119 Ministries

[JLB]

And that's what we are ...........sinners BUT we have a Saviour.

We can pray if your still a sinner. I personally don't practice sin, nor do I very seldom have to say sorry or repent from something. There is a big difference in God showing you something and having a Ah moment, I'll change that, as opposed the practice of something and having to completely cut it off. That is what sinners do, they practice sin.

I am also glad that bacon is still on the table, I was getting concerned after reading some of these post.

Mike.

Amen.

There is nothing like the freedom and liberty to get a good mesquite fire going on Saturday morning and bar b queing some baby back ribs slow for about 4 hours until they fall off the bone.

Now that is how to chill on a Saturday!

I thank my God for the freedom I have in Christ Jesus.


JLB

 

[Brother Mike]

Now that is how to chill on a Saturday!

Baby back ribs on the grill? I think my error is not chilling at your house on Saturday. We had Sam's frozen pizza yesterday.

Blessings.

Mike.

 

[JLB]

Now that is how to chill on a Saturday!

Baby back ribs on the grill? I think my error is not chilling at your house on Saturday. We had Sam's frozen pizza yesterday.

Blessings.

Mike.

Hopefully it didn't have any pork sausage on it. Wouldn't want you to break the sabbath.


JLB

 

[TOG]

If the Bible is telling Gentiles to get teaching from rabbis, we can assume that those rabbis should be saved.

The bible is not teaching that Gentiles need teaching from Rabbis.

The Church has Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers that The Lord has raised up to teach His people.

Acts 15:21 does not say this.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. The fact is that Acts 15:21 says neither that Gentile converts are to get teaching in the synagogues nor that such teaching is useless, at least not directly. What it says is that Moses is taught in the synagogues every Sabbath. It starts with the word "for" which connects it to the previous verses. Exactly how it connects with the previous verses is a matter of interpretation. It makes most sense to me to understand it as saying that they should learn the rest of the law by hearing it read every week. You seem to find the explanation that such teaching is useless to be more reasonable. I don't think we'll change each others minds on this, so let's just leave it up to God to convince us. That usually works better anyway.

You are saying (as far as I can see) that keeping the law, including feast days, new moons, Sabbaths and food laws, is both a useless waste of time and is against the desires of the flesh.

Useless, of no value against the desires of the flesh.

OK... I see what the problem is. Amazing how a simple typo can completely change things. You originally posted:

useless and a waste of time, against the desires of the the flesh.

And now you say:

Useless, of no value against the desires of the flesh.

The comma is in a different place. It changes the meaning completely. Now I understand what you meant and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," 22 which all concern things which perish with the using--according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. Colossians 2:21-23

These verses are often misunderstood. Add the previous verse (which is often left out) and look again.

If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch†(referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. (Col. 2:20-23 ESV)
​

He says they died to these things and ask why they are still doing them. He calls them human teachings. If these rules Paul is referring to are human teachings that the Colossians were previously under, they could not possibly be the law of Moses. You see, the Colossians were Gentiles and they had never been under the law of Moses, so they couldn't have died to it and then still be under it. It makes no sense to say that they died to and were still following the commandments in the Old Testament, which weren't human teachings, but came from directly from God. It seems obvious to me that Paul must be referring to rules and regulations that they had followed before they were saved.

The TOG
​

 

[JLB]

What it says is that Moses is taught in the synagogues every Sabbath.

The argument and context of the whole Acts 15 debate was; Should gentiles who are turning to God be circucised and keep the Law of Moses.

The conclusion to the matter is NO.

Why, because the only thing thing a synagog produces is followers of Moses, not followers of the Lord.

That is the context.

Gentiles who are turning to God do not need to be circumcised or keep the law of Moses.


JLB

 

[TOG]

The argument and context of the whole Acts 15 debate was; Should gentiles who are turning to God be circucised and keep the Law of Moses.

No, that's not what the debate was about.

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.†(Acts 15:1 ESV)
​

The debate wasn't about whether they were allowed to eat pork or whether they had to keep the Sabbath. Those commandments came directly from God and were not being questioned. The debate was about what Gentiles had to do to be saved. There were two opinions on the subject. One group believed that only Jews could be saved, so for a Gentile to be saved, he first had to convert to Judaism, which was no simple matter. Conversion to Judaism involves learning Hebrew, studying the Torah, learning to live according to the law and, if you're male, being circumcised. In the New Testament, circumcision is used as an idiom for this lengthy process of conversion. This is what the group referred to in verse 1 was teaching. The other group believed that the only thing that was needed for Gentiles to be saved was for them to have faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Paul was in this second group.

The conclusion to the matter is NO.

The conclusion of the matter was that Gentiles do not need to convert to Judaism to be saved. There was no ruling on pork or the Sabbath.

Gentiles who are turning to God do not need to be circumcised or keep the law of Moses.

You left out the most important part. Gentiles who are turning to God do not need to be circumcised or keep the law of Moses to be saved.

You know, it's interesting that people who are against keeping the law should point to this chapter at all. Look at the commandments they gave the Gentiles to start with.

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. (Acts 15:28-29 ESV)
​

The Gentiles were to follow these rules:

1. Do not eat what has been sacrificed to idols
2. Do not eat blood
3. Do not eat what has been strangled
4. Do not do anything that is sexually immoral

Three out of four commandments are dietary regulations. I find it rather amusing, to tell the truth, that people who say that Christians don't need to follow the dietary rules in the Old Testament point to this chapter and say that these are the only rules Gentiles have to follow, and totally miss the fact that most of them have to do with food. If you tell someone that he shouldn't be eating his steak raw... I mean... rare, with the blood still dripping from it, he'll say that he doesn't have to follow the OT rules, but will totally ignore the fact that the Jerusalem council confirmed that very law as binding on Gentiles.

The TOG

​

 

[JLB]

The debate wasn't about whether they were allowed to eat pork or whether they had to keep the Sabbath. Those commandments came directly from God and were not being questioned.

5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. Romans 14:5-6

Sorry brother, the Law of Moses has vanished away.

18 So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?"

Paul teaches that Sabbaths were the shadow, and are fulfilled in Christ.

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ... 21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," 22 which all concern things which perish with the using--according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. Colossians 2:16-17,21-23

that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood,

Brother these heathen would drink blood.

The New Testament teaches against all type of sin and immorality. Wearing Jewish clothing, or observing special days, or not eating certain foods will have no affect on a person's desire to be engaged in sexual immorality.


The conclusion to Acts 15 debate -

Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"--to whom we gave no such commandment--

If they intended Gentiles to keep the law of Moses and be circumcised ever again, they would have said so.

If they meant for the Gentiles to keep the law and become circumcised at any time for any reason, then that would have been the time to say so.

No instructions of the sort were given.



JLB

 

[TOG]

5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. Romans 14:5-6

That's talking about the same thing Paul mentions in I Cor. 8 - eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols. If you compare the two passages, you'll see he uses the same language and is obviously talking about the same thing. As for the observance of days, I think he's probably talking about this:

But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week. Rather, fast on the fourth day and the Preparation.

(Source)

Some people seem to have thought that it mattered on which day of the week people fasted. Others felt it didn't matter. I think it's much more likely that this is what Paul was referring to, rather than that he was declaring a commandment of God to be invalid.

Sorry brother, the Law of Moses has vanished away.

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (Matt. 5:18 ESV)
​

Brother these heathen would drink blood.

Have you ever heard of a "blue steak"? Blue is the next level of doneness below rare. Here's a picture of steaks cooked to varying degrees. The one on the top left is blue.

View attachment 3458

Cooking directions:

• Take a steak out of the refrigerator and allow it to warm to room temperature through to the middle.
• Heat some oil in a pan on very high heat.
• Put the steak on the pan for 5 seconds per side.

A blue steak is basically raw. It has the blood still dripping from it. People actually eat this. This is no better than drinking blood.

The New Testament teaches against all type of sin and immorality. Wearing Jewish clothing, or observing special days, or not eating certain foods will have no affect on a person's desire to be engaged in sexual immorality.

Who said it would?

Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"--to whom we gave no such commandment--

Don't stop in the middle of the sentence. Read the rest of it. They went on to give the Gentiles three dietary rules and one about sexual immorality. I have a question for you (and anyone else who would like to answer) - Are these the only rules the Gentiles were expected to follow?

If they intended Gentiles to keep the law of Moses and be circumcised ever again, they would have said so.

And if they had intended to make a ruling on pork or the Sabbath, they would have had plenty of opportunity to do that also, but they didn't.

No instructions of the sort were given.

No instructions concerning eating pork were given either.

The TOG
​

 

[JLB]

No instructions concerning eating pork were given either. The TOG

Because the Law is no longer a valid form of righteousness.

Not eating pork does not make you righteous.

Only faith!

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

 

[TOG]

Because the Law is no longer a valid form of righteousness.

If you have a law and no ruling is made on it or no new law is made then the old law remains in effect.

Not eating pork does not make you righteous.

Nobody said it did.

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

That's talking about eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols. Paul, a Torah observant Pharisee, would never have even thought of declaring one of God's commandments invalid, much less the entire law.

The TOG
​

 

[JLB]

Because the Law is no longer a valid form of righteousness.

If you have a law and no ruling is made on it or no new law is made then the old law remains in effect.

Not eating pork does not make you righteous.

Nobody said it did.

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

That's talking about eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols. Paul, a Torah observant Pharisee, would never have even thought of declaring one of God's commandments invalid, much less the entire law.

The TOG
​

Saul of Tarsus was a Pharisee.

Paul is an Apostle of Jesus Christ.

There is no more Levitical Priesthood.

The Law of Moses has changed.

For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

So, the Law of Moses in its entirety is still valid or the Law of Moses in its entirety has vanished away.


JLB

 

[gr8grace]

I will watch the video on Acts 15 and respond to that in a separate post.

I've watched the Acts 15 video (http://119ministries.com/videoteachi...gationid=28668). I don't agree with everything that was said, but I do agree with the most important parts. The debate was never about whether the law had been abolished, but about whether keeping the law was necessary to be saved. The decision was that Gentiles are not saved (any more than Jews) by keeping the law, but by faith. As the video points out, there is a seldom-quoted verse that was part of their decision, that states that the Gentile converts would go to the synagogues every Sabbath to learn the law. We do not keep the law to be saved. We keep the law because we are saved. That's the core of what they are saying. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that.

The TOG
​

We don't keep the Law to be saved, we keep the Law because we are saved.

If a saved person doesn't keep the Law is that person still saved?

Or was that person just not saved in the first Place?

If one answers Yes to either of these Questions, that means one thinks the Law saves.

 

[TOG]

If a saved person doesn't keep the Law is that person still saved?

Or was that person just not saved in the first Place?

Keeping the law isn't something we learn to do instantly. I haven't always kept the Sabbath or eaten kosher food , because I didn't know about these things when I was first saved. I have, since I was saved 40 years ago, wanted to obey God to the best of my ability. When I realized that these things were God's will, I started doing them. But I was still saved before I did them. Doing the things in the law doesn't save anybody.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Eph. 2:8-9 ESV)

The TOG
​

 

[TOG]

Saul of Tarsus was a Pharisee.

Paul is an Apostle of Jesus Christ.

Same person.

The Law of Moses has changed.

For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

Read the whole chapter, not just one or two verses that support your view. It's talking about the priesthood and the sacrifices. Nothing else. No mention of Sabbaths, kosher food or anything else - Just the priesthood. Nothing else has changed.

So, the Law of Moses in its entirety is still valid or the Law of Moses in its entirety has vanished away.

Still valid. The only difference is that now we have a high priest according to the order of Melchizidech, instead of a Levitical high priest.

The TOG
​

 

[JLB]

Still valid. The only difference is that now we have a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, instead of a Levitical high priest.

What about all the sacrifices that were shadows of Christ?

What about the Sabbaths, and the feast's that were shadows of Christ?


JLB

 

[JLB]

Read the whole chapter, not just one or two verses that support your view. It's talking about the priesthood and the sacrifices. Nothing else. No mention of Sabbaths, kosher food or anything else - Just the priesthood. Nothing else has changed.

That would mean much more than a jot or tittle has been removed from the Law.

Sorry brother, the Law of Moses is no longer valid. It has vanish away at the cross.

Same person.

The Pharisee's were trying to kill him, because he was no longer a Pharisee, but preached Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Paul is an Apostle, not a Pharisee.

Read the whole chapter, not just one or two verses that support your view. It's talking about the priesthood and the sacrifices. Nothing else. No mention of Sabbaths, kosher food or anything else - Just the priesthood. Nothing else has changed.

13 In that he saith , A new covenant, he hath made the first old . Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13

Did you read that far.

The Law is Obsolete!

The Law is not of faith.

The Law has vanished away.


JLB

 

[JLB]

wanted to obey God to the best of my ability.

That would be the shifting sand of religion, which began at Babylon, whereby men tried to get to God by the own best efforts.

Trying your best to keep Moses law is not what God wants.

He wants you to walk with Him, and fellowship with Him, and be at rest and at peace and cease from your own labors.

He loves you, and desire's for you to seek Him.

Seek Him, not spend all your time trying to do the best you can to keep Moses Law.

Spend your time making a prayer room, and spend time worshiping God, and seeking God and praising God.

Praying in your prayer language and interceding for your lost friends and relatives, and tell the Holy Spirit you are available to obey Him and be led by Him.

Watch what happens.


JLB

 

[TOG]

wanted to obey God to the best of my ability.

That would be the shifting sand of religion, which began at Babylon, whereby men tried to get to God by the own best efforts.

So, obeying God is "the shifting sand of religion, which began at Babylon"? I don't care what you say. I want to obey God. If you don't want to obey Him, then we have nothing to talk about.

The TOG
​

 

[reba]

Seems to me God knew what He was doing when He knocked Saul to the ground.. Saul was very knowledgeable of the Torah or the OT, The books of Moses, the laws the 10 the ceremonial laws..... how ever one wants to acknowledge them... That knowledge seems to have been important to God.. He could have chosen anyone, He did choose anyone and that one was fully immersed in the law.

 

[JLB]

wanted to obey God to the best of my ability.

That would be the shifting sand of religion, which began at Babylon, whereby men tried to get to God by the own best efforts.

So, obeying God is "the shifting sand of religion, which began at Babylon"? I don't care what you say. I want to obey God. If you don't want to obey Him, then we have nothing to talk about.

The TOG
​

Trying to keep the Law of Moses the best you can, is what I was referring to.

Religion is mans best efforts to get to God.


JLB