not rightous about keeping the law?

Tell me a law that's not rightous that applies today?

[HardHammer]

That's all fine and well Hammer, I have heard a thousand sermons on the prodigal son and there is many lessons to learn from it.

<snipped>



Well, I had only read it once for the first time 3.5 years ago, never received a sermon about it and realized what it had to do with ME and my condition in this life. It told me exactly where my relationship with God was and where it could be.

Having done all the reading to obtain all that information must have taken a while, yet it has no impact on my salvation with Christ Jesus.

If you believe it matters, then power to you, but I firmly believe mankind has injected far to much of what THEY think and less of what God has simply told us.

Mans Pride has a way of getting in the way of Gods Will, IMHO...

[Koushi Shinigami]

Meh.

[HardHammer]

Meh.

If that's the best reposnse you can come up with, why bother?

[Koushi Shinigami]

Adds

[Koushi Shinigami]

to

[Koushi Shinigami]

post

[Koushi Shinigami]

count.

[trettep]

There is nothing wrong with trying to keep the law.

The sacrificial system of the law has been taken out of the way, but the moral and laws of ethics are never in Question.

God's Holy days and Sabbaths are never in question, they are still Holy to keep.

I am fully aware that there is a spiritural meaning for many laws but that's completely beside the point.

Jesus said that whoever doesn't keep the least of the commandments and teaches others not to keep the commandments will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.

I believe what he said here.

Bob doesn't believe it, I doubt you do.

Oh, I completely believe that keeping the Law is a requirement to salvation. But only from a Spiritual perspective. In fact, I think that you CANNOT have it both ways and expect to enter the Kingdom of God. You cannot abide in the Law from the Earthly perspective without being CONTARY to the Law in the Spiritual Perspective. You can't serve two gods.

2Co 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.

See the Earthly perspective is CONTARY to the Spirtual perspective. Therefore, if you practice the LAW according to the LETTER (the law that Moses brought) - you are committing SIN. If you practice the LAW according to the Spirit then you acknowledge the purpose of the LETTER which is to bring you to the Spirit.

Consider the following:

Mat 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.

That is concerning the LETTER. But so is this:

Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

So how can the LETTER be considered enduring and yet OLD? This is about those Perspectives I discuss. With Christ comes the new perspective - a new thinking about former things. It is where the LETTER is Realized to be the image of what it glorious by not the very glory. So the contents of the LETTER should be seen much differently.

For example, how should we view the Sabbath day? The letter says we must keep the Sabbath day Holy. Well, if read from the Spiritual perspective (spiritual compares to that which is spiritual) it would mean that we observe the Sabbath Spiritually. In the Spiritual Day that God established as the seventh day. This doesn't mean we observe it on the physical day of week.

Paul

[Jacob_Rising]

See the Earthly perspective is CONTARY to the Spirtual perspective. Therefore, if you practice the LAW according to the LETTER (the law that Moses brought) - you are committing SIN.

PaulOH MY.

Now why would God make laws to make us commit sin?

I guess they never were good laws laws then.

You just cancelled out Christianity alltogether with one statement.

[CMike11]

These two meanings are evidient in scripture when on the one hand Paul talks about the Gentiles "keeping the righteousness of the law" (which is obviously a good thing) while on the other hand Peter says that commanding the Gentiles to "keep the law of Moses" is tempting God and putting a yoke on their necks (which is obviously a bad thing). How can having Gentiles "keep the law" be both good and bad? Easy. By recognizing in context that "keep the law" in the first instance refers to "newness of spirit" while in the case Peter was talking about it is "oldness of letter".

There is no law of Moses. Moses didn't make laws. It's the laws of G-D.



But to answer your question as I'm sure you meant it. I would never tell any Jew (or non Jew for that matter) to stop keeping the letter of the law if that is what they believe God wants them to do. The only exception to that would be where the letter of the law is contrary to what Christ taught, for example "resist not evil" and "turn the other cheek" rather than "eye for an eye" them.

You stick to your laws, I'll stick to the laws that G-D told the jews to keep.



But other than that kind of thing I wouldn't tell them to not keep their law. Nor would I tell a muslim converted to Christianity to quit carrying over Muslim law into their faith. But here is what Paul said an ideal Jew is: "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." IOW it is circumcision of the heart that counts with God.

Why would anyone care what Paul thinks was an ideal jew, when he turned from Judaism himself?

It's like the Rabbi of Israel saying what an ideal Christian should be.


One more point. This whole topic got raised when you said that the Gentiles will be grafted in through Ephraim (if I'm getting that straight) and that the prodigal son is typifying them, and they presently include Christians who 99% practice torahlessness by not keeping the letter of the law of Moses in every least commandment. So are you not essentially imposing the law of Moses on the Gentiles by saying Christians are doing something wrong (being torahless)? Is this not akin to tempting God and putting a yoke on their backs according to Peters words?.

There is no such thing as the laws of Moses. Moses did not make laws. G-D made laws.

[Jacob_Rising]

There is no law of Moses. Moses didn't make laws. It's the laws of G-D.





You stick to your laws, I'll stick to the laws that G-D told the jews to keep.





Why would anyone care what Paul thinks was an ideal jew, when he turned from Judaism himself?

It's like the Rabbi of Israel saying what an ideal Christian should be.




There is no such thing as the laws of Moses. Moses did not make laws. G-D made laws.
I keep telling people the same thing Mike, These are God's ways for the people of God to Follow FOREVER.

It seems that many people have a different definition for the word,'' Forever''.

Go figure.

If a Christian says that keeping the commandments of God are sin then what foundation do they have for Christianity.

Why would they follow a God that makes laws for people to sin?

It doesn't make any sense to me.

On one hand they want you to believe Jesus followed the law and was thus rightous, but now they tell me that keeping the laws are sin.

Thus Jesus is a sinner, or he didn't keep the law, either way, it cancels out Christianity.

[CMike11]

I want to stress this again:


Moses did not make commandments.

G-D made commandments.

There is no such thing as Moses' commandments.

That is offensive to Judaism, because only G-D, has the authority to make commandments. We don't recognize another being making commandments

[trettep]

OH MY.

Now why would God make laws to make us commit sin?

I guess they never were good laws laws then.

You just cancelled out Christianity alltogether with one statement.

Jacob_Rising I never implied that God make the Law to make you commit sin. Laws don't MAKE us do anything. If Law could MAKE someone do something then we would have no need of Christ Jesus because then righteousness could come by the Law.

I'm am not going to continue discussing this with you further at this time.

Paul

[bobfisher]

That is offensive to Judaism, because only G-D, has the authority to make commandments. We don't recognize another being making commandments[/SIZE][/COLOR]

I've never taken the phrase "Law of Moses" to mean that Moses created the commandments on his own. It's law that God gave through Moses. The phrase distinguishes those commandments from other commandments in Christianity. Phrases like "Paul's epistles" or the "Gospel of Matthew" do not mean that God did not author them.

Why be offended that I have a different beliefs about "your" Holy Writings? That means you have different beliefs too. Should I also be offended?

Where do you think Paul most departed from Judaism?

It's like the Rabbi of Israel saying what an ideal Christian should be.

It might sound that way but it's not really. Paul was not telling people specifically of the Jewish faith how they should act. He was telling all people, esp. followers of the Christian faith how to be the ideal person God wants them to be. In Paul's lingo that ideal person is referred to as "Jew". You might be offended that he usurped your word, but the thing is, Christain scriptures and Jewish scriptures overlap so that name is also part of Christian scriptures, though in Paul's writings it doesn't always mean what it means to you.

[bobfisher]

Tell me a law that's not rightous that applies today?

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Jesus told me not to do that. Jesus said resist not evil instead.

[CMike11]

I've never taken the phrase "Law of Moses" to mean that Moses created the commandments on his own. It's law that God gave through Moses. The phrase distinguishes those commandments from other commandments in Christianity. Phrases like "Paul's epistles" or the "Gospel of Matthew" do not mean that God did not author them.


Yeah, but Moses didn't make laws. G-D made laws.

How about using the Ten Commandments?

I do have a problem with stating that Moses made laws when he didn't.

The cornerstone of Judaism is that only G-D issued commandments.




Where do you think Paul most departed from Judaism?

1) It's unlawful according to Jewish law to add to the Torah. Therefore, the "gospels" are a big stray from Judaism.

Deut 13:1

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/9977/jewish/Chapter-13.htm

1. Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.

2) Most importantly, worshipping a false prophet is a grave sin in Judaism that is punishable by death. No one in Judaism is worshipped other than the one G-D.

Encouraging others to worship Jesus is even a graver sin.


Deut 13

2. If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,

3. and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"

4. you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.

5. You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His
commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him.

6. And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst.

7. If your brother, the son of your mother, tempts you in secret or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your embrace, or your friend, who is as your own soul saying, "Let us go and worship other gods, which neither you, nor your forefathers have known."

8. Of the gods of the peoples around you, [whether] near to you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth;

9. You shall not desire him, and you shall not hearken to him; neither shall you pity him, have mercy upon him, nor shield him.

10. But you shall surely kill him, your hand shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

11. And you shall stone him with stones so that he dies, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

12. And all Israel shall listen and fear, and they shall no longer do any evil such as this in your midst.

13. If you hear in one of your cities which the Lord, your God, is giving you to dwell therein, saying,

14. "Unfaithful men have gone forth from among you and have led the inhabitants of their city astray, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods, which you have not known.' "

15. Then you shall inquire, investigate, and ask thoroughly, and, behold, it is true, the matter is certain, that such abomination has been committed in your midst:

16. You shall surely strike down the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroy it with all that is in it and its livestock, with the edge of the sword.

17. And you shall collect all its spoil into the midst of its open square, and burn with fire the city and all its spoil, completely, for the Lord, your God; and it shall be a heap of destruction forever, never to be rebuilt.

18. And nothing that is doomed to destruction shall cling to your hand, so that the Lord may return from His fierce wrath, and grant you compassion, and be compassionate with you, and multiply you, as He swore to your forefathers.19. For you shall hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep all His commandments which I command you this day, to do that which is proper in the eyes of the Lord, your God.

[CMike11]

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Jesus told me not to do that. Jesus said resist not evil instead.

Eye for an eye actually means being compensated with money.

[CMike11]

Jacob_Rising I never implied that God make the Law to make you commit sin. Laws don't MAKE us do anything. If Law could MAKE someone do something then we would have no need of Christ Jesus because then righteousness could come by the Law.

I'm am not going to continue discussing this with you further at this time.

Paul

No, righteousness comes from people exercising their free choice, and picking to the right thing to do.

[CMike11]

I keep telling people the same thing Mike, These are God's ways for the people of God to Follow FOREVER.

It seems that many people have a different definition for the word,'' Forever''.

Go figure.

If a Christian says that keeping the commandments of God are sin then what foundation do they have for Christianity.

Why would they follow a God that makes laws for people to sin?

It doesn't make any sense to me.

On one hand they want you to believe Jesus followed the law and was thus rightous, but now they tell me that keeping the laws are sin.

Thus Jesus is a sinner, or he didn't keep the law, either way, it cancels out Christianity.

It's hard for me to add my input one this because it centers on Christianity.

They aren't my beliefs.

[Gem]

I keep telling people the same thing Mike, These are God's ways for the people of God to Follow FOREVER.

It seems that many people have a different definition for the word,'' Forever''.

Go figure.

If a Christian says that keeping the commandments of God are sin then what foundation do they have for Christianity.

Why would they follow a God that makes laws for people to sin?

It doesn't make any sense to me.

On one hand they want you to believe Jesus followed the law and was thus rightous, but now they tell me that keeping the laws are sin.

Thus Jesus is a sinner, or he didn't keep the law, either way, it cancels out Christianity.

This is one christian that says Jesus did not come to end the laws but to fulfill them .

The Ten Commandments is the laws of God, they are the laws that God gave to Moses to give to His people.

[CMike11]

This is one christian that says Jesus did not come to end the laws but to fulfill them .

The Ten Commandments is the laws of God, they are the laws that God gave to Moses to give to His people.

I like the way you phrase the second sentence.

[Gem]

I like the way you phrase the second sentence.


Thank you C Mike.

[CMike11]

Thank you Gem

[Jacob_Rising]

This is one christian that says Jesus did not come to end the laws but to fulfill them .

The Ten Commandments is the laws of God, they are the laws that God gave to Moses to give to His people.
Yes I agree, that's my point.

It was stated on here by somebody that keeping the law is a sin.

It's not a sin and Israel is demanded to keep these laws if they want to walk with their God.

It's astonishing to me that somebody would actually admit that they think keeping the commandments of God could be a sin.

[Jacob_Rising]

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Jesus told me not to do that. Jesus said resist not evil instead.Romans 13 Bob, The authority doesn't carry the sword in vain, if you do evil, be afraid.

Your talking about crime and punishment and the law is completely just in this aspect.

So your having a BBQ in your backyard, some Phycho comes out of the bushes with a spoon in his hand and gouges out the right eye of your daughter.

What are you gonna do BOB?

#1 Forgive the guy send him on his way.
#2 Call the police and when the guy is punished, feel guilty because you didn't listen to Jesus.
#3 Run to your house and grab your gun and go after the dude.

I'm going with #4 , Grab your BBQ fork and go after the guy cause I'm gonna be to anxious to take the time to run to my house.

Are you going to feel guilty if the guy goes to jail?

No, You shouldn't, turn the other cheek does not always apply.

The law is very mercifull though, I can't even kill a guy I catch breaking in my house, I mean I'm probably going to but the law of God doesn't give me that option depending on circumstance.

The law says that if your children dishonour you, that you should have them stoned.

That's justice and they are well deserving of it, but how many parents are going to do that?

The laws are still just.

[trettep]

No, righteousness comes from people exercising their free choice, and picking to the right thing to do.

Is it lawful on your sabbath day to save someone's life?

Paul

[bobfisher]

Romans 13 Bob, The authority doesn't carry the sword in vain, if you do evil, be afraid.

Your talking about crime and punishment and the law is completely just in this aspect.

So your having a BBQ in your backyard, some Phycho comes out of the bushes with a spoon in his hand and gouges out the right eye of your daughter.

What are you gonna do BOB?

#1 Forgive the guy send him on his way.
#2 Call the police and when the guy is punished, feel guilty because you didn't listen to Jesus.
#3 Run to your house and grab your gun and go after the dude.

I'm going with #4 , Grab your BBQ fork and go after the guy cause I'm gonna be to anxious to take the time to run to my house.

Are you going to feel guilty if the guy goes to jail?

No, You shouldn't, turn the other cheek does not always apply.

The law is very mercifull though, I can't even kill a guy I catch breaking in my house, I mean I'm probably going to but the law of God doesn't give me that option depending on circumstance.

The law says that if your children dishonour you, that you should have them stoned.

That's justice and they are well deserving of it, but how many parents are going to do that?

The laws are still just.

So what you're telling me is to do is resist evil. What happened to Jesus meaning what He said? Didn't Jesus tell Peter to put away the sword when they were about unjustly to murder Him? How is that so much different than your scenario. Suppose I just committed the situation to God like Jesus did (1 Peter 2:23)? Is God not watching? Is God not omnipotent?

[Jacob_Rising]

So what you're telling me is to do is resist evil. What happened to Jesus meaning what He said? Didn't Jesus tell Peter to put away the sword when they were about unjustly to murder Him? How is that so much different than your scenario. Suppose I just committed the situation to God like Jesus did (1 Peter 2:23)? Is God not watching? Is God not omnipotent?
That's a whole different situation Bob, Jesus could not rebel against the authorities, There was no police to call BOB.

Jesus was killed under Roman law, he could have called an army to protect him but he gave himself up to the ruling authorities just like everyone should do.

When I go to court I do the same exact thing that Jesus did, I stand judged everytime, unjustly judged at that. I am innocent in child support cases, but I am guilty of breaking the commandments of God.

If somebody says I'm guilty, I agree with them, I am guilty and I deserve to be in prison and that's the truth.

That's what I say, But my guilt that I'm so ashamed of is my knowledge of being a law breaker by Jesus standards.

If they say I'm a child molester I agree.

I have caught myself a couple times looking at a girl too young and lusting after that young innocent child. I'm guilty because a 16 year old walked into a grocery store without a bra.

It might only be for a split second, and I never laid a finger on her, I'm still guilty though.

All Our imaginations are evil, if only for a split second, it still happened.

But I support the police, I support the authorities and if they want to put me in jail for the rest of my life or kill me , I agree, I'm guilty in my own mind.


My wifes Husband always laghs at what he saw me do in court.

I argued with the judge for 10 whole minuites trying to go to jail.
I brought my books with me and sat and argued for a long time trying to go to Jail.

I pointed out that the attorney general wanted me to go to jail, my xwife, her husband, her father, her mother, and her two sisters were all there pointing their finger at me saying,'' Put him in jail''

I pointed at them and said, '' Look, they all want me to go to jail, and I want to go to jail to appease their anger, ''PUT ME IN JAIL''

But the judge wouldn't have it, because I pay, but not enough for them.

My kids are married and divorced and I'm still paying 500 a month child support.

It's completely unfair but I give myself over to the ruling authorities because that's all we can do.
I'm guilty whether I pay a million bucks or not.

Jesus did the same thing, he gave himself over to the ruling authority.

I do that also , your talking about a complete different thing.

[HardHammer]

Yes I agree, that's my point.

It was stated on here by somebody that keeping the law is a sin.

It's not a sin and Israel is demanded to keep these laws if they want to walk with their God.

It's astonishing to me that somebody would actually admit that they think keeping the commandments of God could be a sin.

Aspiring to keep the Laws of God is not a sin, just those with enough PRIDE who think they can actually do it. Thinking you keep the Law PERFECTLY is a sin, for man cannot keep the Laws of God, we all fall short, everytime.

I ask those who preach the keeping of the Law, which Laws do you keep perfectly? And if one believes they Keep the Law PERFECTLY, would they need Jesus Christ as a Savior? or would they depend on their own Righteousness for entry into Heaven?

[CMike11]

Yes I agree, that's my point.

It was stated on here by somebody that keeping the law is a sin.

It's not a sin and Israel is demanded to keep these laws if they want to walk with their God.

It's astonishing to me that somebody would actually admit that they think keeping the commandments of God could be a sin.

+1. Crazy arguements.

[CMike11]

Is it lawful on your sabbath day to save someone's life?

Paul

Yes. Why?

[CMike11]

Aspiring to keep the Laws of God is not a sin, just those with enough PRIDE who think they can actually do it.

That is nuts.

Thinking you keep the Law PERFECTLY is a sin, for man cannot keep the Laws of God, we all fall short, everytime.

And G-D realizes this. He created us. We don't have to be perfect. However, we certainly have to aspire to keep the laws. That is the point of him giving them to the jews.



I ask those who preach the keeping of the Law, which Laws do you keep perfectly?

We were not meant to do anything perfectly. What brings us closer to G-D is the struggle, and resisting the temptation to do bad.

We have free will. If we didn't we would be angels.

And if one believes they Keep the Law PERFECTLY,

Whom has ever said they keep all laws prefectly? It's the struggle.

would they need Jesus Christ as a Savior?

No we don't need Jesus. And no one in Judaism is a divine being in any way other than the one G-D.


or would they depend on their own Righteousness for entry into Heaven?

Yup, you are responsible for your own behavior. You get to heaven, and closer to G-D, by resisting as much as you can doing bad things.

We are not perfect, we were not meant to be perfect, and G-D knows we are not perfect.

[CMike11]

So what you're telling me is to do is resist evil. What happened to Jesus meaning what He said? Didn't Jesus tell Peter to put away the sword when they were about unjustly to murder Him? How is that so much different than your scenario. Suppose I just committed the situation to God like Jesus did (1 Peter 2:23)? Is God not watching? Is God not omnipotent?

Neither Jesus not anyone else were permitted to add to the Torah or take away from it.

Deut 13

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/9977/jewish/Chapter-13.htm

1. Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.

[CMike11]

So what you're telling me is to do is resist evil. What happened to Jesus meaning what He said? Didn't Jesus tell Peter to put away the sword when they were about unjustly to murder Him? How is that so much different than your scenario. Suppose I just committed the situation to God like Jesus did (1 Peter 2:23)? Is God not watching? Is God not omnipotent?

Actually in Judaism, if you know someone is coming to kill you, you are supposed to get up earlier and kill that person first.

Israel wouldn't exist if it followed such a pacifist philosophy.

[HardHammer]

That is nuts.



It doesn't surprise me you think so. I believe the Law was given not to keep, but to show us our imperfection, to convict us of our sin.

The only way to keep the Law is to allow the Holy Spirit to help you keep it. We, of ourselves cannot, to struggle is indeed what we live through, but the promise of His Kingdom is the reward.

So if God gave you the Law to keep, and you can't keep it, what becomes of you? Will God just say, "ah, that's close enough, you're in", I don't think so. By your assertion, you say keep the Law, but then say you can't. Gods Holy Justice will Judge your efforts, and you will fall short by your efforts.

Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ gives us the ability to have Someone else helps us see things HIS way and not our own.

To be in Christ is to have His Righteousness in us through Faith in Him. With a Helper you are more lilkely to keep that Law than trying of yourself, IMHO. The Father will see Him in us, as The Father was in Jesus.

The Righteousness of Jesus will get us into Heaven, not the fleshy works of our own introspective interpretation, again IMHO.

[CMike11]

It doesn't surprise me you think so. I believe the Law was given not to keep, but to show us our imperfection, to convict us of our sin.

What an awful thing to say about G-D. He wouldn't try and trip us up. The law was given to bring us closer to G-D.

The only way to keep the Law is to allow the Holy Spirit to help you keep it. We, of ourselves cannot, to struggle is indeed what we live through, but the promise of His Kingdom is the reward.

I am talking about Judaism. G-D gave the Torah to the jewish people. The only Holy Spirit in Judaism is the one G-D.


It's about the struggle. It's not about perfection. G-D realizes we are not perfect. If there was no struggle than no one would get merit for resisting temptation and doing the right thing.



So if God gave you the Law to keep, and you can't keep it, what becomes of you? Will God just say, "ah, that's close enough, you're in", I don't think so. By your assertion, you say keep the Law, but then say you can't. Gods Holy Justice will Judge your efforts, and you will fall short by your efforts.

Yup that's. it.

Every Yom Kippur (Day of Attonement) jews are supposed to attone for their sins. They are then put through a heavenly court. Satan is the prosecuter. And we are judged based on our sins and what we did good.


Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ gives us the ability to have Someone else helps us see things HIS way and not our own.

To be in Christ is to have His Righteousness in us through Faith in Him. With a Helper you are more lilkely to keep that Law than trying of yourself, IMHO. The Father will see Him in us, as The Father was in Jesus.

This whole divine spirit is Jesus thing is within itself a grave sin in Judaism. G-D made it crystal clear in Judaism, that the only divine being is him. That's it. Angels are messengers of G-D.

To worship jesus, in Judaism, is a very serious sin.

[Jacob_Rising]

Aspiring to keep the Laws of God is not a sin,
This is what I keep saying.

There is nothing wrong in trying to keep the law, and all Jews are demanded to keep it.

But people in here and mainstream christianity seem to think that keeping the law is a bad thing.

Keeping the law is rightous and it does come with rewards.

Just like charity brings reward.

Keeping God's commandments is an honour because your keeping God's heritage alive, you are showing God that you care enough about him to learn his ways and stick out like a sore thumb to the world.

God's people are called out to be a peculiar people, a people who are not supposed to be like the heathen nations because they keep God's ways.

It's like CMike's thread about hospitality.

Jews stuck out as being the most hospitable people around because the law tells them how to treat strangers.

For thousands of years God's chosen people are easy to spot because they keep the law.

For thousands of years God's people have been killed just doing what God told them to do.

God told them to keep the Sabbath Holy and they loved God so much that they wouldn't even take up arms on the sabbath when being attacked.

Those people are going to be rewarded as the only people who did what God told them to do, and for his sake they died.

They died in the Holocaust for God's sake, because they would not assimulate into the world and become like the heathen nations.

Their loyalty is unrivaled and God will take notice and he says many times he would.

He says he's coming to make them a praise and a fame in this world for being oppressed for thousands of years just because they did what he told them to do..

'' They will no longer be the oppressed and the nations will come bowing before them bringing the wealth of the nations to their feet''

''The gentiles will carry them on their backs to their land''

This has been happening for decades, for decades God has been gathering his people back to their land as prophesied.

He's not gathering the Babtist, or the Catholics, or the pentacostals , or the Mormons, or anyone else.

He's gathering his Jewish nation just as prophecied, and he's coming to fight for them, just as prophecied.

These Jews who wont accept Jesus are being gathered and millions of gentiles like myself are sending money to these Jews who don't believe in Jesus.

He is gathering THEM because they are the only people who have been loyal to God, the only people dying just because they are doing what God told them to do FOREVER.

They have been the example to the world who God's people really are.

I play Halo online and I get called a Jew everyday by people who don't know me because being called a Jew is a bad word, it's a derogatory name.

The world hates them, and they have always been hated for just one reason.

Doing what God demanded them to do.

For that, they will be rewarded.

The law will go forth from Jerusalem to all the world, and Judah will be the leader of the world.

Because they followed the word of God.

[CMike11]

Thank you Jacob.

[Jacob_Rising]

Thank you Jacob.No, Thank you Mike.

I wouldn't be who I am without people like you keeping God's heritage.

I've learned so much from the Jews on here that it's completely changed the way I believe.

Thank God the Jews didn't give in to assimulation.

[CMike11]

No, Thank you Mike.

I wouldn't be who I am without people like you keeping God's heritage.

I've learned so much from the Jews on here that it's completely changed the way I believe.

Thank God the Jews didn't give in to assimulation.

:redface:

[bobfisher]

Actually in Judaism, if you know someone is coming to kill you, you are supposed to get up earlier and kill that person first.

Israel wouldn't exist if it followed such a pacifist philosophy.

Which is my point to Jacob_Rising. What Jesus said to do is not what Moses said to do. Jesus said "resist not evil" which is not getting up early and killing him first. Somehow Jacob_Rising thinks Jesus was not teaching anything contrary to the literal commandments of Moses.

What about when the disiciples picked corn on the Sabbath to eat. Can you tell me how that sits with the commandment to gather twice as much on the 6th day?

[bobfisher]

That's a whole different situation Bob, Jesus could not rebel against the authorities, There was no police to call BOB.

You said you'd go grab a fork and do it yourself, apart from the authorities. Isn't that what Peter was about to do when Christ told him to stop?

[CMike11]

Which is my point to Jacob_Rising. What Jesus said to do is not what Moses said to do. Jesus said "resist not evil" which is not getting up early and killing him first. Somehow Jacob_Rising thinks Jesus was not teaching anything contrary to the literal commandments of Moses.

What about when the disiciples picked corn on the Sabbath to eat. Can you tell me how that sits with the commandment to gather twice as much on the 6th day?

Moses didn't make commandments, G-D did.

[Jacob_Rising]

Which is my point to Jacob_Rising. What Jesus said to do is not what Moses said to do. Jesus said "resist not evil" which is not getting up early and killing him first. Somehow Jacob_Rising thinks Jesus was not teaching anything contrary to the literal commandments of Moses.

What about when the disiciples picked corn on the Sabbath to eat. Can you tell me how that sits with the commandment to gather twice as much on the 6th day?Bob, you need to somehow tell the difference between turning the other cheek and doing the right thing.

If somebody walks up to me and slaps me, chances are I'm not going to hit him back.

If somebody walks up and hits a woman or a kid in front of me , I'm going to take him to the ground and call the police.

If it's my child then I am responsible for that childs welfare and if I don't protect the weak then I am not a man by any sense of the word.

If you can't figure out what the right thing to do, I'de hate to be your neighbor.

What would you do if my child was playing in my front yard and a man came and attacked my child?

Can't you make the right choice when it's so obvious?

Or does your turn the cheek rule run your life?

Are we supposed to turn a blind eye to evil as if it doesn't exist?

I doubt very seriously that I could count on you as a neighbor if you can't figure out right from wrong.

[bobfisher]

That's me Bob. That doesn't make the law unrightous, and it doesn't put me in sin either.

I know what you would do, I suppose you would take your kid to the doctor and just let the man get away who did such a thing.

And no, it's nothing like Jesus telling Peter to put down the sword, in what reality does that work Bob?

Those were the authorities coming to get Jesus, he had to go with them .

You just think Jesus wants us to turn a blind eye to crime?

There can be no civilized society without laws, That's why God gave the law and keeping the law is rightous.

It doesn't matter anyway Bob, You have allready proven Jesus is not God, you have proven Jesus was a sinner, and you have proven the foundation of Christianity is worthless, so it doesn't matter what Jesus said.

If the law is unrightous then so was Jesus.

Jesus was perfectly righteous and the Law is righteous too.

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.

First you criticize me for not upholding the commandments of the Law, now you fault me for affirming Christ's commandment to "resist not evil". Did Stephen resist being murdered? Did Christ stop them from heaven from murdering Stephen? Could He have? Was Christ being a "bad neighbor" to Stephen?

[Jacob_Rising]

Jesus was perfectly righteous and the Law is righteous too.

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.

First you criticize me for not upholding the commandments of the Law, now you fault me for affirming Christ's commandment to "resist not evil". Did Stephen resist being murdered? Did Christ stop them from heaven from murdering Stephen? Could He have? Was Christ being a "bad neighbor" to Stephen?No Bob, I criticized you because you say that the words of Jesus are not true.

Jesus said that the least in the kingdom would be the person who doesn't keep the commandments and teaches others not to keep the commandments.

You say that Jesus didn't mean what he said and we continued.

Now you keep comparing two different things that have nothing in common.

You quote the scripture that we should follow in the footsteps of Jesus but your arguments here show that you would have no intention of doing so.

You keep mixing up stories abot turning the other cheek and the authorities coming to get you.

Now you say,'' Jesus was rightous and the law is rightous too''

Have you changed your mind about what Jesus said?

'' Whosoever keeps the commandments and teaches other men to keep the commandments will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.''

You were saying that Jesus didn't actually mean what he said here.

Have you changed your mind?

Is the law now rightous to keep?

[CMike11]

Which is my point to Jacob_Rising. What Jesus said to do is not what Moses said to do. Jesus said "resist not evil" which is not getting up early and killing him first. Somehow Jacob_Rising thinks Jesus was not teaching anything contrary to the literal commandments of Moses.

What about when the disiciples picked corn on the Sabbath to eat. Can you tell me how that sits with the commandment to gather twice as much on the 6th day?

What does "resist not evil" mean? It sounds to me "resist not evil" means resist goodness.

G-D commanded the jews many times to physically destroy evil.

Not only may you get up earlier and kill the person whom you know is coming to kill you, you are supposed to get up earlier and kill that person first.

The sabbath laws are directed only toward jews.

[RayMan]

What does "resist not evil" mean? It sounds to me "resist not evil" means resist goodness.

G-D commanded the jews many times to physically destroy evil.

Not only may you get up earlier and kill the person whom you know is coming to kill you, you are supposed to get up earlier and kill that person first.

The sabbath laws are directed only toward jews.

Happy New Year Mike! Didn't have a computer for a couple of weeks so I am late with my New Year greetings. The passage in question is from "The Sermon on The Mount." IMO, Jesus is talking about trying to get along with people, not refusing to protect the innocent or anything of that nature.

Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

[bobfisher]

What does "resist not evil" mean? It sounds to me "resist not evil" means resist goodness.

That's King James way of saying "do not resist evil".

G-D commanded the jews many times to physically destroy evil.

Not only may you get up earlier and kill the person whom you know is coming to kill you, you are supposed to get up earlier and kill that person first.

I know. What Jesus said and what you just described are not remotely the same. Jacob_Rising thinks they are in agreement.

The sabbath laws are directed only toward jews.

So when the disciples (they were Jews) picked corn on the Sabbath because they were hungry, do you think that's breaking the Sabbath?

[Jacob_Rising]

I know. What Jesus said and what you just described are not remotely the same. Jacob_Rising thinks they are in agreement.


What on Earth are you talking about Bob?

I havn't even discussed somebody coming to kill you.

[CMike11]

That's King James way of saying "do not resist evil".

That means allow evil? :cry:


So when the disciples (they were Jews) picked corn on the Sabbath because they were hungry, do you think that's breaking the Sabbath?

If they were doing it to save their lives because they need food to survive, then they can do it. Otherwise, they can't.

[Jacob_Rising]

That means allow evil? :cry:





Yes, Alot of Christians have it in their mind that we aren't supposed to do anything to people who come to harm us.

[bobfisher]

That means allow evil? :cry:

God has put in place authorities to deal with evil. The disciples of Christ were persecuted and murdered, and no they did not resist physically so yes, I think that is what it means.

If they were doing it to save their lives because they need food to survive, then they can do it. Otherwise, they can't.

Ok, that's what I thought. They were hungry, not starving to death.

[Jacob_Rising]

That means allow evil? :cry:



What Jesus was teaching was awesome and it does work in practice.

I have had neighbors do terrible things to me and I turned around and did very good things to them.

I have been hit in the face and not hit back and became great friends with the guys who hit me.

But Alot of people want to use then turn the other cheek practice in all situations and it just doesn't work like that.

[Jacob_Rising]

God has put in place authorities to deal with evil. The disciples of Christ were persecuted and murdered, and no they did not resist physically so yes, I think that is what it means.



Bob they had no choice in the matters, Jesus was killed by Roman law, and the desciples were killed by authorities and they died for what they believed in.

You want to apply this to every situation and it cannot be done, it's just not the same thing.

You have to resist evil if the situation calls for it, your obligated to resist evil given the circumstance.

[CMike11]

Are you (generic you) aware that G-D commanded the jews numerous times to destroy the bad guys by killing them?

[CMike11]

God has put in place authorities to deal with evil. The disciples of Christ were persecuted and murdered, and no they did not resist physically so yes, I think that is what it means..


I doubt they had a choice. I don't think they could have taken on the Roman army.

[Jacob_Rising]

Are you (generic you) aware that G-D commanded the jews numerous times to destroy the bad guys by killing them?I don't know who this post is for but I'll answer it.

Absolutely, you go out and put the bad guys in the dirt.

That is our responsibility.

[Gem]

Yes, Alot of Christians have it in their mind that we aren't supposed to do anything to people who come to harm us.

I thought the bible said to turn the other cheek. right ? :rolleyes:

[CMike11]

In the Talmud Sanhedrin 70A the principle as stated by the great sage Raba is

"When somebody is coming to kill you, get up earlier and kill him first.”

[CMike11]

I don't know who this post is for but I'll answer it.

Absolutely, you go out and put the bad guys in the dirt.

That is our responsibility.

I agree.

Pacifism is not part of Judiasm and is compltely unrealistic when confronted with enemies out to destroy you.

[Jacob_Rising]

I thought the bible said to turn the other cheek. right ? :rolleyes:
No not at all.

Romans 13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are APPOINTED BY GOD.

Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinances of God, and those who resist will bring judgement upon themselves.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.

For he is GOD"S MINISTER to you for good. BUT IF YOU DO EVIL, BE AFRAID:FOR HE DOES NOT BEAR THE SWORD IN VAIN:FOR HE IS GOD'S MINISTER, AN AVENGER TO EXECUTE WRATH ON HIM WHO PRACTICES EVIL.

Right Now I would say that the United states is the authority of the world and it is our responsibility to go out and kill evil doers.

Whether it's in our city, our county or across the ocean, we have the responsibility to defend the weak, to speak up for the mute and to go after evil doers where ever they may be.

[Fire Watch]

I thought the bible said to turn the other cheek. right ? :rolleyes:
This passage has been used to teach everything from pacifism to non-defense against attackers who wish to do us bodily harm.

These arent proper interpretations of Jesus' teaching.

Interestingly enough Jesus Himself was struck in the face during His trial by one of the high priest's officers (John 18:19-23). Did He turn the other cheek so He could be struck again? No. He asked, "If I have said something wrong, confirm what is wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why strike me?" If Jesus Himself didnt literally turn His other cheek to his attacker so that He could be struck again, maybe Jesus meant something else.

IMO the proper interpretation of Jesus' words can be gained by paying attention to the specificity with which Jesus spoke. He specifically mentioned being struck on the "right" cheek. Why the right cheek? Why not the left cheek? Why not just speak of "your cheek" in a general sense? I'm convinced its because Jesus was talking about how we respond to personal insults, not outright brutality.

Jesus wasnt instructing us to allow ourselves to be beaten up by an attacker, but rather to resist the desire to retaliate against those who insult us.

[Fire Watch]

I agree.

Pacifism is not part of Judiasm and is compltely unrealistic when confronted with enemies out to destroy you.
Pacifism should have no place in Christianity either. Thankfully, it's a very small minority that believe that it should.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I agree.

Pacifism is not part of Judiasm and is compltely unrealistic when confronted with enemies out to destroy you.

Again, I reference the "You can't handle the truth" by Col Jessup in A Few Good Men.

[Gem]

No not at all.

Romans 13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are APPOINTED BY GOD.

Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinances of God, and those who resist will bring judgement upon themselves.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.

For he is GOD"S MINISTER to you for good. BUT IF YOU DO EVIL, BE AFRAID:FOR HE DOES NOT BEAR THE SWORD IN VAIN:FOR HE IS GOD'S MINISTER, AN AVENGER TO EXECUTE WRATH ON HIM WHO PRACTICES EVIL.

Right Now I would say that the United states is the authority of the world and it is our responsibility to go out and kill evil doers.

Whether it's in our city, our county or across the ocean, we have the responsibility to defend the weak, to speak up for the mute and to go after evil doers where ever they may be.

Yes, we are supposed to obey our authority because God has appointed them, because the bible also says obey them that have the rule over you.

Well, The united states has changed the name of our troops .
They are no longer called the United States like always, but they call them The World Police now.

So you are right on both accounts here. :clap:

[CMike11]

Pacifism should have no place in Christianity either. Thankfully, it's a very small minority that believe that it should.

That is a good thing.

It's easy to be a pacifist when you have a very powerful military protecting you; people like FW protecting you.

[CMike11]

Again, I reference the "You can't handle the truth" by Col Jessup in A Few Good Men.

Are you sayyyyinnnggg I committed a criimee?

Did you issue the Code Red??

[Koushi Shinigami]

Are you sayyyyinnnggg I committed a criimee?

Did you issue the Code Red??

:D

Actually, this part.

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall.

We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post."

[Gem]

Here is a question I've often pondered, I think you might see what I'm trying to show. It is about the twelve.

In Revelations, Ephraim is not mentioned in the 144,000. Is it because Ephraim is part of Joseph's 12,000?

Revelation 7

4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

5 Of the tribe of Juda (a) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben (b) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad (c) were sealed twelve thousand.

6 Of the tribe of Asher (d) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthali (e) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses (f) were sealed twelve thousand.

7 Of the tribe of Simeon (g) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi (h) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar (i) were sealed twelve thousand.

8 Of the tribe of Zabulon (j) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph (k) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin (l) were sealed twelve thousand.

.....

Ephraim, Manasseh, Joseph, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Benjamin equals fourteen in total.

Simeon and Levi were addressed as one by Israel (Jacob), so that would make thirteen. However, in Revelations Simeon and Levi are represented individually (12,000 each).

Ephraim and Manasseh were blessed by Israel (Jacob) with a crossing of Jacob's arms--the blessings of the right hand went to Ephraim, the left to Manasseh. If Manasseh represents 12,000 (of the 144,000) then does this mean Ephraim is also part of Joseph (or all of Joseph) and then makes for the 12 (12 times 12,000, is of course 144,000)?

Genesis 48

14 And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.

20 And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh (f).

Genesis 49

1 And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.

1.) Reuben (b)
2.) Simeon (g) and Levi (h)
3.) Judah (a)
4.) Zebulun (j)
5.) Issachar (i)
6.) Dan
7.) Gad (c)
8.) Asher (d)
9.) Naphtali (e)
10.) Joseph (k)
11.) Benjamin (l)

I believe the Gentiles will take the place of Ephraim. He was always mixed in with the Gentiles.

Would this be the answer as to why Ephriam is not listed in the 144 thousand ?

[Gem]

That's me Bob. That doesn't make the law unrightous, and it doesn't put me in sin either.

I know what you would do, I suppose you would take your kid to the doctor and just let the man get away who did such a thing.

And no, it's nothing like Jesus telling Peter to put down the sword, in what reality does that work Bob?

Those were the authorities coming to get Jesus, he had to go with them .

You just think Jesus wants us to turn a blind eye to crime?

There can be no civilized society without laws, That's why God gave the law and keeping the law is rightous.

It doesn't matter anyway Bob, You have allready proven Jesus is not God, you have proven Jesus was a sinner, and you have proven the foundation of Christianity is worthless, so it doesn't matter what Jesus said.

If the law is unrightous then so was Jesus.

Wow, pretty strong here .

[Gem]

There is no law of Moses. Moses didn't make laws. It's the laws of G-D.





You stick to your laws, I'll stick to the laws that G-D told the jews to keep.





Why would anyone care what Paul thinks was an ideal jew, when he turned from Judaism himself?

It's like the Rabbi of Israel saying what an ideal Christian should be.




There is no such thing as the laws of Moses. Moses did not make laws. G-D made laws.

Kool down Mike, you keep that up and you might have a stroke.

[Gem]

Are you (generic you) aware that G-D commanded the jews numerous times to destroy the bad guys by killing them?

He sure did Mike in the old Testament, some awsome stories in there.

[Gem]

This passage has been used to teach everything from pacifism to non-defense against attackers who wish to do us bodily harm.

These arent proper interpretations of Jesus' teaching.

Interestingly enough Jesus Himself was struck in the face during His trial by one of the high priest's officers (John 18:19-23). Did He turn the other cheek so He could be struck again? No. He asked, "If I have said something wrong, confirm what is wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why strike me?" If Jesus Himself didnt literally turn His other cheek to his attacker so that He could be struck again, maybe Jesus meant something else.

IMO the proper interpretation of Jesus' words can be gained by paying attention to the specificity with which Jesus spoke. He specifically mentioned being struck on the "right" cheek. Why the right cheek? Why not the left cheek? Why not just speak of "your cheek" in a general sense? I'm convinced its because Jesus was talking about how we respond to personal insults, not outright brutality.

Jesus wasnt instructing us to allow ourselves to be beaten up by an attacker, but rather to resist the desire to retaliate against those who insult us.

Thanks Fire Watch, that makes since. :clap:

[Jacob_Rising]

Wow, pretty strong here .Yeah I know I'm a jerk.

Can't be helped sometimes, it's a flaw in my charachter.

I've since deleted it.

[Jacob_Rising]

I believe the Gentiles will take the place of Ephraim. He was always mixed in with the Gentiles.

Would this be the answer as to why Ephriam is not listed in the 144 thousand ?
Yes , this is what I believe.

Ephraim have always been gentiles to me, but at that time in Revelations , there are no more gentiles within Israel.

Either those gentiles are now considered true Israel, or still considered gentiles.

There is no Dan because there is no more punishment for Israel, and no more gentiles.

The 144,000 is the number of priests which exist in Judaism, so it means all Israel will be priests.

[bobfisher]

Yeah I know I'm a jerk. Can't be helped sometimes, it's a flaw in my charachter.

Nah.... just passionate.

[Jacob_Rising]

Nah.... just passionate.
Thanks for the gesture Bob, But it's a little worse than that. I've been getting a little better though, I can't hardly leave the house without getting mad.

Just recently I went to the post office twice without being rude.

That's a first for me.

Roadrage and everything else.

[bobfisher]

Thanks for the gesture Bob, But it's a little worse than that. I've been getting a little better though, I can't hardly leave the house without getting mad.

Just recently I went to the post office twice without being rude.

That's a first for me.

Roadrage and everything else.

You know, I once thought to myself: If there were a switch, like say a light switch, so that I could just flip the switch and all the bad attitude in myself would go away, then I'd surely flip the switch. But it seems that God has denied us any such switch. But then this verse came to my mind and maybe there is a switch after all, if we can believe it.

Matthew 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

[hben]

Apparently, his opinion wasn't all that important.



:think: Hmmmm.

If God is the father, and we are all God's wayward children, seems that would make Jesus the faithful, non-rejoicing, older brother....

You are the first I've ever known that it seemed that way to.

[hben]

My give-a-damn is busted.

Does that mean that you have no love for God or your neighbor? And does that mean that you don't care whether you ever do another good deed for anyone? Just curious since I know you have said that you believe the equation looks something like:

faith + works = salvation

It doesn't seem like that would be in harmony with:

give-a-damn + busted = salvation

[Jacob_Rising]

The parable of the prodigal son represents a person’s journey back to reconciliation with one’s conscience (God)


As is the story, the journey back can be painful. Put yourself in the story and imagine you had done some bad things, left home and sometime later decide to go make amends with your family.


On the way home you feel ashamed, guilty of what you have done. You have uncertainty of facing your father again and at one point on your journey, you consider changing your mind.
As you get closer, the realization and awareness of your past errors intensifies. You start to reflect on your past and wonder if there will be forgiveness when you arrive.

After a long journey, you can finally see your family’s house in the distance. At this point, guilt and shame are almost overwhelming but just then your father looks and see’s you coming. He cheerfully races towards you, surrounding you with his love.
The guilt and shame, gone, as the entire family rejoices in your return.


The moral of the story: feeling guilty, ashamed of past deeds is not a bad thing.
God awaits at the end of your journey.This is only for Teaching and it's a good lesson but it's not really what the story of the Prodigal son is.

It's a story of Joseph and David and Joseph is the Prodigal son.

Joseph represents the world of gentiles who look to the God of Israel.

The Story wants Joseph to come out of Egypt where he has went and married the Priest of On and had two gentile sons.

The story wants gentiles to come back with respect for the Torah and to recognize the son who stayed home as Judah, and it wants you to acknowledge that Judah has not left the father and he has stayed with the Torah and thus, He inherits everything.

We would only be united with them, and we would have a party with reward.

It's the Story of the Prodigal nation called the House of Israel which was lost 2700 years ago and is still lost.

When Joseph returns, This prophesy of the Prodigal will be fulfilled.