Two Laws - Moral & Ceremonial

[clefty]

I did not ignore it, since here I am posting.
And I agree with the scripture you quoted.

Because Clete was responding to my saying "There are the 10C - which are timeless", I presume Clete thinks Col 2:14 somehow nullifies the 10C.

Col 2:13
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Col 2:14
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

What was nailed to the cross apart from Jesus?
His charges, viz. "King of the Jews".
But Jesus died for us. He had no charges. All of our sins were laid upon Him, and that was added to "king of the jews".

It was customary to nail to the cross the charges for which they were being crucified.
This is what is referred to as "the handwriting of ordinances". This handwritten ordinance was what Pilate argued with the Priests over. The father added all our sins to that ordinance.

And this makes sense because it says "having forgiven you all trespasses;" before saying "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross".

So what was nailed to the cross with Jesus.
ALL OUR SINS. Nothing to do with the 10C. Our sin charge sheet was nailed to the cross.

All our trespasses or sins, which were contrary to us, because they condemned us to death, were nailed to the cross and blotted out.

Again this makes perfect sense since the cross has everything to do with removal of sins, nothing to do with removal of law.

But nice to hear from you again Clete

Nicely done...and by you...

Passover is NOT a sin offering and the lambs were killed and eaten BEFORE the passing over of the Wrath...obviously a faith meal...and out of gratitude

We are grateful and obedient is why we will be passed over by what was done for us...not a sin offering to remove sin...

They didn’t even know the Law at this point...

 

[Jacob]

I'm not asking anything and I'm not giving my opinion. How can anyone who knows a scintilla about the Jewish Law, doubt that circumcision is work of the flesh? What could possibly be more of a work of the flesh that removing some flesh from your body! There is also no doubt that the Jewish Law dealt with situations when ceremonial laws conflicted with each other. There's nothing I've said that anyone can doubt or even disagree with.

You do this sort of stupidity every time I interact with you. What are you even doing here?



Look, you know what, I don't care. Just believe whatever you want. I'm out.

Don't bother responding, I won't read it.

Shalom.

Today is Chamishi, 10-24. It is Yom, Day. Boker, Morning.

What you said is your response. It is not a Jewish response. You have expressed one of the failures that people have in thinking about circumcision and the flesh. In other words, what is a work of the flesh?

That you would not desire to see this response is not something I hold you accountable for, but it does keep you from understanding the truth of my words. You continue to live in error, and now you do so without knowing that this is the decision that you have made.

Shalom.

Jacob

 

[Clete]

Calm down. I thought it was obvious.

Think about a third party coercing you to do something.
"Rob that bank, or I will kill you (or a hostage)"
"Murder Alex, or I will kill you"
"Hand over Alex, or we will kill everybody in your city"

I knew this was the sort of thing you'd bring up. There is no law against being coerced. It is the one doing the coercion that is responsible for the immoral act, not the coerced.

at what point do you say "I won't do it"?

There is no point! Not if I'm being coerced! There is no coerced action that the person being coerced is morally responsible for.

A woman in childbirth. It is going very badly, and the only way to save her is to kill the child. What do you do? (this seems far-fetched today, at least in places with decent medical care- but it wasn't in the past, and I suspect is still an issue in poor parts of the world.

Actually, no, it isn't and never has been. Such instances are so rare that they're hardly worth bringing up. But the solution is to save the baby if possible, including at the expense of the mother's life. Giving your life for your child is not an immoral act. Killing a baby to save yourself is. If the baby cannot be saved then there is no fault on anyone's part.

Or a very simple one: steal food to save a starving child's life.

This is closest you've come but there is no conflict between two moral laws. Being hungry is simply an understandable motive for theft but it does not excuse it.

Proverbs 6:30 People do not despise a thief
If he steals to satisfy himself when he is starving.
31 Yet when he is found, he must restore sevenfold;
He may have to give up all the substance of his house.​

I'm sure you can think of many examples yourself.

No, actually, I can't. Moral laws do not conflict with each other.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

See #17

I see it. You're ignoring it. Everyone but you can see it.

No, I won't debate it with you. I won't ever debate anything with you ever again. You're an entrenched idiot who's been duped into some cult by some moronic guru. There's no point in having any discussion with you at all.

I'll point out your errors and let everyone watch you scramble to rationalize away all the parts of the bible that you don't like. That's it.

 

[Clete]

Shalom.

Today is Chamishi, 10-24. It is Yom, Day. Boker, Morning.

What you said is your response. It is not a Jewish response. You have expressed one of the failures that people have in thinking about circumcision and the flesh. In other words, what is a work of the flesh?

That you would not desire to see this response is not something I hold you accountable for, but it does keep you from understanding the truth of my words. You continue to live in error, and now you do so without knowing that this is the decision that you have made.

Shalom.

Jacob

Fine! I'll live in error so long as I don't have to interact with you.

 

[Jacob]

Fine! I'll live in error so long as I don't have to interact with you.

Shalom.

It has been a pleasure talking with you. Go in peace. I have nothing against you.

May you be blessed and experience God's peace, His shalom, and the peace of God in Jesus Christ His Only Begotten Son.

May God's commandments be forever yours. May God's truth and the truth of and about God and His Son be yours as well.

It is good that you have read my post. I did not know that you would.

I accept the TaNaK and Matthew through Revelation.

I have shared Genesis 1:1 with people in the past.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

May you love the LORD (Yahveh, from YHVH that is Yod Hey Vav Hey (or Yud Hei Vav Hei) יהוה) your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might, and your neighbor as yourself.

Shalom.

Jacob

 

[chair]

I knew this was the sort of thing you'd bring up. There is no law against being coerced. It is the one doing the coercion that is responsible for the immoral act, not the coerced.


There is no point! Not if I'm being coerced! There is no coerced action that the person being coerced is morally responsible for.


Actually, no, it isn't and never has been. Such instances are so rare that they're hardly worth bringing up. But the solution is to save the baby if possible, including at the expense of the mother's life. Giving your life for your child is not an immoral act. Killing a baby to save yourself is. If the baby cannot be saved then there is no fault on anyone's part.


This is closest you've come but there is no conflict between two moral laws. Being hungry is simply an understandable motive for theft but it does not excuse it.

Proverbs 6:30 People do not despise a thief
If he steals to satisfy himself when he is starving.
31 Yet when he is found, he must restore sevenfold;
He may have to give up all the substance of his house.​

No, actually, I can't. Moral laws do not conflict with each other.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Well, oddly enough, these types of issues have been dealt with by the Rabbis over the generations. They did not see these issues as simply as you do. For example: There are a handful of acts which one must not do, even at the cost of your life. Murder is an example. The case of a woman in childbirth has also come up.

Think about this again. There are many well-known moral dilemmas. A quick internet search will bring these up. Here are a few sites, so you can skip the step of challenging me to provide examples:

https://thoughtcatalog.com/lenna-so...ral-dilemmas-that-will-really-make-you-think/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tracyclayt...eak-your-brain?utm_term=.mnPmxdNGq#.njRvmpJ72

http://www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm

 

[clefty]

I want everyone to watch Vowels here ignore the bible....

Colossians 2: 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.​

How can it be more clear?...we were dead because of our debt and uncircumcision but He made us alive with Him forgiving all our debt. He wipe away the debt which was the bill...not the Law...its like getting a traffic ticket cancelled...not the traffic law itself...

The Law was written not by human hand but in the handwriting of humans who kept tab of the debt...the Law was written by the finger of Yah...and was not against us...

how does something go from “do this and live” and “your law is my delight” to something contrary to us?

DO this and live was the understanding for centuries and now you think it is against us and contrary...there were curses for not doing the commandments it is true...and rules and regulations to cleanse and purify and such...

HOWEVER MAN ADDED TO THESE...further complicating the walk of faith required by Yah Himself with man made demands...Paul addresses these immediately

“...Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.”

Did you catch that? ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENTS AND DOCTRINES OF MEN...NOT YAH

All of these were done away with...not what was prescribed by Yah Himself to assist His children to live more abundantly...

The Law was not abolished or nailed to the cross but remains...for some of us still a delight...



Paul was clear about this writing the Laws “ARE a shadow of things to come”...

Note the tense...it is present tense because the Law remains a shadow pointing to the good to come...

Let no one judge you but the body of Christ...

http://www.cogwriter.com/news/churc...sons-more-do-not-keep-the-biblical-holy-days/

There...so feel free to never use this text again in a weak attempt to force it to say something it doesnt say...as if the Law was abolished...

Peter warned a certain type would attempt to do that with Paul’s writings...dont be that type...

 

[Clete]

Well, oddly enough, these types of issues have been dealt with by the Rabbis over the generations. They did not see these issues as simply as you do. For example: There are a handful of acts which one must not do, even at the cost of your life. Murder is an example. The case of a woman in childbirth has also come up.

Think about this again. There are many well-known moral dilemmas. A quick internet search will bring these up. Here are a few sites, so you can skip the step of challenging me to provide examples:

https://thoughtcatalog.com/lenna-so...ral-dilemmas-that-will-really-make-you-think/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tracyclayt...eak-your-brain?utm_term=.mnPmxdNGq#.njRvmpJ72

http://www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm

So, I directly refute your counter-examples and you want to appeal to the fact that whole groups of people have made the same error and want to pile on more examples.

I don't get it. I mean I really just don't get why people cannot allow the simplest of reason to persuade their mind?

"You should never commit murder even at the cost of your own life." That's just the dumbest thing! You do commit murder at the cost of your own life!

Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.​

But that doesn't hold if a person is coerced! Again, there is no law against being coerced. You are not guilty of anything if someone coerces you! It the person doing the coercion that is guilty. You cannot be coerced into committing murder. You can be coerced into killing someone but you've not committed murder, the person who coerced you has.

Now, the situation could be complicated depending on the force of the coercion. Say, for example, the threat was monetary in nature and there was no other life at stake. In such a case it would be better to be robbed than to take someone's life. In that case, if you chose to kill, you could be culpable for a crime, depending on the specifics (like what that money was for) but once again, no conflict exists between two moral laws because it isn't you doing either the murder or the theft. You are a victim in either case, it's just a matter of your own choice between some amount of money and a person's life. To the extent you have that choice to make, to that extent you are not being coerced and are thus responsible for that decision.

Care to try again?

 

[chair]

So, I directly refute your counter-examples and you want to appeal to the fact that whole groups of people have made the same error and want to pile on more examples.

I don't get it. I mean I really just don't get why people cannot allow the simplest of reason to persuade their mind?

"You should never commit murder even at the cost of your own life." That's just the dumbest thing! You do commit murder at the cost of your own life!

Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.​

But that doesn't hold if a person is coerced! Again, there is no law against being coerced. You are not guilty of anything if someone coerces you! It the person doing the coercion that is guilty. You cannot be coerced into committing murder. You can be coerced into killing someone but you've not committed murder, the person who coerced you has.

Now, the situation could be complicated depending on the force of the coercion. Say, for example, the threat was monetary in nature and there was no other life at stake. In such a case it would be better to be robbed than to take someone's life. In that case, if you chose to kill, you could be culpable for a crime, depending on the specifics (like what that money was for) but once again, no conflict exists between two moral laws because it isn't you doing either the murder or the theft. You are a victim in either case, it's just a matter of your own choice between some amount of money and a person's life. To the extent you have that choice to make, to that extent you are not being coerced and are thus responsible for that decision.

Care to try again?

No.

I'm sorry- you aren't worth the bother.

 

[clefty]

I would like to discuss why there are so many different laws as it reveals what is being attempted with them.

Christians I am afraid have an view of sin which is not full and mature to the complexities of it and its impact on our lives. Each of these rules and laws helps to develope a view of sin which allows us better understanding of what was done for us in order that we may sin less.

It’s not just about going to hell to scare ourselves into doing what the church wishes for us to assist her and her masses with but a real relationship with immediate benefits not only in the after life in paradise but HERE AND NOW

The ceremonial laws for instances reveal much to His plan and are themselves tools in discipline and understanding for the believer to grow up in faith to live a fuller more abundant life.

It is not just “you are going to hell” but you are merely unclean...some of that uncleanliness is done away with by the mere setting of the sun...and you are restored...IT IS RESTORED FOR YOU...nothing you can do...sound familiar?

Little things like that reveal the over arching work established for us to be Passed Over that final day of Wrath...

It is my hope we continue this thread and study the richness and depth to what actually happened at the cross...

The passover lamb was NOT a sin offering but a gratitude thank offering...only HIS BLOOD and FINALLY appeased a jealous god who HATES SIN and wishes to finally stamp it out forever...any still tainted by it will be gone as well...


By saying all that, sin was not removed at the cross...only its curse was removed...there is still much to fulfill...we are still to persevere until the harvest is done...in ourselves and others...

When we rise from the darkness with the SON...clean again

 

[Clete]

No.

I'm sorry- you aren't worth the bother.

What bother? You're the one that had to be prodded into a substantive response. I had to ask you for counter-examples in the first place and then you ignored by rebuttal and effectively repeated yourself in response. Looks like you're the bother.


Heaven forbid that anyone on this website engage their minds in an actual debate where they realize that no one cares about their personal opinions unless they can substantiate them with sound reason. THAT would be a disaster!

 

[jamie]

Passover is NOT a sin offering

Of course it was.

 

[eleos]

Perhaps it is misunderstood what the point is. The point is ..... the "moral laws" (eternal laws), the 10 commandments are eternal laws and still in effect and will be until the earth is destroyed and will continue in heaven as well afterwards. The ceremonial laws, those written by Moses were nailed to the cross... that is the sacrificial ones. Jesus was the final sacrifice for all.

The "law of Moses" were put in place because the Israelites broke covenant with God. God never breaks or changes His covenants, the people do. The sacrificial system was put in place, pointing to Jesus (the Lamb of God) and to show them they are in need of a savior.

Hebrews 10

1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Romans 3

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Hebrews 9

22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Regarding the Sabbath .... it is in the 10 commandments, eternal law. It is the Lord's day and was made for mankind to worship and communicate with Him.

Mark 2

27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

Now, we, by ourselves are not able to keep the 10 commandments, however, when one sincerely accepts Jesus, He then begins to help us to keep His commandments through His Holy Spirit .... over our lifetime ... it is His work in us .... not ours.

John 14

15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will beg in you.

Revelation 14

12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

Yes, all who sincerely repent and accept Jesus Christ as their savior are grafted in.

In conclusion, why would Jesus teach us to keep the commandments? If, as some claim, the 10 commandments were "nailed to the cross" ... then why do we bother to keep any of them? Why do some throw out the 4th - keep the Sabbath, but then claim we are to keep the others? Jesus kept the Sabbath, all the apostles kept the Sabbath. Now there will be those who argue Jesus was a Jew and that's why he kept the Sabbath..... more importantly He was/is God. He even kept the Sabbath in His death and "rested" in the tomb on the Sabbath.

We are to follow Jesus in His footsteps. He kept the Sabbath. Follow His footsteps.

1 Peter 2

21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

 

[iouae]

How would one split the following into moral and ceremonial?

Act 15:20
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

To the early Christians, there was no moral and ceremonial law differentiation.

The 10 are timeless.
Circumcision was for Jews.
The whole OT was for Israel and early Christians who were Jews.
The above were for Gentiles, a sort of OT lite.

But no moral and ceremonial differentiation.

And how many Christians today care about blood? I do, but how many others do?

 

[clefty]

Of course it was.

Nope.

 

[clefty]

Perhaps it is misunderstood what the point is. The point is ..... the "moral laws" (eternal laws), the 10 commandments are eternal laws and still in effect and will be until the earth is destroyed and will continue in heaven as well afterwards. The ceremonial laws, those written by Moses were nailed to the cross... that is the sacrificial ones. Jesus was the final sacrifice for all.

The "law of Moses" were put in place because the Israelites broke covenant with God. God never breaks or changes His covenants, the people do. The sacrificial system was put in place, pointing to Jesus (the Lamb of God) and to show them they are in need of a savior.

Hebrews 10

1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Romans 3

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Hebrews 9

22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Regarding the Sabbath .... it is in the 10 commandments, eternal law. It is the Lord's day and was made for mankind to worship and communicate with Him.

Mark 2

27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

Now, we, by ourselves are not able to keep the 10 commandments, however, when one sincerely accepts Jesus, He then begins to help us to keep His commandments through His Holy Spirit .... over our lifetime ... it is His work in us .... not ours.

John 14

15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will beg in you.

Revelation 14

12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

Yes, all who sincerely repent and accept Jesus Christ as their savior are grafted in.

In conclusion, why would Jesus teach us to keep the commandments? If, as some claim, the 10 commandments were "nailed to the cross" ... then why do we bother to keep any of them? Why do some throw out the 4th - keep the Sabbath, but then claim we are to keep the others? Jesus kept the Sabbath, all the apostles kept the Sabbath. Now there will be those who argue Jesus was a Jew and that's why he kept the Sabbath..... more importantly He was/is God. He even kept the Sabbath in His death and "rested" in the tomb on the Sabbath.

We are to follow Jesus in His footsteps. He kept the Sabbath. Follow His footsteps.

1 Peter 2

21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

So He died to fulfill a Law written by Moses? They are His festivals for His people Israel forever not just for jews...

These ceremonies and festivals were the counting of His calendar year for His people...man made his own calendar later...but His calendar remains...

Now the shedding of blood to pay for sin is no longer necessary...and yet even the Pentecost is considered the birth of the church...however I am with poor Stephen who insisted the church in the wilderness retains the SAME HEAD...just more glorified...

 

[clefty]

How would one split the following into moral and ceremonial?

Act 15:20
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

To the early Christians, there was no moral and ceremonial law differentiation.

The 10 are timeless.
Circumcision was for Jews.
The whole OT was for Israel and early Christians who were Jews.
The above were for Gentiles, a sort of OT lite.

But no moral and ceremonial differentiation.

And how many Christians today care about blood? I do, but how many others do?

Abraham and Moses were both not jews...and foreigners who wished to celebrate Passover were not made into jews but of His people Israel...celebrating His festival for His people Israel and not just Jews...

 

[jamie]

Nope.

Let's say for the sake of discussion that Christ only died once.

We know the law is spiritual, right?

"For we know that the law is spiritual" (Romans 7:14)

Christ's death did not pay for physical sin, we know it has been appointed for humans to die once.

But what about sin?

Sin is spiritual and requires spiritual death, which has nothing to do with physical death.

Those who are baptized die with Christ.

Not physically, but spiritually.

Those who die with Christ are freed from sin. (Romans 6:7)

"Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:11)

We are freed from sin by being buried with Christ.

"So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many." (Hebrews 9:28)

 

[iouae]

Abraham and Moses were both not jews...and foreigners who wished to celebrate Passover were not made into jews but of His people Israel...celebrating His festival for His people Israel and not just Jews...

Clefty, would you call the instruction to keep Passover in Lev 23 moral or ceremonial?

And do you keep all the other feasts commanded in Lev 23?