JEWS!

[Revelationist]

John 5:46
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
KJV

Was Jesus right? Did they believe Moses? Just answer the question please...

[Rev]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Why do you avoid Christ's words? Wow. lol. Always games.

I am not interested in yours and French's argument. I'm sure he will more than answer your questions. Don't know or care what you had posted previously. I challenged one of Revers statements. That is what I have been answering. But you have already answered the question he keeps running from.

"Everyone knows they look for Messiah still." MB statement

And the reason they are still looking for the coming of Messiah is the Old Testament!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Rev

I am not interested in yours and French's argument. I'm sure he will more than answer your questions. Don't know or care what you had posted previously. I challenged one of Revers statements. That is what I have been answering. But you have already answered the question he keeps running from.

"Everyone knows they look for Messiah still." MB statement

And the reason they are still looking for the coming of Messiah is the Old Testament!

I answered your question to me, now you answer mine. What did Jesus say and why? You could have answered by now with all these posts you made.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Who said we were? The fact remains that JEW is a religious term and people can and have turned away from the true meanings, just as gentiles think JEW is a race. But the fact remains that the term is a covenantal term. And we cannot go by what people have distorted terms into, but what they actually mean, since God is involved here. What is God's view of it all? After all, we are talking about Jews who get saved by God's salvation.

It's not about "we" though.

There is a very good and real reason why the First century Jews, including Paul, kept the law and why they had the Gentiles keep some of it. It was not about salvation. I don't see how in anyway it still does not apply. It was not about salvation. It was about winning the Lost to Christ. It was about a new found revelation of the ceremony of the law and how they pointed to Christ. Many believing Jews today keep the Ceder for that reason, because they see Christ in it. They don't keep it because they think it will save them

I know. But you overlook what I said. I said that their culture IS their religion. That is so whether they distrted its tenets or not.

You seemed to be arguing their religion has nothing to do with their culture...so now it seems like you were more in agreement with me. Their religion has become a very strong component of their over all Jewish identity and culture. Whether they all agree with that or not. It seems to be the case in the bible and it seems to be the case today and for that reason I think a believing Jew should keep the law still SO they can keep reaching unbelieving Jews who otherwise might be like unbelieving Jews in Pauls day and say "He teaches us to forsake Moses" and put a stumbling block in their paths before they ever come to Christ.

The website was JUDAIC. Judaists know what these things actually refer to, whether cultural distortions of these things occurred or not. But I am still trying to understand your angle here. Bear with me.

I KNOW it was JUDAIC. I never said it was not. It's NOT about whether there is a cultural distorition. Its NOT about being right or wrong. It's about fact. For many Jews their religion has become TO THEM a part of WHO they are nationally and "racially"...like many South Americans and Roman Catholicism. It has become a part of their culture. So just like believing Jews did in the bible and Paul, in order to reach the unbelieving Jews, they should keep that Jewishness so the unbelieving Jews do not stumble before ever coming to christ. As I said over and over it's not about salvation. It's not about eschatology. It's not about whether it's right or not for them to distort anything or for not jews to distort anything. It is ALL about believing Jews remaining in a place to be witnesses to non believing Jews

I think I see the difference between our thoughts. I am speaking of actualities and God's perspective, since we are talking about what GOD thinks jewish converts should or should not do. You are taking it from the angle of people's erring perspectives, and how we should work with them. Ultimately, God's will is that we seek to win all. And God does not desire anyone to retain shadows in rituals once He has given the Body. Is it wrong to use them in order to reach Jews? No. Paul did! But we are discussing the idea of whether or not people should CONTINUE in these shadows once saved. Some here claim that they SHOULD due to cultural retention. I claim that is refusing, intentionally or not, to look at things from God's perspectives concerning covenants.

I am looking at it from this angle and this angle only.....when a missionary goes into a new country they need to be careful NOT to insult the cultural/traditional sensibilities while trying to win them to the Lord. They are trained and taught such things before going over. Same with believing Jews. They should keep their jewishness that they had before so they can WIN the souls of Lost Jews. Such ceremonies like the Ceder is a great way to teach Christ to unbelieving Jews too. Many believing Jews have a new and profound respect for the Holy Days that were under the Old Covenant because they have a revelation of Christ now. And I think it's fine to keep those days for that purpose, but I think they SHOULD keep those days and other customs for the sole purpose of reaching other non believing Jews.

I always agreed with you about this. So why do you refute me when I say they should not do it for personal needs due to their culture, aside from reaching other Jews? I agree every time you say it should be done to win other jews. Are you implying you agree they should due so aside from desire to win jews, as though they had personal needs as former jews? that is what it sounds like, since I have agreed with you every time concerning using law to win souls.

I have no idea what you mean by personal needs.

I said they SHOULD keep the law and I said why and some have questioned me over that and I explained it. My only next point is I think they CAN keep the law...in particular the customs and Holy Days if they want as long as they don't see it as a salvational thing. Im not going to take any believing Jew to task over that :-)

I do not think that is what Paul meant in speaking that statement to Timothy. Paul only meant that if one was under law, one should not use it foolishly with genealogies and fables, as the context states, and instead use it as it was designed to be used... as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Jews who rejected Christ obviously had not used Law lawfully. That is the context, I think.

Well without Christ the world is in essence "under the law"....by that I mean the law convicts and points to Christ.

1Ti 1:8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
1Ti 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,
1Ti 1:10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
1Ti 1:11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

The law was added to reveal sin


Gal 3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.
Gal 3:20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
Gal 3:21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.
Gal 3:22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Gal 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.
Gal 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

JFB says of "added"
added--to the original covenant of promise. This is not inconsistent with Gal_3:15, "No man addeth thereto"; for there the kind of addition meant, and therefore denied, is one that would add new conditions, inconsistent with the grace of the covenant of promise. The law, though misunderstood by the Judaizers as doing so, was really added for a different purpose, namely, "because of (or as the Greek, 'for the sake of') the transgressions," that is, to bring out into clearer view the transgressions of it (Rom_7:7-9); to make men more fully conscious of their "sins," by being perceived as transgressions of the law, and so to make them long for the promised Saviour. This accords with Gal_3:23-24; Rom_4:15. The meaning can hardly be "to check transgressions," for the law rather stimulates the corrupt heart to disobey it (Rom_5:20; Rom_7:13).

TheWayoftheMaster beautifully uses the 10 commandments to reveal the sinful condition of man's heart in order to lead them to Christ. So in preaching the law the intent or point is not to teach "you can be saved by this", but rather "all have sinned and come short of the glory to God". The NT church still "used" the law...in fact they used the Law and the Prophets...when they referred to Scripture the only ones they had at this time was the OT. That is what I am saying

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I have no idea what you mean by personal needs.

I mean for any NEED for themselves, as though God wants them to keep law, aside from anything to do with using law as a tool to reach Jews that they might be saved. I refer to ANYTHING other than using law to win souls. Manofword felt Jews should continue to keep those rituals due to retaining their culture, aside from using law to win Jews. You claimed law was only used to win Jews. I agreed with you and disagreed with Manofword.

I said they SHOULD keep the law and I said why and some have questioned me over that and I explained it. My only next point is I think they CAN keep the law...in particular the customs and Holy Days if they want as long as they don't see it as a salvational thing. Im not going to take any believing Jew to task over that :-)

So you DO think there are reasons for converted Jews to keep law aside from using it to reach lost Jews?

Well without Christ the world is in essence "under the law"....by that I mean the law convicts and points to Christ.

Agreed.

1Ti 1:8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
1Ti 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,
1Ti 1:10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
1Ti 1:11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

The law was added to reveal sin


Gal 3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.
Gal 3:20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
Gal 3:21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.
Gal 3:22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Gal 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.
Gal 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

JFB says of "added"
added--to the original covenant of promise. This is not inconsistent with Gal_3:15, "No man addeth thereto"; for there the kind of addition meant, and therefore denied, is one that would add new conditions, inconsistent with the grace of the covenant of promise. The law, though misunderstood by the Judaizers as doing so, was really added for a different purpose, namely, "because of (or as the Greek, 'for the sake of') the transgressions," that is, to bring out into clearer view the transgressions of it (Rom_7:7-9); to make men more fully conscious of their "sins," by being perceived as transgressions of the law, and so to make them long for the promised Saviour. This accords with Gal_3:23-24; Rom_4:15. The meaning can hardly be "to check transgressions," for the law rather stimulates the corrupt heart to disobey it (Rom_5:20; Rom_7:13).

TheWayoftheMaster beautifully uses the 10 commandments to reveal the sinful condition of man's heart in order to lead them to Christ. So in preaching the law the intent or point is not to teach "you can be saved by this", but rather "all have sinned and come short of the glory to God".

Amen. That is what I said in essence.

The NT church still "used" the law...in fact they used the Law and the Prophets...when they referred to Scripture the only ones they had at this time was the OT. That is what I am saying

Again, what is your issue with me, though? Do you think law was used aside from use to reach unsaved Jews? Or was it for personal reasons such as retaining one's culture apart from reaching anyone else?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I mean for any NEED for themselves, as though God wants them to keep law, aside from anything to do with using law as a tool to reach Jews that they might be saved. I refer to ANYTHING other than using law to win souls. Manofword felt Jews should continue to keep those rituals due to retaining their culture, aside from using law to win Jews. You claimed law was only used to win Jews. I agreed with you and disagreed with Manofword.

I said specifically the do not need to keep the law. I said they should

So you DO think there are reasons for converted Jews to keep law aside from using it to reach lost Jews?

No. I said if THEY wanted to keep it because it is part of their identity then I would not condemn them for it

Again, what is your issue with me, though? Do you think law was used aside from use to reach unsaved Jews? Or was it for personal reasons such as retaining one's culture apart from reaching anyone else?

NO issue with you. The law was preached but aside from the Jews keeping it so as to win the lost there is no reason that I can see other than to keep or practice the Holy Days because it's interesting to some

[mfblume]

Thanks for your answers, Prax.

The danger I see in former Jews continuing rituals of Law in their Christianity is that it HAS led to demands for them to do so as time went on. I see no encouragement from the New Testament for anyone to do so other than to reach lost Jews. I only see words that lead to leaving such things.

Why would Paul be so against Gentiles keeping them if the Jews could do so?

I only mentioned about a possible issue with me since you continued to defend ritual keeping despite the fact that I agreed with you about doing it for reaching the lost. But you cleared that up.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Sept5SavedTeen

I'm not speaking of moral law, which we all have to keep. I'm talking about dietary law and the ceremonial law to an extent, obviously the ceremonial sacrifices are no longer necessary, but do the ceremonial laws concerning SPECIFIC obligations and commandments (mitzvots) such as keeping Shabbat or High Holy Days and other Holy Days ect. have to be kept. The NT mentions those who esteem some days and new moons and such. The Jews are told not to look down on us for not doing them, but should they be doing these things? Does GOD still have a covenant with this people?

GOD BLESS!
Bro. Alex

Most gentile christians today to not know the diffence. Soem think of the "law" as the ten commandments.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Thanks for your answers, Prax.

The danger I see in former Jews continuing rituals of Law in their Christianity is that it HAS led to demands for them to do so as time went on. I see no encouragement from the New Testament for anyone to do so other than to reach lost Jews. I only see words that lead to leaving such things.

Why would Paul be so against Gentiles keeping them if the Jews could do so?

I only mentioned about a possible issue with me since you continued to defend ritual keeping despite the fact that I agreed with you about doing it for reaching the lost. But you cleared that up.

He certainly was against Gentiles being MADE to keep any of the laws.

I have a br-in-law that likes to argue that no where in the bible, were Jews who become believers, were ever freed from their jewish roots or obeying their Jewish religeon.

What think ye??

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

He certainly was against Gentiles being MADE to keep any of the laws.

I have a br-in-law that likes to argue that no where in the bible, were Jews who become believers, were ever freed from their jewish roots or obeying their Jewish religeon.

What think ye??

Your BIL is correct. There is nothing in the NT that tells the Jews that they must not follow their Jewish traditions or cease from the following the law. But Paul told them that Jesus was the fulfillment of the law regarding sacrifices/atonement etc. There is no evidence whatsoever that Paul ceased from following his Jewish traditions. Gentiles, in Ac. 15 were basically told to keep the Noahic covenant which the Jews have believed are the basic requirements for heaven.

Jews do NOT believe that keeping the law gets them into heaven and never have. Certainly there have been those throughout history who have elevated the law to that level, but not by-an-large.