What is hebraism?

>>79
Essentially synonymous with "Judaising" here.

>>78

>Epistles of Paul: Judaising is a blasphemous slap to the face of Christ's sacrifice on the cross and should be abandoned.
>Literally says that those who still promote circumcision as a requirement might as well just go ahead and cut the whole thing off.

>Messianic Jews: *Gold medal mental gymnastics intensify*

/thread

>>85
Already addressed.
>While Paul may have came up with the term, it was to refer to people who viewed circumcision as necessary for salvation, i.e. they taught works based salvation based on the Old Covenant

>>90

No. He clearly wasn't just talking about circumcision and works based on ceremonial law. Acts 15 was specifically about only having the Gentiles obey enough of the ceremonial law to not offend the Jews around them who still clung to the law, in order to ease relations between them, as well as rebuke the Gentiles for their failings in the moral laws regarding sexual immorality. In Acts 16:3, Paul even circumcises Timothy in order to placate the Jews in that area, for the ultimate long term goal of Timothy's salvation. Acts, and other epistles of the New Testament have a clear theme of Jews still clinging on to the Mosaic Law, and going through a transition period where they have to unlearn old habits, and even end up sliding back into the Mosaic Law, for which Paul sternly rebukes them. The Council in Jerusalem was never meant to be a stepping stone for the Gentiles to become Gentiles who practice Mosaic Law, as Messianic Jews try to rationalize.

Within Galatians 5:2-3, Paul emphasizes that circumcision will cause Christ to cease being of any value, and then goes on to say that whoever goes through with circumcision is obligated to follow the whole law: portraying following the whole law in a negative light. The rest of chapter 5 is literally about the spiritual liberty from the law that comes through Christ.

Christ fulfilled the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic Law. That was literally the entire point of his existence on Earth. The New Testament is about moving beyond the Mosaic Law, not reinforcing Gentiles having to LARP as Bronze Age and Second Temple Israelites. Especially considering many of the more questionable practices of the Pharisees/Saducees/etc. were the fruit of Second Temple Judaism, as well as Mosaic legalism taken to it's logical conclusion (not to mention some practices that were clearly the product of intermingling Hellenism.)

Everything points to the Second Temple as something to leave behind. So much so that God literally sanctioned it's destruction in 70 AD. I think you should take the hint.

>>78
>The Mosaic law still applies as it's the ideal way that the Father wants us to live.

Galatians 3
24 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

The law = a tutor
we are no longer under a tutor

Why would you even want to coopt a term (judaizer) that is specifically condemned by the Bible?
What you're really after is theonomy. Read Rushdoony.

>>91
>Acts 15
I didn't even mention it. I'm talking about Paul's own epistles here, which we'll get into:
>Within Galatians 5:2-3, Paul emphasizes that circumcision will cause Christ to cease being of any value, and then goes on to say that whoever goes through with circumcision is obligated to follow the whole law: portraying following the whole law in a negative light
How ridiculous. Paul is saying in Galatians 5 that the Judaisers going through with circumcision there were looking to the Law as a form of salvation itself. Again, you're not saved by the Law, you're saved by Christ.
Meanwhile, in his Epistle to the Romans (which is otherwise all about salvation through faith in Christ) he specifically states that the Law isn't a yoke of slavery, it isn't bad.
<Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
<Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Also, in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (which supports Sola Scriptura), when Paul refers to Scripture, he isn't referring to the Gospels, because they weren't even all written down around the time he was writing. He's talking about the Old Testament!
>Christ fulfilled the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic Law. That was literally the entire point of his existence on Earth.
If he "fulfilled" the Law in that sense, then Paul wouldn't have continued observing it himself, he never would've said it's still holy and just.
>The New Testament is about moving beyond the Mosaic Law, not reinforcing Gentiles having to LARP as Bronze Age and Second Temple Israelites
No, it's about salvation which isn't through the Law, it's through faith alone via God's grace alone.
> Especially considering many of the more questionable practices of the Pharisees/Saducees/etc. were the fruit of Second Temple Judaism, as well as Mosaic legalism taken to it's logical conclusion (not to mention some practices that were clearly the product of intermingling Hellenism.)
Perhaps, but Pharisees and Sadducees aren't the only such groups during the Second Temple period.
>Everything points to the Second Temple as something to leave behind. So much so that God literally sanctioned it's destruction in 70 AD. I think you should take the hint.
It is something to leave behind as the true temple is now found within Christ. But the faith itself is something to keep.
And God sanctioned its destruction as a punishment for the jews.

>>93

<Meanwhile, in his Epistle to the Romans (which is otherwise all about salvation through faith in Christ) he specifically states that the Law isn't a yoke of slavery, it isn't bad.

>Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

><Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Eisegesis. Within the context of Romans 7, and other epistles by Paul, he describes the Law as a tutor, as >>92 highlighted. Paul calls the Law good, in that it was a teacher to point out man's sin. However, that's it. In the large scheme of things, it did nothing more. It could not change the heart of man; it could not make him righteous. Even with the Law, man sinned flagrantly. Some, like the Pharisees, were even using the Law as bragging rights, such as the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, when the Law was meant to show us just how unrighteous we are. If we were truly righteous, we would need no Law in the first place.

Romans 7, literally right before the verse you posted, points out this tragic aspect of the Law, and why it was woefully insufficient until Christ came. Even ironically at times inspiring the very sin it sought to point out and prevent because of the knowledge it revealed, combined with mankind's fallen nature and desire for the forbidden:

>Romans 7:7-11 - 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.

Further on down in Romans 7, Paul discusses the far superior Law of the Inward Man that is the product of the born again Christian, which still wars with the Law of the flesh:

>Romans 7:22 - For I delight in the law of God after the inward man

Once again, the Law served it's purpose, until Christ came and fulfilled it, so that we may be able to follow it through our changed nature via the sacrifice and grace of Christ, rather than legalism and Jewish ethnic tradition.

>>94
Again, this isn't saying this Law is a tutor that served its purpose, the Law was and is a tutor, for having a good life. We're just not saved by it, we're saved by Christ's atonement.
Salvation by faith alone doesn't mean you can avoid the Law. You shouldn't be an utter degenerate in any way.

>>101

>You shouldn't be an utter degenerate in any way.

Of course not. Paul even specifically covers this in 1 Corinthians 10:23-33. But you don't need to sacrifice animals, avoid pork and shellfish, limit your walking to so many miles on Saturday or else get stoned to death, etc. to be a Christian either. When Paul talks about freedom from the Law, he isn't talking about "Grace Gone Wild," but being free of legalistic Ceremonial Law, and being able to follow Moral Law through empowerment by the Holy Spirit. Once again, by admission of your original post, (if you're the same poster) you're essentially arguing for Messianic Judaism. And we're right back to this post: >>85

>>103
>But you don't need to sacrifice animals
First thing you bring up. Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 disagrees with you here. Paul literally tells the Corinthians to keep the Passover feast.
Animals for atonement however, that's something that now comes from Christ's atonement.
Either way, what we call "Ceremonial Law" was never abolished by the New Testament.

>>111

Yes we still celebrate Passover....as Easter (or Pascha if you're Orthodox.) In the context of the verse you cite, he's clearly using leaven as a metaphor for the Corinthians needing to spiritually and morally clean up their corrupted church at the time, as well as faith in Christ making said members 'unleavened' (i.e. spiritually clean.) Once again, the original Passover, with eating only unleavened bread for a straight week or else you suffer the penalty of being physically and spiritually cut off from the tribe permanently, is but a shadow and hint of what was to come in the New Covenant: spiritual cleanliness for humanity on a level beyond mere surface ritual.

>>114
Yes, it's both a metaphorical and a physical concept, as are many practices in the Law. So again, nothing hints to the New Covenant abolishing the sacrifice on Passover, and thus on Easter (which is by the way called Pascha everywhere except the Netherlands, Germany, and Anglo countries) we are to keep the Passover sacrifice.

>>111
What do you mean by "Ceremonial Law"?
If you mean days to worship Romans 14:5 gives liberty where OT had regulations on holidays.
If you mean eating habits that's done away with in Peter's vision (Acts 10).
>>173
>1 Cor 5
>8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
Hmm... Okay so for the feast we shouldn't use the Leaven of Malice and Wickedness (changes alignment to evil) but the Bread of Sincerity and Truth (+2 to charisma). Yep makes sense.
Only not really. It's a metaphore through and through. Concept of feast is introduced after metaphorical context of leaven has been established and tied with this morally enchanted breadstuff so I see nothing to suggest to take it literally. So Corinthians might've had these literal paschal feasts as form of worship but it's optional and it's not what Paul is talking about here.

>>173

>>>114 (you)
Yes, it's both a metaphorical and a physical concept, as are many practices in the Law. So again, nothing hints to the New Covenant abolishing the sacrifice on Passover,

Tell me truthfully: when was the last time you literally kept the fast of unleavened bread for an entire week? When was the last time that you are anyone else failed to keep this fast, and were thus physically and spiritually purged from your church/congregation/tribe/etc.? If you're pro Ceremonial Law, even after the New Covenant, that means you've got to keep it to a T. No shortcuts and hemming and hawwing.

>>174
>If you mean days to worship Romans 14:5 gives liberty where OT had regulations on holidays.
Out of context, it's specifically talking about days and fasting.
>If you mean eating habits that's done away with in Peter's vision (Acts 10).
Unclean might sound like the Levitical prohibitions of certain animals for meat, but you need to look into both Acts in Greek and into the Septuagint. ἀκάθαρτος is the word for "unclean" in the Septuagint, while κοινός is used in Acts, in Koine Greek. It simply means "common". Thus, this cannot be referring to overturning the Levitical food prohibitions!
>So Corinthians might've had these literal paschal feasts as form of worship but it's optional
Optional in what way?
>>178
>If you're pro Ceremonial Law, even after the New Covenant, that means you've got to keep it to a T. No shortcuts and hemming and hawwing.
Why are you making it sound like following the Ceremonial Law is some long chore?
Of course it's perfectly good to follow all of the commandments associated with the so-called Ceremonial Law.

>>174
And yes, κοινός is used in the Septuagint, but it's used for sharing things in common in Proverbs. Not once is it used with any consideration to unclean/prohibited meat.

>>181
>>182
>Unclean might sound like the Levitical prohibitions of certain animals for meat, but you need to look into both Acts in Greek and into the Septuagint. ἀκάθαρτος is the word for "unclean" in the Septuagint, while κοινός is used in Acts, in Koine Greek. It simply means "common". Thus, this cannot be referring to overturning the Levitical food prohibitions!
This is not a valid line of reasoning. The translation choice for the septuagint is not under inspiration by God just like any choice in English translation isn't.
The use of a different greek term in Acts 10 vs. Leviticus 11 or Deuteronomy 14 (LXX) is not necessarily indicative that they shouldn't be equated.

Besides, how do you even reconcile that view in context? The voice says "What God has cleansed no longer consider unholy". Why would it be saying "no longer" if not in reference to something that was previously verboten?

Furthermore, the testimony of Christian history is to view the dietary restrictions as tyoplogically related to the nations. At least one of the functions of restricting certain foods was a lesson regarding God's relation to ancient Israel in that age, then a change in the church age.

In any case, supposing your position was correct (which it isn't), you would have to argue that this is NOT judaising since judaising is explicitly forbidden by Paul.

>>183
>This is not a valid line of reasoning. The translation choice for the septuagint is not under inspiration by God just like any choice in English translation isn't.
>The use of a different greek term in Acts 10 vs. Leviticus 11 or Deuteronomy 14 (LXX) is not necessarily indicative that they shouldn't be equated.
What nonsense. It doesn't matter whether these translations are inspired or not. Paul and Luke both referenced the Septuagint when writing in Greek, and Luke wrote Acts. Thus we all know what Luke was talking about when he used "ακάθαρτον" (the word used for "unclean" in the Septuagint) and "κοινόν" (the word used for "common", yes the same as in Koine/common Greek).
>Why would it be saying "no longer" if not in reference to something that was previously verboten?
Again, Luke was writing in Greek. Thus the original phrase used is "συ μη" which isn't "no longer". Nevertheless, such a statement wasn't referring to dietary restrictions at all.
>In any case, supposing your position was correct (which it isn't), you would have to argue that this is NOT judaising since judaising is explicitly forbidden by Paul.
I agree, "judaising" isn't really a good term as Paul coined it as a rebuke against circumcisers in Galatia.

>>181
>Out of context, it's specifically talking about days and fasting.
It's not. There isn't even a mention of fast. Verses prior don't talk about fasting but what people think they can eat and Paul says it's a matter of faith.
>Koine Greek. It simply means "common". Thus, this cannot be referring to overturning the Levitical food prohibitions!
https://biblehub.com/greek/2839.htm
If you don't trust lexicons and dictionaries then let's examine Romans 14:14
"I have known, and am persuaded, in the Lord Jesus, that nothing [is] unclean of itself, except to him who is reckoning anything to be unclean — to that one [it is] unclean;"
Switch 'unclean' to 'common' and tell me it makes perfect sense. Why would your brother be grieved by you eating common food? I never knew early Christians were so posh.
Follow to verse 17 and you have it summed up nicely:
"for the reign of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit;"
>Optional in what way?
The very way it's talked about in Rom 14:5. It doesn't matter. Love and faith matter. Mate someone must've scared you into obedience to the letter of the Law but time after time you'll find it written in the scriptures that loving your neighbour fulfills the Law. You're turning from crux of the matter towards superficialities that at best might provide some flimsy placebo for your conscience and at worst will drive you to pride.

>>187
>Romans 14:14
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/romans/14.htm
Turns out that even the Apostolic polyglot doesn't translate "koinos" directly as unclean, but as "profane", even though it does translate to "unclean" in Acts 10. And moreover, on the Lexicon you linked, it explains the meaning well:
<koinós ("defiled because treated as common") is always used negatively, i.e. for what is profaned – except in Jude 1:3 where it refers to the gift of salvation shared (held in common) by all true believers.
Moreover, in Acts ἀκάθαρτος (literally the word used for "unclean" in the Septuagint for dietary restrictions) is literally used
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/acts/10.htm
<O lord, for at no time ate I anything common (κοινός) or unclean (ἀκάθαρτος)
But the verse that you say "overturns" the dietary laws specifically uses κοινός. Thus, it cannot be referring to the dietary laws.
>Switch 'unclean' to 'common' and tell me it makes perfect sense. Why would your brother be grieved by you eating common food? I never knew early Christians were so posh.
Again, look at the meaning of "common" in the Hebraistic sense, defined in the very lexicon that you linked:
<koinós ("defiled because treated as common") is always used negatively, i.e. for what is profaned – except in Jude 1:3 where it refers to the gift of salvation shared (held in common) by all true believers.
It's not referring to foods restricted by the Levitical dietary laws, but it's literally referring to DIRTY food. And to reiterate on this, read:
https://messianicpublications.com/robert-roy/a-hebraic-perspective-on-peters-vision-acts-10/

>>187
TL;DR, ἀκάθαρτος was the word used for unclean food in the Levitical dietary sense. κοινός or "common" was used literally for dirty food. Food that was made dirty via contact because it was referring to food that was
<defiled because treated as common
>The very way it's talked about in Rom 14:5. It doesn't matter. Love and faith matter. Mate someone must've scared you into obedience to the letter of the Law but time after time you'll find it written in the scriptures that loving your neighbour fulfills the Law. You're turning from crux of the matter towards superficialities that at best might provide some flimsy placebo for your conscience and at worst will drive you to pride.
The reason why the Law matters is because it's the way that God wants us to live, and never was this changed.
Jesus has died in place for OUR transgressions against God's commandment going back to Adam and Eve. But this doesn't mean that the Law doesn't matter anymore! As it is written:
>Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

>>187
>It's not. There isn't even a mention of fast. Verses prior don't talk about fasting but what people think they can eat and Paul says it's a matter of faith.
Then what else can this mean?
<He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks
Whether it's talking about fasting or eating, it has absolutely nothing to do with feast days.

>>181

>Why are you making it sound like following the Ceremonial Law is some long chore?
>Of course it's perfectly good to follow all of the commandments associated with the so-called Ceremonial Law.

Stop dodging the question and answer it: When. Have You. Actually Kept. The Feast Of Unleavened Bread. To The Point. Where Someone. In Your Religious Community. Got Physically And Spiritually Cast Out For Failing To Keep It?

Provide evidence.

If you yourself can't even keep the Ceremonial Law you are arguing for, your entire argument is a sad joke, or you're just a troll having his jollies.

>>194
I'm not a part of any "religious community". I gather at home.
So your entire question is useless. Yes, I follow the ceremonial Law, but nobody has been kicked out in my community for failing to fully keep it or specifically not keeping the feasts because I'm not part of any religious community.

>>190
For the record your argument was that it
>simply means "common". Thus, this cannot be referring to overturning the Levitical food prohibitions!
So I explained how it's not only "common". It has been used to mean 'defiled' and 'profane' which are synonymous to 'unclean' however not the exact word as levitically 'unclean'. Are 'unclean' spirits 'unclean' levitically if their 'unclean' is expressed with the same term? This does not disprove your point but it's important to realize this word was not wholly reserved for levitical 'unclean'.
Meanings are decided by instances of use. That's how linguists deduce what possible meanings in target language include in dictionaries and lexicons. Under Thayer's Greek Lexicon you have:
"by the Jews opposed to ἅγιος, ἡγιασμένος, καθαρός; hence unhallowed, Latinprofanus, levitically unclean"
That means it has been used in context of antonym for katharos i.e. it can be understood as akatharos if context justifies that.

>But the verse that you say "overturns" the dietary laws specifically uses κοινός. Thus, it cannot be referring to the dietary laws.
If it cannot then how is it said in response to 'koinos or akatharos' without making separation? This is logical problem. 'Or' is inclusive. Both have to do with a state of impurity and can very well mean the same thing but second word added as a synonym (synonyms don't have exactly the same meaning) for fuller meaning or clarity's sake and that sort of use is even more clearer in chapter 20 of Dialogue with Trypho (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01282.htm ctrl+f common or unclean). If koinos and akatharos are to be separate subjects the response is lacking because it only addresses one part of utterance. If the vision is entirely metaphorical and has nothing to do with diet only people and akatharos people are still akatharos how come, since Christ died for all? You can argue metaphorical intention, I might even weakly agree, but then koinos here is synonymous with akatharos and you have to reject what Paul wrote about koinos food.
>but it's literally referring to DIRTY food
Back to Romans 14:14. Moreover do you remember what cropped up time after time when dealing with uncleanliness? Literal washing. Even the article you've linked doesn't say that koinos is literally dirty and that's all there's to it.
"In fact, you will notice that the term “common” [koinos] is also used in Mark 7:1, referring to the disciples’ dirty hands, because it was believed that dirt defiled their hands, and that this defilement would transfer to the individual if a person ate or drank with dirty (common) hands. "

>>191
The 'dirty' question is explained above.

>The reason why the Law matters is because it's the way that God wants us to live, and never was this changed.
Uh huh what about Noah being able to eat every animal? What about the whole issue of the 10 Commandments getting shattered and followed by detailed Law added because of transgressions until the seed might come to which the promise hath been made (paraphrasing Gal 3:19)? Additional context Ezekiel 20:25 which you might not agree with but it's not pivotal to this discussion. Indeed God wishes us to live according to the Law but again agape fulfills the Law. Even the prophets cried of old "I desire mercy not sacrifice". What of Isaiah 1:11-17? That too is ceremonial law. God indeed does not change. You are missing the point gravely, you're following the letter and the letter of the Law is death.

>>197
So yes, you agree that koinos means "dirty" as in literally just dirty, not the Levitical sense, but argue that it's a synonym, and that "or" is inclusive. Yet why would it be "koinos" the one used for "unclean" and not "akatharos"?
>Back to Romans 14:14. Moreover do you remember what cropped up time after time when dealing with uncleanliness? Literal washing. Even the article you've linked doesn't say that koinos is literally dirty and that's all there's to it.
>"In fact, you will notice that the term “common” [koinos] is also used in Mark 7:1, referring to the disciples’ dirty hands, because it was believed that dirt defiled their hands, and that this defilement would transfer to the individual if a person ate or drank with dirty (common) hands. "
Yes, this just proves my point.
>Uh huh what about Noah being able to eat every animal?
Noah was never said to be able to eat any animal. Even if he was, this was before the Levitical Law was even instated.
>What about the whole issue of the 10 Commandments getting shattered and followed by detailed Law added because of transgressions until the seed might come to which the promise hath been made (paraphrasing Gal 3:19)?
What does the implementation of the Ceremonial Law have to do with the commandments being shattered?
>Ezekiel 20:25
In the original Hebrew refers to the decrees the Israelites made by rejecting God.
>Isaiah 1:11-17
This refers to the prideful Israelites that followed the "Law" while still sinning, it doesn't mean the Law is bad. See Proverbs 21:27.
>You are missing the point gravely, you're following the letter and the letter of the Law is death.
<Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

>>199
>So yes, you agree that koinos means "dirty" as in literally just dirty, not the Levitical sense
This is gonna make things very difficult if what I'm writing is not understandable for you. I don't know how to explain that's not what I wrote at all and I don't know how did you end up interpreting it like that.
Words have several meanings. Metaphorical use tends to grow from literal use. If you had a wet dream you were levitically unclean and you removed that uncleanness by washing (and maybe something else I don't remember now). Levitically there are several cases of physical contamination resulting in ritual uncleanness, those are very closely tied.
Now the situation the apostles were in while they were eating was that their hands were dirty. You can get that meaning from understanding the culture at that time, however it's not what's literally being said and more importantly it's not the significance. Even Mark 7:2 has to point out that the hand are koinos since they're unwashed. Why this was important to the Pharisees? Because their tradition held it as ritual uncleanness. Let's go to Mark 7:15, when Jesus explains what 'defiles' man he uses words coming from the root word koinos. Do you really think he talks about physical dirt? Hear ye, hear ye, Jesus says the dirt that's outside man cannot make dirty and it is only mans bodily excretions that can make him dirty! You can eat feces and smear them all over yourself and as long as it's not your feces you're clean as a whistle, let us rejoice!
MATE. Seriously, mate. I parabolised it as strikingly as I could cause I don't think anything tamer will do when you're so out there.

>Yes, this just proves my point.
I'm feeling like we're not both talking English to one another here.
>because it was believed that dirt defiled their hands
Common is literal, original meaning of the word. Defilement is the significance here, by further context - accusations from religious leaders - you arrive at defilement being ritual or moral. Physical dirtiness is the situation and reason for defilement and an information you can gain from cultural context. Because defilement is caused by physical dirt it is ritual not moral defilement. Later Jesus turns this around and explains that moral defilement, which is caused by evil proceeding from man, is what's of concern to God.

>Even if he was, this was before the Levitical Law was even instated.
But you say God wants men to live under Levitical Law and God does not change. Hmm.

>What does the implementation of the Ceremonial Law have to do with the commandments being shattered?
Original commandments were shattered by Moses because Israel rejected God by going after their idols. It wasn't God's original intent to have Israel under Levitical Law, it was added after the original because Israel turned away from him in the wilderness.
>In the original Hebrew refers to the decrees the Israelites made by rejecting God.
And every translator missed that. Possible but implausible and more importantly we don't have original Hebrew only Masoretic edits. For me the context is clear. It's not pivotal in this discussion.

>This refers to the prideful Israelites that followed the "Law" while still sinning, it doesn't mean the Law is bad. See Proverbs 21:27.
Plausible point but it's not all there's to it. Even through that verse from Proverbs if you don't stop at the letter but read the spirit you can tell that God requires proper moral conduct rather than rituals. It is foreshadowed here and then in NT it's one of the crucial points of Jesus teaching. If ritual was important God wouldn't not talk it down as he did in these fragments of Isaiah. He isn't saying "you're doing great with your rituals, keep it up, but you need to work on your morality". He's saing "Your new moons and your set seasons hath My soul hated, They have been upon me for a burden, I have been weary of bearing.". You're not making intellectual error by thinking that it's just God despising ritual with wrong morality but there is insinuation here that ritual itself

cont...
You're not making intellectual error by thinking that it's just God despising ritual with wrong morality but there is insinuation here that ritual itself is worthless and in NT ritual isn't reiterated, moral conduct is.

>Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid.
Paul is meandering hard when he talks about Law, so I get where these misconceptions that Law is good and holy and great and whatnot comes from but again you keep to the letter and ignore what doesn't suit you (like love fulfilling the Law, the spirit of the Law not the letter). If Law is perfect does it have lordship over man only until death? Why it's important that we're being freed from it by our death in Christ as talked in Romans 7 you've quoted? Who's authority do you fall under when you fail to keep the Law which you cannot possibly keep in your human condition? It is a very difficult subject. It's hard to argue against the moral tenets of the Law, especially those in 10 commandments and it's not that morality is wrong but Law is a trap.

One more thing concerning the Law I didn't mention. I'm afraid you'll think I'm preaching licentiousness here so maybe this will explain it better:
Matthew 5
21 `Ye heard that it was said to the ancients: Thou shalt not kill, and whoever may kill shall be in danger of the judgment;
22 but I -- I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Empty fellow! shall be in danger of the sanhedrim, and whoever may say, Rebel! shall be in danger of the gehenna of the fire.

You cannot live a life acceptable to God by following the letter of the Law.

>>200
>Words have several meanings. Metaphorical use tends to grow from literal use. If you had a wet dream you were levitically unclean and you removed that uncleanness by washing (and maybe something else I don't remember now). Levitically there are several cases of physical contamination resulting in ritual uncleanness, those are very closely tied.
>Now the situation the apostles were in while they were eating was that their hands were dirty. You can get that meaning from understanding the culture at that time, however it's not what's literally being said and more importantly it's not the significance. Even Mark 7:2 has to point out that the hand are koinos since they're unwashed. Why this was important to the Pharisees? Because their tradition held it as ritual uncleanness. Let's go to Mark 7:15, when Jesus explains what 'defiles' man he uses words coming from the root word koinos. Do you really think he talks about physical dirt? Hear ye, hear ye, Jesus says the dirt that's outside man cannot make dirty and it is only mans bodily excretions that can make him dirty! You can eat feces and smear them all over yourself and as long as it's not your feces you're clean as a whistle, let us rejoice!
>MATE. Seriously, mate. I parabolised it as strikingly as I could cause I don't think anything tamer will do when you're so out there.
>I'm feeling like we're not both talking English to one another here.
>Common is literal, original meaning of the word. Defilement is the significance here, by further context - accusations from religious leaders - you arrive at defilement being ritual or moral. Physical dirtiness is the situation and reason for defilement and an information you can gain from cultural context. Because defilement is caused by physical dirt it is ritual not moral defilement. Later Jesus turns this around and explains that moral defilement, which is caused by evil proceeding from man, is what's of concern to God.
Mate, I simply said that "defilement" via it being shared is what the word meant. I never denied that the concept is both metaphorical and literal. You're blabbering on about nothing relevant to my argument here.
>But you say God wants men to live under Levitical Law and God does not change. Hmm.
Okay, let me explain this for dummies. After the creation, man (in the image of God) was given dominion over the earth, and there was only one commandment, and that was not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Adam and Eve transgressed that commandment, and that's the original sin we all inherit today.
Fast forward until Abraham, the Covenant of Grace was made with him and his descendants, and later on, the Sinai Covenant was made with Moses. This is what gave the 10 commandments and the 603 other commandments, i.e. the Moral Law and the Ceremonial Law. Then there was the Royal Covenant with David, but that didn't introduce any new commandment.

>>200
With the coming of Christ, a New Covenant was made. Commonly people like you misunderstand it to mean that "agape fills the Law therefore the Law is dead and we can sin whatever we want just as we did before" however as detailed by Paul, the Law of Moses was never abolished. It's holy, and just, and good, and is the rightful way of "moral conduct".
This is why man in his fallen state should adhere to the Levitical Law. Done.
>Original commandments were shattered by Moses because Israel rejected God by going after their idols. It wasn't God's original intent to have Israel under Levitical Law, it was added after the original because Israel turned away from him in the wilderness.
What nonsense are you talking about. Yes, they rejected Jehovah by creating a graven image of him which was forbidden in the 10 commandments.
However, this has nothing to do with Levitical Law. There were already commandments given after the 10 commandments from Exodus 20 to 23, while the sin of the golden calf was in Exodus 32.
>And every translator missed that
Untrue.
<statutes that were not good: I delivered them into the hands of their temptation to stumble over their iniquity, and so did Jonathan render: And I delivered them into the hands of their foolish temptation, and they went and made decrees that were not good, and practices by which they cannot live.
This is from Rashi's commentary on Ezekiel, and he notes that Jonathan translated it as, I will repeat:
<And I delivered them into the hands of their foolish temptation, and they went and made decrees that were not good, and practices by which they cannot live.
So yes, "every translator missed that" is a foolish assumption, because you're wrong.
>Plausible point but it's not all there's to it. Even through that verse from Proverbs if you don't stop at the letter but read the spirit you can tell that God requires proper moral conduct rather than rituals. It is foreshadowed here and then in NT it's one of the crucial points of Jesus teaching. If ritual was important God wouldn't not talk it down as he did in these fragments of Isaiah. He isn't saying "you're doing great with your rituals, keep it up, but you need to work on your morality". He's saing "Your new moons and your set seasons hath My soul hated, They have been upon me for a burden, I have been weary of bearing.". You're not making intellectual error by thinking that it's just God despising ritual with wrong morality but there is insinuation here that ritual itself
>You're not making intellectual error by thinking that it's just God despising ritual with wrong morality but there is insinuation here that ritual itself is worthless and in NT ritual isn't reiterated, moral conduct is.
Exactly. God is saying that because these rituals were all being conducted in his name by the Israelites while they lack the moral conduct, that these rituals are thus an abomination unto him. Not because these observances are an abomination unto him per se, not because they're good, but they lack moral conduct.

>>200
>Paul is meandering hard when he talks about Law, so I get where these misconceptions that Law is good and holy and great and whatnot comes from but again you keep to the letter and ignore what doesn't suit you (like love fulfilling the Law, the spirit of the Law not the letter). If Law is perfect does it have lordship over man only until death? Why it's important that we're being freed from it by our death in Christ as talked in Romans 7 you've quoted? Who's authority do you fall under when you fail to keep the Law which you cannot possibly keep in your human condition? It is a very difficult subject. It's hard to argue against the moral tenets of the Law, especially those in 10 commandments and it's not that morality is wrong but Law is a trap.
You keep forgetting that the reason why we're "freed" from it is because the Law doesn't save us, only Christ does. You cannot get saved by following the Law and trying to avoid sin by your own works, but only through Jesus.
Moreover, Levitical Law is again, made for a fallen people, it's not an eternal Law. This is what Jesus meant in Matthew 5:18, that not an inch will pass from the Law until heaven and earth pass.
>22 but I -- I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Empty fellow! shall be in danger of the sanhedrim, and whoever may say, Rebel! shall be in danger of the gehenna of the fire.
Jesus isn't correcting the Law, he's correcting the bad, divisional interpretation of the Law that the Pharisees had. If you're correcting the theology of the Roman church, of course it doesn't mean that you're correcting Christianity as a whole.

>>204
>Mate, I simply said that "defilement" via it being shared is what the word meant. I never denied that the concept is both metaphorical and literal. You're blabbering on about nothing relevant to my argument here.
Listen, we're having some obvious problems with communication here. First you say koinos simply means 'common'. Semantic fields of 'common' in English and 'common' as used by Jews don't line up very well. Then you say I wrote koinos means literally DIRTY and that's what the article you've linked was saying which wasn't true either. Then you say I'm blabbering about something irrelevant when I'm trying to explain what I'm saying since you've given me all the reasons to suspect you're having problems understanding it.

>>205
>This is why man in his fallen state should adhere to the Levitical Law. Done.
Wow you actually hadn't explained anything and you don't even realize that. If Levitical Law is the way God wants man, tainted by sin, to live why wasn't it given to Noah and Abraham?
I think I recall Abraham being justified by something else, despite not following the Law, and that could be easily attributed to Noah too if it wasn't in scriptures.
>however as detailed by Paul, the Law of Moses was never abolished
And the same Paul also wrote Gal 3:19 and how we've died in Christ so we're not under the Law, and how kingdom of God is about righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. You'll maybe want to say that righteousness IS the act of keeping the Law but since the Law included dietary requirements this cannot be the case. Everything that's not done in faith is sin. Spirit of the Law needs to be fulfilled and it's fulfilled by agape.

>What nonsense are you talking about.
It's pointless to go into that until we get on the same page about the basics. It's not pivotal in this discussion. It could help you to understand what's going on but if that's not clear and I need to explain it then it's counterproductive now.

>Exactly.
Not exactly. Again you show you don't understand what I wrote. There's more to it, you might disagree and I don't think I can make you see what I see anyway so I'll just drop it. Maybe it'll crop up in your mind later in your life if you change your views.

>You keep forgetting that the reason why we're "freed" from it is because the Law doesn't save us
Oh there's more. It gives the power to death.
>You cannot get saved by following the Law and trying to avoid sin by your own works, but only through Jesus.
Then why do you seek to be bound by it?

"In the freedom, then, with which Christ did make you free — stand ye, and be not held fast again by a yoke of servitude;
lo, I Paul do say to you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; and I testify again to every man circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law; ye were freed from the Christ, ye who in law are declared righteous; from the grace ye fell away; for we by the Spirit, by faith, a hope of righteousness do wait for, for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith through love working."
You cannot in intellectual honesty advocate Levitical Law without rejecting Paul and mental gymnastics concerning Jesus' words.

>Jesus isn't correcting the Law, he's correcting the bad, divisional interpretation of the Law that the Pharisees had.
Huh?
"if your righteousness may not abound above that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye may not enter to the reign of the heavens"
And then he goes talking how 'thou shalt not kill' isn't enough and so on. He is effectively correcting the Law - giving examples of what spirit of the Law is. You can either live by what Jesus says or by what letter of the Law says.
It's tiring for me. If you again come up with something showing you don't understand what you're talking about or what I wrote this might be my last response. I understand in general why you think as you do. Scriptures aren't clear at all on many matters, if they were we wouldn't have so many denominations... but you have to ignore so m

cont...
Scriptures aren't clear at all on many matters, if they were we wouldn't have so many denominations... but you have to ignore so much to arrive to a conclusion that Christians are bound by Levitical Law it boggles me.
You say "Levitical Law is again, made for a fallen people", which I disagree with but I think I can make use of it, then this does not apply to you if you're in Christ. You're a saint of Christ. You are not legally fallen if you're saved, it's just your biology has to catch up and that'll have to wait till the resurrection.

>>212
>Listen, we're having some obvious problems with communication here. First you say koinos simply means 'common'. Semantic fields of 'common' in English and 'common' as used by Jews don't line up very well.
My original point of it meaning common was it being shared. This by definition is being literally dirty, and is according to the Biblical context, which I clarified afterwards. Then you argued that it also meant dirty in a metaphorical context, which I never denied. Again, you keep blabbering on to no avail.
>Wow you actually hadn't explained anything and you don't even realize that. If Levitical Law is the way God wants man, tainted by sin, to live why wasn't it given to Noah and Abraham?
>I think I recall Abraham being justified by something else, despite not following the Law, and that could be easily attributed to Noah too if it wasn't in scriptures.
Faith. They were justified by faith.
The Levitical Law was a law designed to govern a fallen people, for they kept falling away from faith. Abraham was once a polytheist, but he had faith in God via his grace, and he was righteous.
Now, the Levitical Law doesn't change with the New Covenant.
>And the same Paul also wrote Gal 3:19 and how we've died in Christ so we're not under the Law, and how kingdom of God is about righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. You'll maybe want to say that righteousness IS the act of keeping the Law but since the Law included dietary requirements this cannot be the case. Everything that's not done in faith is sin. Spirit of the Law needs to be fulfilled and it's fulfilled by agape.
Again, this is just as I said. Faith in Christ alone is what saves us, not the Law, and this is what Paul's talking about. We simply can't avoid sin by following the Law without faith, none of this is in disagreement.
>Not exactly. Again you show you don't understand what I wrote. There's more to it, you might disagree and I don't think I can make you see what I see anyway so I'll just drop it. Maybe it'll crop up in your mind later in your life if you change your views.
Yes, you said that the "ritual itself is worthless", but nothing else you say adds into this. Again:
<"you're doing great with your rituals, keep it up, but you need to work on your morality". He's saing "Your new moons and your set seasons hath My soul hated, They have been upon me for a burden, I have been weary of bearing.".
(1)

>>212
And then see the verse in Proverbs. It isn't in disagreement, these observances themselves aren't considered worthless, but they are considered worthless, even an abomination without moral conduct.
>Oh there's more. It gives the power to death.
Nonsense.
<Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
>Then why do you seek to be bound by it?
Again, because it's the Law that God wants his people to live, and it hasn't changed with the New Covenant. But it isn't eternal, it's a Law designed to govern a fallen people like us.
Faith is what saves us, and we can't work our way up to heaven because
>lo, I Paul do say to you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; and I testify again to every man circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law; ye were freed from the Christ, ye who in law are declared righteous; from the grace ye fell away; for we by the Spirit, by faith, a hope of righteousness do wait for, for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith through love working."
Again, this is talking about faith alone being what justifies you, not following the Law. It isn't saying however that the Law is bad.
Moreover, circumcision was added to the Covenant of Grace to confirm the promise made to Abraham. The Judaisers that Paul refers to considered such a practice mandatory, and this is what Paul is rebuking. And moreover, the practice itself is never removed (see Timothy) and the
>"if your righteousness may not abound above that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye may not enter to the reign of the heavens"
Has nothing to do with what I said. I'm saying that he's CORRECTING the Pharisees. I.e., this prideful idea that you can justify yourself by following the Law to the word. This includes what he said on the sermon of the mount, like committing adultery by the heart, etc., it's a condemnation of what the Pharisees believed the Law was.
>And then he goes talking how 'thou shalt not kill' isn't enough and so on. He is effectively correcting the Law - giving examples of what spirit of the Law is. You can either live by what Jesus says or by what letter of the Law says.
What nonsense. What Jesus meant on the sermon of the mount was to keep the Law in the heart, which includes not lusting upon women at all, not calling for any such murder at all, etc., not the literal interpretation that the Pharisees had and boasted about.
This is what the "Spirit of the Law" you talk of is, it is NOT a rejection of the Law, not one bit.
>>213
>You say "Levitical Law is again, made for a fallen people", which I disagree with
Disagree with that, you disagree with Paul. 1 Timothy 1:8-10.
<But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
<Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
<For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
It is completely made for the fallen man.
>this does not apply to you if you're in Christ. You're a saint of Christ. You are not legally fallen if you're saved, it's just your biology has to catch up and that'll have to wait till the resurrection.
Perhaps, but this is still the fallen world we live in now. We're not resurrected, we are still a fallen people who are saved by Christ.
(2)

>>216
>Faith is what saves us, and we can't work our way up to heaven because
Because Christ's atonement alone is our salvation. However, this doesn't change that the Levitical Law is the way to live a sinless life.

>>217
>to live a sinless life
Same anon, just to clarify, this does not mean we can literally live a sinless life by following the Levitical Law and believing in Christ. Of course not, we still have the original sin.
But it's the Levitical Law that was created to avoid sin.

>>215
>Again, you keep blabbering on to no avail.
Unfortunately apparently I am since you again show you don't understand what I wrote.

I'll skim the parts you're not showing any sings of getting and focus on few that might go through.
>Abraham was once a polytheist, but he had faith in God via his grace, and he was righteous.
Hmm... It's like despite being fallen man he didn't need the Law after all.
>Nonsense.
1 Corinthians 15:56
>it's a condemnation of what the Pharisees believed the Law was
It's what the Law is. It's what was written and what Jesus quoted before issuing corrections. Nothing what Jesus talked about in these corrections was within the Levitical Law. Addition is a form of correction and if you read further you also have removals and substitutions. We have laws against murder today too, ask a lawyer if Jesus' interpretation is legally sound.
>This is what the "Spirit of the Law" you talk of is, it is NOT a rejection of the Law, not one bit.
It effectively is rejection of what was written and substitution with the Law of Love. If you love your neighbour so much you won't even say a word that might hurt him emotionally you're not going to kill him. You either live under the Law of Moses which doesn't satisfy God and causes you to fall under a curse from which you've been delivered by Jesus Christ or you live in the Spirit under the Law of Love. Your choice.
>you disagree with Paul
I disagree with what you've said. If it was for fallen man it would've been given to Adam right away and that's subtly different from what Paul writes about.
>we are still a fallen people who are saved by Christ
Are you saved or are you fallen? Your flesh may yet sin but you've died to flesh and you live in Christ through faith.

And the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned,
from which certain, having swerved, did turn aside to vain discourse,
willing to be teachers of law, not understanding either the things they say, nor concerning what they asseverate,

>>224
I feel I need to explain what is this subtle difference, if not for you then for others that might read.
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient,
The Law is not a way for man to live. It is a basis for accusation. Satan is not in the wrong, at least legally, for accusing sinners for their sins or he wouldn't have been allowed to do that before God day and night. So is with the Law but it is a legal trap and Jesus is the only way out. Who in their right mind gets released out of a snare only to go back and get trapped again?

>>224
>Hmm... It's like despite being fallen man he didn't need the Law after all.
Yet it was given to the Israelites. People that worshipped their Lord who brought them out of Egypt, yet didn't know what to do (hence the calf worship, and even that was after parts of the Ceremonial Law was already revealed to Moses).
So saying it was given to a fallen people isn't really the correct term here, but it was given to a people who constantly sinned, even when trying to display faith. This is why it wasn't given to Noah or Abraham right away, since they were righteous men. So what you say later isn't wrong:
<I disagree with what you've said. If it was for fallen man it would've been given to Adam right away and that's subtly different from what Paul writes about.
>1 Corinthians 15:56
Out of context. The Law is what executes upon us the judgement of God, because sins are transgressions of the Law by definition, as it's the commandment of God. Paul goes over this more clearly in Romans 7:7-9. So no, the Law isn't sin.
>It's what the Law is. It's what was written and what Jesus quoted before issuing corrections. Nothing what Jesus talked about in these corrections was within the Levitical Law. Addition is a form of correction and if you read further you also have removals and substitutions.
You don't understand. What the Pharisees did was literally interpret the law and enforce it, but keep it only to its word. As long as you don't execute such behaviours, then it's fine. This is what Jesus is correcting, the Pharisaic interpretation.
Since it's literal, you take this as Jesus correcting the Law, but you need to understand that this wasn't Law that the Israelites and the prophets had followed before. Keep in mind that "love thy neighbour" is literally a part of the Law (Leviticus 19:18)
<Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
>Are you saved or are you fallen? Your flesh may yet sin but you've died to flesh and you live in Christ through faith.
How have we "died to flesh"? We are still flesh, and we are still sinners, all of us.
>>225
>The Law is not a way for man to live. It is a basis for accusation
What nonsense. It is technically a basis for accusation, sure since people can accuse others for sin, but it IS a way to live. Just because Satan quotes from it as an accuser, doesn't mean that we shouldn't follow it. At this point, you might as well outright say that the Law is bad.
>Who in their right mind gets released out of a snare only to go back and get trapped again?
Because following the Law isn't what traps you.

>>226
>How have we "died to flesh"? We are still flesh, and we are still sinners, all of us.
Note that I'm saying this because that if you say that we "died to flesh", then you'll have to resort to metaphysics, which aren't Biblical. We are fleshly beings, and we still sin, but we're saved by Christ's atonement. This does not mean that we have went through some metaphysical rebirth, this means that Jesus's atonement has paid the price for our transgressions, and by faith, we have gained salvation.

>>195

So either:

a) You're finding a creative way to continue to dodge the question, especially in light of the fact that God's Word specifically commands us to become part of the Body of Christ (i.e. a Church/Congregation)

or

b) You're literally just LARPing as a supposed lone follower of Ceremonial Law, which I seriously doubt. Once again, you NEED to be part of community of believers. If what you saw is true, you are literally no better than a garden variety Neo LARPagan practicing their "faith" by themselves. Even original Paganism was contingent on being part of a community, and having Elders of some sort to enforce laws and ceremony.

You can't just practice Messianic Judaism by yourself and make up stuff as you see fit, as you go along.

>>232
>a) You're finding a creative way to continue to dodge the question, especially in light of the fact that God's Word specifically commands us to become part of the Body of Christ (i.e. a Church/Congregation)
The Body of Christ is the Church Invisible, thus all Christians are immediately a part of it. Whether you're in Europe, America, or Timbuktu you're still a part of the Church. Even if you happen to be the only Christian.
Individual church authorities or communities are not required.
>Once again, you NEED to be part of community of believers. If what you saw is true, you are literally no better than a garden variety Neo LARPagan practicing their "faith" by themselves. Even original Paganism was contingent on being part of a community, and having Elders of some sort to enforce laws and ceremony.
Yet where I live, there literally is no large community that I can be a part of that can enforce the Law. Thus in any way nobody has been kicked out or punished for transgressing the Law.
Again, see above. You don't need an authority to be a Christian, you don't need an authority to even live a Hebraist life. And as for
>If what you saw is true, you are literally no better than a garden variety Neo LARPagan practicing their "faith" by themselves
This is an appeal to ridicule fallacy and again, following the Law isn't contingent on having an authority or community.
For example, take Tobias in the book of Tobit. There was no community or priesthood to enforce the Law, even among the Israelites themselves since they were polytheists. Yet he still followed the Law.

>>234
The word church primarily refers to the local congregation. Ekklesia is translated directly as "assembly".

>Hebrews 10:23-25 NASB — Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

The Bible instructs you to physically assemble with fellow believers in the local church.
Christianity is a corporate religion.

>>234

>Yet where I live, there literally is no large community that I can be a part of that can enforce the Law.

Where do such communities exist then? Is there such a community that enforces the fast of unleavened bread to the strictest letter, while following Christ, that you can point out?

>take Tobias in the book of Tobit

The Apocrypha is collectively a historical, geographical, chronological and theological train wreck that dilutes the inerrant and infallible books of the Bible. Tobit is one of the worst offenders of them all. Just the first four verses are a dumpster fire in terms of determining which period the piece takes place in, and includes weird "drive demons away through witchcraft" tomfoolery, such as burning parts of fish to drive Asmodeus away. It honestly reads more like a Grimm's fairy tale than an inspired book of the Bible. Professional Biblical scholars are in such unison over the fact the Tobit, and other books of the Apocrypha, are historically dubious and obviously made up, they've begun to question legitimate books like Ruth.

Literally the only reason why they're in Catholic and Orthodox "Bibles" is a combination of wanting to stick it to the Protestants out of spite during the Reformation, and because they can only cite some of their more unbiblical doctrines in their "Bibles" by including these books: written during a period without prophetic divine inspiration, and, at best, treated as respected bonus material and tradition by the Jews themselves. Not divinely inspired authority.

As for "not needing authority." Are you a prophet or an anointed one of God, like Elijah, or Nehemiah, and thus operate under the direct supervision of God himself? Or are you just some random Joe Schmo? If you're the latter (which you are) you need a pastor and church assembly to guide you. Period.

>>226
>but it was given to a people who constantly sinned, even when trying to display faith
Where do you even get that from? It wasn't given to people before the flood whose imaginations were constantly evil. If you sinned just a bit you still were obliged to keep the whole Law back in Israel, you weren't released from it.
>This is why it wasn't given to Noah or Abraham right away, since they were righteous men.
All have sinned. All have come short. None is righteous, not even one. Justified is somewhat different than righteous.
>Out of context.
You've failed to explain how is it out of context. You are attacking an argument that Levitical Law is sinful which has not been made.
>This is what Jesus is correcting, the Pharisaic interpretation.
This is what's written in the Law. He's not correcting rabbinical teachings that were not found in Torah. He is correcting Mosaic Law. He is giving wildly different interpretations than what is meant - spirit of the Law. He outright stops legally required judgement on an adulterous woman. There's no allowance for that in the Law. Love thy neighbour, but hate thy enemy, that is the Law and it is blatant contradiction of Jesus' teachings.
>How have we "died to flesh"? We are still flesh, and we are still sinners, all of us.
Things like this make me wonder if you've read the whole New Testament or just went through verses here and there that justified 'judaizer' position in some theological thesis.
Galatians 2:20, Galatians 5:24 and there is more like Romans 6:11-12 but you might want to argue that death to sin is something different. Babtism is ritual death and rebirth also. By accepting Christ you legally die.
You were justified in Jesus Christ. Not justified so you can go back to doing the Law, there were ways to remove your transgressions in the Law already. The Law has been fulfilled. You cannot fulfill it any more than it already is.
>but it IS a way to live
You are running in circles. The Levitical Law appeared only in a certain nation in a certain period of time. If the Law is a way to live God made it impossible for everyone before it had appeared to live a life acceptable to Him but we know that in every nation he who is fearing Him, and is working righteousness, is acceptable to Him and we know that Abraham was justified by Faith. Not the one who does the Law! You cannot do the Law without the temple so 'righteousness' cannot mean 'works of the Law'. Not 'a temple' THE temple, the building in Jerusalem. The Law is not required by God of you and even if you were to keep every precept of the Law it is not sufficient for God or Jesus would not have redefined it in so many instances.
>Because following the Law isn't what traps you.
Oh it does.
Cursed is every one who is not remaining in all things that have been written in the Book of the Law -- to do them. Jesus Christ did it all perfectly so you don't have to and you're saying 'thanks, now I'll do it myself'. You are given the most beautiful mansion by your Father, one you could never afford, and rather than live in it you try to build a shed of your own saying say "since I have a place to lie down I can build my own house". This is not what it appears to you as but this is what you're doing if not outright rejecting Jesus.

>>241
>If you're the latter (which you are) you need a pastor and church assembly to guide you. Period.
Not him but unless I'm missing something that's not the case. We are to be led by Holy Spirit not by pastors and congregations.

>>235
Sure, but what he was talking about was the Body of Christ, which isn't a single assembly.
And the assembly itself isn't a brick and mortar building. It's any instance of two or more gathering together.
>>241
>Where do such communities exist then? Is there such a community that enforces the fast of unleavened bread to the strictest letter, while following Christ, that you can point out?
Literally search up "Hebrew Roots congregation" and you'll get a plethora of results.
>The Apocrypha is collectively a historical, geographical, chronological and theological train wreck that dilutes the inerrant and infallible books of the Bible
I'm not saying that Apocrypha are divinely inspired or canonical, dummy. Of course they're not. However, they are important historically, and give heed to what the Israelites practiced, which is why I'm using it as an example.
>If you're the latter (which you are) you need a pastor and church assembly to guide you. Period.
Again, whether you're in Norway, Sweden, China, or Timbuktu, you're still a part of the Church Invisible. You don't need some fat "pastor" or assembly to tell you what to do.
>>243
>It wasn't given to people before the flood whose imaginations were constantly evil
Literally an entirely different example. They were incredibly evil people who weren't guided by God at all, and in the end they were all wiped out. The Israelites weren't like them at all.
Something people often don't take into account is that there was an entire gap between Cain's death (the last thing that God commanded) and Noah's life. In-between that was the entire Antediluvian period. Ancient Israel (where the Law was enforced) wasn't so, God always intervened, until after Malachi.
>All have sinned. All have come short. None is righteous, not even one. Justified is somewhat different than righteous.
Of course. However, there's a Biblical definition of "righteous" applied to justified people like Abraham, and that's what I use here.
>You've failed to explain how is it out of context
<The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
Literally right after that, I explained why it is out of context.
>You are attacking an argument that Levitical Law is sinful which has not been made
Maybe I shouldn't have said "the Law isn't sin" after my argument there. Either way, Paul goes over this more clearly in Romans 7:7:9.
>This is what's written in the Law. He's not correcting rabbinical teachings that were not found in Torah. He is correcting Mosaic Law.
The Pharisees believed in a literal interpretation of the Law that was to be enforced, which would again mean "thou shalt not murder" is all you need to follow, or "thou shalt not commit adultery" means as long as you don't actually commit adultery, you're fine. You're saying that because he's attacking this literal interpretation, that the Law was a literal interpretation, and so Jesus is correcting the Law.
Again, just because he appears to be correcting the letter of the Law, doesn't mean he's correcting the Law itself! Jesus is saying that we must apply the principles behind the letter to the Law.
>He outright stops legally required judgement on an adulterous woman
Ah yes, this argument for the 8000th time. The Pharisees brought Jesus the woman, and ASKED HIM how to stone her. This is because if he said to stone her, he would be accountable for murder to the Romans, and because he said not to stone her, that he would break the Law. So he said that the first stone should be cast by the sinless Pharisee, and then later confronted the woman and told her to sin no more (and oh look, he's telling her not to sin i.e. NOT TO TRANSGRESS THE LAW).
In the end, it's Jesus's own atonement that paid for both the sins of the Pharisees and the adulterous woman, just like how animal sacrifices worked before.

>>244
>Love thy neighbour, but hate thy enemy, that is the Law and it is blatant contradiction of Jesus' teachings.
Sure, that's what Jesus was correcting. However, the actual passage in Leviticus was:
<Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself
"Hate thy enemy" is nowhere. So he could only he correcting a certain teaching, and it isn't the Law itself.
Gal 2:20 etc. doesn't literally mean "crucified with Christ", even in the original Greek that Paul wrote in.
>Babtism is ritual death and rebirth also. By accepting Christ you legally die.
You think that "death to sin" is literally "cleansing your sins"?
>Not justified so you can go back to doing the Law, there were ways to remove your transgressions in the Law already
Like animal sacrifice. Jesus filled this gap for all of us.
>The Law has been fulfilled. You cannot fulfill it any more than it already is.
So is that not what Paul did in the purification in the temple (after the crucifixion) or told the Corinthians to keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread?
>The Levitical Law appeared only in a certain nation in a certain period of time
Sure, maybe not literally for a thousand years.
>If the Law is a way to live God made it impossible for everyone before it had appeared to live a life acceptable to Him but we know that in every nation he who is fearing Him, and is working righteousness, is acceptable to Him and we know that Abraham was justified by Faith. Not the one who does the Law!
Again, this is talking about justification, of course you're justified by faith alone. This has nothing to do with the Law being a way to live or not.
>You cannot do the Law without the temple
You can't do the Law without the temple. Nevermind the literal 500 years between Moses and the construction of Solomon's temple.
So Moses and his people, Joshua, the judges, even David couldn't follow the Law according to your logic here.
>Cursed is every one who is not remaining in all things that have been written in the Book of the Law -- to do them. Jesus Christ did it all perfectly so you don't have to and you're saying 'thanks, now I'll do it myself'. You are given the most beautiful mansion by your Father, one you could never afford, and rather than live in it you try to build a shed of your own saying say "since I have a place to lie down I can build my own house". This is not what it appears to you as but this is what you're doing if not outright rejecting Jesus.
You're saved by faith alone. Paul attacked the Judaisers because they claimed that the Law saves you. The Law doesn't save you, you're saved by faith alone. Just because the Law doesn't save you, doesn't mean that the Law is a curse, Romans 7:12. And this should be the last time I have to say this in this thread

>>248

Man, you guys are long winded.

Everything is TL;DR

>>244

The scriptures still point to the necessity of spiritual leaders (ala pastors and deacons) and not just winging it on your own.

>>247

>Literally search up "Hebrew Roots congregation" and you'll get a plethora of results.

<Looks it up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Roots

*Cringe* So.... basically, in the same way there are reconstructionist pagans/heathens, there are also reconstructionist Judaism practitioners... who are also basically the Judaizers that Paul warned us about.

About the only thing I agree with is that studying early Jewish culture, as well as the early 1st, 2nd, 3rd century, etc. church is good and edifying. Everything else is pure LARPing, and I pray that you wake up from this heresy.

And once again, you can stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la, I can't hear you!" all you want, but scripture is clear about the need for spiritual leadership and community, and not just doing whatever by yourself and your own knowledge.

>>266
>who are also basically the Judaizers that Paul warned us about.
The reason why Paul warned us of them is that the Judaisers put circumcision as a necessity among nations like the Galatians, they believed in works based salvation.
And you should actually look up congregations/communities, not the wikipedia page for whatever you want to see.

>>248
>However, the actual passage in Leviticus was:
How curiously you ignore "thy people". This only encompasses people of Israel. Same as with usury, that's why Jews became infamous for it among the gentiles.
>"Hate thy enemy" is nowhere.
Take it to JC, his words. Matthew 5:43
>You think that "death to sin" is literally "cleansing your sins"?
I don't know where does that come into play and I don't trust your use of word 'literally' anymore... Still apparently it is looking at Romans 6:7.
>Jesus filled this gap for all of us.
And fulfilled requirements of the Law once and for all. This is what is not getting to you even though you say 'faith alone'.
>purification in the temple (after the crucifixion)
sauce
>or told the Corinthians to keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread?
This has already been explained. Leaven is a metaphor for corruption. You cannot get it wrong if you read entire paragraph. Unless you show me the relic called Bread of Sincerity and Truth you cannot opt for "it's metaphorical AND literal".
>Nevermind the literal 500 years between Moses and the construction of Solomon's temple.
I should've said tabernacle, that's what inside the temple and what the entire ritual of the Law is build around. So technically you're right in pointing it out but you're missing the important bit.
>doesn't mean that the Law is a curse
Only if you can do it all perfectly which you can't. Jesus did not come so you could have unlimited chances at the Law arcade. He gave you a 100% complete save state so you can enjoy the good ending. If you do the Law you're starting new game, overwriting the save.

>>287
Matthew 5:43-45 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 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; 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."

>>287
>Jesus fulfilled all of the law thus we don't need to follow it.
Matthew 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."
Has heaven and earth passed?

>>287
>How curiously you ignore "thy people". This only encompasses people of Israel. Same as with usury, that's why Jews became infamous for it among the gentiles.
It's almost like the Mosaic Covenant applied to the people of Moses, and that the New Covenant applies to all Christians.
>Take it to JC, his words. Matthew 5:43
I'm talking about the Old Testament. Love thy neighbour comes from Leviticus 19, but the line "hate thine enemy" is nowhere to be found in the entire Old Testament. It's specifically a certain teaching.
>And fulfilled requirements of the Law once and for all. This is what is not getting to you even though you say 'faith alone'.
See: >>290
>sauce
Acts 21:26. This is a huge issue that has caused massive mental gymnastics among people who don't follow the Law, such as "Paul just did so to appease the Pharisees", because it's clearly Paul taking part in the purification ritual in the 2nd temple AFTER he became a Christian.
>Only if you can do it all perfectly which you can't. Jesus did not come so you could have unlimited chances at the Law arcade. He gave you a 100% complete save state so you can enjoy the good ending. If you do the Law you're starting new game, overwriting the save.
Just because we're saved, it doesn't mean that sin isn't a problem anymore. Only after Judgement Day when Eden is restored and when the people of eternal life inherit it, does this come to be.

>>287
One cannot follow the Law perfectly except Christ, but we best follow it as greatly as we can.
<Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

>>290
Go one verse back and Jesus mentions "Law and the Prophets" so Old Testament. Not all prophecies have been fulfilled as of now and even Law is supposed to be a shadow of future world so a prophecy - like Sabbath and reign of Christ 1000 years like a day.

Then death remains in the world. The Law still gives power to death. It still serves as a basis for accusation; Satan can still ask "has it not been written?". Everything of the old world will perish, Law included. And you are already dead, but you are children of a new world born again in Christ Jesus. You are heirs of this new world already through faith and as heirs you are under the Law of new world - the Law of Love taught by Jesus. None shall harm nor destroy in God's holy mountain. Stoning a rebellious son shall not be suffered to pass then and so it's not for you either.

>>315
>Go one verse back and Jesus mentions "Law and the Prophets" so Old Testament
Yes, exactly. Law and the Prophets, the books. Jesus said that he came NOT to abolish them, but to fulfill. And as you know, heaven and earth haven't passed yet, not all has been fulfilled.
Therefore, not one jot will come out of the Law until all prophecies will be fulfilled.
>Then death remains in the world. The Law still gives power to death. It still serves as a basis for accusation; Satan can still ask "has it not been written?". Everything of the old world will perish, Law included
I'm not disagreeing with you here. The Law does serve as a basis for accusation (though Satan tempts, and doesn't allow the truth to get through), and it won't apply in the New Kingdom of Christ.
Where you're wrong is that we're heirs of the new world, and thus we shouldn't follow the Law anymore. Again:
<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.
Till all be fulfilled. Not all prophecies foretold in the Law and the Prophets have been fulfilled yet, thus we're still under the Law, and thus we're not living under the laws of a new world, spiritually.

>>293
>It's almost like the Mosaic Covenant applied to the people of Moses,(...)
It's almost like you've lost the track of the conversation. Neighbour in the Law is a fellow Hebrew since 'thy people'. Neighbour in Jesus' teaching is your fellow human being, not just your fellow Christian.
>but the line "hate thine enemy" is nowhere to be found in the entire Old Testament.
It is a summary of the message of the Law, not a direct citation.
>Acts 21:26
Interesting, I didn't remember that. And yet in verse prior you read those who advised Paul to perform the rituals say
"'And concerning those of the nations who have believed, we have written, having given judgment, that they observe no such thing, except to keep themselves both from idol-sacrifices, and blood, and a strangled thing, and whoredom.' "
And if Levitical Law was taught by Jesus then gentile is less of a Christian than Hebrew here.
And while it might seem like mental acrobatics what Paul did there does fit 1 Corinthians 9:20
"and I became to the Jews as a Jew, that Jews I might gain; to those under law as under law, that those under law I might gain;"

>Just because we're saved, it doesn't mean that sin isn't a problem anymore.
When Paul wrote about it he made separation between body and internal man. Your body will die (or will be transformed if you live through to see Jesus' return) your internal man is saved already. Dynamics of wrongdoing is entirely different than back under the Law. How you lead your life is not without importance but if you've built on a foundation of Jesus you are saved -> 1 Corinthians 3:15. But you need to understand - you don't build with works of the Law but with labour of Love. Law is a different foundation.

>>316
>the Law and the Prophets have been fulfilled yet, thus we're still under the Law
Are Christians the only people alive now? Go back to "law is not made for a righteous man". Law still has a function, some of which I've described, but it does not concern you as a Christian in terms of adherence to it. Jesus has you covered.

>>316
>Where you're wrong is that we're heirs of the new world, and thus we shouldn't follow the Law anymore.
We should always follow the law, even into eternity. That’s because the law represents God’s character. It is not an arbitrary thing, the laws of God are innately good and reflect not only the divine character but also the created order. This is why men died even when there was no law, because creation itself testifies to the law, and so men even in ignorance sin against God willingly.
>we're still under the Law
Then we are still in our sin and there is no life in us. Have you sinned? Does the law not promise death for sin? Then by your own admission you deserve not to live with Christ, from whom all life is derived, but to die like a criminal.
>we're not living under the laws of a new world, spiritually.
You are contradicting the entire New Testament. Do you dismiss the New Testament? If so, what revelation do you bring forward? Or is this a religion of your own design?

>>321
>We should always follow the law, even into eternity. (...) the laws of God are innately good and reflect not only the divine character but also the created order.
Jesus corrected and added to the Law multiple times. Paul spoke how you are bound by the Law only until you die and how it is not for a righteous man. Moses broke the initial 10 commandments thrashing them against the ground when he saw Hebrews worship golden calf and only then this entire legalistic insanity was added because of transgression as "statutes not good, And judgments by which they do not live" (Ezekiel 20:25).
Spirit of the Law is wildly different than the letter and we follow the spirit.

>>324
>Jesus corrected and added to the Law
Marcionism.
>Paul spoke how you are bound by the Law only until you die and how it is not for a righteous man
Yes, we are not bound to the law, because we have died in Christ, and that has nothing to do with what I said.
>Moses broke the initial 10 commandments thrashing them against the ground when he saw Hebrews worship golden calf
So you think this somehow means there was something wrong with those commandments? Even though what angered him was a violation of those very commandments, and the tablets were replaced?
>Spirit of the Law is wildly different than the letter and we follow the spirit.
I don’t know why you think this is contradictory to me, it seems less consistent with what you said

>>317
>It's almost like you've lost the track of the conversation. Neighbour in the Law is a fellow Hebrew since 'thy people'.
Probably because it's the Old Covenant. Thy people were immediately Law-observant Hebrews.
>Neighbour in Jesus' teaching is your fellow human being, not just your fellow Christian.
Nonsense. Jesus clearly states who your "neighbour" is in Luke 10:25-37.
>It is a summary of the message of the Law, not a direct citation.
A message of the tribalistic interpretation the Pharisees were engaged in. Following the Law to the word, but not to its Spirit.
>"'And concerning those of the nations who have believed, we have written, having given judgment, that they observe no such thing, except to keep themselves both from idol-sacrifices, and blood, and a strangled thing, and whoredom.' "
They weren't allowed to enter the Second Temple, and as such they were practicing Christianity themselves among their own people, thus they didn't practice such rituals.
>And while it might seem like mental acrobatics what Paul did there does fit 1 Corinthians 9:20
Perhaps, though Paul as a Benjaminite and former Pharisee willingly observed the Law as he did before instead of just practice it to gain the jews as followers.
>When Paul wrote about it he made separation between body and internal man. Your body will die (or will be transformed if you live through to see Jesus' return) your internal man is saved already
What then is the internal man? Is it not your bodily heart?
>>318
This is where things get sloppy. Just because we're saved by Christ's atonement, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't follow the Law. Until all is fulfilled, we should follow the model to live a good life, we are not to follow iniquity as saved people.