The Church is it Israel?

[wavy]

No one is advocating committing adultery, getting divorced, or committing sin.

I explained why we are not under the law of Moses.

Sure you did. :P

There are moral aspects to the Law and there are ceremonial which were the types and shadows fulfilled in Christ.

I disagree with this, tim. There is nothing in scripture indicating such distinctions.

There's a literal seveth-day Sabath and there's the spirit of sabbath rest in Christ.

Tim, could you direct me towards the scripture that tells us of this "spirit of sabbath rest in Christ"?

 

[bibleberean]

Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

 

[wavy]

Repetition won't make what you think true, bibleberean. I have a quick question:

If you are not "under the law of Moses" and you are not under the old covenant then what are you under?

What covenant and what law?

 

[tim-from-pa]

There's a literal seveth-day Sabath and there's the spirit of sabbath rest in Christ.

Tim, could you direct me towards the scripture that tells us of this "spirit of sabbath rest in Christ"?

Those are my words based on a deduction of Hebrews 4. There is a sabbath rest for the people of God. What was he talking about there? The subject was about faith. And where do we direct that faith?

AS for ceremonial v.s. moral law, if there is no distinction, then you have to keep circumcision, all the feasts--- but not only the feasts--- but the sacrifices as well. These, in turn, have to be in the time and place God appointed.

The alternative is that the bible says Christ is our Passover, then that is the fulfillment of Passover and we do not have to literally go thru that ceremony the way its literally spelled out in the Bible. It's OK to observe and discern the meaning of it. On the other hand, a command such as "thou shalt not kill" is a literal, moral and non-symbolic law. It means just that. It is not a law such as a Holy Day to prophecy the coming of Christ, or circumcision that was an outward sign (and symbolic) of a covenant, and so forth. On these latter examples, that's what I meant by the "spirit" of such---- i.e., an outward motion or sign of some (hidden) truth later to be revealed.

 

[tim-from-pa]

I think Wavy is right that this thread got off topic.

Before anyone out there thinks that that I am a "holy roller" or one of these Law guys, remember I'm the guy on the other thread who drank a few rum and cokes the other night while looking at Jayne Mansfield pictures (I even drove to Pen Argyl today to fix the decorations on her grave). I don't sound too much like a Moses personality.

I'm merely analyzing this whole Law v.s. grace from what I believe is the biblical viewpoint. Yes, the Law is God's righteous standard. And no, one does not have the ability to keep it (we ought to try by God's works) and doing so will not add to righteousness and not doing it will not bring a curse if one is in Christ (although it may bring on consequences). That seems to be the crux of "justification by faith" to me. Again, it's whose works are we depending on? Faith in our own works by using the Law as a standard, or letting Christ (by faith) work thru us, and by extension will emulate the nature of the Law? No need to make it more complicated than it is.

 

[wavy]

Those are my words based on a deduction of Hebrews 4. There is a sabbath rest for the people of God. What was he talking about there? The subject was about faith.

Yes, you are speaking of Hebrews 4:9. However, the word for "rest" here (sabbatismos, meaning "sabbath keeping") is distinguished from all other times the word "rest" is used in this chapter and the previous chapter.

None of the other words are related to the sabbath. I'm not saying you are wrong and that I am right, however, I believe that the future rest for the people of Yahweh (Israel) is foreshadowed and witnessed by our weekly sabbath keeping (Colossians 2:16-17).

That's why he says [insert the words of Hebrews 4:9].

But yes, if we wan't to enter that rest, we should believe instead of being unbelieving, like some of the children of Israel in the wilderness. What didn't they acheive? Entering the promsed land, and because of this they died in the wilderness. In our sojourn, we should not be as they were, but believe until we get to that future rest (again, witnessed by our weekly sabbath keeping).

AS for ceremonial v.s. moral law, if there is no distinction, then you have to keep circumcision, all the feasts--- but not only the feasts--- but the sacrifices as well. These, in turn, have to be in the time and place God appointed.

I think you have a false dilemma here. Sacrifices cannot be made because there is no temple. Yahweh destroyed it for that very purpose.

This has no effect upon and does not divide the Torah into aspects of "moral" and "ceremonial". All Torah is moral. Why?

Because it all hangs on one thing, and I believe we both know what that is.

The alternative is that the bible says Christ is our Passover, then that is the fulfillment of Passover and we do not have to literally go thru that ceremony the way its literally spelled out in the Bible.

He is our Passover. In context, however, Paul wasn't saying that in the context of "don't keep Passover because Messiah replaces it". He said "let us keep the feast".

He also mentioned Shavuot (and since Shavuot is after Passover, this is evidence that it was the time of Passover when he wrote that to the Corinthians; this means they must have been observing the feast).

On the other hand, a command such as "thou shalt not kill" is a literal, moral and non-symbolic law. It means just that. It is not a law such as a Holy Day to prophecy the coming of Christ, or circumcision that was an outward sign (and symbolic) of a covenant, and so forth. On these latter examples, that's what I meant by the "spirit" of such---- i.e., an outward motion or sign of some (hidden) truth later to be revealed.

Well, circumcision, for example, was always type/shadow of the "moral" principle. To have a circumcised heart and spirit was not something that was "new" after Messiah came (Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6).

 

[tim-from-pa]

Wavy:

I'm not sure if we really are disagreeing here. From what you are saying on the last post it sounds like what I believe, but I must be coming across wrong. Sometimes a person with the gift of gab like myself can get others lost in the details so that I am not clear enough. Happens all the time with my wife misunderstanding me--- and then I later ask what the fuss was about. :

 

[wavy]

Yeah, I have a problem misunderstanding people too.