[mfblume]

...continued

and often we think that means to fulfill the types and shadows so that The Law is no longer binding. But that understanding makes no sense in context at all.

Sure it does! Read carefully:

Matthew 5:17-18 KJV Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (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.

If He came to fulfill law, and jots or tittles are passed when ALL IS FULFILLED, then jots or tittles passed! Tie together the reference to law PASSING in verse 18 with Jesus saying He came to fulfill law. There's only one conclusions. If Law "passes" when ALL IS FULFILLED, and Jesus FULFILLED all of Law, then Law is "PASSED".

The Greek word translated "fulfill" is pleroo, which according to Strong's 4137 does not mean to "finish", but to "make full". In other words, Messiah did not come to "empty" The Law, but he came to "fill up The Law", to make It MORE meaningful. Indeed, one could go on and on.

To make fiull is the same thing as to FINISH. It DOES mean to finish.

G4137
πληρόω
plēroō
play-ro'-o
From G4134; to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.: - accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.

With so much support for a continued binding Law, and there is much, much more, why should we think that Passages like Galatians 3-4 or 2 Corinthians has to only mean that The Law with It's Commandments (The Law of Moses) has been done away with?

I showed where you took verses out of context and implied that if a verse says Law is good it must mean still in effect. Not true.

So, read Gal 3 through 4 and see how days and months and years are referring to Old Covenant holy time periods.

We already know that according to the Prophecies, the very Law we say is done away with now, WILL be enforced over the nations in The Kingdom Age to come.

No. There is no additional kingdom age to come. TODAY is the Kingdom age. Rom 14:17.

Something to think about. And Romans 10:4, so often used as the clinch-pin to prove the abrogation of The Law, actually teaches the opposite. "For Christ is the END of The Law for righteousness to every one that believeth." But the Greek word translated "end" there is telos, which CAN mean "termination", but more often actually means "goal", "end-goal", "perfection", "aim" (Strong's 5056). So that the meaning of this verse is saying that Messiah himself is the AIM of The Law to make righteousness possible for every one that believes. Now, doesn't that interpretation agree more harmoniously with Matthew 5:17; Ezekiel 36:27; and Jeremiah 31:33?

What that means is that Law is over when Christ comes, according to Gal 3 where we read law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ and we are no longer under a schoolmaster when Christ comes.

Galatians 3:23-25 KJV But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. (24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

It could not be more plain.

We are Apostolic people. Theologically, we already adhere to a doctrine that insists upon an interpretation of New Testament Faith from the perspective of "Lordship Salvation". We are not afraid to insist to people that there ARE Commandments in The Bible we MUST keep if our faith is to be a true and LIVING faith. We are accused of "legalism" all of the time. Why should it be something shocking if we as Apostolics also insist that ALL of The Commandments of God are for His People?

It is because you abrogate the teachings of Gal 3-4, and more. It is classic legalism to demand law keeping today. And by Law, Paul never meant a distorted version as lawkeepers suggest, for Lev 18:5 is not a distortion of Law.

Why should we be squeamish to take our place as the champions of WHOLE BIBLE FAITH, including Holiness Standards, clean living, sexual purity, tithing, water baptism in the exclusive name of our Messiah, abstention from intoxications, and yes, the one and only Bible Sabbath, and even His Revealed Feasts.

Because Gal 4:10-11 says no to feasts and sabbaths.

Our theology at its core is ready-made to be the home of Full-Bible obedience in faith. We say "Full Gospel", but really it's not truly a "Full Gospel" until our Gospel includes the "Full Bible".

Now simply concerning the Sabbath issue, it shouldn't be an argument with us. The Passages are clear.

Gal 3-4 is certainly clear and teaches us not to keep them.

Our own theology virtually insists upon it. Many Apostolics since 1914 have come to see the place of The Sabbath in Apostolic Theology with no difficult hermeneutical acrobatics.

Sorry, but it is rife with acrobatics to bypass clear teaching in Gal on the issue. The same Law that is noted in Lev 18:5 is called bondage in Gal 4:3 and 5:1.

There are whole Apostolic fellowships which include among their beliefs in things like the exclusive Redemptive Name also a belief in the Bible Sabbath. But yet the majority of us Apostolics are satisfied in letting the Adventists have it.

No, the BIBLE teaches against New Testament day sabbath-keeping.

Personally, I think that shouldn't be. So I lean toward a position that says, Hey Apostolics. Let's re-examine this Sabbath question.

Any way. It is awesome that we can call ourselves Apostolic. We are a truly blessed people. Let us continue to press on in his name to the High Calling.

Peace.

Amen, Apostolic faith is awesome!