Sheshbazzar

"Cursed be he that confirmeth not ALL the words of this law to do them: and all the people shall say, Amen." (Deut. 27:26.............)

"Take this Book of The Law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of YHWH your Elohim, that it may be there FOR A WITNESS AGAINST YOU." (Deut. 31:26.............)

"what things soever the Law saith, it saith to them who are under the Law:...........and ALL the world may become guilty..." (Romans 3:19)

" Know ye not,.........how the Law has dominion over man AS LONG AS HE LIVES?" (Romans 7:1)

There is not a "Jew" to be found upon the face of the earth that observes ALL of the statutes of YHWH to do them, neither is there to be found any man among the nations, that "observes ALL of the words of this Covenant to DO them". (though there are many self-deceived, whose own words are witness against them, in that they say they "Keep the Commandments", yet they DO NOT.)

But the Law holds no dominion over the dead, for as many as are baptized into the body of the Messiah, are baptized into His death, and become as dead men with respect to the Law, free from its requirements, its prohibitions, and its curses.
All things became lawful, but not all things become expedient.
The Law remains in full and terrible force against ALL of mankind, condemning the living who are yet dead, and justifying the dead in the Messiah, (for it is appointed to all men to die ONCE...) who died -once- that they might not die again, but sleep in the Messiah until the appointed hour.

As to "what other laws can we brush aside? All of them? Marriage laws? Sexual laws?"
First of all spin, who is this "we" to whom you are referring here? are you including yourself, an avowed unbeliever among that "we"?
Is your "we" intended to include all of the other unbelievers who post or lurk on here? the entire unbelieving world?
You have your "we", and we have our "we", and the two are mutually exclusive, nothing I have seen that you have written thus far indicates that you have undergone a "conversion experience" that now makes you one of "us", the believers.
"We" through belief, through faith, and through baptism are freed from the curse of the Law, but all who are lacking in these remain under ALL of its curses.
Concerning "morality laws" (as apart from the "touch not, taste not, handle not's") it has always been evident that differing nations have held differing mores as to what is "acceptable behavior", men of the nations are given opportunity to compare their own nations conduct to what is contained within the Scriptures, and to speak and to act according to their consciences, pointing out what they believe is immoral, reforming first their own personal conduct, their family's second, then their community, and then their nation.
Faith is very much a matter of conscience, to "do good, and eschew evil", needs be worked out on the individual level as to what defines doing "good" and not doing "evil", there is no 'passing the buck', each of us personally accountable for our very thoughts, our words, and our conduct.
We are commanded to abstain from "sin", and "whatsoever is not of faith, is sin". One man eats that which by Torah is forbidden, yet has faith that his conduct is acceptable to Elohim, whereas another man lacking in that confidence, if he partakes, commits sin against his own conscience because of the guilt that arises within; He ought not to eat.
So also the individual is called to hold a clear conscience with regards to what he thinks, says, or does respecting the "Marriage Laws" and "Sexual Laws", no "Decree" or "Prohibition" issued by others will ever over-rule sincere personal persuasion and conviction.

youngalexander

Streuth & Gorblimey!! I have to hand it to you Spin, mention one word (blood) and the rabid mob is set afire.

What dark and evil gods beset this host? I fear that I have no ID. :devil1:

cass256

This is specifically where the Bible lost me. The contradictions throughout. Te difference between what the followers said, and what the non followers said. James vs. Paul, the 4 Gospel ressurection stories differing completely, and the claim that the law is impossible to keep, yet you have the perfect mary, and according to my good friend Lukie the record keeper 1:6Even Paul claims he kept the law.

The most significant point, IMO, that Christians have to struggle with, is that even though they feel Paul has released them from the law, the entire Olt Testament shows that the covenant with YHWH hung on his Sabbaths, which Constantine changed from the last day of the week to the first day of the week, his day of the Sun.

I can't find where it says that YHWh no longer wanted his Sabbath kept.


and why would the very last thing in the OT say to remember his law, all statutes and judgements? the end of Malachi, last 2 sentences.

and the new Covenant was not to take away the law, but to write the law inside a person so they can keep it. The one who changes the holy day times and laws was the enemy against the Most high, according to Daniel.
James wrote that faith alone does not save.
Paul disagreed.

Constantine, a pagan roman Emperor took hold of the Church of gentiles basically delivered by Paul and made them a religion who changed the times and laws of YHWH. The main one being the covenant breaker, and that was the sabbath of YHWH.

cass256

Now, anyone who does a little research can find where Constantine came up with the part of the Nicean creed that has the son "of the same substance" with the Father. This was to settle the arian controvercy. He called the Nicene council to establish the belief that the son was not "created' by the Father, and even exiled eusibius who signed the creed but didn't condemn Arianism. look up Arianism and you will find the information there. Eusibius finally returned after being forced what I recall was another statment of faith. Constantine after the Nicene council had all of the Arian writings burned. I'm tired of hacving to look over the web and copy. I had it last night, but I forgot to book mark the page ,and I am not going to start again.

But, here, if you have read any on Constantine and the relationship with Eusibius, and the reprimands for not following Constantines lead in what was to be Christian.. Here is the letter from Constantine to make it official, his request for the book of scriptures to be completed, 50 copies for the churches, to be submitted to Constantine for his inspection. Now we've already seen his intense dislike for anything related to having a religion based on the jews holy laws. Even though he remained true to his Sol, he was not baptized as a Christian until his death bed. Yet he is the ultimate inspector of the book of scriptures. I personally do not care if anyone sees constantine's upperhand. I just said to CJD that I would post it as i come across it again.

LINK added by mod

jemand

Only Jehovah's Witnesses? I don't think so.

Actually, I'm a vegetarian, for many reasons, one of which is since I can't figure out what to do about meat and blood and such, I might as well play it safe...

Probably reasons having to do with the environment, animal cruelty and health might be more rational. I keep the Seventh day Sabbath too. Basically, I see Jesus death on the cross as fulfilling the ceremonial law, which had to do with animal sacrifices and such. The laws for running a society kinda went out of date as soon as the society ceased to exist (diaspora of the Jews). But there remains another moral law that remains unaltered, which includes the ten commandments.

cass256

What is interesting is Constantine's relationship with Eusebius. It seems Eusebius was on the side of the Arians during the nicene council. the dispute was over the nature of the son, and it seems that they did not hold the same opinion as is shown by the writing in John. At least that is the quote argued in Theodoret http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0...tm#P953_171218 Book I Chapter I on the Arian controversy.
now, it is difficult to try to get at the root of events when you are reading sided historical accounts, but what is certain is that Eusebius was punished for his negative participation at the council, and had to later toe the line and get back into Constantine's good graces. Constantine was the deciding head of the council, and those opposed were Exiled. So, later, Eusebius had to make books of scriptures that followed Constantine's desire. What gave Constantine authority on what was believed and taught? His position and power. It was, from what I understand, the belief of Eusebius and the Arians that the Son was created. You have to follow a trail, to get at the truth. Who taught Eusebius, and who taught the teacher's teacher? what were their beliefs. Ultimatly, however, the question is why was Constantine the deciding factor in what christians were taught to believe about the son of god? He was a Sun god worshiper, using Christianity. Another one who saw a light in the sky. I think it was flames Shaped like the first two letters in jesus Greek name. That is another whole story. Another paul!!

. So far, the only Gospel that I have seen in the letters, or historical record, that was argued is john, or at the very least points written in john. There is not a lot of specific information, just enough to know christianity went in a direction that was argued, and a Roman Emperor was the deciding factor.

It is interesting, if you have the time for the research and don't want to just follow blindly.

cass256

I just wanted to update my post on Eusebius, it appears there were two, and I didn't specify. One was threatened with Excommunication and voted against his beliefs and the Arian side, and the other didn't sign against Arian position and was exiled until he caved and signed a new statement of faith. basically it still boils down to how Constantine decided Christian belief throughts threats, while still not even nessarily being a full Christian himself, becasuse he still had his sun god beliefs.

Just wanted to amke sure i correct an error if I realize it after having posted.

proudliberal

The dream didnt mean that

Why didnt jesus obey the law,he was killed for blasphemy and blasphemy was against the law.

gregor

What's the deal with differentiating for the sabbath? Whether one selects Saturday or Sunday is irrelevant, I suspect the calendric shifts over time make the issue moot.

cass256

I think if he had broken the biblical law, and the punishment was death, the Jews would have to stone him to death, and not turn him over to be crucified by romans. .