Joan of Bark

Makes perfect sense. Christianity and logic have rarely intersected, and certainly not in the case of 'laws', which are always ignored when inconvenient.

Sheshbazzar

Noah, who is this "JC"? whom you are referring to above, tell us again, what is his name?
Are you familiar with The Law as set forth in Deut. 17:8-13, 21:5 and 25:1 ? and with its implications for the words and events recorded in Acts 4:17-19, Acts 5:27:28, 40-42, Acts 9:1-2,(5) and Acts 15:26?
Every person involved, that spoke of or taught the name of the Jews crucified Messiah, was acting in a knowing and willful disobedience and disregard of the authority of The Law.
They took this on themselves, even before, and also while, Saul of Tarsus was engaged in persecuting and pursuing them in his own misplaced zeal for The Law.
Your expressions of contempt for brother Paul is indicative of your lack of understanding of The Law, and of the words and deeds recorded in the NT.
YOU yourself do not keep The Law, but as a hypocrite do abuse The Law to judge and to slander brother Paul.
Think not that you have a quarrel with brother Paul alone, but your quarrel is with every soul of faith who has stood firm for His witness, rejecting the letter of The Law, and its injunctions, unto confessing His name before men.

Quetzalcoatl

Seventh day Adventists keep all ten commandments and also follow the dietary restrictions of Leviticus.

Sheshbazzar

The Seventh Day Adventists are one of the better known examples, there are also hundreds of other Messianic congregations that endeavor to uphold various portions of The Law regarding diet, dress, and the observances of Sabbaths.
Not one of theses organizations actually "keep All of these commandments to DO them" (Deut. 6:25, 11:32, 12:32, 27:26, 31:26)
And each one that names the name of the Messiah, IS committing a flagrant violation of The Law of YHWH.
If you, or they, "DO all of these commandments, it shall be your righteousness", howbe it if you fail to observe even one of these commandments, even the very least, you ARE guilty of all, and are condemned of all,((Deut 31:26) and by that Law ALL are guilty, and there is none righteous, no not one. For ALL have sinned.
But if a soul should from the heart believe on the Son, unto confessing His name before men, and be baptized (immersed) into His name, then that soul has died to this world, and is thereby exempted from the penalties of the curses which are in The Law, (As it is appointed for a man to die once)
and they that through faith, die the death of baptism, die no more.
Moses set forth a form of rightness obtained by the rigorous observance of a long list of laws, that IF a man should DO all of those things, he should live, and not die.
But this IS the preaching of a NEW Covenant; If you will confess the name of the Son, believing in your heart that He is The Messiah, and that YHWH raised Him up from the dead, to be His salvation unto ALL who believe in Him, you will be saved.
For the belief of the heart IS accounted as rightness, and THIS confession of the mouth IS salvation.
And it IS the same promise to ALL, under The Law, or without The Law, without respect to personages or to levels of learning, the illiterate having as sure a promise as he who is learned in a dozen languages.

Skeptical

Thanks for that info. At least they are consistent. I guess I never met a SDA.

Skeptical

Why is "naming the name" of the Messiah a violation of The Law?

noah

Actually Sheshbazaar just so you know; You move opinion around here through coherent argumentation and marshaling of the facts. Color coding my posts does not constitute a response on your part to my arguments. Writing as though you are in some alpha state trying to sound holier than thou and repeating your version of Christian doctrine is also not an argument.

Your "misunderstanding" of the Law constitutes willful ignorance of the Law. You keep hiding behind Paul making no mention of any passage I cite which show JC's and his Father's direction that the Law be obeyed in full. You keep missing the obvious and it's because you've bought into the mainstream Christian doctrine that Paul had authority to overwrite God's and JC' Law. That's your problem. All the rest is a dodge on your part.

Games and you know it. JC is an acronym for Jesus Christ. I can if I choose, call him the Jman, the god-man, the betrayer of the Jewish people and so forth. Don't waste forum disk space and forum members' time trying to turn this into some indignant mystery solving game on your part.

Are you serious? What on earth part of that passage contradicts my position that God's law is supposed to be obeyed? What part? Please tell me.

There you go mentioning Paul again as proof of Paul as though citing Paul to justify and explain Paul somehow constitutes an argument that disproves my argument that the Law is to be obeyed forever.

Utter incoherence. Please tell me how any of this contradicts my pointing out God's and JC's instruction that the law, their law, must be obeyed forever.

Unbelievable. Is anybody there Sheshbazaar?
I understand the Law. That is why I draw a distinction between Paul says about the Law and what JC and his Father say about their Law. Not Paul's Law remember. JC's and his Father's Law.
Your point that I am missing something about the NT words and deeds regarding the Law shows only that you are taking a very selective reading to the NT and are at the same time completely disregarding Yahweh's and his son Jesus' instructions regarding his Law. Your extreme selectivity of the NT and OT notwithstanding, the NT words and deeds regarding the Law make clear that the Law must be obeyed forever (Mathew 5:17-19). I'm not going to keep repeating myself so I refer you again to this post, this post, this post and this post until you are prepared to actually respond intelligently to me.
Briefly the NT and JC in many places makes it clear that his Law, his Father's Law is meant to be obeyed forever and is the only means of salvation.

Don't try to dismiss my arguments by trying to redirect the argument. Saying I am contemptuous of Paul is a smokescreen and you know it and it won't work. You have yet to respond to any of my arguments.

Are you serious? This a joke right? You forgot to put a smiley up Sheshbazaar.

This is not an argument:
This is mindless repetition of mainstream Christian doctrine. Don't waste my time with vacuous statements of faith.

You have, among other things, yet to show me:

- Where JC and Yahweh make any mention of faith in a human blood sacrifice somehow becoming a substitute for the Law.

- Where it is written that Paul is a member of the Trinity or where he was ever granted authority by God/JC/Yahweh to overwrite and change JC's and his Father Yahweh's Laws.

- Why Paul's declarations about JC's/Yahweh's Laws are more important than Yahweh's and JC's statements about their Law.

- How the words eternal & forever (Deuteronomy 4:40 Deuteronomy 5:29) mean "only until some guy named Paul comes along with his new doctrine of faith in a human blood sacrifice.

- How Paul's treatment of JC's and his Father Yahweh's Law does not constitute a violation of JC and his Father Yahweh's commands against teaching others to break the Law and changing and manipulating the Law:
Deuteronomy 4:2 and Deuteronomy 12:32 Mathew 5:19- Why JC and Yahweh would tell people to obey the Law if it was in fact impossible and an unfair burden to obey the Law.

- Revelations 22:14 and Revelations 14:12

In short you have yet to show me why the word of Paul is more authoritative and binding than the word of JC and his Father Yahweh.

Sheshbazzar

This is what all New Testament believers, and all who witnessed for the name and the resurrection of The Messiah were (and are yet) in violation of.
The Priest and the Levites with the authority granted them by The Law had expressly forbidden speaking or teaching in the name of that man whom they had condemned to death, saying "His blood be upon us, and upon our children"

Acts 4 takes place in time before Paul was even mentioned or involved in the controversy,

"They conferred among themselves, saying, What shall we do with these men?........ that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.
18. And they called them, and COMMANDED them not to speak AT ALL nor teach in the Name ....

In Acts chapter 5, Paul is still not on the scene nor yet involved, the disciples had continued to speak, teach and preach that which the Priests and the judges had forbidden.

21. .."The High Priest came, and they that were with him, and called The Council together, and all of The Senate of The Children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought........27. and when they had brought them, they set them before The Council: and The High Priest asked them,
Saying, "Did not we straitly command you that you should not teach in this name? and behold you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this mans blood upon us."
40.....and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them -(Deut.25:2)-,
They COMMANDED that they should not SPEAK in the name of....... and let them go.
41. And they departed from the presence of The Council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His Name.
42. And daily in The Temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach YHOSHUA The Messiah.

And Saul (Paul) was not the instigator, nor the source of this controversy nor rebellion, indeed as we see in Acts 9, he was a fervent supporter of the party that sought to suppress the disciples and forbid the speaking or teaching of or in that name.
Paul, specifically was (is) appointed The Apostle to The Nations, and of The Uncircumcised, his sayings and explanations are for the Gentiles (The Nations), to express those conclusions reached by himself, with the approval of by the Apostles of The Circumcision, and those he called the Brethren.

If you speak a name that The Senate of The Children of Israel, the Anointed High Priest, and The Counsel has expressly forbidden and COMMANDED that you shall not speak nor teach, you are in violation of The Law, and the penalty IS condemnation and death. (Deut. 17:12), and this is true whether you accept any of brother Paul's teachings or not.

What is it therefore to me?, die the death under the curse of The Law, or die your death apart from The Law, either way the loss be your own.
But I would rather of you, or of any man, that you would believe, and die that death which is by baptism into that Name which we do yet teach and preach, that by choice submitting in the flesh and in the spirit to die this once, you might attain unto life everlasting, and so dead, no longer under that condemnation which is upon all living by The Law, and by its ministers, for theirs IS the ministry of death.
I must now be absent for a couple of days.

noah

So because, according to you, GT-believers were violating Devarim (Deut. 17) and this is this is proof that Xians according to the GT should not keep the Torah? What on earth kind of reasoning is that?

The point you keep missing over and over and over again is that JC, your God, said follow the Law - Obey his Father's Law. His Father said Obey the Law. You don't get it do you? The commands of JC and his Father Yahweh are unconditional and permanently binding . Any lapses or inconsistencies in observance or interpretation of JC's and His Father's Law are the products of mortal man's inherent failings and do not in any way nullify their Law which is perfect and eternal. Their Laws override anything that happened in Acts or Romans. All this tap dancing around the elephant in the room is going to get you nowhere.
JC warned against anyone trrying to do away with the Law. Remember? His Father, Yahweh, warned against tampering with or doing away with His Law. Remember?
One more time I refer you again to this post, this post, this post and this post.

To begin with, Jesus wasn't the expected king messiah. Christians simply assume he was, ignoring all the OT stipulations that Jesus failed to perform. Remember the messiah is suppeosed to useher in an era of full compliance with the Law. So if JC is your man, why are you not obeying the Law Sheshbazzar.
If Gentiles wanted to be part of God's fold, they were to adopt the covenant God made with the Israelites (Isa 56:1-7).
Did Paul teach this? No, he didn't.
Paul taught aganst circumcison, but it's not optional, it's required.
Ezek 44:9 (NIV)
Well, I'm still trying to understand what the point of all this is.
If you're saying that the believers felt justified to ignore the judges and preach in the name of Jesus and that makes it ok to adopt new rules for behavior, then it's a rather empty assertion.
BTW, the law wasn't a curse, it's the vehicle of salvation (Psa 119).
The whole duty of man is to keep the law and fear God.
Eccl 12:13
Apparently, you're denying the OT teaching that the law is the vehicle of salvation. On what basis?
However, belief in a human sacrifice doesn't save anyone.
The sacrifice of Jesus wasn't even a legal sin sacrifice according to the law that he was living under as a Jew.
Here's what the OT says about salvation:
Ezek 18:20-27Now, if you want to deny this passage and claim it's outdated or replaced that's up to you. But there isn't anything in the definition of the new covenant(Jer 31) that says anything about the law being replaced by faith in a human sacrifice.
There is not one word about such a scenario.
I think what we have here is yet another example of how the Bible will mean whatever a believer wants it to mean.

Joan of Bark

You mean they keep THEIR INTERPRETATION of the ten commandments ...